text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'We report the detection of extended H$\alpha$ emission from the tip of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} disk of the nearby edge-on galaxy UGC 7321, observed with the Multi Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (MUSE) instrument at the Very Large Telescope. The H$\alpha$ surface brightness fades rapidly where the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} column density drops below $N_{\rm HI}\sim 10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$, consistent with fluorescence arising at the ionisation front from gas that is photoionized by the extragalactic ultraviolet background (UVB). The surface brightness measured at this location is $(1.2\pm 0.5)\times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{}, where the error is mostly systematic and results from the proximity of the signal to the edge of the MUSE field of view, and from the presence of a sky line next to the redshifted H$\alpha$ wavelength. By combining the H$\alpha$ and the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} 21 cm maps with a radiative transfer calculation of an exponential disk illuminated by the UVB, we derive a value for the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} photoionization rate of $\Gamma_{\rm HI} \sim (6-8)\times 10^{-14}~\rm s^{-1}$. This value is consistent with transmission statistics of the Ly$\alpha$ forest and with recent models of a UVB which is dominated by quasars.'
author:
- 'Michele Fumagalli$^{1,2}$[^1], Francesco Haardt$^{3,4}$, Tom Theuns$^{1}$, Simon L. Morris$^{2}$,'
- |
Sebastiano Cantalupo$^{5}$, Piero Madau$^{6}$, Matteo Fossati$^{7,8}$\
$^{1}$Institute for Computational Cosmology,Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK\
$^{2}$Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy, Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK\
$^{3}$DiSAT, Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Via Valleggio 11, 22100 Como, Italy\
$^{4}$INFN, Sezione di Milano-Bicocca, Piazza della Scienza 3, 20126 Milano, Italy\
$^{5}$Institute for Astronomy, ETH Zurich, Wolfgang-Pauli-Strasse 27, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland\
$^{6}$Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, University of California, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064\
$^{7}$Universit[ä]{}ts-Sternwarte M[ü]{}nchen, Scheinerstrasse 1, 81679 M[ünchen]{}, Germany\
$^{8}$Max-Planck-Institut f[ü]{}r Extraterrestrische Physik, Giessenbachstrasse, 85748 Garching, Germany\
title: 'A measurement of the $z=0$ UV background from H$\alpha$ fluorescence.'
---
\[firstpage\]
radiative transfer – ultraviolet: general – diffuse radiation – galaxies: individual: [UGC 7321]{} – techniques: imaging spectroscopy
Introduction
============
Massive stars and active galactic nuclei (AGN) in galaxies produce copious amounts of ultraviolet (UV) radiation. A fraction of these UV photons escape from the interstellar medium (ISM) of the host galaxy into the intergalactic medium (IGM), building up an extragalactic UV background (UVB). Following reionization, this UVB keeps the bulk of the IGM ionised [e.g. @Gunn65; @bol07], regulates its temperature [e.g. @the02], and sets a characteristic virial temperature below which halos do not form galaxies [e.g. @oka08]. The UVB is therefore an important ingredient in models of galaxy formation. Moreover, the UVB encodes the cumulative history of star formation and AGN activity, and depends on the redshift and luminosity-dependent escape fractions of galaxies [e.g. @haa96]. A detailed understanding of the time evolution of the spectral shape and intensity of the UVB (hereafter $J_{\nu}(z)$) is of critical importance in many areas of astrophysics.
The amplitude of the UVB at redshifts $z\sim 2-3$ is expected to be more than ten times the present-day value [@haa12], and three methods have been used to attempt to measure $J_{\nu}$ at these redshifts. Firstly, a background of [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} ionising photons will result in recombination radiation, such as Ly$\alpha$, when such photons impinge on optically-thick [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} clouds [e.g. @gou96; @can05]. However, searches for this Ly$\alpha$ fluorescence have remained inconclusive [e.g. @bun98; @rau08]. The expected intrinsic surface brightness (SB) is low, and the signal is furthermore significantly lowered by cosmological redshifting, making this measurement very challenging. Secondly, $J_{\nu}$ can be constrained by determining out to which distance a luminous source, such as a quasar, outshines the UVB, via the so-called proximity effect [e.g. @mur86; @baj88; @Rollinde05]. However, the value inferred for $J_{\nu}$ depends on other properties of the system that are difficult to constrain, such as the time-dependence of the luminosity of the source, and the temperature and density structure of its surrounding medium [@fau08b; @pro13]. Third, constraints on $J_{\nu}$ can be derived by comparing the observed transmission statistics of the Ly$\alpha$ forest to those measured in hydrodynamic simulations [e.g. @Rauch97]. This method, which currently offers the primary constraints on $J_{\nu}$, suffers from systematic uncertainties, because the transmission statistics also depend on the relatively poorly-known temperature-density relation of the photoionized IGM [e.g. @fau08; @bec13; @bol05].
In the low-redshift Universe, at $z\lesssim 1$, Ly$\alpha$ transmission statistics also provide the best current constraints on $J_{\nu}$ [e.g. @kol14; @shu15; @kha15; @vie16], but observing the Ly$\alpha$ forest requires UV-spectroscopy from space. The detection of Ly$\alpha$ fluorescence is challenging because the amplitude of the UVB is low and the IGM is more diffuse at these redshifts when compared to $z\sim 2-3$. Interestingly, fluorescence could also be detected in H$\alpha$, by observing the ionisation front of neutral [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} clouds photoionized by the UVB [@vog95; @don95; @wey01], or in the outskirts of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} disks of galaxies [e.g. @mal93; @dov94; @bla97; @cir99; @mad01]. Using this technique, @ada11 targeted the nearby edge-on galaxy [UGC 7321]{}, obtaining an upper limit on $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$, which is the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} photoionization rate of the UVB[^2]. The same group also reported a detection[^3], which has not been published at the time of writing [see @uso12].
In the absence of firm observational constraints on $J_{\nu}$, the current parametrisation of the UVB relies mostly on radiative transfer calculations that follow the build-up of the UVB accounting for sources and sinks of radiation. These models have input parameters that are difficult to measure, such as the emissivity and escape fraction of ionising photons from massive stars and AGN in galaxies, and the distribution of [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} absorbers [@haa96; @shu99; @fau09; @haa12]. Therefore, different models predict values of $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ that differ by factors of a few, primarily because the observational data that enter the modelling are not well known. Such a relatively large uncertainty in $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ then impacts the reliability of other predictions, for example the outcome of cosmological hydrodynamic simulations [see e.g. @kol14; @oor16]. For example, [@kol14] argue that the value of $J_{\nu}$ predicted by @haa12 underestimates the UVB at $z\sim 0$ by a factor up to five compared to what is required by the transmission statistics of the low-redshift [Ly$\alpha$]{} forest. Follow-up work confirms this discrepancy, although revising downward its severity [e.g. @shu15; @kha15; @vie16].
In this paper we describe the results from new observations designed to measure $J_{\rm \nu}$ through the experiment proposed by @ada11, who attempted to measure the UVB intensity by searching for the [H$\alpha$]{} recombination line arising from gas that is photoionized by the UVB at the edge of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} disk in the nearby spiral galaxy [UGC 7321]{}. The distance to this galaxy is $\sim 10~\rm Mpc$ and it has a mostly-unperturbed [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} disk seen edge-on, thus providing the ideal conditions for measuring the H$\alpha$ fluorescence induced by the UVB. A critical breakthrough enabling this experiment is the deployment of the Multi Unit Spectroscopic Explorer [MUSE; @bac10] at the Very Large Telescope (VLT), which offers a powerful combination of a relatively large field of view (FOV; $1\times1$ arcmin$^2$) and high throughput ($\sim 35\%$ at $\lambda\sim 6600~$Å). Indeed, the capability to combine the large collecting area of VLT with an integral field spectrograph allows observers to create composites of $\gtrsim 10,000$ independent spectra, thus increasing by a factor $\gtrsim 100$ the sensitivity achievable with traditional long-slit spectrographs [e.g. @rau08].
Here, we present results from a pilot MUSE observation, reporting a detection of extended [H$\alpha$]{} emission at the location of the ionisation front inferred from photoionization models for [UGC 7321]{}. The layout of this paper is as follows. In Sect. \[sec:obs\] we describe the new observations and the reduction techniques, followed by the analysis of the data in Sect. \[sec:data\]. In Sect. \[sec:uvb\] we present updated photoionization modelling of [UGC 7321]{}, through which we constrain the intensity of the UVB at $z\sim 0$. We summarise our results in Sect. \[sec:end\], concluding with a discussion of how future observations can refine the measurement of the UVB intensity.
Observations and data reduction {#sec:obs}
===============================
MUSE observations of [UGC 7321]{} have been acquired as part of the programme ID 095.A-0090 (PI Fumagalli) between June 2015 and January 2016 at the UT4 VLT. All observations have been completed in dark time, under clear or photometric conditions, with seeing $\lesssim 1.5~\rm arcsec$ and airmass $<1.6$. For these observations, we used the MUSE Wide Field Mode with slow guiding. A total of 14 exposures of 1465 s each, totalling 5.7 h on target, were acquired at the position $\alpha{\rm (J2000)}=~$12:17:15.3 and $\delta{\rm (J2000)}=+$22:31:16.9 with small offsets and 90 degree rotations in between exposures. Figure \[fig:galfov\] shows an RGB image of [UGC 7321]{}with the position of the MUSE FOV and [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} contours from @ada11 [see also @uso03]. The location of the pointing was chosen to overlap with the region where the SB was expected to be maximal according to the model of @ada11, while sampling a mostly blank sky region in the bottom part of the field of view as well (see Figure \[fig:musefov\]).
Individual exposures have been reduced using the ESO MUSE pipeline [v1.6.2; @wei14] which applies standard calibrations to the raw data, including bias subtraction, flat fielding, flux and wavelength calibrations, and baryocentric corrections.
After the individual exposures have been processed with basic reduction techniques, we produce three final data sets for the subsequent analysis using: i) the ESO pipeline; ii) the [CubExtractor]{} package ([[CubEx]{}]{}, Cantalupo in prep.) following the procedures described in @bor16 and @fum16muse; iii) a custom Python post-processing pipeline and the Zurich Atmosphere Purge ([[zap]{}]{}) package [@sot16]. Each of these three methods applies independent algorithms for the sky subtraction and, in some cases, for additional illumination corrections, allowing us to further test the robustness of our results with respect to different reduction techniques.
In the following, fluxes recorded in the data cubes are converted into SB units using the pixel size of $0.2\times 0.2~\rm arcsec^2$. We also apply a correction for Galactic extinction in the direction of [UGC 7321]{}, which we estimate to be $f_{\rm dust}=1.06 \pm 0.01$ from the Milky Way dust map [@sch11]. As described in @ada11, the internal extinction of [UGC 7321]{} is believed to have negligible effects at the location of our observations, and it is not considered further. The distance to [UGC 7321]{} is somewhat uncertain, with values reported in the literature ranging from $\sim 4-23~\rm Mpc$. We follow @uso03 and @ada11 in this work and assume a distance of $D_{\rm gal} = 10~\rm Mpc$, with a corresponding angular scale of $\alpha = 48.5~\rm pc/arcsec$. We note, however, that our results are based on distance-independent quantities, such as SB and relative separations in the plane of the sky.
ESO data product
----------------
For the preparation of the first dataset (hereafter the ESO data cube), we perform sky subtraction on the individual exposures using the [muse\_scipost]{} recipe provided within the ESO pipeline. This procedure subtracts a sky model from the data, correcting for local variation of the line spread function (LSF) in an attempt to minimise the residuals of bright sky lines. The sky continuum level is computed internally, by selecting a range of pixels with low illumination to avoid the presence of sources.
Following sky subtraction, we align all the exposures relative to each other by using continuum-detected sources as reference. Subsequently, we reconstruct a final data cube using the [muse\_exp\_combine]{} recipe that resamples data on a regular cube of $1.25~$Å in the spectral directions, and $0.2~\rm arcsec$ in the two spatial directions. As a last step, we correct the absolute astrometric solution using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) imaging as reference system [@sdss]. We further test the quality of the flux calibration against SDSS using galaxies in the field finding good agreement (within $\sim 15\%$).
Inspection of the final data cube reveals the presence of sky residuals with amplitude comparable to the signal we wish to detect. For this reason, we will only use the ESO product as a reference grid for computing the astrometric and wavelength solution during the reconstruction of new data cubes that are post-processed with additional software, as described in the following sections.
[[CubEx]{}]{} data product {#sub:cubex}
--------------------------
The second dataset (hereafter the [[CubEx]{}]{} data cube) is prepared using a combination of procedures distributed as part of the [[CubEx]{}]{} package (Cantalupo in prep.). At first, we reconstruct a resampled data cube for each exposure, after it has been processed for basic calibrations using the ESO pipeline. At this stage, sky subtraction has not been performed, and we use the ESO data cube as a common reference frame for the final astrometric solution of individual exposures. All the subsequent post-processing techniques are applied to these reconstructed data cubes, thus avoiding multiple interpolations of the data.
The next step uses the [CubeFix]{} procedure to minimise the residual illumination differences that are not fully corrected by flat fields across the 24 integral field units (IFUs) which compose the MUSE instrument. This correction is achieved by using both the sky lines and the continuum sky emission to rescale slices[^4] relative to each others, also accounting for wavelength-dependent variations. This step ensures that residual differences in illumination across the field are removed, achieving a uniformity of better than $\sim 0.1\%$ of the sky level on average [@bor16]. After this correction, the sky is subtracted from the resampled cubes using the flux-conserving [CubeSharp]{} procedure, which is designed to minimise the residuals arising from variations in the LSF across different IFUs. The above steps are iterated twice using the products of the previous iteration to identify and mask astronomical sources within the cube. To minimise the risk of altering the astrophysical signal during sky subtraction, when computing the normalisation of the sky flux as a function of wavelength with [CubeSharp]{}, we further mask the top half of the MUSE FOV, where the H$\alpha$ signal is expected to lie (see Figure \[fig:musefov\]). In the end, a final data cube is reconstructed by averaging individual exposures applying a 3$\sigma$-clipping algorithm.
![The MUSE field of view shown in a false colour image obtained from three 1000 Å wide images reconstructed from the [[CubEx]{}]{} data cube. The location of five regions that contain pixels used to generate deep stack spectra throughout our analysis are also displayed. These regions are defined in Sect. \[sub:pixreg\].[]{data-label="fig:musefov"}](muse_view.pdf)
[[zap]{}]{} data product {#sub:zap}
------------------------
The preparation of the third dataset (hereafter the [[zap]{}]{} data cube) follows a procedure similar to the one adopted for the [[CubEx]{}]{} data cube, but using Python code we developed to perform the illumination correction and the [[zap]{}]{} package [@sot16] to perform sky subtraction.
As done previously, we resample each exposure after basic reduction with the ESO pipeline onto a regular grid, using the ESO data cube as reference for the astrometry and wavelength grid. At this stage, we also produce masks that trace each voxel in the reconstructed cube back to the original MUSE IFU, retaining also information on the pixel location within stacks[^5]. After masking continuum-detected sources, we use sky regions to map and correct the residual illumination differences first across IFUs as a function of wavelength using coarse spectral bins of 100 Å, and then across stacks collapsing the entire cube into an image. These corrections are of the order of $\lesssim 1\%$ and, by construction, they preserve the mean flux across the cube as a function of wavelength. We have verified that the photometric properties of sources detected across the field are preserved when compared to the ESO data cube. A major difference with [CubeFix]{} is that we do not correct slices individually and we do not separate the contribution of sky lines and sky continuum when computing the scaling factors.
After this step, we use the [[zap]{}]{} code to perform sky subtraction. As described in @sot16, [[zap]{}]{} employs principal component analysis (PCA) to describe and subtract the sky emission within each MUSE voxel. As for the [[CubEx]{}]{} product, we reduce the risk of subtracting astronomical signal by applying a mask in addition to the internal [[zap]{}]{} algorithms that minimise the inclusion of pixels with sources in the computation of the PCA components. To this end, we compute the sky eigenspectra using only pixels in the bottom half of the MUSE FOV, in a “SKY region” (see Sect. \[sub:pixreg\] and Figure \[fig:musefov\]) that does not overlap with the region where [H$\alpha$]{} is maximal in the model by @ada11. Finally, we combine all the exposures into a mean data cube.
Definition of pixel regions {#sub:pixreg}
---------------------------
Throughout our analysis, we make extensive use of regions in the image plane to generate deep composite spectra. These regions are shown in Figure \[fig:musefov\], superimposed on a false colour image of the MUSE FOV that we obtain from three 1000 Å wide images extracted from the [[CubEx]{}]{} data cube.
These regions are defined as it follows. The first region, labelled “[$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{}'’, contains all the pixels within the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} column-density contour $N_{\rm HI} = 10^{19}~\rm cm^{-2}$ that is marked by the blue solid line. The second region, labelled “MAX”, is enclosed by the two red dashed contours where the @ada11 model forecasts maximal SB from gas photoionized by the UVB. The third “SKY” region, enclosed by white dotted lines, encompasses pixels far from the region where the SB is expected to be maximal. Finally, we define two control regions (“CNT1” and “CNT2”) that will be used to test the quality of the sky subtraction and for the preparation of mock data cubes as described in the following section.
Throughout our analysis, we exclude pixels at the position of sources detected via continuum emission, a task that is easily achieved thanks to the excellent image quality of MUSE. To this end, we run [SExtractor]{} [@ber96] on a deep white image that we obtain by collapsing the data cube along the wavelength axis. For this, we choose the [[CubEx]{}]{} data product as it provides the best image quality given that the illumination correction is performed at the slice level. To ensure that the full extent of the sources are masked down to faint SB levels, we produce a segmentation map using a low detection threshold, equal to the sky root-mean-square (RMS). To avoid the inclusion of spurious sources, the minimum area for source detection is set to 15 spaxels, corresponding to objects of $\gtrsim 0.9~\rm arcsec$ in diameter. Visual inspection confirms that the segmentation map is successful in masking all the sources where continuum emission is seen in the deep white image.
Preparation of mock data cubes {#sub:mock}
------------------------------
To better understand the performance of the adopted reduction techniques, and to assess the presence of systematic errors throughout our analysis, we make use of mock data cubes that contain emission lines injected at wavelengths and positions chosen as described below.
All mock emission lines have Gaussian profiles with a full-width at half-maximum of 2.6 Å that matches the resolving power of MUSE at the wavelength of interest, $R \sim 2550$ at $\lambda \sim 6574~$Å. As discussed below, this is the wavelength at which [H$\alpha$]{} recombination is expected given the radial velocity of [UGC 7321]{}. Mock lines are generated at three different wavelengths (see Figure \[fig:1dspec\] for examples of observed spectra) chosen in the following way. First, we create a line with SB[^6] $\mu = 2\times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{} at $\lambda = 6574~$Å. This choice allows us to test whether emission at this wavelength can be recovered correctly in our analysis. This signal is injected in pixels within the CNT1 region, at a location where no signal is expected. Next, we create a line with $\mu = 2\times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{} at $\lambda = 6550~$Å, which is adjacent to a bright sky line at $\lambda = 6553~$Å. This mock line is injected in both the CNT1 and CNT2 region, and it enables tests for the presence of any bias when measuring signal in the wings of bright sky lines. Finally, we create a line with $\mu = 3\times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{} at $\lambda = 6590~$Å, a wavelength free from bright sky lines. This line is injected both in the CNT1 and CNT2 regions and it is used as a baseline calibration to test whether our procedures are flux conserving.
These mock lines are injected within individual exposures, by adding flux to the data cubes that have been resampled on the final ESO data cube after performing basic calibrations only. These individual exposures are then processed as described in Sect. \[sub:cubex\] and Sect. \[sub:zap\]using both the [[CubEx]{}]{} and [[zap]{}]{} pipelines.
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Analysis of MUSE observations {#sec:data}
=============================
Theoretical expectations for [H$\alpha$]{} emission near [UGC 7321]{} {#sec:theo}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The wavelength at which [H$\alpha$]{} recombination due to the ionising UVB is expected can be computed given the heliocentric radial velocity of [UGC 7321]{}, $v_{\rm HI} = 406.8 \pm 0.1 ~\rm km~s^{-1}$ [@uso03], and the galaxy rotation curve known from 21cm observations. At the position of our observations, $v_{\rm H\alpha} \sim 510~\rm km~s^{-1}$ (or $\lambda_{\rm H\alpha} = 6574~$Å) with an uncertainty of 0.5 Å [@uso03; @ada11]. The emission line is expected to be unresolved at the moderate resolution of MUSE ($R\sim 2550$ at these wavelengths), but as in @ada11, we assume a conservative window of $\pm 100~\rm km~s^{-1}$ ($\pm 2.2~$Å) over which the line can be detected due to variations in the gas velocity field across the MUSE FOV. Under the general assumption that the gas is in photoionization equilibrium, the emission line is further expected to have an order of magnitude SB of $\mu_{20} \sim 10$, with the exact normalisation depending on the UVB photoionization rate and spatial location, as described in Sect. \[sec:uvb\]. According to the model by @ada11, the emission is further expected to be maximal within the region labelled [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} in Figure \[fig:musefov\]. However, we will present new models that supersede this prediction in Sect. \[sec:uvb\].
Searching for [H$\alpha$]{} recombination in MUSE data
------------------------------------------------------
### Analysis of two-dimensional maps
To visually evaluate if any signal is detected in MUSE data at the expected position, we extract SB maps from the [[zap]{}]{} and [[CubEx]{}]{} data products by slicing the cubes in a window centred at $\lambda_{\rm H\alpha} = 6574~$Å (Figure \[fig:sbmaps\]; top panels). To maximise the signal-to-noise ($\rm S/N$) of these maps, we compute the mean SB by summing flux along the wavelength direction while weighting according to a normalised Gaussian of width $\sigma = 1.095$Å, which is matched to the MUSE resolution at these wavelengths. As discussed below, this procedure does not provide the best estimate for the total line flux, but it is suitable for a visual exploration of the presence of signal within maps of maximal $\rm S/N$.
After applying a two-dimensional (2D) median filter of width 1.2 arcsec, visual inspection of these maps reveals the presence of extended emission in the North-East (top left) corner of the FOV in both data cubes, inside the region overlapping with the 21cm detection. Conversely, no extended emission is found in the top right part of the FOV, within the region where the SB is expected to be maximal in the model by @ada11, perhaps with the exception of the edge of the map. Furthermore, the presence of positive fluctuation at the outskirts of the map can be noted in the South-East direction, indicating that artefacts may be present at the edge of the FOV.
Relying again on visual inspection, we test whether the signal visible in these maps can be attributed to scattered light in one of the MUSE corners. Having produced the final data cubes by averaging exposures at different position angles, there should be no preferential direction in the final combined cubes and, in principle, any residual illumination pattern should not appear in a single corner. Nevertheless, we explicitly check for the presence of spurious scattered light as well as astrophysical signal with a broadband spectrum by extracting SB maps centred at $\lambda = 6545$ Å, that is only $\sim 30$ Å from the region where we expect the [H$\alpha$]{} emission line. Inspection of these maps (Figure \[fig:sbmaps\]; bottom panels) does not reveal a prominent positive flux, thus excluding “white” light as the origin of the positive signal at $\lambda = 6574~$Å. Similarly, no flux excess is visible in maps extracted in a window centred at $\lambda = 6590$ Å (not shown), ruling out spurious signals with a broad spectrum.
\
### Analysis of the mean spectra
Having established that data reveal a positive flux that is not associated with signal (astrophysical or instrumental) across a broad wavelength interval (with $\Delta \lambda > 40~$Å), we next characterise the spectral properties of the MUSE cubes by constructing mean spectra by averaging flux from all of the pixels inside the regions defined in Sect. \[sub:pixreg\]. During this step, we exclude pixels that overlap with the position of continuum-detected sources. We also characterise the error on the mean by propagating the variance computed during data reduction, and also by means of empirical measurements of the RMS in each wavelength layer. The two methods are found to yield comparable error estimates. Finally, we ensure that flux in the regions free from sky lines in the wavelength interval $\lambda = 6483-6493~$Å and $\lambda = 6609-6623~$Å averages to zero, by subtracting a constant of $\lesssim 2\times 10^{-20}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~\AA^{-1}~arcsec^{-2}$]{} for the [[zap]{}]{}reduction and of $\lesssim 0.5\times 10^{-20}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~\AA^{-1}~arcsec^{-2}$]{} for the [[CubEx]{}]{} reduction. A gallery of the mean spectra constructed for the [[zap]{}]{} and [[CubEx]{}]{} cubes inside different apertures is in Figure \[fig:1dspec\].
Additional properties of the signal seen in Figure \[fig:sbmaps\] can be inferred by inspecting the mean spectra from different apertures. First of all, in agreement with the results derived from the optimally-extracted 2D maps, an emission line is detected at $\lambda \sim 6574~$Å within the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} region (left-hand panels). The significance of this detection exceeds $\sim 10\sigma$ based on statistical errors, here defined as the photon and detector noise that are estimated by propagating the variances of these contributions through the calibration and reduction procedures. However, the systematic errors are the dominant source of uncertainty, which arises from imperfect calibrations and sky residuals that are not fully corrected by the above procedures. As described below, we characterise these additional errors by means of mock data and by comparing measurements using different reduction techniques and different subsets of the data.
Figure \[fig:1dspec\] reveals that the emission line is detected at the wavelength where [H$\alpha$]{} recombination from [UGC 7321]{} is expected, it is visible both in the [[zap]{}]{} and [[CubEx]{}]{} cubes, and it appears in the region enclosed by the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} contour with $N_{\rm HI} = 10^{19}~\rm cm^{-2}$. Combined, these three pieces of evidence suggest that the signal seen in Figure \[fig:sbmaps\] and Figure \[fig:1dspec\] is real and that it is consistent with [H$\alpha$]{} emission from the outskirts of [UGC 7321]{}, as expected for gas photoionized by the UVB. Finally, no prominent emission is visible inside the CNT1 and the CNT2 regions (third and fourth panels in Figure \[fig:1dspec\]), indicating that the positive flux fluctuations that are visible at the West and North edge of the FOV in Figure \[fig:sbmaps\] are not related to artefacts that can mimic an emission line at the wavelength expected for [H$\alpha$]{} recombination in [UGC 7321]{}.
Moreover, no prominent signal is detected when inspecting the mean spectra in the MAX region (second panels from the left), in agreement with what was found in the SB maps. The lack of strong signal inside the region that was predicted to contain the strongest emission in the model by @ada11 may appear puzzling at first. However, as we discuss in detail in Sect. \[sec:uvb\], this is fully consistent with our revised photoionization model for [UGC 7321]{}. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the model by @ada11 overestimated the extent of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} profile, predicting a more extended SB profile than is warranted by current data. This unfortunate mismatch between the model by @ada11 and the data has led us to focus our MUSE observations within a region of lower SB, with the brighter emission being confined in the corner of the FOV, in a region that overlaps with the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} emission detected at 21 cm.
Focusing again on the feature at $\lambda \sim 6574~$Å, it is evident from the spectra shown in Figure \[fig:1dspec\] that random errors are negligible compared to the systematic uncertainty arising from residuals of bright sky lines. Indeed, the wavelength of the expected signal at $\lambda_{\rm H\alpha} = 6574~$Å falls at just $\sim 3~$Å blueward of the $\lambda \sim 6577~$Å sky line, causing a partial blend at the resolution of MUSE. Furthermore, comparisons of the mean spectra in different panels reveal that the quality of the sky subtraction is lower in the North-East corner of the FOV (left-hand panels) compared to what can be achieved in the central parts of the detector (MAX and control regions, right-hand panels). We speculate that this effect is due to small errors in the geometric distortion correction and wavelength calibrations at the very edge of the FOV.
![Same as Figure \[fig:1dspec\], but for the mean spectra extracted in the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} region using independent subsets of exposures obtained at position angles of $0/180$ degrees (labelled 0) and $90/270$ degrees (labelled 90). Spectra from [[zap]{}]{} cubes are shown in the top two panels, while spectra from [[CubEx]{}]{} cubes are in the bottom two panels. A line at $\lambda \sim 6574~\rm \AA$ is consistently detected in independent sets of exposures.[]{data-label="fig:1dspec_rot"}](gallery_all1d_rot.pdf "fig:")\
![Same as Figure \[fig:1dspec\], but for mean spectra obtained after injecting mock lines as described in Sect. \[sub:mock\], the position of which is marked by vertical dotted lines. The input mock spectra are shown in the bottom panels, while the top and middle panels show the recovered SB for the [[zap]{}]{} and [[CubEx]{}]{} reductions, respectively. Despite noticeable contamination arising from the wings of sky lines, the mock emission lines are recovered at the expected locations.[]{data-label="fig:1dspec_mock"}](gallery_all1d_mock.pdf "fig:")\
### Additional tests on the origin of the detected signal
Given the presence of prominent residuals next to sky lines, we should take particular care when interpreting the origin of this signal and, most importantly, when quoting the significance of our measurement. To corroborate our earlier conclusion that the line detected is H$\alpha$ from [UGC 7321]{}, we perform three additional tests.
Firstly, we compare the shape of the $\lambda \sim 6574~$Å line with the shape of the residuals associated with the subtraction of the bright sky lines at $\lambda \sim 6553~$Å and $\lambda \sim 6562~$Å (Figure \[fig:1dspec\]). Residuals in the [[zap]{}]{} reduction, albeit strong, appear to span the entire width of these sky lines. Conversely, the line at $\lambda \sim 6574~$Åis offset from, and does not overlap with, the wavelength position of the sky residual associated with the $\lambda \sim 6577~$Å sky line. A similar behaviour is visible in the [[CubEx]{}]{} reduction, with positive and negative residuals aligned with the sky lines at $\lambda \sim 6553~$Å and $\lambda \sim 6562~$Å, and a clearly asymmetric profile next to the $\lambda \sim 6577~$Å sky line. Furthermore, it should be noted that the emission line at $\lambda \sim 6574~$Å is the strongest feature in these spectra, despite the sky line at $\lambda \sim 6577~$Å being the faintest in this wavelength interval.
As a second test to corroborate the detection of a line at $\lambda \sim 6574~$Å, we analyse independent subsets of exposures as shown in Figure \[fig:1dspec\_rot\]. To this end, we generate mean spectra in the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} region after reconstructing two independent data cubes, using half of the total number of exposures. To simultaneously test for subtle systematic errors associated with the instrument rotation, we group exposures according to the instrument position angle. In Figure \[fig:1dspec\_rot\], we group the 90 and 270 degree rotation in what we label the “90 set”, and the 0 and 180 degree rotation in what we label the “0 set”. The resulting spectra reveal that, while the shape of the residuals associated with the $\lambda \sim 6553~$Åand $\lambda \sim 6562~$Å sky lines change with the instrument position angle in both the [[CubEx]{}]{} and [[zap]{}]{} reductions, the line at $\lambda \sim 6574~$Å is consistently recovered with a similar shape, as expected for an astrophysical signal.
As a third and final test, we make use of the mock cubes described in Sect. \[sub:mock\]. Using mock data, we check explicitly whether the shape of the sky residuals discussed above is a trustworthy indicator of the presence of a line at $\lambda \sim 6574~$Å. For this, we inject mock lines with the spectral properties shown in the bottom panels of Figure \[fig:1dspec\_mock\] and we perform illumination corrections and sky subtraction using the same pipelines used for the data. Particularly relevant for our test is the fact that the mock line at $\lambda \sim 6550~$Å is offset by $\sim 3~$Å from a sky line, as is the case for the line at $\lambda \sim 6574~$Å compared to the $\lambda \sim 6577~$Å sky line. Focusing on the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} region first (left-hand panels of Figure \[fig:1dspec\_mock\]), it is evident that the mock line at $\lambda \sim 6550~$Å is recovered by our analysis. The spectra also exhibit a residual with a prominent excess at bluer wavelengths, similar to the feature at $\lambda \sim 6574~$Å where the astrophysical signal is expected and no mock line is injected.
The right-hand panels of Figure \[fig:1dspec\_mock\] show how mock emission lines, including the mock signal at $\lambda \sim 6574~$Å, are recovered inside the CNT2 region in both the [[zap]{}]{} and [[CubEx]{}]{} reductions. This implies that our reduction procedures are flux conserving, and that the lack of appreciable emission in the MAX region (Figure \[fig:1dspec\]) is genuine and not attributable to improper sky subtraction. Most notably, the mock line at $\lambda \sim 6590~$Å that is far from sky lines is recovered with very high precision and accuracy, implying that MUSE is potentially well suited for measurements with $\lesssim 10\%$ error. We will return to this point in Sect. \[sec:end\].
In summary, we have shown that: i) a feature is detected at $\lambda \sim 6574~$Å and it is consistently present in two independent data reductions and in two independent sets of exposures with different instrument rotations; ii) the recovered line has a profile consistent with real signal close to a sky line; iii) the emission overlaps with the location where [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} is detected with $N_{\rm HI} \gtrsim 10^{19}~\rm cm^{-2}$. Altogether, these pieces of evidence corroborate the detection of an extended low SB signal that is consistent with our expectation of [H$\alpha$]{} emission from gas that recombines following photoionization from the UVB at the edge of [UGC 7321]{}.
Measurement of the detected emission line
-----------------------------------------
In the previous section, we have shown how data support the detection of [H$\alpha$]{} emission in the outskirts of [UGC 7321]{}. However, our analysis has also demonstrated that strong residuals associated with sky lines are present, and that they dominate the error budget in our measurement. In this section, we attempt to quantify the amplitude of this systematic uncertainty.
Starting with the analysis of the 1D spectra shown in Figure \[fig:1dspec\], we integrate the SB within a $\pm 2.2~$Å window (as justified in Sect. \[sec:theo\]) around the wavelength $\lambda_{\rm H\alpha} = 6574~$Å, finding $(1.4\pm 0.1)\times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{} for the [[CubEx]{}]{}reduction and $(2.6\pm 0.1)\times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{} for the [[zap]{}]{} reduction. Here, the uncertainty quoted for individual measurements reflects only the statistical error. The reason for the different SB values is attributable to the fact that the [[CubEx]{}]{} reduction appears to better suppress the sky line residuals when compared with the [[zap]{}]{} reduction. This effect can be quantified using mock data. Indeed, for an input mock line of $2\times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{} at $\lambda = 6550~$Å, we recover an integrated signal of $(2.2 \pm 0.1) \times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{} from the [[CubEx]{}]{} reduction. Conversely, the [[zap]{}]{} reduction yields an integrated SB of $(3.5 \pm 0.1) \times 10^{-19}$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{}, revealing that positive residuals of the order of $\sim 1 \times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{} are present next to sky lines. Far from the wings of the sky lines (e.g. at $\lambda \sim 6590~$Å), both reduction techniques are able to recover the input line SB to within the associated statistical errors of $\sim 5\%$. Based on this analysis, in the following we assume that the [[CubEx]{}]{} reduction yields a more accurate value for the line SB.
To estimate the amplitude of the systematic uncertainty, we proceed as follows. First, we measure the SB values for the two independent cubes which we obtain by combining independent sets of data, finding consistent values of $(1.5 \pm 0.1) \times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{} and $(1.4 \pm 0.1) \times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{} for the 0 and 90 sets, respectively. This finding rules out the presence of systematic differences associated with the instrument rotation. However, by integrating the line SB within the control regions defined above both at $\lambda = 6550~$Å and $\lambda = 6574~$Å, we find fluctuations which are up to one order of magnitude higher than the quoted variance based on statistical uncertainties. By comparing measurements in these control apertures we find a dispersion of $\sim 5\times 10^{-20}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{}, which we consider a more realistic estimate of the uncertainty of our measurement.
Finally, we perform two additional tests. First, we perform the wavelength integral on the [[CubEx]{}]{} reduction by first collapsing the cube along the wavelength direction and then adding the SB in pixels within the regions defined in Figure \[fig:musefov\]. In this case, we find a line SB of $(1.1 \pm 0.1) \times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{}, again with a scatter of $\sim 3-4\times 10^{-20}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{}within the control apertures. Also in this case, the analysis of the two independent rotations yields consistent results. Next, we perform the integration by considering a larger wavelength window of $\lambda = 6569-6581~$Å, chosen to encompass the sky line at $\lambda \sim 6577~$Å. This choice is dictated by the fact that, by construction, the [[CubEx]{}]{} reduction is flux conserving across wavelength windows that are larger than the widths of the sky lines. In agreement with the previous measurements, we find a value of $(1.1 \pm 0.1) \times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{}.
In summary, by analysing both the 1D spectra and the 2D line maps at the position expected for [H$\alpha$]{} recombination due to the ionisation from the UVB in our updated models for [UGC 7321]{} (see Sect. \[sec:uvb\]), we find consistent indications of the presence of a line with SB $(1.2 \pm 0.1 \pm 0.5) \times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{}. Here, the first error indicates the statistical uncertainty and the second error characterises the presence of an additional systematic uncertainty in proximity to the bright sky line at $\lambda \sim 6577~$Å and at the edges of the FOV. This value is fully consistent with the detection reported by Uson et al.[^7] of $(0.96 \pm 0.14) \times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{}.
Constraints on the UVB intensity {#sec:uvb}
================================
After presenting an overview of our new radiative transfer calculations in Sect. \[sec:uvbcode\], in Sect. \[sec:uvblimit\] we describe the procedure adopted to constrain the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} photoionization rate ($\Gamma_{\rm HI}$) starting from the observed [H$\alpha$]{} SB.
Photoionization modelling of [UGC 7321]{} {#sec:uvbcode}
-----------------------------------------
To predict the [H$\alpha$]{} SB as a function of the UVB intensity, we construct a photoionization model for [UGC 7321]{}, improving upon the analytic calculations presented in @ada11.
### Description of the photoionization code
We model the hydrogen density of [UGC 7321]{} as an exponential disk $$n_{\rm H}(R,\bar z)=n_{\rm H,0}\exp{(-R/h_{\rm R})}\exp{(-|\bar z|/h_{\rm z})},$$ where $n_{\rm H}(R,\bar z)$ is the total hydrogen number density in cylindrical coordinates ($R,\bar z$), $n_{\rm H,0}$ defines the central density, while $h_{\rm R}$ and $h_{\rm z}$ are, respectively, the radial scale-length and vertical scale-height of the disk. For a given external and isotropic UVB, we solve for the vertical ionisation and temperature of the disk at a fixed radial distance $R$ assuming a two-sided plane parallel geometry. In this way, we are effectively reducing the full three-dimensional radiative transfer problem to a series of 1D calculations. The full structure of the galaxy in terms of temperature and ionisation fraction is thus reconstructed combining results of calculations with plane-parallel geometries at different $R$. Such approximation is expected to give results that are accurate to within 20-30% when compared with a full three-dimensional calculation [see, e.g., @dov94].
Details of the adopted radiative transfer scheme are described in @haa12. Briefly, the ionisation and thermal vertical structure is solved iteratively for an input power-law spectrum with spectral slope $1.8$. Ionisation equilibrium is achieved by balancing radiative recombinations with photoionization, including the formation and propagation of recombination radiation from [[H ]{}]{}, [[He ]{}]{} and [[He ]{}]{}. For the thermal structure, photo-heating is balanced by free-free, collisional ionisation and excitation, and recombinations from [[H ]{}]{}, [[He ]{}]{}, and [[He ]{}]{}. In our calculation, we assume a number density ratio $\rm He/H = 1/12$. A current limitation of the model is that we do not include metal lines nor dust.
Once the ionisation and thermal state of the gas are known, we compute the [H$\alpha$]{} emissivity as $$\epsilon_{\rm{H}\alpha}(R,\bar z)=h\nu_{\rm{H}\alpha} \alpha^{\rm eff}_{\rm{H}\alpha}(T)\, n_{\rm p}(R,\bar z)n_{\rm e}(R,\bar z)\:,$$ where $n_{\rm p}$ and $n_{\rm e}$ are the proton and electron number densities, and $\alpha^{\rm eff}_{\rm{H}\alpha}$ is the effective case A recombination rate taken from @peq91. Finally, we derive the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} column density and the [H$\alpha$]{} SB maps from an integration along the line-of-sight of the neutral hydrogen number density and [H$\alpha$]{} emissivity. Specifically, for a given viewing angle $i$, we compute the projected maps of $N_{\rm HI}(b_1,b_2)$ and $\mu(b_1,b_2)$, where $b_1$ and $b_2$ describe a new coordinate system along the semi-major and semi-minor axis of the projected ellipse. The relations connecting the cylindrical coordinate system $(R,\bar z)$ to the projected position $(b_1,b_2)$ can be easily obtained from the following coordinate transformations [e.g. @ada11]:
$$|\bar z|=|\rho \cos{i} + b_2\sin{i}|$$
and $$R=\sqrt{(\rho\sin{i}-b_2\cos{i})^2+b_1^2}.$$ Here $\rho$, which ranges from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$, is the distance from the projected disk midplane along the line of sight.
![[$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} profiles (blue solid lines, left hand-side axis) and [H$\alpha$]{} SB profiles (red dashed lines, right hand-side axis) extracted along the midplane ($b_2=0$) of a disk with constant parameters ($n_{\rm H,0}= 1.5~\rm cm^{-3}$, $h_{\rm R}=2300~\rm pc$, $h_{\rm z}=426~\rm pc$) observed at an inclination of $i = 84$ deg. Different curves are for different radiative transfer calculations with varying intensity of the UVB, as labelled by the respective values for $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ in units of $10^{-14}~\rm s^{-1}$. The position of the $N_{\rm HI} = 10^{19}~\rm cm^{-2}$ contour for [UGC 7321]{} is marked by the dotted black line. For a fixed density distribution, higher values of $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ shift the ionisation front to smaller $b_1$. The location of the maximum SB tracks the hydrogen ionisation front. The SB becomes nearly independent of $b_1$ at small radii, with an amplitude that is proportional to $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$.[]{data-label="fig:cnstdis"}](constantdisk.pdf "fig:")\
![Same as Figure \[fig:cnstdis\], but for disks with different structural parameters (discussed in the text, curves are labelled with the identifier of the model as in Figure \[fig:cnstgamma2d\]), which are illuminated by a constant UVB with $\Gamma_{\rm HI} = 8 \times 10^{-14}~\rm s^{-1}$. Any inference on the properties of the UVB from [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} maps alone suffers from a degeneracy between the gas density profile and its ionisation state. However, the H$\alpha$ SB is only weakly dependent on the density distribution for radii interior to the ionisation front.[]{data-label="fig:cnstgamma"}](profilegrid.pdf "fig:")\
\
\
### Model predictions and general considerations
Before turning our attention to the modelling of [UGC 7321]{}, we present results from our radiative transfer calculations to highlight how observations of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} column density combined with observations of the [H$\alpha$]{} SB can constrain the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} photoionization rate.
In Figure \[fig:cnstdis\], we show the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} column density and the corresponding [H$\alpha$]{} SB profiles computed along the midplane of a projected disk ($b_2 = 0$), which is defined by $n_{\rm H,0}= 1.5~\rm cm^{-3}$, $h_{\rm R}=2300~\rm pc$, and $h_{\rm z}=426~\rm pc$. The disk is observed at an inclination of $i = 84$ deg, which is consistent with the inclination of [UGC 7321]{} [@ada11], and the different profiles are for different values of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} photoionization rate, $\Gamma_{\rm HI} = (1,2,4,6,8,12,16) \times 10^{-14}~\rm s^{-1}$. Trends that are common for this type of calculations can be found in this figure [e.g. @dov94; @ada11]. Focusing on the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} column density profiles, it is evident that the location of the ionisation front - where hydrogen turns from highly ionised ($N_{\rm HI} \le 10^{17}~\rm cm^{-2}$) to fully neutral ($N_{\rm HI} \ge 10^{20}~\rm cm^{-2}$) - moves to smaller radii with increasing [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} photoionization rate. The associated [H$\alpha$]{} SB profile behaves similarly. The SB is maximal at the location of the ionisation front, drops off rapidly towards larger radii, and slowly towards smaller radii. Gas to the left of the ionisation front is neutral along the midplane (for $\bar z =0$), and [H$\alpha$]{} emission arises from a skin of ionised gas above and below the midplane that is observed in projection at $b_2 = 0$.
Given that the shape of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} profiles varies with $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$, observations of the location of this ionisation front in [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} maps can be used to constrain the intensity of the UVB [see also e.g. @dov94]. However, this measurement is clearly degenerate with the structural parameters that define the gas density distribution. This degeneracy is highlighted in Figure \[fig:cnstgamma\], which shows the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} and [H$\alpha$]{} profiles from a grid of models at constant $\Gamma_{\rm HI} = 8\times 10^{-14}~\rm s^{-1}$, but with different parameters describing the structure of the disk. Starting with a fiducial model defined by $n_{\rm H,0}= 1.5~\rm cm^{-3}$, $h_{\rm R}=2300~\rm pc$, $h_{\rm z}=426~\rm pc$ (ID 712), we construct a grid varying each parameter one at the time, as shown in Figure \[fig:cnstgamma2d\]. All models are observed at an inclination angle of $84$ deg. Comparing Figure \[fig:cnstdis\] and Figure \[fig:cnstgamma\], it is clear that the location of the ionisation front is a sensitive function of the parameters describing the density distribution of the disk, making accurate determinations of the UVB intensity from [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} data alone very difficult. And while the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} profiles in predominantly neutral regions can be used to constrain the choice of structural parameters for a given galaxy, co-variance among these parameters and$/$or local deviations of the density profile from a single exponential may lead to incorrect extrapolations at larger radii, resulting in significant errors on the inferred photoionization rate when using 21 cm data only.
However, Figure \[fig:cnstgamma\] shows that the value of the [H$\alpha$]{} SB interior to the ionisation front is only weakly dependent on the disk’s parameters, in spite of the large scatter in the location of the ionisation front itself or in the shape of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} profile. Thus, while [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} data alone provide only weak constraints on the photoionization rate, a joint analysis of the radial [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} column density and the [H$\alpha$]{} SB profile has the potential of pinning down $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ to better than a factor of two for fiducial values of $\Gamma_{\rm HI} \sim (6-8) \times 10^{-14}~\rm s^{-1}$ (see below). Moreover, by exploiting MUSE’s capability of obtaining spatially-resolved maps of the [H$\alpha$]{} SB, one can derive even tighter constraints on the photoionization rate through a joint analysis of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} and [H$\alpha$]{} maps in two dimensions. We do not attempt such a detailed analysis here, given the large uncertainty in the current line flux measurements. Thus, in the following, we simply offer a qualitative description of the advantages of resolving the spatial distribution of the [H$\alpha$]{} SB.
In Figure \[fig:cnstgamma2d\], we present the 2D maps for the same models shown in Figure \[fig:cnstgamma\]. This gallery visually confirms how models illuminated by a constant UVB with $\Gamma_{\rm HI} = 8\times 10^{-14}~\rm s^{-1}$ consistently reach a mean SB of $\sim 8 \times 10^{-20}$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{} interior to the ionisation front. However, differences in the underlying density distribution result in characteristic shapes of the 2D SB maps. In particular, the location and shape of the brightest regions, which originate from projections effects of the ionisation front, are sensitive to the parameters describing the density distribution and, not shown here, to the viewing angle. It follows that precise determinations of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} photoionization rate are possible provided that one resolves these features in [H$\alpha$]{} SB maps, which can be analysed jointly with the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} column density from 21 cm maps.
The UVB photoionization rate at $z\sim 0$ {#sec:uvblimit}
-----------------------------------------
### Constraints on $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$
Following the procedure outlined in the previous section, we combine information from the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} column density and the [H$\alpha$]{} SB maps to translate our measurement into a value of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} photoionization rate. We start by constructing a grid of $\sim 5000$ radiative transfer models for exponential disks, varying the central density in the interval $n_{\rm H,0}=1-6~\rm cm^{-3}$ in steps of $0.5~\rm cm^{-3}$, the disk scale-length in the interval $h_{\rm R} = 1.3-2.9~\rm kpc$ in steps of $200~\rm pc$, and the disk scale-height in the interval $h_{\rm z} = 100-700~\rm pc$ in steps of $100~\rm pc$. These intervals are chosen to bracket the best-fitting parameters for [UGC 7321]{}, as listed in table 1 of @ada11. Similarly, the step size is chosen to be comparable to the statistical errors on these measurements. For each combination of disk parameters, we perform the radiative transfer calculation for seven different values of the UVB intensity, $\Gamma_{\rm HI} = (1,2,4,6,8,12,16) \times 10^{-14}~\rm s^{-1}$.
Finally, [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} column densities and [H$\alpha$]{} SB maps are reconstructed projecting each model along three viewing angles ($i = 82,83,84$ deg), with values chosen to bracket the inclination of [UGC 7321]{} in the plane of the sky as determined by [@ada11]. We note that the inclination angle of [UGC 7321]{} is uncertain, with @mat99 suggesting $i = 88$ deg [see also @uso03]. This discrepancy reflects the difficulty of measuring inclinations for edge-on disks. In this work, we prefer to adopt a lower inclination angle, which appears to better reproduce the aspect ratio of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} disk for [UGC 7321]{} at large radii, beyond the optical radius. We note that progressively higher inclination angles yield brighter and sharper ionization fronts, thus introducing an uncertainty in the inferred value for $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ that is comparable to the error in the SB measurement. As we discussed qualitatively in the previous section, future observations that can map the extent of the ionization front will be able to reduce this additional source of uncertainty.
Next, we select models that best reproduce the available observations by imposing the following two constraints on the grid of projected [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} and [H$\alpha$]{} maps. Firstly, we demand that the semi-major and semi-minor axes measured in models at $N_{\rm HI} = 10^{19}~\rm cm^{-2}$ match the observed values of $b_{1,{\rm HI}} = 12.4 \pm 0.1~\rm kpc$ and $b_{2,{\rm HI}} = 2.3 \pm 0.2~\rm kpc$ within the associated errors. Secondly, we require that the [H$\alpha$]{} SB computed in models at the same location of our MUSE observations is consistent with the observed value within the associated errors. After imposing these two constraints, three models are found to provide a good fit to both the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} and the [H$\alpha$]{} observations. The best match, model ID 712, is shown in Figure \[fig:bestfit\].
The three models that best reproduce the available observations are characterised by disk parameters in the range $n_{\rm H,0} = 1-2~\rm cm^{-3}$, $h_{\rm R} = 2.1-2.5~\rm kpc$, and $h_{\rm z} = 426~\rm pc$. The disk scale-length and scale-height are consistent with the best-fitting parameters inferred by @ada11, obtained by modelling the observed [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} profiles. Compared to their analysis, however, our models prefer smaller values for $n_{\rm H,0}$, that, as shown in Figure \[fig:cnstgamma2d\], result in a smaller radius of the ionisation front.
This discrepancy arises from having imposed different constraints on the models. In their analysis, @ada11 constrain their model to reproduce the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} profile at radii between $9-11~\rm kpc$, and they extrapolate the best-fitting model to larger radii. Conversely, in our analysis we impose that the location of the $N_{\rm HI} = 10^{19}~\rm cm^{-2}$ contour in the model is also what is observed in the 21 cm map, without requiring that models track observations in the neutral regions at small radii. The fact that these different choices yield different best-fitting models is simply because the HI disk in the observed galaxy is not a perfect exponential. Given our choice and after simultaneously computing the properties of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} and [H$\alpha$]{} maps as a function of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} photoionization rate, our radiative transfer calculations predict that the maximal emission in [UGC 7321]{} should occur in a region that overlaps with the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} region (see Figure \[fig:bestfit\]), at radii further in than predicted by the model of @ada11. Indeed, their figure 2 suggests that an extrapolation of the best-fitting [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} profile is overestimating the radius of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} contour at $N_{\rm HI} = 10^{19}~\rm cm^{-2}$ and, consequently, it is overestimating the extent of the region with maximal SB. Conversely, our self-consistent calculation of the gas ionisation state and emissivity shows that the lack of significant detection in the MAX region where the maximal emission was originally expected is in fact fully consistent with a model in which gas at the edge of [UGC 7321]{} is photoionized by the UVB.
The models that more closely reproduce observations have [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} photoionization rates in the range of $\Gamma_{\rm HI} \sim (6-8) \times 10^{-14}~\rm s^{-1}$. We emphasise that this range does not represent a formal confidence interval on $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$, as it simply reflects the photoionization rates of models that are present in our grids and that provide a good description of our observations. A more formal estimate of the photoionization rate can be obtained, for instance, coupling the results of our radiative transfer code with Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. However, given the large uncertainty currently affecting the measured SB, we defer this approach to future work.
\
### Caveats on ionisation mechanisms other than the UVB
Before comparing our findings with previous work, we note that the inferred value of $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ should be regarded as a formal upper limit on the UVB photoionization rate. Indeed, in addition to recombination from gas photoionized by the UVB, [H$\alpha$]{} emission in proximity to a galaxy may arise from photoionization due to local sources or from ionising photons that escape from the inner star-forming disk [e.g. @vog06; @oey07]. Furthermore, processes other than photoionization may operate at the disk-halo transition, as seen for instance within the diffuse ionised medium in nearby galaxies [e.g. @hoo03; @cal04]. With current data, we cannot easily constrain the nature of the ionization mechanism, as detailed modelling would require, for instance, the detection of metal lines in deeper exposures [e.g. @bla97]. We note, however, that a significant contribution from local sources is unlikely, as MUSE observations would in fact resolve HII regions with sizes of $\gtrsim 30$ pc. Even accounting for smaller unresolved HII regions at the position of our observations, we do not expect star formation on scales of $\gtrsim 10''$ (or $\gtrsim 500~\rm pc$) in the outer [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} disk of [UGC 7321]{}.
To assess instead the contribution of ionising photons from the central star-forming regions to the total ionisation budget, we use the [starburst99]{} code [@lei99] to generate a spectral energy distribution $L_{\nu}$ for [UGC 7321]{}. In this calculation, we assume a star formation rate of $\sim 0.6~\rm M_\odot~yr^{-1}$ based on the observed UV flux [@kar13]. The maximum contribution of local sources to the photoionization rate at the position of our observations is $$\Gamma_{\rm HI,loc} = \int^{\infty}_{\nu_0} d\nu \frac{L_\nu}{4\pi R^2h\nu}\sigma_{\rm HI}(\nu) \sim 2.6\times 10^{-11}~\rm s^{-1}\:,$$ where the numerical value for $\sigma_{\rm HI}$ is from @ver96, and $R = 12.5~\rm kpc$ is the distance from the observed position to the centre of the galaxy.
This calculation [see also @sch06] implies that massive stars in the disk of [UGC 7321]{} can easily account for, and exceed, the photoionization rate inferred by our observations. However, by targeting the tip of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} disk, we maximise the optical depth seen by ionising photons that leak from the central stellar disk. As shown by the locations of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} contours in Figure \[fig:galfov\], photons leaking along the midplane would see an optical depth at $\lambda \sim 912~$Å of $\tau_{912} \gg 1000$ and, although the small-scale structure of the ISM is likely to be very different from that of a simple slab, the presence of column density in excess of $N_{\rm HI} = 10^{21}~\rm cm^{-2}$ makes it quite unlikely that ionising photons escape along the disk’s midplane. The assumed geometry for the calculation of the optical depth at the midplane is also justified, to first order, by the fact that [UGC 7321]{} does not exhibit a prominent central bulge and that its disk does not present notable irregularities in the stellar or [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} distribution [@mat99; @uso03].
We conclude that the [H$\alpha$]{} emission at the location of our observations is primarily driven by photoionization arising from the UVB. We think it is unlikely that other sources contribute significantly but cannot rule out that ionising photons from the galaxy itself or from other sources contribute as well. Therefore we can only place a formal upper limit on the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} photoionization rate of the UVB with current data, but we regard our measurement at the edge of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} disk as a bona-fide estimate of the intensity of the ionising UVB.
### Comparison with other work
In Figure \[fig:gammaz\], we compare our inferred values for $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ with predictions from models of the UVB and with other estimates from the recent literature. Our measurement, taken at face value, is in disagreement with the $5\sigma$ upper limit on $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ reported by @ada11 in the same galaxy [UGC 7321]{}, despite their SB upper limit being consistent with our detection. This discrepancy highlights how detailed radiative transfer calculations are required when converting the [H$\alpha$]{} SB into a photoionization rate. As the quality of SB measurements are likely to improve in the near future (see below), more detailed modelling is therefore warranted to characterise the systematic uncertainty that affects the conversion between observables ($\mu$) and physical quantities ($\Gamma_{\rm HI}$). Considering instead the photoionization rates inferred from the statistics of the low-redshift ($z\sim 0.1$) Ly$\alpha$ forest, our values for $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ are in line with the recent analyses by @shu15, @vie16, and @gai16. These authors consistently find values in the interval $\Gamma_{\rm HI} \sim (5-10)\times 10^{-14}~\rm s^{-1}$ [but see @kol14], albeit relying for most part on the analysis of the same data. Extrapolated to $z\sim 0$, these studies predict $\Gamma_{\rm HI} \sim (4-5)\times 10^{-14}~\rm s^{-1}$, below but broadly consistent with our determination of $\Gamma_{\rm HI} \sim (6-8)\times 10^{-14}~\rm s^{-1}$.
Turning our attention to models of the UVB, we note that cosmological radiative transfer calculations predict photoionization rates that bracket current measurements. Indeed, both our measurement and the study of the $z\sim 0.1$ Ly$\alpha$ forest imply [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} photoionization rates at intermediate values relative to those predicted by the @haa12 and @fau09 models (at the lower end) and by the @haa01 model (at the upper end). Figure \[fig:gammaz\] also suggests that, as already discussed in the literature [e.g. @kol14; @shu15; @kha15], the recent @haa12 UVB model may underestimate $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$ by a factor of $\sim 2-3$. The new @mad15 model, which has been recalculated with updated quasar emissivity [see also @kha15; @cri16], lies instead in the range allowed by observations. However, the large scatter among measurements both at $z\sim 0$ [e.g compare our value and the limit by @ada11] and at $z\sim 0.1$ [e.g. compare @kol14; @shu15] imply that current measurements still suffer from up to a factor $\sim 2$ uncertainty, and better accuracy is needed to further inform and refine models.
Summary and Future Prospects {#sec:end}
============================
We have presented new MUSE observations targeting the edge of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} disk in the nearby edge-on galaxy [UGC 7321]{}. An emission line is detected in a deep 5.7-hour exposure at $\lambda \sim 6574~$Å, which is the wavelength where H$\alpha$ is expected given the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} radial velocity of [UGC 7321]{}. The emission line is also spatially resolved in narrow band images reconstructed from the MUSE data cube. The detected signal is located in close proximity of the edge of the MUSE FOV, and it lies in the wing of a sky line at $\lambda \sim 6577~$Å. Combined, these effects introduce a substantial uncertainty that dominates the error budget of our measurement.
Despite these additional sources of uncertainty, we have shown that an astrophysical signal is consistently recovered within data cubes reduced with different pipelines, and within data cubes containing two independent sets of exposures. Further, through the study of mock data cubes, we have shown that the detected emission line has properties consistent with that expected from an astrophysical signal associated with [UGC 7321]{}. Altogether, we conclude that we have detected [H$\alpha$]{} recombination from the edge of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} disk of [UGC 7321]{} with a line SB of $(1.2 \pm 0.1 \pm 0.5) \times 10^{-19}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{}. Here, the first error indicates the statistical uncertainty and the second error characterises the presence of the additional sources of uncertainties discussed above.
We present new radiative transfer calculations that self-consistently solve for the ionisation and temperature structure of an exponential disk. The joint analysis of spatially-resolved [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} column density and [H$\alpha$]{} SB maps enables us to translate the observed SB into a value for the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} photoionization rate of the UVB. Following this procedure, our current measurement implies $\Gamma_{\rm HI} \sim (6-8)\times 10^{-14}~\rm s^{-1}$, which is in line with the values inferred from the statistics of the low-redshift Ly$\alpha$ forest. While it is quite likely that H$\alpha$ emission at the location of our observations is primarily driven by photoionization arising from the UVB, we caution that an unknown contamination from other sources of ionization may be present. Thus, we can only place a formal upper limit on the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} photoionization rate with current observations, but we consider this measurement at the edge of the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} disk as an estimate of the actual intensity of the ionizing UVB.
Despite the substantial systematic uncertainty that affects our measurement, our work has demonstrated the potential that future MUSE observations have in constraining the intensity of the UVB in the local Universe. Through a grid of radiative transfer calculations, we have shown how detailed [H$\alpha$]{} maps of the ionisation front could be used jointly with [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} maps to precisely constrain $\Gamma_{\rm HI}$. To achieve better measurements of the UVB intensity, future work should however address the following two limitations of the current analysis.
Observationally, better precision on the SB measurement is mandatory for improving constraints on the UVB photoionization rate. With the use of mock data, we have shown that a precision of $\sim 5-10\%$ can be easily achieved with MUSE in regions close to the centre of the FOV and far from sky lines. Thus, thanks to improved predictions of the spatial location of the [H$\alpha$]{} emission in [UGC 7321]{}(Figure \[fig:bestfit\]), MUSE follow-up observations are expected to sample more accurately the location of the ionisation front. Also, by observing the East side of the galaxy with a radial velocity of $\sim 300-400~\rm km~s^{-1}$, the [H$\alpha$]{} emission line shifts to $\sim 6570~$Å, in a region away from sky lines. Thus, measurements with errors below $\sim 5-10\%$ should be possible in the near future.
As the precision of observations improves, models should be refined to reliably convert the observed SB into a measurement for the [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} photoionization rate. The primary effect that should be accounted for in future analyses is the impact of local sources of ionisation. Models that include only the effects of the UVB predict a characteristic shape of the [H$\alpha$]{} emission (Figure \[fig:cnstgamma2d\]) that can be used to test whether the edge of the disk is illuminated by an external radiation field or whether local sources contribute significantly. Ancillary multiwavelength observations for the star-forming disk of [UGC 7321]{} should be used to constrain the spectral energy distribution of local sources that can be added as further contribution to the ionisation budget in radiative transfer models. Additional improvements include the treatment of metals and dust in a full three-dimensional radiative transfer calculation.
To further obviate to the problem of local sources, MUSE observations can target “dark” clouds, where prominent star formation is absent. This experiment has been already attempted, for instance, targeting the intergalactic cloud [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} 1225$+$01 [e.g. @vog95; @wey01]. Deep MUSE observations will be able to further improve on current limits on the [H$\alpha$]{} SB, reaching levels of $\sim 10^{-20}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{}. Future experiments could also search for the population of “RELHICs”, which are dark and gas-rich halos that are predicted in ${\Lambda}$CDM simulations [e.g. @ste02; @dav06; @ben16]. Given the simple physics that regulates the properties of these dark galaxies, accurate measurements of the UVB intensity should be possible with deep MUSE follow-up observations.
From our analysis and from these considerations, we conclude that new measurements of the UVB intensity at $z\sim 0$ via [H$\alpha$]{} fluorescence appear within reach in the era of large format integral field spectrographs at 8m class telescopes.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are grateful to Joshua Adams for sharing [$\rm H\,{\sevensize I}$]{} and [H$\alpha$]{} contours from @ada11 in electronic form. We thank Xavier Prochaska, Joshua Adams, Juan Uson, and an anonymous referee for useful comments that have improved our work. M Fumagalli, TT, and SM acknowledge support by the Science and Technology Facilities Council \[grant number ST/L00075X/1\]. Support for this work was provided to PM by NASA through grant HST-AR-13904.001-A. PM also acknowledges a NASA contract supporting the WFIRST-EXPO Science Investigation Team (15-WFIRST15-0004), administered by GSFC, and thanks the Préfecture of the Ile-de-France Region for the award of a Blaise Pascal International Research Chair, managedby the Fondation de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure. SC gratefully acknowledges support from Swiss National Science Foundation grant PP00P2\_163824. M Fossati acknowledges the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft via Projects WI 3871/1-1, and WI 3871/1-2. This work is based on observations collected at the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere under ESO programme ID 095.A-0090. This research made use of Astropy, a community-developed core Python package for Astronomy [@astropy]. For access to the data and codes used in this work, please contact the authors or visit <http://www.michelefumagalli.com/codes.html>.
Adams, J. J., Uson, J. M., Hill, G. J., & MacQueen, P. J. 2011, , 728, 107 Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, , 219, 12 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33 Bacon, R., Accardo, M., Adjali, L., et al. 2010, , 7735, 9 Bajtlik, S., Duncan, R. C., & Ostriker, J. P. 1988, , 327, 570 Becker, G. D., & Bolton, J. S. 2013, , 436, 1023 Ben[í]{}tez-Llambay, A., Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., et al. 2017, , 465, 3913 Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, , 117, 393 Bland-Hawthorn, J., Freeman, K. C., & Quinn, P. J. 1997, , 490, 143 Bolton, J. S., & Haehnelt, M. G. 2007, , 382, 325 Bolton, J. S., Haehnelt, M. G., Viel, M., & Springel, V. 2005, , 357, 1178 Borisova, E., Cantalupo, S., Lilly, S. J., et al. 2016, , 831, 39 Bunker, A. J., Marleau, F. R., & Graham, J. R. 1998, , 116, 2086 Calzetti, D., Harris, J., Gallagher, J. S., III, et al. 2004, , 127, 1405 Cantalupo, S., Porciani, C., Lilly, S. J., & Miniati, F. 2005, , 628, 61 irkovi[ć]{}, M. M., Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Samurovi[ć]{}, S. 1999, , 306, L15 Cristiani, S., Serrano, L. M., Fontanot, F., Vanzella, E., & Monaco, P. 2016, , 462, 2478 Davies, J. I., Disney, M. J., Minchin, R. F., Auld, R., & Smith, R. 2006, , 368, 1479 Donahue, M., Aldering, G., & Stocke, J. T. 1995, , 450, L45 Dove, J. B., & Shull, J. M. 1994, , 423, 196 Faucher-Gigu[è]{}re, C.-A., Lidz, A., Zaldarriaga, M., & Hernquist, L. 2009, , 703, 1416 Faucher-Gigu[è]{}re, C.-A., Lidz, A., Hernquist, L., & Zaldarriaga, M. 2008, , 688, 85-107 Faucher-Gigu[è]{}re, C.-A., Lidz, A., Zaldarriaga, M., & Hernquist, L. 2008, , 673, 39-61 Fumagalli, M., Cantalupo, S., Dekel, A., et al. 2016, , 462, 1978 Gaikwad, P., Srianand, R., Choudhury, T. R., & Khaire, V. 2016, arXiv:1610.06572 Gould, A., & Weinberg, D. H. 1996, , 468, 462 Gunn, J. E., & Peterson, B. A. 1965, , 142, 1633 Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 1996, , 461, 20 Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2001, Clusters of Galaxies and the High Redshift Universe Observed in X-rays, arXiv:106018 Haardt, F., & Madau, P. 2012, , 746, 125 Hoopes, C. G., & Walterbos, R. A. M. 2003, , 586, 902 Karachentsev, I. D., & Kaisina, E. I. 2013, , 146, 46 Khaire, V., & Srianand, R. 2015, , 451, L30 Kollmeier, J. A., Weinberg, D. H., Oppenheimer, B. D., et al. 2014, , 789, L32 Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, , 123, 3 Madau, P., & Haardt, F. 2015, , 813, L8 Madsen, G. J., Reynolds, R. J., Haffner, L. M., Tufte, S. L., & Maloney, P. R. 2001, , 560, L135 Maloney, P. 1993, , 414, 41 Matthews, L. D., Gallagher, J. S., III, & van Driel, W. 1999, , 118, 2751 Murdoch, H. S., Hunstead, R. W., Pettini, M., & Blades, J. C. 1986, , 309, 19 Oey, M. S., Meurer, G. R., Yelda, S., et al. 2007, , 661, 801 Okamoto, T., Gao, L., & Theuns, T. 2008, , 390, 920 O[ñ]{}orbe, J., Hennawi, J. F, & Luki[ć]{}, Z. 2016, arXiv:1607.04218 Pequignot, D., Petitjean, P., & Boisson, C. 1991, , 251, 680 Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Lee, K.-G., et al. 2013, , 776, 136 Rauch, M., Miralda-Escud[é]{}, J., Sargent, W. L. W., et al. 1997, , 489, 7 Rauch, M., Haehnelt, M., Bunker, A., et al. 2008, , 681, 856-880 Rollinde, E., Srianand, R., Theuns, T., Petitjean, P., & Chand, H. 2005, , 361, 1015 Schaye, J. 2006, , 643, 59 Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, , 737, 103 Shull, J. M., Roberts, D., Giroux, M. L., Penton, S. V., & Fardal, M. A. 1999, , 118, 1450 Shull, J. M., Moloney, J., Danforth, C. W., & Tilton, E. M. 2015, , 811, 3 Soto, K. T., Lilly, S. J., Bacon, R., Richard, J., & Conseil, S. 2016, , 458, 3210 Sternberg, A., McKee, C. F., & Wolfire, M. G. 2002, , 143, 419 Theuns, T., Schaye, J., Zaroubi, S., et al. 2002, , 567, L103 Uson, J. M., Adams, J. J., Hill, G. J., & MacQueen, P. J. 2012, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#219, 219, 312.01 Uson, J. M., & Matthews, L. D. 2003, , 125, 2455 Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1996, , 465, 487 Viel, M., Haehnelt, M. G., Bolton, J. S., et al. 2016, arXiv:1610.02046 Vogel, S. N., Weymann, R., Rauch, M., & Hamilton, T. 1995, , 441, 162 Voges, E. S., & Walterbos, R. A. M. 2006, , 644, L29 Weilbacher, P. M., Streicher, O., Urrutia, T., et al. 2014, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII, 485, 451 Weymann, R. J., Vogel, S. N., Veilleux, S., & Epps, H. W. 2001, , 561, 559
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: The photoionization rate is $\Gamma_{\rm HI}=\int^{\infty}_{\nu_0} (4\pi J_{\nu}/h\nu)\,\sigma_{\rm HI}(\nu)\,d\nu$, where $\sigma_{\rm HI}$ is the photoionization cross section and $\nu_0$ is the frequency corresponding to the ionisation potential of hydrogen.
[^3]: The announcement of this result is also available at <http://iactalks.iac.es/talks/view/393>
[^4]: In MUSE, a slice is the basic unit inside an IFU, and corresponds to a $0.2\times15~\rm arcsec^2$ segment in the spatial direction.
[^5]: Within MUSE, a stack is a group of 12 slices within an IFU. A MUSE IFU contains 4 stacks of 12 slices each. A voxel is defined as a datapoint inside a cube, while a spaxel is a pixel in the spatial direction.
[^6]: Throughout this work, we will make use of the symbol $\mu$ to identify the line SB, and $\mu_{20}$ to identify the line SB in units of $10^{-20}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~arcsec^{-2}$]{}. Similarly, we will indicate the continuum SB with the symbol $\mu_{\rm c}$ and use $\mu_{\rm 20,c}$ for values in units of $10^{-20}~$[$\rm erg~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}~\AA^{-1}~arcsec^{-2}$]{}.
[^7]: See <http://iactalks.iac.es/talks/view/393>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This work is dedicated to putting on a solid analytic ground the theory of local well-posedness for the two dimensional Dysthe equation. This equation can be derived from the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation after performing an asymptotic expansion of a wavetrain modulation to the fourth order. Recently, this equation has been used to numerically study rare phenomena on large water bodies such as rogue waves. In order to study well-posedness, we use Strichartz, and improved smoothing and maximal function estimates. We follow ideas from the pioneering work of Kenig, Ponce and Vega, but since the equation is highly anisotropic, several technical challenges had to be resolved. We conclude our work by also presenting an ill-posedness result.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA'
author:
- Ricardo Grande$^1$
- 'Kristin M. Kurianski$^2$'
- Gigliola Staffilani$^3$
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: On the nonlinear Dysthe equation
---
Introduction
============
Background
----------
Ocean waves are called rogue or freak waves when their amplitude exceeds twice the characteristic wave height expected for the given surface conditions [@roguereview]. Such unexpected extreme events pose a threat of catastrophic impacts for a variety of naval infrastructure and, therefore, are important to understand. Over the past several decades, there have been many efforts to model and predict the behavior of rogue waves (e.g., [@CouSaps; @Dysthe; @roguereview; @FarSap; @Hasselmann]).
The motivation for this paper came from the work of Farazmand and Sapsis [@FarSap] who studied numerical simulations of large wave prediction for two-dimensional water waves. Their work supports the hypothesis that large ocean waves can be caused by nonlinear interactions as a result of focusing, although the precise mechanism for the formation of such extreme events is a subject of much debate (see for instance [@SapsisMechanism; @OnoratoMechanism2; @OnoratoMechanism] and the references therein). By decomposing the surface wavefield into localized Gaussian wave groups and evolving the groups according to the governing envelope equations, Farazmand and Sapsis computed the expected maxima of each group and produced a prediction of the maximal future amplitude generated by given initial data. The governing envelope equation they used is given by the two-dimensional Dysthe equation: $$\label{eq:Dysthe}
\left\lbrace\begin{array}{ll}
\pa_t u + L(u) = N(u),\quad t\in\R,\ (x,y)\in\R^2\\
u |_{t=0} =u_0,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $$L(u) = -\frac{1}{16} \pa_x^3 u + \frac{i}{8} \pa_x^2 u + \frac{1}{2}\pa_x u - \frac{i}{4}\pa_y^2 u + \frac{3}{8}\pa_x\pa_y^2 u,$$ and the nonlinearity is given by $$N(u)= -\frac{i}{2} |u|^2\, u - \frac{3}{2} |u|^2 \, \pa_x u - \frac{1}{4} u^2 \,\pa_x \overline{u} + \frac{i}{2}\, u\, \pa_x^2 |\nabla|^{-1} (|u|^2).$$
In the formulae above, $u$ is the complex-valued envelope for the modulation wave with complex conjugate $\overline{u} $. This equation was first proposed by Dysthe in [@Dysthe]. It can be derived from the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation, after performing an asymptotic expansion of the modulation of a wavetrain. Truncating this approximation at order three would give rise to the cubic NLS equation, which has previously been used for large wave prediction [@OnoratoMechanism2]. However, the NLS equation is only valid to model wave spectra with a narrow bandwidth. Dysthe (1979) found that continuing the expansion to fourth-order relaxes the bandwith restriction and improves stability analysis results [@roguereview]. In this paper we study the local well-posedness of this equation, with the long-term goal of justifying analytically the numerical results mentioned above.
We immediately note that a solution to the initial value problem would conserve the mass (i.e. the $L^2$-norm of the initial data), but to the best of our knowledge the equation does not have a conserved energy[^1]. Hence, a long time analysis of the solutions of the equation will be difficult to obtain since one would need to conduct the analysis at the $L^2$ level of regularity[^2]. But even for local solutions one expects complications: there is no scaling symmetry available, and there is a strong anisotropy, which is a byproduct of a preferred direction of propagation assumed during the derivation of the equation. Since a scaling exponent is not available in this case, it is difficult to conjecture for which Sobolev space of data the initial value problem is well posed and for which it is ill posed. In this work, we exhibit results in both directions, although they are not sharp and a gap remains.
Let us now start by analyzing in more details the challenges one faces in proving well-posedness. Because of the presence of derivatives in the nonlinearity, Strichartz estimates are not enough to close a contraction mapping argument. The fact that we find linear terms such as $\pa_x^3 u$ in the Dysthe equation is reminiscent of the KdV equation, so one might expect to be able to recover up to two derivatives in $x$ in the nonlinearity using smoothing effect estimates[^3], which should be enough to close a contraction mapping argument. However, there is an important difference with respect to the KdV equation: the interaction between terms such as $\pa_x^3 u$ and $\pa_x\pa_y^2 u$ which are of opposite sign. This unfavorable interaction translates into an unfavorable cancelation in the dispersive relation, a situation that is also much worse than the one given by the linear operator of the Zakharov-Kuznetsov equation that involves $\pa_x\Delta u$ [@LinaresPastor]. All this is better understood by looking at the symbol associated to the linear operator of the Dysthe equation: $$\label{dispersive}\Phi(\xi,\mu)=\frac{1}{16}\xi^3 - \frac{3}{8} \xi \mu^2 - \frac{1}{8}\xi^2 + \frac{1}{4}\mu^2 +\frac{1}{2}\xi.$$ which will play an important role in the rest of the paper. Based on the work of Kenig, Ponce and Vega on the KdV equation [@KPV], one expects to derive linear smoothing estimates in a space such as $L^{\infty}_x L^2_{t,y}$. A key ingredient in the proof, however, would be making sure that $\pa_{\xi} \Phi$ does not vanish away from the origin. Unfortunately, this is not the case for us, which is another important difference with respect to the KdV equation.
A way to overcome this issue consists of dividing the frequency space into regions where at least one component of $\nabla\Phi$ is nonzero. There will be two such regions in our analysis, one where $\pa_{\xi} \Phi$ does not vanish and another where $\pa_{\mu} \Phi$ does not. A third, low-frequency region will be necessary as $\Phi$ has two critical points in the coordinate system $(\xi,\mu)$, namely at $(\frac{2}{3},\pm \frac{\sqrt{10}}{3})$. The drawback of this approach is that the space where we recover derivatives when $\pa_{\xi} \Phi$ is nonzero will be $L^{\infty}_x L^2_{t,y}$, while the space corresponding to the region where $\pa_{\mu} \Phi$ is nonzero will be $L^{\infty}_y L^2_{t,x}$. This will in turn give rise to different spaces where matching maximal function estimates are needed, as well as additional complications when estimating the nonlinearity.
Similar techniques have been used to study NLS-type equations [@KPV4], and the Zakharov-Kuznetsov equation [@LinaresPastor; @LinaresRamos; @MolinetPilod; @RibaudVento], with the notable difference that in both these cases the linear operators $\Delta$ and $\partial_x\Delta$ respectively, have better properties, as they allow for a more isotropic division of the frequency space[^4]. Moreover, in both cases one can exploit scaling symmetries that somewhat simplify the analysis. Perhaps a better comparison can be drawn to the work of Kenig and Ziesler on the local well-posedness theory of the Kadomstev-Petviashvili equation [@KZ]. This equation is also anisotropic, and its study requires a combination of Strichartz, smoothing and maximal function estimates. It is also important to recall here that [*lateral spaces*]{} such as $L^{\infty}_x L^2_{t,y}$ and $L^{\infty}_y L^2_{t,x}$ introduced above, were a key ingredient in the study of Schrödinger maps in the work of Bejeneru-Ionescu-Kenig-Tataru [@BIKT], and also previously introduced by Bejenaru [@Bejenaru], Bejenaru-Ionescu-Kenig [@BIK] and Ionescu-Kenig [@IonescuKenig].
Local well-posedness in $H^{\frac{3}{2}}(\R^2)$ was obtained for the Dysthe equation by Koch and Saut[^5] in [@KochSaut]. Their results are based on a local smoothing estimate and a careful partition of physical space into small cubes, which yield local well-posedness for a large class of equations, including Dysthe’s. Our approach is based on exploiting the lateral spaces introduced above, which allows us to obtain a stronger global smoothing effect for the Dysthe equation. This, together with maximal function estimates and Strichartz estimates, yields a local well-posedness theory in $H^{s}(\R^2)$ for $s>1$, as we state below.
Statement of results
--------------------
The main result in this paper is the following:
\[thm:maintheorem\] The Dysthe equation is locally well-posed for initial data $u_0\in H^s(\R^2)$, $s>1$.
The maximal function estimates that we derive in suggest that it might be possible to close the contraction mapping argument, which is used to prove Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\], for $s>\frac{3}{4}$. Unfortunately, putting back together the different regions where one can use the smoothing effect creates technical difficulties that we overcome with the Sobolev embedding theorem, hence losing derivatives and forcing us to require $s>1$.
The proof of Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\] is conducted using a fixed point theorem on a Banach space built out of norms that come from the proof of the smoothing effect and the maximal function estimates. There is another type of space that one could consider which is a type of $X^{s,b}$ space that first appeared in the context of dispersive equations in the work of Bourgain [@Bourgain] and was then further exploited in the work of Kenig-Ponce-Vega [@KPV3]. Preliminary calculations show that, although the setup is technically more challenging due to the anisotropic nature of the dispersive relation given by $\Phi$ in , one could in principle set up a fixed point approach using the appropriate definition of an $X^{s,b}$ space in this setting. However, this approach would not give smoothing effect estimates such as the ones in Section \[smoothingeffect\]. We believe that this approach may be very fruitful in the periodic case, which is indeed the setup of the numerical study in [@FarSap]. In an upcoming work, we are in fact investigating analytically certain questions strictly related to the periodic setting, both in 1D and 2D, that have emerged from the more experimental work in [@VandenEijnden] and [@FarSap].
Despite the fact that there is no scaling symmetry available for this equation, one can gain some intuition about [*critical regularity*]{} by considering equation where we only keep the top order terms, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde L(u) & = -\frac{1}{16} \pa_x^3 u + \frac{3}{8}\pa_x\pa_y^2 u,\\
\tilde N(u) & = - \frac{3}{2} |u|^2 \, \pa_x u - \frac{1}{4} u^2 \,\pa_x \overline{u} + \frac{i}{2}\, u\, \pa_x^2 |\nabla|^{-1} (|u|^2).\end{aligned}$$ This new equation enjoys a scaling symmetry, and the homogeneous Sobolev space that remains invariant under it has exponent $s_c=0$. We discuss this connection in more depth in . In this regard, we present the following result:
\[thm:illposedness\] The Dysthe equation is ill-posed in $H^s(\R^2)$ whenever $s<0$, in the sense that the initial data-to-solution map, from $H^s (\R^2)$ to $C([0,T], H^s(\R^2))$, is not $C^3$.
Outline
-------
In Section 2, we develop dispersive and Strichartz estimates. In Section 3, we study the smoothing effect in different frequency regions, and we double the gain for the Duhamel term. In Section 4, we establish maximal function estimates in various spaces. In Section 5, we prove using a contraction mapping argument. In Section 6, we prove . Finally, we have an appendix with some technical results that are useful throughout the paper.
Notation
--------
We will denote by $A\lesssim B$ an estimate of the form $A\leq C B$ for some constant $C$ that might change from line to line. Similarly, $A\lesssim_d B$ means that the implicit constant $C$ depends on $d$. We will also use the big $\O$ and little $o$ notation, e.g. $A=\O_d(B)$ when $A=\O(B)$ as $d\rightarrow 0$. We write $a-$ to denote the number $a-\varepsilon$ for $0<\varepsilon \ll 1$ small enough. Similarly, we denote by $a+$ the number $a+\varepsilon$ for $0<\varepsilon \ll 1$ small enough.
For $1\leq p,q\leq \infty$ and $u: [0,T]\times\R^2 \longrightarrow \C$, we define $${\left\lVertu\right\rVert}_{L^p_x L^q_{T,y}}=\left(\int_{\R} \left(\int_{\R} \int_0^T |u(t,x,y)|^q \, dt\,dy\right)^{\frac{p}{q}} \, dx\right)^{\frac{1}{p}} ,$$ with the usual modifications when $p$ or $q=\infty$. For $u: [0,\infty) \times \R^2 \longrightarrow \C$, we will use the notation $L^p_x L^q_{t,y}$ instead, meaning $T=\infty$. We will also write $L^{p}_{T,x,y}$ in the case $p=q$.
We also use the standard notation for the spatial Fourier transform $$\widehat{f}(\xi)=\int_{\R} e^{-ix\cdot \xi} \, f(x) \, dx ,$$ as well as $f^{\vee}$ for the inverse Fourier transform.
We will denote by ${\left\lVertf\right\rVert}_{H^s(\R^2)} ={\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s f\right\rVert}_{L^2(\R^2)}$ the usual Sobolev norm, where $\langle\nabla\rangle^s$ corresponds to the Fourier multiplier operator with symbol $(1+ |\xi|+|\mu|)^{s}$. We will sometimes use $D_x$ for the Fourier multiplier operator with symbol $\xi$. Finally, we will denote by $C([0,T],H^s (\R^2))$ the space of continuous functions $u$ from a time interval $[0,T]$ to $H^s(\R^2)$ equipped with the norm $\sup_{t\in [0,T]}{\left\lVertu(t,\cdot)\right\rVert}_{H^s(\R^2 )}$.
Acknowledgements
----------------
We would like to thank Luis Vega for his useful suggestions and references regarding the smoothing effect. We would also like to thank Mohammad Farazmand and Themistoklis Sapsis for some helpful conversations about their work.
Strichartz estimates {#c3:sec:Strichartz}
====================
We will first focus on the linear equation. By taking the Fourier transform with ${(x,y)\mapsto(\xi,\mu)}$, one finds that the solution to the linear equation is: $$\label{eq:linearflow}
u(t,x,y)=W(t)u_0(x,y):= \int_{\R^2} e^{ix\xi+iy\mu+i t\,\Phi(\xi,\mu)} \, \widehat{u_0}(\xi,\mu)\, d\xi d\mu,$$ where $$\label{eq:phase}
\Phi(\xi,\mu)=\frac{1}{16}\xi^3 - \frac{3}{8} \xi \mu^2 - \frac{1}{8}\xi^2 + \frac{1}{4}\mu^2 +\frac{1}{2}\xi.$$ This function has two critical points: $(\frac{2}{3},\pm \frac{\sqrt{10}}{3})$. There is also one zero of the Hessian: $(\frac{2}{3},0)$. As explained in the introduction, this is why we must divide the frequency space into different regions, in which the behavior is quite different.
Dispersive estimates
--------------------
The following four regions in Fourier space will be important to our analysis: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:regions}
\mathcal{R}_0 & := \left\{ (\xi,\mu)\in\R^2 \mid |\xi|\leq 100 \right\},\\
\mathcal{R}_1 & := \left\{ (\xi,\mu) \in \R^2 \mid |\xi|>100,\ |\mu|<\frac{|\xi|}{200}\right\},\\
\mathcal{R}_2 & := \left\{ (\xi,\mu) \in \R^2 \mid |\xi|>100,\ |\mu|>\frac{|\xi|}{200}\right\},\\
\mathcal{R}_3 & := \mathcal{R}_1 \cup \mathcal{R}_2.
\end{aligned}$$
Fix a function $\psi\in C_c^{\infty}(\R)$ such that $0\leq \psi\leq 1$, $\psi=1$ in the ball $B(0,100)$ and $\mbox{supp}(\psi)\subset B(0,200)$. We define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cut-offs}
\chi_0 (\xi) & := \psi(\xi),\\
\chi_1 (\xi,\mu) & := [1-\psi(\xi/\mu)]\cdot [1-\psi (\xi)],\\
\chi_2 (\xi,\mu) & := \psi(\xi/\mu)\, [1-\psi (\xi)],\\
\chi_3 (\xi) & := 1-\psi(\xi),.
\end{aligned}$$ In this way, $\chi_i$ corresponds to the region $\mathcal{R}_i$.
For $k=0,1,2,3$, let us write $$W_k (t)f(x,y):= \int_{\R^2} e^{ix\xi+iy\mu+i t\,\Phi(\xi,\mu)} \, \widehat{f}(\xi,\mu)\,\chi_k (\xi,\mu)\, d\xi d\mu.$$
For the purpose of deriving Strichartz estimates, only two regions matter: $\mathcal{R}_0$ and $\mathcal{R}_3$. However, we will need the subdivision given by $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$ in the next section.
We now present dispersive estimates for $W_0(t)$ and $W_3(t)$. The following results were presented in the second author’s PhD thesis [@Kristin]. Similar results have been obtained by Ben-Artzi-Koch-Saut for a general class of third-order dispersive equations in 2D [@BenArtziKochSaut] (see also [@Strich3; @Strich2; @Strich1; @Strich4]). In fact their results yield an overall decay of $|t|^{-2/3}$ in $\R^2$. In this work, we will only exploit the large-frequency estimate where we have an improved decay of $|t|^{-1}$ (see also Theorem 7.5 in [@BenArtziKochSaut]), whose proof we give for completeness.
For $u_0\in L^1_{x,y}$, we have the following dispersive estimates: $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVertW_0(t) u_0\right\rVert}_{L_{x,y}^\infty} & \lesssim |t|^{-1/2}{\left\lVertu_0\right\rVert}_{L_{x,y}^1},\label{eq:dispW0}\\
{\left\lVertW_3(t) u_0\right\rVert}_{L_{x,y}^\infty} & \lesssim |t|^{-1}{\left\lVertu_0\right\rVert}_{L_{x,y}^1}.\label{eq:dispW3}
\end{aligned}$$
We write $W_k (t)u_0= I_k (t) \ast u_0$ for $k=0,3$, where the convolution is in the variables $x$ and $y$, and $$I_k (t,x,y) = \int e^{ix\,\xi+iy\,\mu-it\,\Phi(\xi,\mu)}\, \chi_k(\xi)\,d\xi\,d\mu.$$
We first prove , and we will assume that $t>0$ for simplicity. We first perform the $\mu$-integral of $I_3$, i.e. $$f(t,\xi,y):= \int e^{-it\, \left(\frac14-\frac38\xi\right)\, \mu^2+iy\,\mu}\,d\mu\sim \frac{e^{iy^2/[t(3\xi/2-1)]}}{\sqrt{t} \left(\frac32\xi-1\right)^{1/2}},$$ and rewrite $$I_3 (t,x,y)= \int e^{ix\xi-it\left(\frac1{16}\xi^3-\frac18\xi^2+\frac12\xi\right)}\, \chi_3(\xi) \, f(t,\xi,y)\,d\xi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\int\frac{\chi_3(\xi)}{|1-\frac32\xi|^{1/2}}e^{it\,\psi_{t,x,y}(\xi)}\,d\xi,$$ for the phase $$\label{psi}
\psi_{t,x,y}(\xi) = -\frac{1}{16}\, \xi^3+\frac18\, \xi^2-\frac12\, \xi+\frac{x\,\xi}{t}-\left(\frac{|y|}{t}\right)^2\left(\frac32\xi-1\right)^{-1}.$$ Note that $|1-3\xi/2|\gg 1$ because we are in region $\mathcal{R}_3$, and we are assuming that we are in the case $\xi>100$ as an example.
The critical points of the phase are $\displaystyle{\xi_a=\frac23-Z}$ and $\displaystyle{\xi_b=\frac23+Z}$ where $$Z = \sqrt2\, \sqrt{-\left(5+\frac{12x}t\right) + \sqrt{\left(5+\frac{12x}t\right)^2+72\left( \frac{|y|}t \right)^2}}.$$ We now study whether $\psi_{t,x,y}'(\xi)$ is monotonic in order to apply the Van der Corput lemma. We have $$\label{psidoubleprime}
\psi_{t,x,y}''(\xi) = -\frac38\xi+\frac14-\frac92\left(\frac{|y|}{t}\right)^2\left(\frac32\xi-1\right)^{-3}.$$ We then have three cases to consider:
1. Both $\xi_a$ and $\xi_b$ lie in the region $|\xi|<100$.
2. Only one of either $\xi_a$ or $\xi_b$ lies in the region $|\xi|>100$ while the other lies in the region $|\xi|<100$.
3. Both $\xi_a$ and $\xi_b$ lie in the region $|\xi|>100$.
For Case (i), $\xi_a$ and $\xi_b$ are outside the region in which $\chi_3$ is nonzero and therefore $\psi_{t,x,y}(\xi)$ has no critical points in the region of interest. Since $\xi>100$, one can factor out the term $-\frac38\xi+\frac14$ in \[psidoubleprime\] to show that $$|\psi_{t,x,y}''(\xi)|\geq C>0$$ for $C$ independent of $\xi$, and hence $\psi_{t,x,y}'(\xi)$ is monotonic. By , $$\Big | \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\int \frac{\chi_3(\xi)}{|1-\frac32\xi|^{1/2}}e^{it\psi_{t,x,y}(\xi)}\,d\xi\Big | \lesssim \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}} \cdot \frac{1}{t} = t^{-3/2}.$$ for $\xi$ satisfying the scenario in Case (i).
We now turn to Case (ii). Without loss of generality, suppose that $\xi_a$ lies in the region in which $|\xi|>100$ and $\xi_b$ does not. We consider the set $$\Omega_a=\{\xi : |\xi|>100\text{ and }\xi\notin[\xi_a-\delta,\xi_a+\delta]\}$$ for some $0<\delta\ll1$. For $\xi\in\Omega_a$, the same argument as in Case (i) yields $|\psi_{t,x,y}''(\xi)|>C$ for some $C$ independent of $\xi$. Case (iii) is analogous, except we must restrict $\xi\in \Omega_a \cap \Omega_b$. In both cases, $\psi_{t,x,y}'(\xi)$ is monotonic in the corresponding region, and therefore yields: $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\int_{\Omega_a \cap \Omega_b} \frac{\chi_3(\xi)}{|1-\frac32\xi|^{1/2}}e^{it\psi_{t,x,y}(\xi)}\,d\xi = \O (t^{-3/2}).$$ Finally, we compute the contributions from the critical points. To do this, we first define the functions $a(\xi)$ and $b(\xi)$ by $$a(\xi) := \frac{\chi_a(\xi)\chi_3(\xi)}{\sqrt{1-3\xi/2}},\qquad b(\xi) := \frac{\chi_b(\xi)\chi_3(\xi)}{\sqrt{1-3\xi/2}}.$$ with $\chi_a(\xi)$ being a smooth non-negative function supported at $[\xi_a-\delta,\xi_a+\delta]$ for some $0<\delta\ll1$, and $\chi_b(\xi)$ defined analogously. The key observation is that $\psi_{t,x,y}''(\xi)$ does not vanish in the region $\mathcal{R}_3$, in fact it admits a uniform lower bound as before. Then we may use (without monotonicity) to conclude that $$\left|\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\int\frac{\chi_a(\xi)\chi_0(\xi)}{|1-\frac32\xi|^{1/2}}e^{it\psi_{t,x,y}(\xi)}\,d\xi + \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\int\frac{\chi_b(\xi)\chi_0(\xi)}{|1-\frac32\xi|^{1/2}}e^{it\psi_{t,x,y}(\xi)}\,d\xi\right| \lesssim |t|^{-1}$$ as $t\to\infty$. By combining this with our results over $\Omega_a\cap\Omega_b$, we ultimately obtain $|I_3 (t,x,y)|\lesssim |t|^{-1}$ as $t\to\infty$. The Young convolution inequality yields .
Finally, we prove . Similar to above, we consider $$I_0(t,x,y) = \int e^{-it\Phi(\xi,\mu)+i(x\xi+y\mu)}\chi_0(\xi)\,d\xi\,d\mu= \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\int\frac{\chi_0(\xi)}{|1-\frac32\xi|^{1/2}}e^{it\,\psi_{t,x,y}(\xi)}\,d\xi.$$ This time we take the absolute value inside the integral, and integrate directly to obtain $ |I_0 (t,x,y)|\lesssim |t|^{-1/2}$. Young’s inequality for convolutions then yields .
Main estimates
--------------
The proofs of the propositions below follow from the well-known results by Keel and Tao [@KeelTao], after interpolating between the conservation of the $L^2$-norm and -, respectively.
\[2DDystheStrichartzPropLarge\] Assume $(q,r)$ and $(\tilde{q},\tilde{r})$ are Strichartz admissible pairs satisfying $$\label{DystheLargeStrichartz}
\frac2q = 1-\frac{2}r.$$ with $(q,r)\neq (2,\infty)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVertW_3(t)u_0\right\rVert}_{L_t^qL_{x,y}^r}&\lesssim {\left\lVertu_0\right\rVert}_{L_{x,y}^2}\label{Strichlarge1}\\
{\left\lVert\int_{\R}W_3(t-t')F(t')\,dt'\right\rVert}_{L_t^qL_{x,y}^r}&\lesssim {\left\lVertF\right\rVert}_{L_t^{\tilde{q}'}L_{x,y}^{\tilde{r}'}}.\label{Strichlarge3}
\end{aligned}$$
\[2DDystheStrichartzPropSmall\] Assume $(q,r)$ and $(\tilde{q},\tilde{r})$ are Strichartz admissible pairs satisfying $$\label{DystheSmallStrichartz}
\frac2q = \frac12-\frac{2}r.$$ with $(q,r)\neq (2,\infty)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVertW_0(t)u_0\right\rVert}_{L_t^qL_{x,y}^r}&\lesssim \left\|u_0\right\|_{L_{x,y}^2}\label{Strichsmall1}\\
{\left\lVert\int_{\R}W_0(t-t')F(t')\,dt'\right\rVert}_{L_t^qL_{x,y}^r}&\lesssim {\left\lVertF\right\rVert}_{L_t^{\tilde{q}'}L_{x,y}^{\tilde{r}'}}.\label{Strichsmall3}
\end{aligned}$$
Smoothing effect {#smoothingeffect}
================
Introduction
------------
In this section ,we divide our frequency space into three regions: $\mathcal{R}_0$, $\mathcal{R}_1$, and $\mathcal{R}_2$, see . We start with the high-frequency regions $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$, whereas the low-frequency region $\mathcal{R}_0$ will be treated separately at the end of this section.
The reason why we distinguish these regions is because the behavior of $\Phi (\xi,\mu)$ is different in each of them. For instance, the only critical points fall in the region $\mathcal{R}_0$. In $\mathcal{R}_1$ we have that $$\label{eq:region1}
|\pa_{\xi} \Phi (\xi,\mu)| = \Big | \frac{3}{16}(\xi^2 - 2 \mu^2) - \frac{1}{4}\xi+\frac{1}{2}\Big | \gtrsim |\xi|^2\quad \mbox{whenever}\quad (\xi,\mu)\in \mathcal{R}_1.$$ In the other region, $\mathcal{R}_2$, this lower bound is false and in fact this partial derivative can vanish. However, we have that $$\label{eq:region2}
|\pa_{\mu} \Phi (\xi,\mu)| = \Big | -\frac{3}{4}\,\xi\,\mu - \frac{1}{2}\mu\Big | \gtrsim |\xi| \, |\mu|\quad \mbox{whenever}\quad (\xi,\mu)\in \mathcal{R}_2.$$ These features will give rise to different smoothing effects in different frequency regions, which is another example of the anisotropic nature of the Dysthe equation.
Large frequency smoothing effect
--------------------------------
For $k=1,2$, let us write $$W_k (t)f(x,y):= \int_{\R^2} e^{ix\xi+iy\mu+i t\,\Phi(\xi,\mu)} \, \widehat{f}(\xi,\mu)\,\chi_k (\xi,\mu)\, d\xi d\mu.$$
Then we have
\[thm:linearsmoothing\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVertD_x\, W_1 (t) f\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_x L^2_{t,y}} & \lesssim {\left\lVertf\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}}, \label{eq:linearsmoothing1}\\
{\left\lVertD_x\, W_2 (t) f\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_y L^2_{t,x}} & \lesssim {\left\lVertf\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}}.\label{eq:linearsmoothing2}
\end{aligned}$$
Note also that the same result and proof are true for $P\, D_x$ instead of $D_x$, where $P$ is any Fourier multiplier operator whose symbol is bounded. In this regard, see Theorem 4.1 in [@KPV2] for more general results. We will use this important remark for the operator $\pa_x |\nabla|^{-1}$ in .
We only prove this result for $W_1$ since the argument is analogous. By the Plancherel theorem, $${\left\lVertD_x\, W_1 (t) f\right\rVert}_{L^2_{t,y}}= {\left\lVert\int_{\R} e^{ix\xi+i t\,\Phi(\xi,\mu)} \, |\xi|\,\widehat{ f}(\xi,\mu)\,\chi_1(\xi,\mu)\, d\xi\right\rVert}_{L^2_{t,\mu}}$$ Now we do the change of variables $\tilde{\xi}=\Phi(\xi,\mu)$ whose Jacobian is $J(\xi,\mu)\sim |\xi|^{-2}$. $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{\R} e^{ix\xi+i t\,\Phi(\xi,\mu)} \, |\xi|\,\widehat{f}(\xi,\mu)\, d\xi= \\
\int_{\R} e^{ix\Phi^{-1}_{\mu}(\tilde{\xi})+i t\,\tilde{\xi}} \, |\Phi^{-1}_{\mu}(\tilde{\xi})|\,\widehat{f}(\Phi^{-1}_{\mu}(\tilde{\xi}),\mu)\, \chi_1(\Phi^{-1}_{\mu}(\tilde{\xi}),\mu)\, J(\Phi^{-1}_{\mu}(\tilde{\xi}),\mu) \, d\tilde{\xi}.
\end{gathered}$$ We take the $L^2_t$-norm of the above. The Plancherel theorem yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVertD_x \, W_1 (t) f\right\rVert}_{L^2_{t,y}}^2 & \lesssim \int_{\R^2} |\Phi^{-1}_{\mu}(\tilde{\xi})|^2\,|\widehat{f}(\Phi^{-1}_{\mu}(\tilde{\xi}),\mu)|^2\, |\chi_1(\Phi^{-1}_{\mu}(\tilde{\xi}),\mu)|^2\, J(\Phi^{-1}_{\mu}(\tilde{\xi}),\mu)^2 \, d\tilde{\xi} \, d\mu\\
& = \int_{\R^2} |\xi|^2\,|\widehat{f}(\xi,\mu)|^2\, |\chi_1(\xi,\mu)|^2\, J(\xi,\mu) \, d\xi \, d\mu \lesssim \int_{\R^2}|\widehat{f}(\xi,\mu)|^2\, d\xi \, d\mu={\left\lVertf\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ We finish by taking the supremum in $x$.
The following corollary is obtained by writing the dual estimate to and using the fact that $W(t)$ is unitary in $L^2$.
With $L^p_T= L^p_t ([0,T])$ for $1\leq p\leq \infty$, we have the following estimates: $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert\pa_x\, \int_0^t W_1 (t-t') F(t')\, dt'\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_x L^2_{T,y}} & \lesssim {\left\lVertF\right\rVert}_{L^1_T L^2_{x,y}},\\
{\left\lVert\pa_x\, \int_0^t W_2 (t-t') F(t')\, dt'\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_y L^2_{T,x}} & \lesssim {\left\lVertF\right\rVert}_{L^1_T L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Additional linear estimates
---------------------------
To control the evolution at low-frequencies, we will need a combination of the smoothing effect and Strichartz estimates. We define $P_0$ to be the Fourier multiplier operator corresponding to the symbol $\chi_0(\xi)$, defined in .
\[thm:lowfreq\] For any $s\in\R$, we have the following estimates: $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert\pa_x\, \langle\nabla \rangle^s P_0 u\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_x L^2_{t,y}} & \lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla \rangle^s u\right\rVert}_{L^2_{t,x,y}},\\
{\left\lVert\pa_x P_0 u\right\rVert}_{L^2_t L^{\infty}_{x,y}} & \lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+} u\right\rVert}_{L^2_{t,x,y}}.
\end{aligned}$$
1. For the first estimate we write $$\label{eq:P0}
\pa_x\, \langle\nabla\rangle^s P_0 u = \int_{|\xi|\leq 100} e^{ix\xi}\, \xi \, \widehat{\langle\nabla\rangle^s\, u}(\xi,t,y)\, \chi_0(\xi)\, d\xi.$$ We take the $L^2_{t,y}$ norm using the Minkowski inequality: $${\left\lVert\pa_x \langle\nabla\rangle^s P_0 u \right\rVert}_{L^2_{t,y}} \lesssim \int_{|\xi|\leq 100} {\left\lVert\widehat{\langle\nabla\rangle^s\, u}(\xi)\right\rVert}_{L^2_{t,y}}\, d\xi.$$ Finally, we use the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and the Plancherel theorem: $${\left\lVert\pa_x \langle\nabla\rangle^s P_0 u\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_x L^2_{t,y}} \lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s\, u\right\rVert}_{L^2_{t,x,y}}.$$
2. By the Minkowski inequality, we take the $L^2_t L^{\infty}_{x,y}$-norm of (with $s=0$) and use the Holder inequality to obtain $${\left\lVert\pa_x \, P_0 u\right\rVert}_{L^2_t L^{\infty}_{x,y}} \lesssim {\left\lVert\widehat{u}\right\rVert}_{L^2_t L^2_{\xi} L^{\infty}_y}\lesssim {\left\lVert\langle \pa_y\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+} \widehat{u}\right\rVert}_{L^2_t L^2_{\xi} L^2_y}\lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+} u\right\rVert}_{L^2_{t,x,y}}.$$ The Sobolev inequality and the Plancherel inequality give the last steps.
Because Strichartz estimates are not available for the pair $(q,r)=(2,\infty)$, we use the Sobolev embedding theorem to get as close as necessary to this space.
\[thm:Strichartz2\] For $\varepsilon>0$ small enough, consider the admissible pair $r=\frac{2}{\varepsilon}$ and $q=\frac{2}{1-\varepsilon}$. Then $${\left\lVertu\right\rVert}_{L^2_T L^{\infty}_{x,y}} \lesssim T^{\varepsilon/2}\, {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^{\varepsilon} u\right\rVert}_{L^q_T L^r_{x,y}}.$$
The Sobolev embedding theorem in $\R^2$ allows us to go from $L^{\infty}_{x,y}$ to $W^{\varepsilon,r}_{x,y}$. Then the Hölder inequality in time allows us to go from $L^2_T$ to $L^q_T$ and pick up a factor of $T^{\varepsilon/2}$.
The Hilbert transform method {#sec:Hilbert}
----------------------------
In the remainder of this section, we show how to double the smoothing effect for the Duhamel term. In order to do that, we present an important quantity, analogous to the one defined in [@KPV]. $$\label{eq:fullFT}
\widetilde{W}(t)f(x,y)=\int_{\R^3} e^{ix\xi+iy\mu+it\tau}\, \frac{\widehat{f}(\tau,\xi,\mu)}{\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)}\, d\xi d\mu d\tau.$$ Note that here $\widehat{f}$ denotes the Fourier transform in all three variables $t,x,y$. We will also denote by $\widehat{f}^{(x)}$ the Fourier transform in the variable $x$.
This quantity $\widetilde{W}$ appears as an ansatz of the linear Dysthe equation with an inhomogeneous term $f$, after taking the Fourier transform both in time and space.
Recall the definition of Hilbert transform as a Fourier multiplier $\widehat{Hg}(\xi)=\mbox{sign}(\xi)\, \widehat{g}(\xi)$. Our operator $\widetilde{W}$ can be interpreted precisely as a Hilbert transform. Formally: $$\widetilde{W}(t)f(x,y)= \int_{\R^2} e^{ix\xi+iy\mu}\, (Hg)_{t,\xi,\mu}\left(\Phi(\xi,\mu)\right)\, d\xi d\mu,$$ where $$g(\tau; t,\xi,\mu)=e^{it\tau}\,\widehat{f}(\tau,\xi,\mu).$$ An equivalent expression would be: $$\widetilde{W}(t)f(x,y)=\int_{\R^3} e^{ix\xi+iy\mu+i\tilde{\tau} \Phi(\xi,\mu)}\, \mbox{sign}(\tilde{\tau})\, (\mathcal{F}_{\tau}g)(\tilde{\tau};t,\xi,\mu)\, d\tilde{\tau} d\xi d\mu.$$ Note that $(\mathcal{F}_{\tau}g)(\tilde{\tau};t,\xi,\mu)= \widehat{f}^{(x,y)}(-\tilde{\tau}+t,\xi,\mu)$ where $\widehat{f}^{(x,y)}$ is only the Fourier transform of $f$ with respect to $x$ and $y$. Using this together with the change of variables $t'=t-\tilde{\tau}$, one may show that $$\label{eq:relationshipW}
\widetilde{W}(t)f(x,y) = \, 2\int_{0}^t W(t-t')f(t',\cdot)\, dt' -\int_{\R} W(t-t')f(t',\cdot)\, dt' +2\,\int_{-\infty}^0 W(t-t')f(t',\cdot)\, dt'.$$ Thus in order to understand $\int_{0}^t W(t-t')f(t',\cdot)\, dt'$, it is enough to study $\widetilde{W}(t)f$.
In order to justify the formal computations above, we introduce for $k=1,2$: $$\widetilde{W}_{k,\varepsilon}(t)f(x,y)=\int_{\varepsilon<|\tau - \Phi(\xi,\mu)|<1/\varepsilon} e^{ix\xi+iy\mu+it\tau}\, \frac{\widehat{f}(\tau,\xi,\mu)}{\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)}\,\chi_k(\xi,\mu)\, d\xi\, d\mu\, d\tau.$$ We define the Fourier multiplier operator $Q_j$ for $j\in \N$, which corresponds to $$\widehat{Q_j f}(\xi,\mu)= m_j (\xi,\mu)\, \widehat{f}(\xi,\mu),$$ where $m_j \in C_c^{\infty}(\R^2)$, and $$\label{eq:defQj}
m_j (\xi,\mu)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{if}\ 2^{j}\leq \sqrt{\xi^2+\mu^2}\leq 2^{j+1},\\
0 & \mbox{unless}\ 2^{j-1}\leq \sqrt{\xi^2+\mu^2}\leq 2^{j+2}.
\end{array}\right.$$
The following results, as well as the proof, are based on the work of Kenig, Ponce and Vega for the KdV equation, see [@KPV]. But because the linear operator is two dimensional and anisotropic, this proof is much more technical.
\[thm:1\] For any $f\in C_c^{\infty}(\R)_t \otimes C_c^{\infty}(\R)_x \otimes C_c^{\infty}(\R)_y$ and all $(t,x,y)\in\R^3$, we have that $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \widetilde{W}_{k,\varepsilon}(t)Q_jf(x,y) = \int_{\R^2} \left(\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}
\int_{\varepsilon<|\tau - \Phi(\xi,\mu)|<1/\varepsilon} e^{ix\xi+iy\mu+it\tau}\, \frac{\widehat{Q_jf}(\tau,\xi,\mu)}{\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)}\,d\tau\right)\, \chi_k (\xi,\mu)\, d\xi d\mu$$ for any $j\in \N$ and any $k=1,2$.
We write $f(t,x,y)=w(t)\, v(x,y)$ with $w\in C_c^{\infty}(\R)$ and $v\in C_c^{\infty}(\R)\otimes C_c^{\infty}(\R)$. We set $h_t(\tau)= e^{it\tau} \widehat{w}(\tau)$ and write $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}
\int_{\varepsilon<|\tau - \Phi(\xi,\mu)|<1/\varepsilon} e^{ix\xi+iy\mu+it\tau}\, \frac{\widehat{Q_jf}(\tau,\xi,\mu)}{\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)}\,d\tau=\widehat{Q_jv}(\xi,\mu) \, H(h_t)(\Phi(\xi,\mu)).$$ Since $h_t\in C_c^{\infty}(\R)$, $H(h_t)\in H^s(\R)$ for all $s>0$ and thus $H(h_t)\in L^{\infty}(\R)$. Therefore, $$\int_{\R^2} e^{ix\xi+iy\mu} \, \widehat{Q_jv}(\xi,\mu)\, H(h_t)(\Phi(\xi,\mu))\, \chi_k (\xi,\mu)\, d\xi d\mu$$ is absolutely convergent.
Let $$\label{eq:maximalH}
H^{\ast}(g)(x):=\sup_{\varepsilon>0} | H_{\varepsilon}g(x)|=\sup_{\varepsilon>0} \Big | \int_{\varepsilon < |x-y|<\varepsilon^{-1}} \frac{g(y)}{x-y}\, dy\Big|.$$
In order to prove the proposition we need to show that $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \Big | \int_{\R^2} e^{ix\xi+iy\mu} \, \widehat{Q_jv}(\xi,\mu)\, \left[ H(h_t)(\Phi(\xi,\mu))- H_{\varepsilon}(h_t)(\Phi(\xi,\mu))\right]\, \chi_k (\xi,\mu)\,d\xi d\mu\Big | = 0.$$
But recall that $H_{\varepsilon}g\rightarrow Hg$ pointwise, $|H_{\varepsilon}g(x)-Hg(x)|\leq 2 H^{\ast}g(x)$ and that $H^{\ast}:L^p \rightarrow L^p$ continuously for $1<p<\infty$.
We finish by using the dominated convergence theorem thanks to the fact that $$\widehat{Q_jv}\, H^{\ast}(h_t)(\Phi)\, \chi_k\in L^1(d\xi d\mu).$$
In order to justify this last fact we do a change of variables. Assume $k=1$ for simplicity, since the proof is analogous in the other case. We set $\tilde{\xi}=\Phi(\xi,\mu)$, $\tilde{\mu}=\mu$, whose Jacobian is $J(\xi,\mu)\sim |\xi|^{-2}$. Then we use the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality twice: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\int |\widehat{Q_jv}(\xi,\mu)| |H^{\ast}(h_t)(\Phi(\xi,\mu))| \, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\,d\xi d\mu\right)^2 & = \left(\int |\widehat{Q_jv}(\tilde{\xi},\tilde{\mu})| |H^{\ast}(h_t)(\tilde{\xi})| \, J(\tilde{\xi},\tilde{\mu})\,\chi_1 \, d\tilde{\xi} d\tilde{\mu}\right)^2\\
& \hspace{-4cm}\lesssim {\left\lVertH^{\ast}(h_t)\right\rVert}_{L^2_{\tilde{\xi}}}^2 \, \int_{\tilde{\xi}} \left( \int_{\tilde{\mu}} |\widehat{Q_jv} \, J\,\chi_1 | \right)^2 \lesssim {\left\lVerth_t\right\rVert}_{L^2_{\tau}}^2 \, \int_{\tilde{\xi}} 2^j\,|\widehat{Q_jv}|^2\, |J|^2\, \chi_1^2 \\
& \hspace{-4cm} \lesssim {\left\lVertw\right\rVert}_{L^2_{t}}^2 \, {\left\lVertQ_j v\right\rVert}_{L^2_x L^2_y}^2 = {\left\lVertQ_j f\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y,t}}^2.
\end{aligned}$$
The following result guarantees that, after taking two derivatives, we can integrate in one single variable.
\[thm:2\] For $f\in C_c^{\infty}(\R)_{t}\otimes C_c^{\infty}(\R)_x \otimes C_c^{\infty}(\R)_{y}$ and all $(t,x,y)\in\R^3$, we have that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:kernel1}
\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}
\int_{\varepsilon<|\tau - \Phi(\xi,\mu)|<1/\varepsilon} e^{ix\xi+iy\mu+it\tau}\, \frac{\xi^2}{\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)}\,\widehat{Q_j f}(\tau,\xi,\mu)\, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\,d\xi d\mu d\tau=\\
\int_{\R^2} e^{it\tau+i y\mu}\left(\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}
\int_{\varepsilon<|\tau - \Phi(\xi,\mu)|<1/\varepsilon} e^{ix\xi}\, \frac{\xi^2}{\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)}\,\widehat{Q_j f}(\tau,\xi,\mu)\,\chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\,d\xi\right) \, d\mu d\tau.
\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:kernel2}
\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}
\int_{\varepsilon<|\tau - \Phi(\xi,\mu)|<1/\varepsilon} e^{ix\xi+iy\mu+it\tau}\, \frac{\xi\,\mu}{\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)}\,\widehat{Q_j f}(\tau,\xi,\mu)\, \chi_2 (\xi,\mu)\, d\xi\, d\mu\, d\tau=\\
\int_{\R^2} e^{it\tau+i x\xi}\left(\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}
\int_{\varepsilon<|\tau - \Phi(\xi,\mu)|<1/\varepsilon} e^{iy\mu}\, \frac{\xi\, \mu}{\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)}\,\widehat{Q_j f}(\tau,\xi,\mu)\,\chi_2 (\xi,\mu)\,d\mu\right) \, d\xi\,d\tau.
\end{gathered}$$
Let us do the case of $\chi_1$ only, the other one being analogous. The existence of the first limit follows from . We set $f(t,x,y)=v(x)\, w(t,y)$ for $v\in C_c^{\infty}(\R)$ and $w\in C_c^{\infty}(\R)\otimes C_c^{\infty}(\R)$ and let $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{K}_{\varepsilon} \widehat{v}(\mu,\tau) & :=\int_{\varepsilon<|\tau - \Phi(\xi,\mu)|<1/\varepsilon} \frac{\xi^2}{\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)}\,\widehat{v}(\xi)\,\chi_1(\xi,\mu)\, m_j (\xi,\mu)\, d\xi,\nonumber\\
\mathcal{K}\widehat{v}(\mu,\tau) & := \lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathcal{K}_{\varepsilon}\widehat{v}(\mu,\tau),\qquad \mathcal{K}^{\ast}\widehat{v}(\mu,\tau) := \sup_{\varepsilon>0} |\mathcal{K}_{\varepsilon}\widehat{v}(\mu,\tau)|.\label{eq:K1}
\end{aligned}$$ If we show that for $\widehat{v}\in\mathcal{S}(\R)$ we have the pointwise convergence given in , for almost every $\mu$ and $\tau$, and that $\mathcal{K}^{\ast}:L^{p}_{\xi}\rightarrow L^{q}_{\mu}L^{p}_{\tau} $ continuously for some $p,q\in (1,\infty)$, then we may finish the proof with the dominated convergence theorem, as in .
We do the change of variables $\tilde{\xi}=\Phi_{\mu} (\xi)=\Phi (\xi,\mu)$, whose Jacobian is $|\det(\nabla\Phi_{\mu})(\xi)|\sim |\xi|^2$. Since the Jacobian is nonzero in $\mathcal{R}_1$, we have a differentiable bijection between $\Omega_{\mu,\tau}^{\varepsilon}\cap \pi(R_1)$ and its image, where $\pi$ is the projection $\pi (\xi,\mu)=\xi$. We may even check that: $$\Phi_{\mu} (\Omega_{\mu,\tau}^{\varepsilon}\cap \pi(\mathcal{R}_1))=\{\tilde{\xi}\in \R \mid \varepsilon<|\tau - \tilde{\xi}|<1/\varepsilon\}\cap \Phi_{\mu}(\pi(\mathcal{R}_1)).$$ Then we have $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{K}_{\varepsilon} \widehat{v}(\mu,\tau) = \int_{\Phi_{\mu} (\Omega_{\mu,\tau}^{\varepsilon}\cap\pi(\mathcal{R}_1))} \frac{\Phi_{\mu}^{-1}(\tilde{\xi})^2}{\tau - \tilde{\xi}}\,\widehat{v}\left(\Phi_{\mu}^{-1}(\tilde{\xi})\right)\,\Big |\det(\nabla \Phi_{\mu}^{-1})(\tilde{\xi})\Big | \, \chi_1 \, m_j\, d\tilde{\xi}\\
= H_{\varepsilon}(\chi_{\Phi_{\mu}(\pi(\mathcal{R}_1))}\,G_{\mu}),
\end{gathered}$$ where we recall that $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\varepsilon}(G_{\mu})(\mu,\tau) & := \int_{\varepsilon<|\tau - \tilde{\xi}|<1/\varepsilon} \ \frac{1}{\tau-\tilde{\xi}} \, G_{\mu}(\tilde{\xi})\, d\tilde{\xi},\\
G_{\mu} (\tilde{\xi}) & := \Phi_{\mu}^{-1}(\tilde{\xi})^2\, \,\widehat{v}\left(\Phi_{\mu}^{-1}(\tilde{\xi})\right)\,\Big |\det(\nabla \Phi_{\mu}^{-1})(\tilde{\xi})\Big |\,\chi_1 (\Phi_{\mu}^{-1}(\tilde{\xi}),\mu) \, m_j (\Phi_{\mu}^{-1}(\tilde{\xi}),\mu),
\end{aligned}$$ and $\chi_{\Phi_{\mu}(\pi(\mathcal{R}_1))}$ is the characteristic function of the set $\Phi_{\mu}(\pi(\mathcal{R}_1))$.
Remember that $H_{\varepsilon}$ and $H^{\ast}$ were defined in . Note that as $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$, $\Omega_{\mu,\tau}^{\varepsilon}\cap \pi(\mathcal{R}_1)\rightarrow \pi(\mathcal{R}_1)$. In order to finish, it would be enough to show that $$g \mapsto H^{\ast}\left( \chi_{\Phi_{\mu}(\pi(\mathcal{R}_1))} G_{\mu} \right)$$ is a continuous map. This follows from the properties of the Hilbert transform, since $H^{\ast}$ maps $L^2_{\tilde{\xi}}$ to $L^2_{\tau}$ uniformly in $\mu$.
Since $C_c^{\infty}(\R)_t \otimes C_c^{\infty}(\R)_x \otimes C_c^{\infty}(\R)_y$ is dense in $L^p_{x,y} L^q_T$ and $L^q_T L^p_{x,y}$ for any $p,q\in [1,\infty)$, and extend to those spaces.
Doubling the smoothing effect
-----------------------------
In the remainder of this section we will show how to double the smoothing effect in the region $\mathcal{R}_1$. The case of the region $\mathcal{R}_2$ is simpler, since the function $\Phi(\xi,\mu)$ has degree 2 when regarded as a function of the second variable $\mu$, for fixed $\xi$. Analogous results were obtained in [@KPV; @KochSaut], among others. In particular, Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 in [@KochSaut] capture the fundamental ideas behind such smoothing effect, which were already present in the work of Hörmander [@Hormander]. Their estimates are for kernels defined globally in $\R^2$, whereas we will develop specific estimates tailored to our frequency-dependent cutoffs. It is therefore important and nontrivial to make sure that the $L^{\infty}$ bounds present in our estimates do not depend on any of the variables involved in the cutoffs.
We start with some preliminary lemmata:
\[thm:zeroes\] For fixed $\mu,\tau$, consider the solutions to the equation $$\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)= 0\quad \mbox{for}\ (\xi,\mu)\in\mathcal{R}_1.$$ Then there are at most two solutions $\xi_j (\tau,\mu) \in \mathcal{R}_1$ for $j=0,1$. Moreover, if one such solution exists, say $\xi_0$, then there exists some $\varepsilon>0$ independent of $\mu$ and $\tau$ such that $$\Phi : B(\xi_0, \varepsilon )\rightarrow B\left(\Phi (\xi_0,\mu),\frac{\pa_{\xi}\Phi (\xi_0,\mu)}{2}\, \varepsilon \right)$$ is a $C^1$ diffeomorphism. In fact, one can take $\varepsilon=|\xi_0|\, 10^{-6}$.
The fact that there are at most two solutions in $\mathcal{R}_1$ follows from the fact that $\pa_{\xi} \Phi (\cdot,\mu)$ is positive and $\Phi(\cdot, \mu)$ is a third order polynomial.
The existence of such an $\varepsilon>0$ (but perhaps dependent on $\mu,\tau$) follows from . According to this result, $\varepsilon$ can be chosen so that $$\label{eq:chooseepsilon} \Big |\frac{\pa_{\xi}\Phi (\xi,\mu)}{\pa_{\xi}\Phi (\xi_0,\mu)} \Big | \geq \frac{1}{2}\quad \mbox{for all}\ \xi\in B(\xi_0,\varepsilon).$$ By taking $\varepsilon=|\xi_0|\, 10^{-6}$ one can guarantee that condition is satisfied.
For each solution $\xi_0(\tau,\mu)$ we consider a function $\varphi\in C_c^{\infty}(\R)$ supported in $B(\xi_0,\varepsilon)$, with $0\leq \varphi\leq 1$ and such that $\varphi=1$ in $B(\xi_0,\varepsilon/2)$. If $(\xi,\mu)\in \mathcal{R}_1$, then $\xi\in (-\infty,-a_{\mu}) \cup (a_{\mu},+\infty)$ where $$a_{\mu}=\max \{ 100,\, 200\,|\mu|\},$$ which gives rise to two connected components. Furthermore, there can be a maximum of one solution to in $(\frac{a_{\mu}}{2},+\infty)$ and another in $(-\infty, -\frac{a_{\mu}}{2})$. This is due to the fact that $1\lesssim \pa_{\xi} \Phi (\xi,\mu)$ there, see .
\[thm:zeroes2\] For fixed $\mu,\tau$, consider the equation $$\label{eq:levelcurves}
\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)= 0\quad \mbox{for}\ \xi\in\R.$$ Suppose that $\xi_0$ is a solution to in $(\frac{a_{\mu}}{2},+\infty)$, then for all $\xi\in(a_{\mu},+\infty)$ we have that $$|\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)|\geq c \, |\xi|^2 \, |\xi-\xi_0|,$$ where $c$ is independent of $\xi,\tau,$ and $\mu$. If there is no solution to in $(\frac{a_{\mu}}{2},+\infty)$, then for all $\xi\in(a_{\mu},+\infty)$ we have $$|\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)|\geq c \, |\xi|^3$$ for some independent constant $c$. Analogous statements hold regarding $(-\infty,-a_{\mu})$.
Suppose for example that $\xi\in (a_{\mu},+\infty)$. If there are no solutions to in $(\frac{a_{\mu}}{2},+\infty)$, then the minimum of $\Phi$ in $(\frac{a_{\mu}}{2},+\infty)$ is achieved precisely at $\frac{a_{\mu}}{2}$. Note also that $\Phi(\xi,\mu)-\tau$ must then be positive in $(\frac{a_{\mu}}{2},+\infty)$. Then by , $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(\xi,\mu)-\tau &\geq \Phi(\xi,\mu)- \Phi(\frac{a_{\mu}}{2},\mu)=\int_{a_{\mu}/2}^{\xi} \pa_{\xi} \Phi(z, \mu)\, dz\\
& \gtrsim\int_{a_{\mu}/2}^{\xi} z^2\, dz= \xi^3- \left(\frac{a_{\mu}}{2}\right)^3 \gtrsim \xi^3.
\end{aligned}$$ The last inequality follows from the fact that $\xi>a_{\mu}$. A similar argument proves the corresponding lower bound if there is a solution to in $(\frac{a_{\mu}}{2},+\infty)$.
We are finally in a position to prove our main result.
\[thm:3\] For $f\in C_c^{\infty}(\R^3)$ and all $(t,x,y)\in\R^3$, we have that $$\begin{gathered}
\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}
\int_{\varepsilon<|\tau - \Phi(\xi,\mu)|<1/\varepsilon} e^{ix\xi}\, \frac{\xi^2}{\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)}\,\widehat{Q_jf}(\tau,\xi,\mu)\,\chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\, d\xi\\
=\int_{\R} K_1 (\tau, x-\tilde{x},\mu)\, \widehat{Q_jf}^{(t,y)}(\tau,\tilde{x},\mu) \, d\tilde{x},
\end{gathered}$$ where $\widehat{Q_jf}^{(t,y)}$ denotes the Fourier transform in the variables $t,y$ only, and $$K_1 (\tau,x,\mu)=\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{\varepsilon<|\tau - \Phi(\xi,\mu)|<1/\varepsilon} e^{ix\xi}\, \frac{\xi^2}{\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)}\,\chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\, d\xi$$ where the limit exists for every $(\tau,x,\mu)$ and $K_1\in L^{\infty}_{\tau, x,\mu}(\R^3)$.
Similarly, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}
\int_{\varepsilon<|\tau - \Phi(\xi,\mu)|<1/\varepsilon} e^{iy\mu}\, \frac{\xi\,\mu}{\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)}\,\widehat{Q_jf}(\tau,\xi,\mu)\,\chi_2 (\xi,\mu)\, d\mu\\
=\int_{\R} K_2 (\tau, \xi,y-\tilde{y})\, \widehat{Q_jf}^{(t,x)}(\tau,\xi,\tilde{y}) \, d\tilde{y},
\end{gathered}$$ where $$K_2 (\tau,\xi,y)=\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{\varepsilon<|\tau - \Phi(\xi,\mu)|<1/\varepsilon} e^{iy\mu}\, \frac{\xi\,\mu}{\tau - \Phi (\xi,\mu)}\,\chi_2 (\xi,\mu)\, d\mu$$ and the limit exists for every $(\tau,\xi,y)$ and $K_2 \in L^{\infty}_{\tau, \xi,y}(\R^3)$.
Fix $\tau$ and $\mu$, and let us write $$K_1(\tau, x, \mu)=\lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\, \int_{\delta<|\tau- \Phi(\xi,\mu)|<\delta^{-1}} e^{ix\xi}\, \frac{\xi^2}{\tau- \Phi(\xi,\mu)} \, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\, d\xi.$$ As explained in , there are different scenarios depending on the number of solutions to $\tau- \Phi(\xi,\mu) = 0$ in $\mathcal{R}_1$. If there are none, the proof is simpler and we omit it. If there are two solutions, shows that one is positive and one is negative, so we can reduce it to the case of a single zero after replacing $\chi_1$ by two cut-offs $\chi_1^{+}$ and $\chi_1^{-}$ that equal $\chi_1$ when $\pm\xi>0$ and zero otherwise. Therefore suppose there is a unique solution $\xi_0=\xi_0 (\tau,\mu)>0$ and consider a cut-off $\varphi_0 (\xi)$ as given by which is supported in a ball $B(\xi_0,\varepsilon)$ with $\varepsilon = 10^{-6}\,|\xi_0|$.
We define: $$\begin{aligned}
K_1 (\tau,x,\mu) & = \lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\, \int_{\delta<|\tau- \Phi(\xi,\mu)|<\delta^{-1}} e^{ix\xi}\, \frac{\xi^2}{\tau- \Phi(\xi,\mu)} \, \varphi_0(\xi)\, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\, d\xi\\
& + \lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\, \int_{\delta<|\tau- \Phi(\xi,\mu)|<\delta^{-1}} e^{ix\xi}\, \frac{\xi^2}{\tau- \Phi(\xi,\mu)} \, [1-\varphi_0(\xi)]\, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\, d\xi = I+ I\! I.
\end{aligned}$$
[**Step 1.**]{} Let us focus on $I$ first. For $\xi\in B(\xi_0, \varepsilon)$, gives some independent constant $c>0$ such that $$\label{eq:nearzero}
|\Phi (\xi,\mu)-\tau|=|\Phi (\xi,\mu)-\Phi (\xi_0,\mu)|\geq c \, |\xi-\xi_0|\, |\xi|^2 .$$ Then we change variables $\xi=\xi_0 z$ for $z\in B(1, 10^{-6})$ $$\begin{aligned}
I & = \int_{\R} \frac{e^{ix\xi}}{\xi-\xi_0}\,\frac{\xi^2 \, (\xi-\xi_0)}{\Phi(\xi_0,\mu)- \Phi(\xi,\mu)} \, \varphi_0(\xi)\, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\, d\xi\\
& = \int_{\R} \frac{e^{ix\xi_0 z}}{z-1}\, \frac{\xi_0^3\, z^2 (z-1)}{\Phi(\xi_0,\mu)- \Phi(\xi_0\,z,\mu)} \, \varphi_0(z\xi_0)\, \chi_1 (z\xi_0,\mu)\, dz \\
& = i\pi\, e^{-ix\xi_0}\, \mbox{sign}(x) \ast_x \widehat{g}(x,\xi_0,\mu).
\end{aligned}$$ where $$g(z,\xi_0,\mu) := \frac{\xi_0^3\, z^2 (z-1)}{\Phi(\xi_0,\mu)- \Phi(\xi_0\,z,\mu)} \, \varphi_0(z\xi_0)\, \chi_1 (z\xi_0,\mu).$$
By the Young convolution inequality, and integration by parts: $$\sup_{x\in\R} | \, I \, | \lesssim {\left\lVert \widehat{g}\right\rVert}_{L^1_x} = {\left\lVert \widehat{g}\right\rVert}_{L^1_x(|x|\leq 1)} + {\left\lVert \widehat{g}\right\rVert}_{L^1_x(|x|> 1)}\lesssim {\left\lVertg\right\rVert}_{L^1_z}+ {\left\lVertg''\right\rVert}_{L^1_z}.$$ We just need to guarantee that the last two norms admit a uniform bound in $\xi_0,\mu$. We do the first one as an example. By , $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVertg\right\rVert}_{L^1_{z}} & \lesssim \int_{B(1,10^{-6})} \frac{\xi_0^3\, z^2\, |z-1|}{|\xi_0\, z|^2 |\xi_0 z- \xi_0|} \, \varphi_0(z\xi_0)\, \chi_1 (z\xi_0,\mu) \, dz \lesssim \int_{B(1,10^{-6})} \, dz \lesssim 1.\end{aligned}$$
[**Step 2.**]{} Now we study $I\! I$. We subdivide this into three parts: $100<\xi<\frac{1}{2}\xi_0$, $\frac{1}{2}\xi_0<\xi<2\xi_0$ and $2\xi_0<\xi$. Consider a function $\varphi_j \in C_c^{\infty}$, $0\leq \varphi_j\leq 1$ supported at each of these regions for $j=1,2,3$, and such that they add up to one.
We first consider the region where $100<\xi<\frac{1}{2}\xi_0$ (if there is no such region, then we have an upper bound for $\xi_0$ and the argument simplifies). Using we have that $$\begin{gathered}
\Big | \int_{100<\xi<\frac{1}{2}\xi_0}\, e^{ix\xi}\, \frac{\xi^2}{\tau- \Phi(\xi,\mu)} \, [1-\varphi_0(\xi)]\, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\, \varphi_1(\xi)\, d\xi\Big | \\
\lesssim \int_{100<\xi<\frac{1}{2}\xi_0} \frac{1}{|\xi-\xi_0|} \, [1-\varphi_0(\xi)]\, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\, d\xi \lesssim \int_{100<\xi<\frac{1}{2}\xi_0}\frac{1}{\xi_0} d\xi \lesssim 1.
\end{gathered}$$ Now consider the region $\frac{1}{2}\xi_0 < \xi< 2\xi_0$. We use once again: $$\begin{gathered}
\Big | \int_{\frac{1}{2}\xi_0 < \xi< 2\xi_0}\, e^{ix\xi}\, \frac{\xi^2}{\tau- \Phi(\xi,\mu)} \, [1-\varphi_0(\xi)]\, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\, \varphi_2(\xi)\, d\xi\Big | \\
\lesssim \int_{\frac{1}{2}\xi_0 < \xi< 2\xi_0} \frac{1}{|\xi-\xi_0|} \, [1-\varphi_0(\xi)]\, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\, d\xi \lesssim \int_{\frac{1}{2} < z< 2} \frac{1}{|z-1|} \, | 1-\varphi_0(\xi_0\,z)|\, dz\\
\lesssim \int_{1/2}^{1-10^{-6}} \frac{1}{1-z}\, dz +\int_{1+10^{-6}}^{2} \frac{1}{z-1}\, dz \lesssim 1.
\end{gathered}$$
Finally, we study $I\! I$ when $\xi>2\xi_0$, where we need to exploit cancellation to improve on the $|\xi|^{-1}$ decay. To do that, we separate the phase into top and lower order terms: $$\Phi(\xi,\mu)= \frac{1}{16} \xi^3 - \frac{3}{8}\, \mu^2 \xi + \phi (\xi,\mu).$$ We write: $$\label{eq:toporder2}
\frac{\xi^2}{\Phi (\xi,\mu)-\Phi (\xi_0,\mu)} =\frac{1}{\xi\,\left(\frac{1}{16}-\frac{3\,\mu^2}{8\,\xi^2}\right)}+ \frac{\Phi(\xi_0,\mu)-\phi (\xi,\mu)}{\xi\,\left(\frac{1}{16}-\frac{3\,\mu^2}{8\,\xi^2}\right)\, (\Phi (\xi,\mu)-\Phi (\xi_0,\mu))}.$$ Above, we have singled out the top order, given that the second term can be integrated in absolute value and produces a uniformly bounded contribution. Indeed, we use as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\xi>2\xi_0} \frac{|\Phi(\xi_0,\mu)-\phi (\xi,\mu)|}{|\xi|\,\left(\frac{1}{16}-\frac{3\,\mu^2}{8\,\xi^2}\right)\, |\Phi (\xi,\mu)-\Phi (\xi_0,\mu)|}\, [1-\varphi_0(\xi)]\, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\, d\xi & \lesssim \int_{\xi>2\xi_0} \frac{|\xi_0|^3 + |\xi|^2}{|\xi|^3 \, |\xi-\xi_0|}\, d\xi\\
& \lesssim \int_{\xi>2\xi_0} \frac{|\xi_0|^3 + |\xi|^2}{|\xi|^4}\, d\xi \lesssim 1.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we need only control the top order in . We rewrite it as: $$\frac{\varphi_3 (\xi)\, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)}{\xi\,\left(\frac{1}{16}-\frac{3\,\mu^2}{8\,\xi^2}\right)}= \frac{16\, \varphi_3 (\xi)\, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)}{\xi} + 16\,\varphi_3 (\xi)\, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\, \frac{6\mu^2 }{\xi\, (\xi^2-6\,\mu^2)}.$$ The latter is easy to control after the change of variables $\xi=\mu z$, $$\int_{\R} e^{ix\xi} \varphi_3 (\xi)\, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\, \frac{\mu^2 }{\xi\, (\xi^2-6\,\mu^2)}\, d\xi = \int_{\R} e^{ix\mu z} \varphi_3 (\mu z)\, \chi_1 (\mu z,\mu)\, \frac{1}{z\, (z^2-6)}\, dz.$$ Note that the integrand is supported in the region $\{ z> \max\{ 200, \frac{2\xi_0}{|\mu|}\} \}$ and is absolutely integrable.
[**Step 3.**]{} Finally, we estimate the term $$\int_{\R} e^{ix\xi} \, \frac{\varphi_3 (\xi)\, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)}{\xi} \, d\xi.$$ We want to show that this is uniformly bounded in $\mu$ and $\xi_0$ (since $\varphi_3$ depends on it). The idea is to rescale the variable $\xi$, but there are two cases to consider:
1. $100\, |\mu| > \xi_0(\mu)$, and
2. $100\, |\mu| \leq \xi_0(\mu)$.
In case $(1)$, we do the change of variables $\xi=\mu z$: $$\int_{\R} e^{ix\xi} \, \frac{\varphi_3 (\xi)\, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)}{\xi} \, d\xi =\int_{\R} e^{ix\mu z} \, \frac{\varphi_3 (\mu z)\, \chi_1 (\mu z,\mu)}{z} \, dz.$$ Now note that the integrand is supported in the region given by $z>\max\{ 2\frac{|\xi_0 |}{\mu}, 200 \}=200$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\R} e^{ix\mu z} \, \frac{\varphi_3 (\mu z)\, \chi_1 (\mu z,\mu)}{z} \, dz & = \int_{\R} e^{ix\mu z} \frac{dz}{z} - \int_{\R} e^{ix\mu z} \frac{1- \varphi_3 (\mu z)\, \chi_1 (\mu z,\mu)}{z}\\
& = -i\pi\, e^{ix\mu}\,\mbox{sign}(x) + i \pi \, [e^{i\mu\,\cdot}\, \mbox{sign}(\cdot) \ast [1- \varphi_3 (\mu \cdot )\, \chi_1 (\mu \cdot,\mu)]^{\wedge}](x)\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to show that the last term is bounded thanks to the fact that $1- \varphi_3 (\mu \cdot )\, \chi_1 (\mu \cdot,\mu)$ is a smooth function supported in $|z|\leq 200$.
In case $(2)$, we do the change of variables $\xi=\xi_0 z$ and run a similar argument to the above to obtain a uniformly bounded contribution.
Thanks to , the following is straight-forward:
\[thm:smoothingeffect\] For $f\in C_c^{\infty}(\R^3)$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert\pa_x^2 \widetilde{W_1}(t) Q_j f\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_{x} L^2_{y,t}} & \lesssim {\left\lVertQ_j f\right\rVert}_{L^1_{x} L^2_{y,t}},\\
{\left\lVert\pa_x\, \pa_y\, \widetilde{W_2}(t)Q_j f\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_{y} L^2_{x,t}} & \lesssim {\left\lVertQ_j f\right\rVert}_{L^1_{y} L^2_{x,t}}.
\end{aligned}$$
We prove the first estimate. By , and we have that: $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert\pa_x^2 \widetilde{W_1}(t)Q_j f\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_{x} L^2_{y,t}} & = {\left\lVert \int_{\mu,\tau} e^{iy\mu+it\tau} K_1(\tau,\cdot,\mu)\ast_{x} \widehat{Q_j f}^{(y,t)}(\tau,\cdot,\mu) \, d\tau\, d\mu\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_{x} L^2_{y,t}}\\
& \lesssim {\left\lVert K_1(\tau,\cdot,\mu)\ast_{x} \widehat{Q_j f}^{(y,t)}(\tau,\cdot,\mu)\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_{x} L^2_{\mu,\tau}}\\
& \lesssim \sup_{x} \int_{\R}\left( \int_{\R^2} |K_1(\tau,x-\tilde{x},\mu)|^2\, |\widehat{Q_j f}^{(y,t)}(\tau,\tilde{x},\mu)|^2 \, d\tau d\mu\right)^{1/2} \, d\tilde{x} \\
& \lesssim \int_{\R} \left(\int_{\R^2} |\widehat{Q_j f}^{(y,t)}(\tau,\tilde{x},\mu)|^2 \,d\tau d\mu \right)^{1/2} d\tilde{x}= {\left\lVertQ_j f\right\rVert}_{L^1_{x} L^2_{y,t}}.
\end{aligned}$$ We have first used the Plancherel inequality, and then the Minkowski inequality together with the fact that $K_1$ is uniformly bounded ().
By , this theorem implies the smoothing effect for the Duhamel term.
The following estimates hold: $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert\pa_x^2 \int_{0}^t W_1 (t-t')Q_j F( t') \, dt'\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_{x}L^2_{y,t}} & \lesssim {\left\lVertQ_j F\right\rVert}_{L^{1}_{x}L^2_{y,t}},\\
{\left\lVert\pa_x \, \pa_y \, \int_{0}^t W_2 (t-t')Q_j F( t') \, dt'\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_{y}L^2_{x,t}} & \lesssim {\left\lVertQ_j F\right\rVert}_{L^{1}_{y}L^2_{x,t}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Maximal function estimates {#sec:maxfunc}
==========================
$TT^{\ast}$ argument {#sec:TTarg}
--------------------
We will follow the techniques in [@KPV] and also [@KZ], which are useful thanks to the anisotropic nature of the KP equation. Let us start by defining: $$\begin{aligned}
I_1^s (t,x,y) & := \int_{\R^2} e^{i\xi x + i \mu y + i t \Phi (\xi,\mu)} \, |\xi|^{-s} \, \chi_1 (\xi,\mu)\, d\mu \, d\xi,\\
I_2^s (t,x,y) & := \int_{\R^2} e^{i\xi x + i \mu y + i t \Phi (\xi,\mu)} \, |\mu|^{-s} \, \chi_2 (\xi,\mu)\, d\mu \, d\xi,
\end{aligned}$$ where $s>0$ will be made explicit later. We are looking for an estimate such as: $$\label{eq:firstguess}
{\left\lVertW_1 (t) f\right\rVert}_{L^4_x L^{\infty}_{t,y}} \lesssim {\left\lVertD_x^s \, f\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}}.$$
First we write the dual to estimate : $$\label{eq:dualest}
{\left\lVert\int_{\R} W_1(t) g(t,\cdot,\cdot)\, dt\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}}\lesssim {\left\lVertD_x^s \,g\right\rVert}_{L^{4/3}_x L^1_{t,y}}.$$ By a $TT^{\ast}$ argument, the LHS of can be rewritten as: $${\left\lVert\int_{\R} D_x^{-s} W_1(t) g(t,\cdot,\cdot)\, dt\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}}^2 \lesssim {\left\lVertg\right\rVert}_{L^{4/3}_x L^1_{t,y}}\, {\left\lVert\int_{\R} D_x^{-2s}W_1 (t-t') \overline{g(t',x,y)} \, dt'\right\rVert}_{L^4_x L^{\infty}_{t,y}}.$$ This means that is equivalent to: $$\label{eq:maxest}
{\left\lVert\int_{\R} D_x^{-2s}\, W_1 (t-t') g(t',x,y) \, dt'\right\rVert}_{L^4_x L^{\infty}_{t,y}} \lesssim {\left\lVertg\right\rVert}_{L^{4/3}_x L^1_{t,y}}.$$ Note that $$\int_{\R} D_x^{-2s}\, W_1 (t-t') g(t',x,y) \, dt' = I_1^{2s} \ast g,$$ where the convolution is in all three variables $t,x,y$. Now we may use the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality to place this in the desired space. $${\left\lVertI_1^{2s} \ast g\right\rVert}_{L^4_x L^{\infty}_{T,y}} \lesssim {\left\lVert |\cdot|^{-\alpha} \ast_x {\left\lVertg\right\rVert}_{L^1_{T,y}} \right\rVert}_{L^4_x} \lesssim{\left\lVertg\right\rVert}_{L^{4/3}_x L^1_{T,y}}.$$ as long as $\alpha=\frac{1}{2}$, where $\alpha=\alpha(s)$ in some way which will yield $s$.
Therefore, the goal is to obtain an estimate of the form: $$| I_1^{2s} (t,x,y)| \leq C \, |x|^{-1/2}$$ for some $C$ independent of $t,y$.
Instead of working with $I^{2s}_1$, let us define the following quantities $$\label{eq:defikj}
I_{k,j} (t,x,y)= \int_{\R^2} e^{i\xi x + i \mu y + i t \Phi (\xi,\mu)} \, \alpha_k(\xi)\, \alpha_j (\mu)\, d\mu \, d\xi,$$ where $k,j\geq 0$. Here $\alpha_n$ is a $C_c^{\infty}(\R)$ function with $\mbox{supp}(\alpha_n)\subset [2^{n-1}, 2^{n+1}]$ (and $[0,2]$ in the case of $n=1$). We will implicitly consider the case $\xi,\mu,t>0$ but an analogous argument allows other possibilities. Note that direct integration yields the trivial estimate $$\label{eq:trivialbound}
| I_{k,j}(t,x,y)|\lesssim 2^{j+k}.$$ We start our analysis by studying the $\mu$-integral: $$f(\xi; t,y):= \int_{\R} e^{i\mu y+ i t \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right) \, \mu^2} \, \alpha_j(\mu)\, d\mu.$$ The phase has a stationary point at $$\label{eq:defmu0}
\mu_0 = \frac{-y}{ t \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right)}.$$ We will distinguish various cases in our analysis, depending on whether we are in the case of a stationary point (whenever $|\mu_0|\sim 2^j$) or not. We will also assume that $k\geq 7$ and $j<k-4$, which corresponds to the frequency-region $\mathcal{R}_1$, and will later consider other possibilities.
There is a stationary point {#sec:stationarypoint}
---------------------------
We will first assume that $\mu_0$ is in the support of $\alpha_i$ for some $i\in \{j-2,j-1,j,j+1,j+2\}$. From , it follows that $|y| \sim t\, 2^{k+j}$. Then we can use the following lemma to obtain asymptotics for our oscillatory integral. There are many versions of this result, here we follow Lemma 2.5 in [@KZ] (note that we added $e^{i\lambda \phi(x_0)}$ as it seems to be missing):
\[thm:oscillatoryasymp\] Suppose that $$\phi(x_0)=0,\ \phi'(x_0)=0,\ \mbox{and}\ \phi''(x_0)\neq 0.$$ Suppose that $\psi$ is smooth and supported in a neighborhood of $x_0$ which is sufficiently small and contains at most one critical point of $\phi$. Then $$I(\lambda)=\int e^{i\lambda \phi(x)} \, \psi(x)\,dx \approx \lambda^{-1/2}\,e^{i\lambda \phi(x_0)} \, \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} a_j \lambda^{-j/2},$$ in the sense that for all $N,r\geq 0$ $$\left(\frac{d}{d\lambda}\right)^r \left[ I(\lambda) - \lambda^{-1/2}\, e^{i\lambda \phi(x_0)}\, \sum_{j=0}^{N} a_j \lambda^{-j/2} \right] = \O (\lambda^{-r-(N+2)/2})$$ as $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$.
Moreover the bounds in the error term depend on upper bounds of finitely many derivatives of $\phi$ and $\psi$ in the support of $\psi$, the size of the support of $\psi$, and a lower bound for $|\phi''(x_0)|$. Furthermore, $a_j=0$ for $j$ odd and $$a_0 = \left(\frac{c}{-i\phi''(x_0)}\right)^{1/2}\, \psi(x_0) .$$
It is fundamental that we make sure that the implicit constants from using this result do not depend on any of our variables. In order to do that, we first change variables in the integral defining $f$ and take $\lambda= y\,\mu_0$, so that $$f(\xi; t,y) = \int_{\R} e^{i\, \lambda \, \left( \frac{\mu}{\mu_0}- \frac{\mu^2}{\mu_0^2}\right)} \, \alpha_j(\mu)\, d\mu= \mu_0\, \int_{\R} e^{i\, \lambda \, \left( \tilde{\mu}- \tilde{\mu}^2\right)} \, \alpha_j(\tilde{\mu} \mu_0)\, d\tilde{\mu}.$$ Note that $\mu_0$ has size $2^j$, so intuitively $\alpha_j(\tilde{\mu} \mu_0)\approx \alpha_1 (\tilde{\mu})$. This admits uniform bounds and uniform support on $|\tilde{\mu}|\sim 1$, thus the new phase $\phi(\tilde{\mu})=\tilde{\mu}- \tilde{\mu}^2$ also admits uniform bounds. Consequently, we can use with $$I (\lambda)= \int_{\R} e^{i\, \lambda \, \left( \tilde{\mu}- \tilde{\mu}^2\right)} \, \alpha_j(\tilde{\mu} \mu_0)\, d\tilde{\mu}.$$ In particular we have that $$I(\lambda)= a_0 \, \lambda^{-1/2}\, e^{i\lambda \phi(x_0)}+ E(\lambda)$$ with uniform bounds: $$|E(\lambda)| \lesssim \lambda^{-1},\qquad |E'(\lambda)| \lesssim \lambda^{-2}.$$ Note that this asymptotic expansion is relevant as long as $\lambda>1$. In this case, $|\lambda|\sim |y\, \mu_0|\sim t \,2^{2j+k}$. Therefore we are working in the regime where $$\label{eq:timeregime}
t\gtrsim 2^{-2j-k}.$$ Going back to the variable $\xi$, we use that $\frac{d\lambda}{d\xi}= \frac{\lambda}{\xi}$ to find: $$\label{eq:fasymp}
f(\xi; t,y) = \frac{a_0}{ t^{1/2} \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right)^{1/2}} \, e^{\frac{i}{2}\,y\mu_0}+ \frac{y}{ t \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right)} \, E(\lambda),$$ with the following error bounds: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:errorasymp}
\Big | \frac{y}{ t \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right)} \, E(\lambda)\Big| & \lesssim 2^{j} |\lambda|^{-1} = t^{-1}\, 2^{-j-k},\\
\Big | \frac{d}{d\xi}\left( \frac{y}{ t \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right)} \, E(\lambda)\right) \Big| & \lesssim 2^{j-k} |\lambda|^{-1} = 2^{-k} \, |y|^{-1}= 2^{-k}\, (t 2^{k+j})^{-1} = 2^{-j-2k}\, t^{-1}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Using we may write: $$\begin{aligned}
I_{k,j} (t,x,y) & = a_0 \, \int_{\R} e^{ix\xi + i t\, P(\xi)+\frac{i}{2} y\mu_0} \, \alpha_k (\xi) \, \frac{1}{ t^{1/2} \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right)^{1/2}} \, d\xi + \E_{k,j} (t,x,y)\\
& = a_0 \, \mathcal{I}_{k,j}(t,x,y) + \E_{k,j} (t,x,y).
\end{aligned}$$ where $$P(\xi)=\frac{1}{16}\xi^3 - \frac{1}{8}\xi^2 +\frac{1}{2}\xi.$$ and the error term is $$\E_{k,j} (t,x,y)= \int_{\R} e^{ix\xi + i t\, P(\xi)+\frac{i}{2} y\mu_0} \, \alpha_k (\xi) \, \frac{y}{ t \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right)} \, E(y\mu_0)\,d\xi.$$
We will first study the integral given by the top order: $$\label{eq:toporder5}
\mathcal{I}_{k,j} (t,x,y) =\int_{\R} e^{ix\xi + i t\, P(\xi)+\frac{i}{2} y\mu_0} \, \alpha_k (\xi) \, \frac{1}{ t^{1/2} \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right)^{1/2}} \, d\xi.$$ Recall that $|y|\sim t \, 2^{k+j}$, and that $\mu_0$ was defined in . We compute the derivative of the phase of $\mathcal{I}_{k,j}$: $$\phi(\xi) := x\xi + t\, P(\xi)-\frac{y^2}{ 2 t \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right)},\qquad \phi'(\xi) = x + t\, P'(\xi) +\frac{3}{8}\, \frac{y^2}{ t \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right)^2}.$$ The term $ t\, P'(\xi)$ has size $t 2^{2k}$, while the term in $y$ only has size $t\, 2^{2j}$ (recall that we are in the case $j< k-4$). There are two cases to consider:
- When $|x|\gtrsim t 2^{2k}$, we have that $|\phi'(\xi)|\gtrsim |x|$, so yields: $$|\mathcal{I}_{k,j}(t,x,y)|\lesssim |x|^{-1} \, ({\left\lVert\psi\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}} + {\left\lVert\pa_{\xi} \psi\right\rVert}_{L^{1}_{\xi}})$$ where $$\psi (\xi)= \alpha_k (\xi) \, \frac{1}{ t^{1/2} \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right)^{1/2}}.$$ Note that ${\left\lVert\psi\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}}, {\left\lVert\pa_{\xi} \psi\right\rVert}_{L^{1}_{\xi}} \lesssim t^{-1/2} \, 2^{-k/2}$ and therefore: $$\label{eq:max1}
|\mathcal{I}_{k,j}(t,x,y)|\lesssim |x|^{-1} \, 2^{-k/2} \, t^{-1/2} \qquad \mbox{when}\ |x|\gtrsim t 2^{2k}.$$
- When $|x|\lesssim t 2^{2k}$ we use the second derivative of the phase: $$\phi''(\xi)=t\, P''(\xi)-\frac{27}{64}\,\frac{y^2}{ t \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right)^3}$$ and has size $t \, 2^{k}$ from the first term. In that case, gives the bound: $$\label{eq:max2}
|\mathcal{I}_{k,j}(t,x,y)|\lesssim |t\, 2^{k}|^{-1/2} \, t^{-1/2} 2^{-k/2} \lesssim t^{-1/2} \, |x|^{-1/2}\qquad \mbox{when}\ |x|\lesssim t 2^{2k}.$$
We can finally present our findings:
Suppose that $t>2^{-2j-k}$, $k\geq 7$, $j\geq 0$ and $j<k-4$. Then we have that $$|\mathcal{I}_{k,j} (t,x,y)|\lesssim |x|^{-1/2} \, 2^{j+k/2}.$$ where the implicit constant is independent of $t,x,y,k,j$.
Let us start with the case $|x|\gtrsim t 2^{2k}$. We interpolate between and (which also holds for $\mathcal{I}_{k,j}$), and then use that $t>2^{-2j-k}$: $$|\mathcal{I}_{k,j}(t,x,y)|\lesssim |x|^{-1/2} \, t^{-1/4} 2^{j/2 + k/4} \lesssim |x|^{-1/2} \, 2^{j+k/2}.$$
In the case $|x|\lesssim t \, 2^{2k}$, we directly use together with $t>2^{-2j-k}$: $$|\mathcal{I}_{k,j}(t,x,y)|\lesssim |x|^{-1/2}\, t^{-1/2}\lesssim |x|^{-1/2} \, 2^{j+k/2}.$$
Using , it is easy to check that $\E_{k,j}$ satisfies exactly the same estimates, and therefore the result extends from the top order, $\mathcal{I}_{k,j}$, to the full kernel $I_{k,j}$.
When $t\leq 2^{-2j-k}$ we can directly use to obtain the following
\[thm:smalltimemaximal\] Suppose that $t\leq 2^{-2j-k}$, $k\geq 7$, $j\geq 0$ and $j<k-4$. Then we have that $$|I_{k,j} (t,x,y)|\lesssim |x|^{-1/2} \, 2^{j+k/2}.$$ where the implicit constant is independent of $t,x,y,k,j$.
Integrationg by parts gives: $$I_{k,j}(t,x,y)= x^{-1} \int_{\R} e^{ix\xi} \, \frac{d}{d\xi}\left( \alpha_k(\xi)\, f(t,x,\xi)\right)\, d\xi.$$ Then we may use the trivial bound $|\pa_{\xi} f(t,x,\xi)|\lesssim t \, 2^{3j}$ and $|f(t,x,\xi)|\lesssim 2^{j}$ to obtain the bound $$|I_{k,j}(t,x,y)|\lesssim |x|^{-1} \, \max\{ t\, 2^{3j+k}, 2^{j}\}.$$ Now we use the fact that $t\leq 2^{-2j-k}$ to obtain: $$|I_{k,j}(t,x,y)|\lesssim |x|^{-1} \, 2^{j}.$$ Finally, we interpolate between this and to obtain the estimate $|x|^{-1/2} 2^{j+k/2}$.
These results have been obtained under the assumption that we have a stationary point $\mu_0$. This is the most difficult case, and therefore these results extend to the case where there is no stationary point. The latter is briefly discussed in .
As explained in , our final loss of derivatives, $s$, is chosen to offset the growth of $2^{j+k/2}$, i.e. $$(-2s)\cdot k + j+\frac{k}{2}<0.$$ This yields a loss of derivatives of $s>3/4$. We summarize our findings in the following theorem:
\[thm:maximal\] Suppose that $k\geq 7$, $j\geq 0$ and $j<k-4$. Then we have that $$|I_{k,j} (t,x,y)|\lesssim |x|^{-1/2} \, 2^{j+k/2}.$$ uniformly in $t$ and $y$. By the $TT^{\ast}$ argument in , this implies the following maximal function estimate for any $s>3/4$: $${\left\lVertW_1 (t) u_0\right\rVert}_{L^4_x L^{\infty}_{t,y}} \lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s \, u_0\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}}.$$
One may compare these estimates with the maximal function estimates in the work of Linares and Pastor [@LinaresPastor] for the modified Zakharov-Kuznetsov equation. In fact the range for $s$ is the same, despite the different dispersive relation.
As a direct consequence, we obtain a similar estimate for the Duhamel term:
\[thm:maximal2\] For $s>3/4$, we have $${\left\lVert \int_0^t W_1 (t-t') F(t')\, dt'\right\rVert}_{L^4_x L^{\infty}_{T,y}} \lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s F\right\rVert}_{L^1_T L^2_{x,y}}.$$
Let $\chi_{[0,t]}(t')$ be a time cut-off and $\tilde{F}(t'):= W_1 (-t') F(t')$. By the Minkowski inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert \int_0^t W_1 (t-t') F(t')\, dt'\right\rVert}_{L^4_x L^{\infty}_{t,y}} & \lesssim \int_0^T {\left\lVert \chi_{[0,t]} W_1 (t-t') F(t')\right\rVert}_{L^4_x L^{\infty}_{T,y}} \, dt'\\
& \lesssim \int_0^T {\left\lVertW_1 (t) \tilde{F}(t')\right\rVert}_{L^4_x L^{\infty}_{T,y}} \\
& \lesssim \int_0^T {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s \tilde{F}(t')\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}} \, dt'={\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s F\right\rVert}_{L^1_T L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{aligned}$$ The last step follows from the fact that $W_1(-t')$ is unitary in $L^2_{x,y}$.
There is no stationary point {#sec:nostationary}
----------------------------
Suppose that the stationary point $\mu_0$ is not in the support of $\alpha_i$ for any $i\in\{j-2,j-1,j,j+1,j+2\}$. In that case $\mu$ and $\mu_0$ have different orders of magnitude, in particular $|\mu|>4 |\mu_0|$ or $|\mu_0|>4|\mu|$. We rewrite $$\label{eq:muintegral}
f(t,\xi,y) =\int_{\R} e^{it(\frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi)\, \mu\, (\mu-\mu_0)} \, \alpha_j (\mu)\, d\mu.$$ Suppose for instance that $\mu>4\, \mu_0$. In the first case, the derivative of the phase is bounded below by $t\, 2^{k+j}$ and therefore yields: $$|f(t,\xi,y)| \lesssim \min\{ 2^{j},\ t^{-1} \, 2^{-k-j} \},\qquad |\pa_{\xi} f(t,\xi,y)| \lesssim \min\{ t\, 2^{3j},\ 2^{j-k}\}.$$ which are better than before. Then one uses again on the $\xi$-integral to obtain better control than when we had a stationary point.
The case of $W_2$
-----------------
We will also need to estimate $W_2$ in $L^4_x L^{\infty}_{T,y}$. This can be achieved by studying $I_{k,j}$ in , but in the case $j\geq k-4$ and $k\geq 7$. The arguments presented above apply to this case with minimal changes: is still true, as are , and . remains true after a small change: $$|\mathcal{I}_{k,j}(t,x,y)|\lesssim |x|^{-1} \, 2^{-k/2} \, t^{-1/2} \qquad \mbox{when}\ |x|\gtrsim t 2^{2j}.$$ Now we have $|x|\gtrsim t \, 2^{2j}$ instead of $t\, 2^{2k}$ since $j$ dominates $k$.
Similarly, is still valid in the regime where $|x|\lesssim t \, 2^{2j}$. Regarding , it is important to note that there is no cancellation of the second derivative; note that $$\phi''(\xi) =t\, P''(\xi)-\frac{27}{64}\,\frac{y^2}{ t \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right)^3}= t\, \left(\frac{3}{8}\xi - \frac{1}{4}\right) + \frac{27}{64}\,\frac{y^2}{ t \, \left( \frac{3}{8}\xi - \frac{1}{4}\right)^3}.$$ Therefore, when $\xi>100$ both summands have the same sign, and the same happens when $\xi<-100$.
All in all, we may bound $|\phi''(\xi)|\gtrsim t \, 2^{j}$ whenever $|x|\lesssim t \, 2^{2j}$, thus recovering . We then obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|\mathcal{I}_{k,j} (t,x,y)|& \lesssim |x|^{-1/2} \, 2^{j+k/2} \qquad \mbox{when}\ t>2^{-2j-k},\\
|\mathcal{I}_{k,j} (t,x,y)| & \lesssim |x|^{-1/2} \, 2^{3k/2} \qquad \mbox{when}\ t\leq 2^{-2j-k}.
\end{aligned}$$ This time, the first estimate dominates given that $j\geq k-4$. However, this makes no difference to the loss of derivatives, and we again have $${\left\lVertW_2 (t) u_0\right\rVert}_{L^4_x L^{\infty}_{T,y}}\lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s u_0\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}}$$ for any $s>3/4$.
Maximal function estimates in $L^4_y L^{\infty}_{T,x}$
------------------------------------------------------
Our goal in this subsection is to derive maximal function estimates for $I_{k,j}$ in in the space $L^4_y L^{\infty}_{T,x}$. The $TT^{\ast}$ argument from shows that it is enough to obtain an estimate of the form: $$|I_{k,j} (t,x,y)|\leq C\, |y|^{-1/2},$$ where $C$ might depend on $j,k$ (which will yield $s$), but not $t,x$.
In order to do this, one can repeat the arguments above while inverting the order of the $\mu$ and $\xi$ integrals. Alternatively, we can use a shortcut. Let us give an example in the more difficult case, where we have a stationary point. From , we know that $|y|\sim t \, 2^{j+k}$ which we can use to trade decay in $|x|$ for decay in $|y|$. As an example, consider the case where $k\geq 7$, $j\geq 0$, $j<k-4$ and $t>2^{-2j-k}$. We distinguish two cases:
- When $|x|\gtrsim t \, 2^{2k}$, we have that $|x|\gtrsim 2^{k-j}\, |y|$. We use this bound on together with to obtain: $$|\mathcal{I}_{k,j} (t,x,y)|\lesssim |y|^{-1/2}\, 2^{3j/2}.$$
- When $|x|\lesssim t \, 2^{2k}$, we directly use $|y|\sim t \, 2^{j+k}$ on , together with to obtain: $$|\mathcal{I}_{k,j} (t,x,y)|\lesssim |y|^{-1/2} \, 2^{j+k/2}.$$
Analogous estimates take care of the remaining cases, which we summarize below.
\[thm:maximal3\] Suppose that $k\geq 7$ and $j\geq 0$. Then we have that $$|I_{k,j} (t,x,y)|\lesssim |y|^{-1/2} \, \max\{ 2^{3k/2}, 2^{3j/2}\}.$$ uniformly in $t$ and $x$. By the $TT^{\ast}$ argument in , this implies the following maximal function estimate for any $s>3/4$ and any $r=1,2$: $${\left\lVertW_r (t) u_0\right\rVert}_{L^4_y L^{\infty}_{t,x}} \lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s \, u_0\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}}.$$
\[thm:maximal4\] For $s>3/4$ and any $r=1,2$ we have that $${\left\lVert\int_0^t W_r (t-t') F(t') \, dt'\right\rVert}_{L^4_y L^{\infty}_{T,x}} \lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s F\right\rVert}_{L^1_T L^2_{x,y}}.$$
The case of $W_0$
-----------------
For low frequencies, maximal function estimates can be derived using similar techniques. The corresponding kernel is $$I_{j} (t,x,y) = \int_{\R^2} e^{ix\xi + i y\mu + i t\Phi (\xi,\mu)}\, \alpha_j(\mu)\, \chi_0(\xi)\, d\xi\, d\mu,$$ where $\chi_0$ was defined in . Clearly, we have the trivial bound $|I_j(t,x,y)|\lesssim 2^{j}$ after direct integration. Let us explain how to derive estimates in the space $L^4_x L^{\infty}_{T,y}$ as an example, since the case of $L^4_y L^{\infty}_{T,x}$ is analogous.
Following the proof of , one may easily use trivial bounds to obtain $$\label{eq:shortcut}
|I_j (t,x,y)|\lesssim |x|^{-1}\, \max\{ t\, 2^{3j}, 2^{j}\}.$$ After interpolating these with the bound $2^{j}$ we obtain $$|I_j (t,x,y)|\lesssim |x|^{-1/2}\, \max\{ t^{1/2}\, 2^{2j}, 2^{j}\}.$$ When $t\leq 2^{-j}$, we directly have the desired bound $|x|^{-1/2} \, 2^{3j/2}$, so we focus on the case $t\geq 2^{-j}$ from now on. We can further restrict ourselves to the case when $|x|\gtrsim t\, 2^{3j}$, given that the opposite situation is dealt with using directly.
As before, the case of a stationary point is the more complicated one, so we start there. The stationary point is given by . The analysis carried out in still holds, and thus we have that the top order of $I_{j}$ is given by $$\mathcal{I}_{j} (t,x,y) = \int_{\R} e^{i\phi(\xi)} \, \chi_0 (\xi) \, \frac{1}{ t^{1/2} \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right)^{1/2}} \, d\xi,$$ where the phase is $$\phi(\xi)= x\xi + t\, P(\xi)-\frac{y^2}{ 2 t \, \left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi\right)}.$$ We split this integral into two, given by the regions $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_1 & := \{ \xi\in \R \mid |\xi|<100,\ |\xi-\frac{2}{3}|< t \, 2^{3j} \, |x|^{-1}\},\\
\Omega_2 & := \{ \xi\in \R \mid |\xi|<100,\ |\xi-\frac{2}{3}|\geq t \, 2^{3j} \, |x|^{-1}\}.
\end{aligned}$$ The integral over $\Omega_1$, which we will call $\mathcal{I}_j^1$, admits direct integration: $$|\mathcal{I}_{j}^1 (t,x,y)|\leq t^{-1/2}\, \int_{\Omega_1} \frac{1}{ |\frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi|^{1/2}} \, d\xi \lesssim t^{-1/2} \, (t \, 2^{3j} \, |x|^{-1})^{1/2} = |x|^{-1/2}\, 2^{3j/2}.$$ For the integral over $\Omega_2$, named $\mathcal{I}_j^2$, we use the fact that $|\phi'(\xi)|\gtrsim |x|$. Indeed, the first term in $\phi'(\xi)$ has size $|x|$, the second has size $|t\, P'(\xi)|\sim t$, and the latter has size $t\, 2^{2j}$. This final fact follows from the fact that in order to have a stationary point, $$|y|\sim t\, 2^{j}\, \Big |\frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi \Big | .$$ After integrating by parts, and using the fact that $t\geq 2^{-j}$, we obtain $$|\mathcal{I}_j^2 (t,x,y)|\lesssim |x|^{-1} \, t^{-1/2} \, \sup_{\xi\in\Omega_2}\, \Big |\frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi \Big |^{-1/2}\lesssim |x|^{-1/2}\, t^{-1} \, 2^{-3j/2} \lesssim |x|^{-1/2}\, 2^{-j/2}.$$
Now suppose that there is no stationary point. In that case, we rewrite the $\mu$-integral (called $f$) as in , which yields the bounds $$\label{eq:paf}
|f(t,\xi,y)| \lesssim 2^j,\qquad|\pa_{\xi} f(t,\xi, y)| \lesssim \frac{2^{j}}{|\frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi|} .$$ One can also use integration by parts in $f$, as in , together with the fact that there is no stationary point to obtain the improved estimate: $$\label{eq:paf2}
|f(t,\xi,y)|\lesssim \frac{2^{-j}}{t |\frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi|}.$$
Then the full integral we wish to estimate is $$I_j (t,x,y) = \int_{\R} e^{ix\xi + t P(\xi)}\, f(t,\xi,y)\, \chi_0 (\xi)\, d\xi,$$ which we again divide into two regions $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_1 & := \{ \xi\in \R \mid |\xi|<100,\ |\xi-\frac{2}{3}|<2^{j/2} \, |x|^{-1/2}\},\\
\Omega_2 & := \{ \xi\in \R \mid |\xi|<100,\ |\xi-\frac{2}{3}|\geq 2^{j/2} \, |x|^{-1/2}\},
\end{aligned}$$ with the corresponding integrals being $I_j^1$ and $I_j^2$.
One can use the bound $|f|\lesssim 2^j$ to obtain: $$| I_j^1 (t,x,y)| \lesssim \int_{\Omega_1} \, 2^j \, d\xi = 2^{3j/2}\, |x|^{-1/2}.$$
To deal with $\Omega_2$, we differentiate two cases:
- When $t\, 2^j \lesssim |x|$, we have that the derivative of the phase of $I_j^2$ satisfies: $$| x + t P'(\xi)|\gtrsim |x|.$$ Thus integration by parts, together with estimate yields $$| I_j^2 (t,x,y)| \lesssim |x|^{-1} \, \int_{\Omega_2} \frac{2^{j}}{|\frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi|} \, d\xi \lesssim |x|^{-1/2} \, 2^{j/2}.$$
- When $t\, 2^j \gtrsim |x|$, then we may use the improved bound to obtain $$| I_j^2 (t,x,y)| \lesssim \int_{\Omega_2} \frac{2^{-j}}{t |\frac{1}{4}-\frac{3}{8}\xi|}\, d\xi \lesssim \frac{2^{-j}}{t \, 2^{j/2} \, |x|^{-1/2}}
\lesssim 2^{-j/2} \, |x|^{-1/2}.$$
The maximal function estimates for $W_0$ in the space $L^4_y L^{\infty}_{T,x}$ can be derived using similar ideas. We summarize these results in the following:
\[thm:maximal5\] For any $s>3/4$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVertW_0 (t) u_0\right\rVert}_{L^4_x L^{\infty}_{t,y}} + {\left\lVertW_0 (t) u_0\right\rVert}_{L^4_y L^{\infty}_{t,x}} & \lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s \, u_0\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}},\\
{\left\lVert\int_0^t W_0 (t-t') F(t') \, dt'\right\rVert}_{L^4_x L^{\infty}_{T,y}} +{\left\lVert\int_0^t W_0 (t-t') F(t') \, dt'\right\rVert}_{L^4_y L^{\infty}_{T,x}} & \lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s F\right\rVert}_{L^1_T L^2_{x,y}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Contraction mapping argument {#sec:contraction}
============================
In this section we prove Theorem \[thm:maintheorem\]. Define projections $P_0$, $P_1$ and $P_2$ in frequency space, corresponding to $\chi_0$, $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$, respectively. We will also need to define the Fourier multiplier operator $P_3:=\pa_x |\nabla|^{-1}$. For $s>1$ and fixed $T>0$, we define the norms: $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_1 (u) & := {\left\lVert \langle \nabla\rangle^{s+1} P_1 u\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_x L^2_{T,y}}+{\left\lVert \langle \nabla\rangle^{s+1} P_1\, P_3 u\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_x L^2_{T,y}} ,\\
\eta_2 (u) & := {\left\lVert \langle \nabla\rangle^{s+1} P_2 u\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_y L^2_{T,x}}+{\left\lVert \langle \nabla\rangle^{s+1} P_2 \, P_3 u\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_y L^2_{T,x}} ,\\
\eta_3 (u) & := {\left\lVert\langle \nabla\rangle^{s} u\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_T L^{2}_{x,y}},\\
\eta_4 (u) & := \sum_{i=0}^2 {\left\lVert\langle \nabla\rangle^{1/4} P_i u\right\rVert}_{L^{4}_x L^{\infty}_{T,y}},\\
\eta_5 (u) & := \sum_{i=0}^2 {\left\lVert\langle \nabla\rangle^{1/4} P_i u\right\rVert}_{L^{4}_y L^{\infty}_{T,x}},\\
\eta_6 (u) & := {\left\lVert\langle \nabla\rangle^{s} P_1 u\right\rVert}_{L^q_T L^r_{x,y}}+ {\left\lVert\langle \nabla\rangle^{s} P_2 u\right\rVert}_{L^q_T L^r_{x,y}}
\end{aligned}$$ for $(q,r)$ very close to $(2,\infty)$ as given in .
We define $\Lambda_T (u):=\max_{j=1,\ldots,6} \eta_j(u)$ and consider the space $$X_T^s := \{ u \in L^{\infty}_T H^s_{x,y} \mid \Lambda (u)<\infty\}.$$ We will consider a ball in this space $$B_R= \{ u\in X_T^s \mid \Lambda(u)<R\}$$ for some $R>0$ to be decided later.
Let us recall the precise nonlinearity in the Dysthe equation: $$N(u)= -\frac{i}{2} |u|^2\, u - \frac{3}{2} |u|^2 \, \pa_x u - \frac{1}{4} u^2 \,\pa_x \overline{u} + \frac{i}{2}\, u\, \pa_x^2 \, |\nabla|^{-1} (|u|^2).$$ We define the functional $$\Psi (u)(t) := W(t) u_0 + \int_0^t W(t-t')N(u(t'))\, dt',$$ so that a fixed point of $\Psi$ is the solution we seek by the Duhamel formula. Our goal is to show that $\Psi: B_R \rightarrow B_R$ (for some $T$ small enough) and that this mapping is Lipschitz.
By , , , , , , and we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_j (\Psi (v)) & \lesssim {\left\lVert\langle \nabla\rangle^s u_0\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}} + {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s N(u)\right\rVert}_{L^1_T L^2_{x,y}} \nonumber \\
& \lesssim {\left\lVert\langle \nabla\rangle^s u_0\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}} + T^{1/2}\, {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s N(u)\right\rVert}_{L^2_{T,x,y}}.\label{eq:contraction}
\end{aligned}$$
Since $N(u)$ is a sum of four terms, let us start by considering the term $|u|^2\, \pa_x u$. We write $$\begin{gathered}
\langle\nabla\rangle^s ( |u|^2\, \pa_x u) = (\langle\nabla\rangle^s \pa_x u )\, |u|^2+ (\langle\nabla\rangle^s |u|^2)\, \pa_x u\\
+ \left[ \langle\nabla\rangle^s ( |u|^2\, \pa_x u)- (\langle\nabla\rangle^s |u|^2)\, \pa_x u- (\langle\nabla\rangle^s \pa_x u )\, |u|^2\right] = I + I\! I + I\! I\! I.
\end{gathered}$$
We need to control each of these three terms in terms of the $\eta_j$’s.
1. We decompose $$I=(\langle\nabla\rangle^s \pa_x u )\, |u|^2=\sum_{i=0}^2 (\langle\nabla\rangle^s \pa_x P_i u )\, |u|^2$$ and treat each summand separately. First, we use the Holder inequality: $${\left\lVert(\langle\nabla\rangle^s \pa_x P_1 u )\, |u|^2\right\rVert}_{L^2_{T,x,y}}\lesssim \eta_1(u)\, \eta_4 (u)^2.$$ Similarly, $${\left\lVert(\langle\nabla\rangle^s \pa_x P_2 u )\, |u|^2\right\rVert}_{L^2_{T,x,y}}\lesssim \eta_2(u)\, \eta_5 (u)^2.$$ Finally, for $P_0$ we use as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert(\langle\nabla\rangle^s \pa_x P_0 u )\, |u|^2\right\rVert}_{L^2_{T,x,y}} & \lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s \pa_x P_0 u\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_x L^2_{T,y}} \, \eta_4 (u)^2\\
& \lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s P_0 u\right\rVert}_{L^2_{T,x,y}}\, \eta_4 (u)^2 \lesssim T^{1/2}\, \eta_3(u)\, \eta_4 (u)^2.
\end{aligned}$$
2. Now we consider the term $ I\! I= (\langle\nabla\rangle^s |u|^2)\, \pa_x u$. First we use the Holder inequality: $${\left\lVert(\langle\nabla\rangle^s |u|^2)\, \pa_x u\right\rVert}_{L^2_{T,x,y}}\lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s |u|^2\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_T L^2_{x,y}} \, {\left\lVert\pa_x u\right\rVert}_{L^2_T L^{\infty}_{x,y}}.$$ For the first factor, we use and the Sobolev embedding theorem: $${\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s |u|^2\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_T L^2_{x,y}}\lesssim T^{1/2}\, {\left\lVertu\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_{T,x,y}} \, {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s u\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_T L^2_{x,y}}\lesssim T^{1/2} \, \eta_3(u)^2.$$ For the second factor, we use to control the terms in $P_1$ and $P_2$, and for the term in $P_0$: $$\label{eq:example}
{\left\lVert\pa_x u\right\rVert}_{L^2_T L^{\infty}_{x,y}} \leq {\left\lVert\pa_x P_0 u\right\rVert}_{L^2_T L^{\infty}_{x,y}} + \sum_{i=1}^2 {\left\lVert\pa_x P_i u\right\rVert}_{L^2_T L^{\infty}_{x,y}} \lesssim \eta_3 (u) + \eta_6 (u).$$
3. Finally, let us study the error term $I\! I\! I$. By the fractional Leibniz rule, , we have: $${\left\lVertI\! I\! I\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}} \lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s |u|^2\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}} \, {\left\lVert\pa_x u\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_{x,y}}.$$ We may then use the Holder inequality for the $L^2_T$ norm to reduce this to case (2).
This shows how to handle the nonlinear term $|u|^2\, \pa_x u$. The term $u^2 \, \pa_x \bar{u}$ is analogous, and the term $|u|^2\, u$ is trivial, so we skip them.
We now focus on the term $u\, \pa_x^2 \, |\nabla|^{-1} ( |u|^2)$. Recall that we defined $P_3=\pa_x |\nabla|^{-1}$, which is a pseudo-differential operator of order zero, and thus maps $L^p_{x,y}$ to $L^p_{x,y}$ continuously for any $1<p<\infty$ (by the Hörmander-Mikhlin multiplier theorem). We can also write $$u\, P_3\, \pa_x ( |u|^2) = u\, P_3\, \pa_x( u \, \bar{u})= u\, P_3\left( \pa_x u \, \bar{u} + u\, \pa_x \bar{u}\right).$$ The last two terms admit a similar treatment and therefore we will discuss only the case of $u\, P_3 ( \pa_x u \, \bar{u} )$.
We go back to and plug in this term. We need to estimate the $L^2_{T,x,y}$ norm of $\langle \nabla\rangle^s [u\, P_3 ( \pa_x u \, \bar{u} )]$. Once again, we decompose: $$\begin{gathered}
\langle \nabla\rangle^s [u\, P_3 ( \pa_x u \, \bar{u} )] = (\langle\nabla\rangle^s u )\, P_3 ( \pa_x u \, \bar{u} )+ u\, \langle\nabla\rangle^s\,P_3 ( \pa_x u \, \bar{u} )\\
+ \left[\langle \nabla\rangle^s [u\, P_3 ( \pa_x u \, \bar{u} )] - (\langle\nabla\rangle^s u )\, P_3 ( \pa_x u \, \bar{u} )- u\, \langle\nabla\rangle^s\,P_3 ( \pa_x u \, \bar{u} )\right] = I + I\! I + I\! I\! I.
\end{gathered}$$ We estimate each of these terms separately:
1. By the Holder inequality, the Sobolev embedding theorem and the fact that $P_3$ maps $L^r_{x,y}$ to $L^r_{x,y}$ continuously, $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVertI\right\rVert}_{L^2_{T,x,y}} & \lesssim \eta_3 (u)\, {\left\lVert P_3 ( \pa_x u \, \bar{u} )\right\rVert}_{L^2_T L^{\infty}_{x,y}} \lesssim \eta_3 (u) \, {\left\lVert \langle\nabla\rangle^{\varepsilon} P_3 ( \pa_x u \, \bar{u} )\right\rVert}_{L^2_T L^{r}_{x,y}}\\
& \lesssim \eta_3 (u) \, {\left\lVert \langle\nabla\rangle^{\varepsilon} ( \pa_x u \, \bar{u} )\right\rVert}_{L^2_T L^{r}_{x,y}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Now we write: $$\begin{gathered}
\langle\nabla\rangle^{\varepsilon} ( \pa_x u \, \bar{u} ) = (\langle\nabla\rangle^{\varepsilon} \pa_x u) \, \bar{u} + \pa_x u\, (\langle\nabla\rangle^{\varepsilon} \bar{u}) \\
+ [ \langle\nabla\rangle^{\varepsilon} ( \pa_x u \, \bar{u} ) - (\langle\nabla\rangle^{\varepsilon} \pa_x u) \, \bar{u} - \pa_x u\, (\langle\nabla\rangle^{\varepsilon} \bar{u})] = I_1 + I_2 + I_3.
\end{gathered}$$
1. To control the first term we use the Holder inequality and the Sobolev embedding theorem: $${\left\lVertI_1\right\rVert}_{L^2_T L^r_{x,y}} \lesssim {\left\lVert\bar{u}\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_{T,x,y}} \, {\left\lVert \langle\nabla\rangle^{\varepsilon} \pa_x u\right\rVert}_{L^2_T L^r_{x,y}}\lesssim \eta_3 (u)\, {\left\lVert \langle\nabla\rangle^{\varepsilon} \pa_x u\right\rVert}_{L^2_T L^r_{x,y}}.$$ The last factor is bounded by $T^{0+}\,\left( \eta_3(u) + \eta_6 (u)\right)$ after breaking it up using $P_i$ ($i=0,1,2$) and .
2. The second term is analogous. Indeed, $${\left\lVertI_2\right\rVert}_{L^2_T L^r_{x,y}} \lesssim {\left\lVert\pa_x u\right\rVert}_{L^q_2 L^r_{x,y}} \, {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^{\varepsilon} \bar{u}\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_{T,x,y}},$$ and one proceeds as with $I_1$.
3. The error term, $I_3$, admits the same control as $I_1$ after using the fractional Leibniz rule ().
2. Regarding $I\! I$, we decompose: $$\begin{gathered}
I\! I = |u|^2 \, (\langle\nabla\rangle^s \, P_3 \pa_x u) + u \,(\langle\nabla\rangle^s\bar{u}) \, ( P_3 \, \pa_x u) \\
+ \left[ u\, \langle\nabla\rangle^s\,P_3 ( \pa_x u \, \bar{u} ) - |u|^2 \, (\langle\nabla\rangle^s P_3 \, \pa_x u)- u \,(\langle\nabla\rangle^s\bar{u}) \, ( P_3\, \pa_x u) \right] = I\! I_1 + I\! I_2 + I\! I_3.
\end{gathered}$$ We treat each case separately:
1. We write $$\langle\nabla\rangle^s \,P_3 \pa_x u = \sum_{i=0}^2 P_i\, \langle\nabla\rangle^s \, P_3 \, \pa_x u.$$ The terms in $P_1$ and $P_2$ are analogous so we do only one. By the Holder inequality, $${\left\lVert|u|^2 \, (P_1\, \langle\nabla\rangle^s \, P_3 \pa_x u)\right\rVert}_{L^2_{T,x,y}}\lesssim \eta_4 (u)^2 \, \eta_1(u).$$ The term in $P_0$ is controlled with $\eta_3(u)$ thanks to (whose proof is identical when including $P_3$).
2. We control this term using the Holder inequality: $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVertI\! I_2\right\rVert}_{L^2_{T,x,y}} & \lesssim {\left\lVertu\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_{T,x,y}}\, {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s u\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_T L^2_{x,y}}\, {\left\lVertP_3 \, \pa_x u\right\rVert}_{L^2_T L^{\infty}_{x,y}}\\
& \lesssim \eta_3 (u)^2\, {\left\lVertP_3 \, \pa_x u\right\rVert}_{L^2_T L^{\infty}_{x,y}}.
\end{aligned}$$ The last factor can be controlled as in .
3. We first use the Hölder inequality to write: $${\left\lVertI\! I_3\right\rVert}_{L^2_{T,x,y}} \lesssim {\left\lVertu\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_{T,x,y}}\, {\left\lVert\mbox{error}\right\rVert}_{L^2_{T,x,y}}.$$ The error term is absolutely analogous to case $I\! I_2$ after using the fractional Leibniz rule, .
3. This final error term, $I\! I \! I$, is handled as $I$ thanks to again.
Back to , these arguments show that $$\Lambda ( \Psi (u)) \lesssim {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s u_0\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}} + T^{1/2}\, \langle T\rangle^{0+}\, \Lambda (u)^3.$$ Recall that we are working with $u$ in the ball $B_R$ of functions with $\Lambda (u)\leq R$. One can choose $R$ large enough so that ${\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s u_0\right\rVert}_{L^2_{x,y}}\leq \frac{R}{2}$ and take $T$ small enough to guarantee that $C\,T^{1/2}\, \langle T\rangle^{0+} \, R^3\leq \frac{R}{2}$. With this choice, $\Psi$ maps $B_R$ to $B_R$.
One can use similar ideas to prove that $\Psi$ is contraction, i.e. $$\Lambda \left( \Psi(u)-\Psi (v) \right) \lesssim T^{1/2}\, {\left\lVert\langle\nabla\rangle^s [ N(u) - N(v)]\right\rVert}_{L^2_{T,x,y}}\lesssim T^{1/2}\, \langle T\rangle^{0+} \, R^2\, \Lambda (u-v).$$ One can choose a smaller $T$, if necessary, to guarantee that $C\,T^{1/2}\, \langle T\rangle^{0+} \, R^2<1$. This finishes the proof.
Ill-posedness {#sec:illposedness}
=============
Main idea
---------
In this section we prove . This is a mild form of ill-posedness, which first appeared in the work of Bourgain [@Bourgain]. The intuition behind this idea is the following: consider the Dysthe equation for perturbed initial data $\epsilon\, u_0$. We may then write an asymptotic expansion for the solution to this problem, $u_{\epsilon}$, in powers of $\epsilon$: $$u_{\epsilon}= \epsilon u_1+\epsilon^2 u_2 + \ldots$$ By plugging this into and matching the coefficients of the powers of $\epsilon$, one can write explicit equations for $u_1$, $u_2$, etc. In particular, one finds that $u_1=W(t)u_0$, $u_2=0$ and $u_3$ solves the equation: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\pa_t u_3 + L(u_3) = N(u_1),\\
u_3|_{t=0} =0,
\end{array}
\right.$$ for $L$ and $N$ as in . This formal procedure is equivalent to considering the first nontrivial term of a Picard iterative scheme for the Dysthe equation , which would be $$\label{eq:Picarditeration}
W(t) u_0 + \int_0^t W(t-t') N( W(t')u_0)\, dt' = u_1 (t) + u_3 (t).$$
Our goal in this section is to show that the operator that maps initial data $u_0$ to $u_3$ is not continuous from $H^s (\R^2)$ to $C([0,T],H^s (\R^2))$ for $s<0$, no matter how small $T$ is. Note that the existence of $u_3$ and some small enough $T$ is guaranteed by estimates similar to those used in the proof of . The lack of continuity of the map from $u_0$ to $u_3$ is equivalent to the fact that the map from $u_0\in H^s(\R^2)$ to the solution to the Dysthe equation in $L^{\infty}([0,T],H^s(\R^2))$ is not $C^3$. Moreover, this means that any attempt to prove local well-posedness for the Dysthe equation based on an iterative scheme in $H^s (\R^2)$ like the one described in must necessarily fail.
Let us briefly discuss some motivation to justify why we obtain ill-posedness for $s<0$. As explained before, one issue with the Dysthe equation is the lack of scaling symmetry, so we cannot technically talk about a critical regularity $s_c$ that is invariant under rescaling. When such symmetry is available, the connection between the criticality of the problem and scaling is the following:
- in the subcritical case $s>s_c$, we expect high frequencies to evolve linearly for all times, while the low-frequencies will evolve linearly for small times and nonlinearly for large times.
- in the supercritical case $s<s_c$, high frequencies are unstable and develop nonlinear behavior in short times.
See Principle 3.1 in Tao’s book [@tao] and the discussion that follows for more details. Despite the lack of scaling symmetry, the same heuristics can be applied to our equation: we expect the largest contribution to high-frequencies to come from the terms in involving the largest number of derivatives. Therefore, a reasonable model to understand the behavior of large frequencies (at least for short times) might be the following PDE: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\pa_t u -\frac{1}{16} \pa_x^3 u + \frac{3}{8}\pa_x\pa_y^2 u = - \frac{3}{2} |u|^2 \, \pa_x u - \frac{1}{4} u^2 \,\pa_x \overline{u} + \frac{i}{2}\, u\, \pa_x^2 |\nabla|^{-1} (|u|^2),\\
u|_{t=0} =u_0,
\end{array}
\right.$$ This PDE does enjoy a scaling symmetry and its critical regularity under it is precisely $s_c=0$. In the next section, we will see that the terms in this equation constitute the top order of our approximation to $u_3$ for short times, which might explain the range of $s$ in
Computations
------------
Consider initial data $u_{0,N}$ with small support around some high frequency $N=(N_1,N_2)\in \R^2$. In particular, consider $$\widehat{u}_{0,N}(\xi,\mu)= c(N)\, f(\xi) \, g(\mu)$$ where
- $f$ is an odd function such that $f=0$ outside the interval $[N_1 - N_1^{2 \varepsilon} , N_1 +N_1^{2 \varepsilon}]$ for some $\varepsilon<1/2$, and $f=1$ in the interval $[N_1 - \frac{1}{2}\, N_1^{2 \varepsilon} , N_1 +\frac{1}{2}\, N_1^{2 \varepsilon}]$.
- $g$ is an even function such that $0\leq g\leq 1$, and with similar properties in the interval $[N_2 - N_2^{2 \varepsilon} , N_2 + N_2^{2 \varepsilon}]$.
- $c(N)$ is a coefficient chosen to normalize the $H^s_{x,y}$-norm of $u_{0,N}$, i.e. $$c(N):= C\, N_1^{-\varepsilon} \, N_2^{-\varepsilon} \, (\max\{N_1^s, N_2^s\})^{-1}.$$
We first consider the linear flow $ u_{1,N}= W(t) u_{0,N}$. Our goal is to approximate the function $$\label{eq:defu3}
u_{3,N}(t,x,y) = \int_0^t W(t-t') \, N(u_{1,N}(t') )\, dt'.$$
The main argument will be as follows: in order for the map from $u_0$ to $u_3$ to be continuous we need $${\left\lVertu_{0,N}\right\rVert}_{H^s_{x,y}} \gtrsim {\left\lVertu_{3,N}\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}([0,t], H^s_{x,y})}\gtrsim {\left\lVert\langle\xi\rangle^s \widehat{u}_{3,N}\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}([0,t], L^2(\mathcal{R}_N))}.$$ Here, $\mathcal{R}_N$ is a region where we will be able to approximate $\widehat{u}_{3,N}$ accurately.
First of all, we compute the linear flow for our choice of initial data: $$\label{eq:firstiteration}
\widehat{u}_{1,N}(t,\xi,\mu) = e^{-it\, \Phi (\xi,\mu)}\, c(N)\, f(\xi) \, g(\mu).$$ Now we wish to compute $N(u_{1,N})$. As an example, let us start by computing the contribution of the term $|u_{1,N}|^2\, \pa_x u_{1,N}$. Recall that $$(|u|^2 \pa_x u)^{\wedge}= \widehat{u} \ast \widehat{\bar{u}}\ast (-i\,\xi\, \widehat{u}).$$ Using this, together with , we may write: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:firstiteration2}
(|u_{1,N}|^2 \pa_x u_{1,N})^{\wedge}(t,\xi,\mu) & = i\,c(N)^{3}\, \int_{\R^4} e^{-it \, \Omega}\, (\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2) \,f(\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2) \, g(\mu-\mu_1+\mu_2) \\
& \hspace{3cm} f(\xi_1) \, g(\mu_1) \, f(\xi_2) \, g(\mu_2)\, d\xi_2 \, d\mu_2\, d\xi_1\,d\mu_1,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Omega = \Phi (\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2,\mu-\mu_1+\mu_2) +\Phi (\xi_1,\mu_1) - \Phi (\xi_2,\mu_2).$$
We take its Fourier transform of and compute the $t'$-integral explicitly using : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:firstiteration3}
\widehat{u}_{3,N}(t,\xi,\mu) & = i\,e^{-it\Phi(\xi,\mu)}\, c(N)^{3}\, \int_{\R^4} \frac{e^{-it \, \widetilde{\Omega}}-1}{-i\widetilde{\Omega}} \, (\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2) \,f(\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2) \, g(\mu-\mu_1+\mu_2) \\
& \hspace{2cm} f(\xi_1) \, g(\mu_1) \, f(\xi_2) \, g(\mu_2)\, d\xi_2 \, d\mu_2\, d\xi_1\,d\mu_1 + \mbox{other terms},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:Omega}
\widetilde{\Omega} = \Phi (\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2,\mu-\mu_1+\mu_2)-\Phi(\xi,\mu) +\Phi (\xi_1,\mu_1) - \Phi (\xi_2,\mu_2).$$
We now develop a rigorous approximation to for short times.
\[thm:approx1\] Suppose that $|t\widetilde{\Omega}|<1/4$ and that $(\xi,\mu)\in B(N_1, \frac{1}{4} N_1^{2\varepsilon}) \times B(N_2, \frac{1}{4} N_2^{2\varepsilon})$. Then for large enough $N$, we have that $$\widehat{u}_{3,N}(t,\xi,\mu) = -i\,\frac{7}{4}\, c(N)^{3}\, t\, e^{-it\Phi(\xi,\mu)}\, F(\xi)\, G(\mu) + \mbox{error},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
F(\xi) & = \int_{\R^2} (\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2) \,f(\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2)\, f(\xi_1) \, f(\xi_2)\, d\xi_1 \, d\xi_2,\\
G(\mu) & = \int_{\R^2} g(\mu-\mu_1+\mu_2) \, g(\mu_1) \, g(\mu_2)\, d\mu_1 \, d\mu_2.\\\end{aligned}$$
[**Step 1.**]{} First we use a Taylor expansion: $$\frac{e^{-it \, \widetilde{\Omega}}-1}{-i\widetilde{\Omega}} = \frac{1}{-i\widetilde{\Omega}}\, \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-it \, \widetilde{\Omega})^{k}}{k!}= t + \sum_{k=2}^{\infty} \frac{(-t)^k \, (-i\,\widetilde{\Omega})^{k-1}}{k!}= t + \O ( t^2\, |\widetilde{\Omega}|).$$ since $$\Big | \sum_{k=2}^{\infty} \frac{(-t)^k \, (-i\,\widetilde{\Omega})^{k-1}}{k!} \Big | \leq t\, \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} |t\widetilde{\Omega}|^{k} \leq t\, \frac{|t\widetilde{\Omega}|}{1- |t\widetilde{\Omega}|}\leq \frac{4}{3}\, t^2\, |\widetilde{\Omega}|<\frac{1}{3} t.$$
Consequently, the contribution from the term $|u|^2\, \pa_x u$ to can be rewritten as $$i\,c(N)^{3}\, t\, e^{-it\Phi(\xi,\mu)}\, F(\xi)\, G(\mu) + R(t,\xi,\mu),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
|R(t,\xi,\mu)| & \leq \frac{4}{3}\, c(N)^{3}\, t^2 \, \int_{\R^4} |\widetilde{\Omega}| \, |\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2| \,f(\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2)\, f(\xi_1) \, f(\xi_2)\\
& \hspace{3cm} g(\mu-\mu_1+\mu_2) \, g(\mu_1) \, g(\mu_2)\, d\mu_1 \, d\mu_2\, d\xi_1 \, d\xi_2.
\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $|t\widetilde{\Omega}|<\frac{1}{4}$ we have that $$|R(t,\xi,\mu)|\leq \frac{1}{3} \, t \, c(N)^3\, \tilde{F}(\xi)\, G(\mu),$$ where $$\widetilde{F}(\xi) := \int_{\R^2} |\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2| \,f(\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2)\, f(\xi_1) \, f(\xi_2)\, d\xi_1 \, d\xi_2.$$ It is now easy to guarantee that this error does not change the top order behavior, see for details.
[**Step 2.**]{} Similar techniques show that the term nonlinear term $|u|^2 u$ produces a negligible contribution. Let us now consider the nonlinear term $u^2 \, \pa_x \bar{u}$. A similar procedure as the one developed in for $|u|^2\, \pa_x u$ shows that the contribution of $u^2 \, \overline{\pa_x u}$ to $\widehat{u_{3,N}}$ is: $$-i\,c(N)^3 \, t \, e^{-it\, \Phi(\xi,\mu)}\, H(\xi)\, S(\mu) + \mbox{error}$$ for $$\begin{aligned}
H(\xi) & := \int_{\R^2} (-\xi+\xi_2+\xi_1)\, f(-\xi+\xi_2+\xi_1)\, f(\xi_1) \, f(\xi_2) \, d\xi_1 \, d\xi_2,\\
S(\mu) & := \int_{\R^2} g(-\mu+\mu_2+\mu_1)\, g(\mu_1)\, g(\mu_2)\, d\mu_1\, d\mu_2.\end{aligned}$$ The error term admits a similar analysis to that of Step 1. The key point now is that $H(\xi)=-F(\xi)$ and $S(\mu)=G(\mu)$ thanks to the fact that $f$ is odd and $g$ is even. This guarantees that this term and the top order term from Step 1 do not cancel. In fact the two terms have the same sign and we will have a top order of: $$-i\,\frac{7}{4} \, c(N)^3 \, t \, e^{-it\, \Phi(\xi,\mu)}\, F(\xi)\, G(\mu).$$
[**Step 3.**]{} The same ideas can be used to approximate the contribution of $u\, \pa_x^2 |\nabla|^{-1} (|u|^2)$ leading to a top order term given by $$\frac{i}{2} \, c(N)^{3}\, t\, e^{-it\Phi(\xi,\mu)}\, F^{\ast}(\xi,\mu),$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
F^{\ast}(\xi,\mu) = \int_{\R^4} \frac{(\xi-\xi_1)^2}{[(\xi-\xi_1)^2+(\mu-\mu_1)^2]^{1/2}} \,f(\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2)\, f(\xi_1) \, f(\xi_2)\\ g(\mu-\mu_1+\mu_2) \, g(\mu_1) \, g(\mu_2)\, d\mu_1 \, d\mu_2\, d\xi_1 \, d\xi_2 .\\\end{gathered}$$ Note however that this term cannot cancel the leading term given that $$|F^{\ast}(\xi,\mu)|\leq G(\mu)\, \int_{\R^2} |\xi-\xi_1|\, |f(\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2)|\, |f(\xi_1)| \, |f(\xi_2)|\, d\xi_1, d\xi_2 ,$$ and that the last integral has size $N_1^{6\varepsilon}$. This is therefore a lower order term (see below).
Now we study the size of $\widetilde{\Omega}$ as defined in (the same applies to that of $\widetilde{\omega}$). An application of the mean value theorem yields the following
\[thm:approx2\] Suppose that $(\xi_k,\mu_k)\in B(N_1, N_1^{2\varepsilon}) \times B(N_2, N_2^{2\varepsilon})$ for $k=1,2$. Then for $(\xi,\mu)\in B(N_1, N_1^{2\varepsilon}) \times B(N_2, N_2^{2\varepsilon})$ we have that $$|\widetilde{\Omega}|\lesssim (N_1^2 + N_2^2) \, N_1^{2\varepsilon} + N_1 \, N_2^{1+ 2\varepsilon}.$$
tells us that we will have a valid approximation whenever $|t\widetilde{\Omega}|<1/4$, or more precisely when $$\label{eq:timecond}
|t|\lesssim \left(\max\{ N_1^{2+2\varepsilon},\ N_2^2 \, N_1^{2\varepsilon},\ N_1 \, N_2^{1+2\varepsilon}\} \right)^{-1}.$$
\[rk:positivity\] We also need to make sure that the top order in controls the error. That can be achieved by restricting $\xi$ to a region where $F(\xi)=\widetilde{F}(\xi)$, so that the error term has at most $\frac{1}{3}$ of the size of the top order. Since $f$ is positive, we only need to make sure that the sign of $\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2$ is positive. However, note that $-\xi_1+\xi_2 \in B(0,2\, N_1^{2\varepsilon})$, and in we already require $\xi \in B(N_1, N_1^{2\varepsilon})$, so $\xi-\xi_1+\xi_2$ must be positive for $N_1$ large enough (and we will take it to infinity).
We can finally estimate the size of $F$ and $G$. We omit the proof since it simply consists on estimating the contribution of the integrands on their respective supports.
\[thm:approx3\] Suppose that $(\xi,\mu)\in B(N_1, \frac{1}{4} N_1^{2\varepsilon}) \times B(N_2, \frac{1}{4} N_2^{2\varepsilon})$, then $$F(\xi) \geq \frac{1}{2\cdot 8^2}\, N_1^{1+4\varepsilon},\qquad G(\mu) \geq \frac{1}{2\cdot 8^2}\, N_2^{4\varepsilon}.$$
Finally, we can put these results together:
\[thm:approx4\] Suppose that $(\xi,\mu)\in B(N_1, \frac{1}{4} N_1^{2\varepsilon}) \times B(N_2, \frac{1}{4} N_2^{2\varepsilon})$ and that $t$ satisfies condition . Then $$|\widehat{u}_{3,N}(t,\xi,\mu)| \gtrsim t\, c(N)^{3}\, N_1^{1+4\varepsilon}\, N_2^{4\varepsilon},$$ where the implicit constant is independent of $t,N,\varepsilon$.
As long as $t$ satisfies , we use , and note that the error term is at most $\frac{1}{3}$ the size of the leading order. Then we combine this with the results of .
We are ready to give the main argument: consider $\mathcal{R}_N= B(N_1, \frac{1}{4} N_1^{2\varepsilon}) \times B(N_2, \frac{1}{4} N_2^{2\varepsilon})$ for $N=(N_1,N_2)$. Suppose that $N_2\ll N_1$ so that the normalization constant is $$c(N)\sim N_1^{-s-\varepsilon} \, N_2^{-\varepsilon}.$$ Then in order for the initial-data-to-solution map to be $C^3$ in $[0,T]$, we need to have: $$1={\left\lVertu_{0,N}\right\rVert}_{H^s_{x,y}} \gtrsim {\left\lVertu_{3,N}\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}([0,T], H^s_{x,y})}\gtrsim {\left\lVert\langle\xi\rangle^s \widehat{u}_{3,N}\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}([0,T], L^2(\mathcal{R}_N))}.$$ Note that there should exist a common time of existence $T$ for all $N$ as the initial data has size 1.
We can further substitute $T$ by $t$, and take this as close as we want to the upper bound given by (note that such $t$ are smaller than any fixed $T$ for $N$ large enough, and thus valid). Then by , we have that $$1 \gtrsim {\left\lVert\langle\xi\rangle^s \widehat{u}_{3,N}\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}([0,T], L^2(\mathcal{R}_N))} \gtrsim t\, c(N)^{3}\, N_1^{1+4\varepsilon}\, N_2^{4\varepsilon} \, N_1^s\, |\mathcal{R}_N|^{1/2} \gtrsim N_1^{-1-2s}\, N_2^{2\varepsilon}.$$ We set $N_2 = 10^{-5} N_1$ and take $N_1\rightarrow \infty$. A contradiction would be reached unless $$-1-2s+2\varepsilon<0\quad \Leftrightarrow\quad s>-\frac{1}{2} + \varepsilon.$$ By taking $\varepsilon:= \frac{1}{2}-$ we obtain the condition $s\geq 0$.
Technical results
=================
We use this appendix to write some technical results used throughout the paper. We start with the Van der Corput lemma, as seen in [@KPV2].
\[thm:VanderCorput\] Suppose that $\phi$ is a real-valued $C^2$ function defined in $[a,b]$ such that $|\phi''(x)|>c$ in $[a,b]$. Then $$\Big | \int_a^b e^{it\phi(x)}\, \psi (x)\, dx \Big | \leq 10\, |t\,c|^{-1/2}\, \left( |\psi (b)| + \int_a^b |\psi'(x)|\, dx\right).$$
Note that the right-hand side is controlled by $|tc|^{-1/2} \left( {\left\lVert\psi\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}} + {\left\lVert\psi'\right\rVert}_{L^1}\right)$. Moreover, if $\psi$ has a finite number of changes of monotinicity, the right-hand side is entirely controlled by $|tc|^{-1/2} {\left\lVert\psi\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}}$.
We also have the following version of the inverse function theorem. In particular, we will make use of to estimate the size of the neighborhood, which can be proved with a simple fixed point argument.
\[thm:inversefunction\] Suppose that $f: U\rightarrow \R$ is a $C^1$ function such that $f'(x_0)\neq 0$. Then there exists some $\varepsilon>0$ such that $$f: B(x_0,\varepsilon) \rightarrow B \left(f(x_0),\frac{f'(x_0)}{2}\,\varepsilon \right)$$ is a $C^1$ diffeomorphism. Moreover, a (non-optimal) $\varepsilon$ can be found by imposing $$\label{eq:invfuncond}
\Big |\frac{f'(x)}{f'(x_0)} \Big | \geq \frac{1}{2}\quad \mbox{for all}\ x\in B(x_0,\varepsilon).$$
We also record some results that are useful to work with fractional derivatives. The first one is Theorem A.12 in [@KPV]. See also [@KatoPonce] for similar estimates, as well as Proposition 3.3 in [@CW].
\[thm:Leibnizrule\] Let $s\in (0,1)$ and $1<p<\infty$. Then $${\left\lVertD_x^s (u\, v) - D_x^s u \, v - u\, D_x^s v\right\rVert}_{L^p_x}\lesssim {\left\lVertu\right\rVert}_{L^{\infty}_x}\, {\left\lVertD_x^{s} v\right\rVert}_{L^p_x}.$$
The following result is Proposition 3.1 in [@CW].
\[thm:chainrule\] Suppose that $F\in C^1 (\C)$ and $s\in (0,1)$. Let $p,p_1,p_2 \in (1,\infty)$ such that $$\frac{1}{p}=\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2}.$$ If $u\in L^{\infty}(\R)$, then $${\left\lVertD_x^s F(u)\right\rVert}_{L^p_x} \lesssim {\left\lVertF'(u)\right\rVert}_{L^{p_1}_x} \, {\left\lVertD_x^s u\right\rVert}_{L^{p_2}_x}.$$
[^1]: There is a Hamiltonian version of the 1D Dysthe equation [@Sulem], but the existence of a Hamiltonian version in 2D remains an open question.
[^2]: In this regard it is important to note that in [@FarSap] the authors argue that their goal is not longtime prediction. In fact their numerical experimentations are valid for short to medium time prediction where one only expects one rogue wave per ocean patch. For a longer period of time rogue waves on different ocean patches may interact and the analysis becomes certainly more difficult.
[^3]: To be precise, we expect to recover one derivative for the linear term $W(t)u_0$. This gain can sometimes be doubled for the Duhamel term using some techniques introduced by Kenig, Ponce and Vega [@KPV].
[^4]: Note that the maximal function estimates in the work of Linares and Pastor [@LinaresPastor] for the modified Zakharov-Kuznetsov equation admit the same regularity as ours.
[^5]: After the publication of this paper on arXiv, J.-C. Saut communicated further progress in this problem in an upcoming work [@Sautnew].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The region of small transverse momentum in $q\bar{q}-$ and $gg-$initiated processes must be studied in the framework of resummation to account for the large, logarithmically-enhanced contributions to physical observables. In this letter, we study resummed differential cross-sections for Higgs production via bottom-quark fusion. We find that the differential distribution peaks at approximately $15$ GeV, a number of great experimental importance to measuring this production channel.'
author:
- 'B. Field'
date: 'July 21, 2004'
title: 'Higgs Boson Resummation via Bottom-Quark Fusion'
---
\#1[[\_[\#1]{}]{}]{} \#1[[\_[\#1]{}\^2]{}]{}
2f[[n\^[2]{}\_[ f]{}]{}]{}
2c[[N\^[2]{}\_[ c]{}]{}]{}
\#1[[\_[\#1]{}]{}]{}
Resummation of total and differential cross-section for the inclusive production of a Higgs boson has concentrated on the gluon-gluon initial state[@Catani:ne; @Kauffman:1991jt; @Yuan:1991we; @Kauffman:cx; @Catani:1996yz; @Kramer:1996iq; @Balazs:2000wv; @deFlorian:2000pr; @deFlorian:2001zd; @Glosser:2002gm; @Berger:2002ut; @Berger:2003pd; @Bozzi:2003jy; @Field:2004tt]. In the Standard Model (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">sm</span>), the gluon-gluon initial state gives the largest contribution to the total and differential cross-sections, but this is not always the case in extensions of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">sm</span>. In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mssm</span>) the bottom-quark fusion initial state can be greatly enhanced, perhaps leading to the observation of a supersymmetric signal in nature, if the location of the peak of the differential distribution in known.
The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mssm</span> contains two Higgs doublets, one giving mass to up-type quarks and the other to down-type quarks. The associated vacuum expectation values (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vev</span>s) are labeled $v_u$ and $v_d$ respectively, and fix the free <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mssm</span> parameter $\tan\beta\equiv
v_u/v_d$. In the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mssm</span>, there are five physical Higgs boson mass eigenstates. In this letter, we are interested in the neutral Higgs bosons $\{ h^0, H^0, A^0 \}$ which we will call $\Phi$ generically.
In contrast to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">sm</span>, the bottom-quark Yukawa couplings in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mssm</span> can be enhanced with respect to the top-quark Yukawa coupling. In the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">sm</span>, the ratio of the $t\bar{t}\Phi$ and $b\bar{b}\Phi$ couplings is given at tree-level by $\lambda^{\textsc{sm}}_{t}/\lambda^{\textsc{sm}}_{b} = m_t/m_b \approx
35$. In the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mssm</span>, the coupling depends on the value of $\tan\beta$. At leading order,
$$\label{eq::Yukrat}
\frac{\lambda^{\textsc{mssm}}_{t}}{\lambda^{\textsc{mssm}}_{b}} =
f_\Phi \, \frac{1}{\tan\beta}\cdot \frac{m_t}{m_b}\,,$$
with $$f_\Phi = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
- \cot\alpha\,,& \qquad \Phi=h^0 \, \\
\phantom{-}\tan\alpha\,,& \qquad \Phi=H^0 \, \\
\phantom{-}\cot\beta \,,& \qquad \Phi=A^0 \,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\alpha$ is the mixing angle between the weak and the mass eigenstates of the neutral scalars. Given the mass of the pseudoscalar $M_{A^{0}}$ and $\tan\beta$, the angle $\alpha$ can be determined given reasonable assumptions for the masses of the other supersymmetric particles in the spectrum.
The form of $f_\Phi$ shows us that the production of the pseudoscalar due to bottom-quark fusion is enhanced by a factor of $\tan^2\!\beta$, which is a free parameter in the theory.
The Bottom-Quark {#bottom}
================
It is also important to define what is meant by a bottom-quark distribution[@Olness:1987ep; @Barnett:1987jw; @Olness:1997yc]. In our analysis, we employed the CTEQ6.1M bottom-quark parton distribution[@Pumplin:2002vw] with ${\alpha_{\textrm s}}(M_Z) = 0.118$ and set the mass of the Higgs boson of interest $M_\Phi = 120$ GeV. We compared the bottom-quark distribution function in the PDF set and the numeric solution to the Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dglap</span>) equations for a single quark splitting. A bottom-quark distribution for a gluon splitting into a $b\bar{b}$ pair can be written in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dglap</span> formalism as
$$\tilde{b}(x,\mu) = \frac{{\alpha_{\textrm s}}(\mu)}{2\pi}
\ln \biggl( \frac{\mu^2}{m_b^2} \biggr)
\int_x^1 \frac{dy}{y}
P_{q \leftarrow g}
\biggl( \frac{x}{y} \biggr) g(y,\mu),$$
where $g$ is the gluon distribution, and the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dglap</span> splitting function is $$P_{q \leftarrow g}(z) = \frac{1}{2} [ z^2 + (1-z)^2 ].$$
The bottom-quark distribution is encoded into the CTEQ PDF set in this manner[@fred], but takes into account multiple quark splitting functions. When evaluated with the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dglap</span> formalism, we found the differential cross-section increased by approximately $10$% near its peak. However, we used the native bottom-quark distributions for speed and to understand their built-in uncertainties.
Previously[@Field:2004tt], we calculated in detail the resummation coefficients for a differential cross-section for the scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs boson from the gluon-gluon initial state. In this letter, we will calculate the resummation coefficients needed for the resummation of the $b\bar{b}$ initial state for the scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs bosons in the same manner as the gluon-gluon channel in Ref. [@Field:2004tt]. We will leave the bottom-quark–Higgs coupling set equal to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">sm</span> value so that the reader can scale the results to whatever coupling value is of interest.
Resummation {#resum}
===========
The resummation formalism needs the lowest order total cross-section as a normalization factor (see [@Field:2004tt] for details), $b\bar{b}
\rightarrow \Phi$ in this case. Following Ref. [@Harlander:2003ai], we will ignore the bottom-quark mass except in the Yukawa coupling with the Higgs boson. Although the pseudoscalar Higgs couples to quarks with a $\gamma_5$, there are no differences in the matrix elements (modulo the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mssm</span> coupling factor) when the bottom-quark mass is neglected.
It is important to use the $\overline{\textrm{MS}}$ running mass for the bottom-quark in our calculation as the difference from the pole mass at the scales involved is considerable[@Dicus:1998hs; @Campbell:2002zm]. In the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">sm</span>, the bottom-quark Yukawa coupling is $\lambda_b^{\textsc{sm}} = \sqrt{2} \overline{m}_b / v$, where $v$ is the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">sm vev</span> and is approximately equal to $246$ GeV and $\overline{m}_b$ is the $\overline{\textrm{MS}}$ running mass. We have set the bottom-quark mass $\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b) = 4.62$ GeV in our calculations. The NLO running of the bottom-quark mass corresponds to $\overline{m}_b(M_\Phi) = 3.23$ GeV. The coupling in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mssm</span> can be written
$$\begin{split}
\lambda_b^{\textsc{mssm}} &= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle
- \sqrt{2} \, \frac{\overline{m}_b}{v}
\frac{\sin\alpha}{\cos\beta}
\,,& \qquad \Phi=h^0 \, \\[15pt]
\displaystyle
\phantom{-}\sqrt{2} \, \frac{\overline{m}_b}{v}
\frac{\cos\alpha}{\cos\beta}
\,,& \qquad \Phi=H^0 \, \\[15pt]
\displaystyle
\phantom{-}\sqrt{2} \, \frac{\overline{m}_b}{v}
\tan\beta
\,,& \qquad \Phi=A^0. \,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{split}$$
The spin- and color-averaged total partonic cross-section (see Fig. \[diags\]a) for the leading order subprocess, $b\bar{b}
\rightarrow \Phi$, can be easily written
$$\hat{\sigma}_0^{\textsc{sm}}
= \frac{6\pi}{4N_c^2}\frac{\overline{m}_b^2}{v^2}
\frac{1}{M_\Phi^2}\delta(1-z),$$
where $z = M_\Phi^2/\hat{s}$ and the number of colors $N_c = 3$. We also need the LO differential cross-section (Fig. \[diags\]c) for the next-to-leading log (NLL) resummation coefficients for the differential cross-section. If we remove the $\delta(1-z)$ factor from our prefactor $\hat{\sigma}_0$, then we can write the spin- and color-averaged differential cross-section for $b(p_1)\bar{b}(p_2) \rightarrow g(-p_3)
\Phi(-p_5)$ as
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\frac{d\hat{\sigma}}{d\hat{t}} & = \hat{\sigma}_0 \biggl( \frac{{\alpha_{\textrm s}}}{\pi}
\biggr)
\frac{\cf}{2} \biggl(
\frac{M_\Phi^4+\hat{s}^2}{\hat{s}\hat{t}\hat{u}}
\biggr) \\
& = \hat{\sigma}_0 \biggl( \frac{{\alpha_{\textrm s}}}{\pi}
\biggr)
\frac{\cf}{2}
\frac{1}{p_t^2} \biggl[ 1 + z^2 \biggr].\end{aligned}$$
where $\cf = (N_c^2-1)/2N_c$, and the kinematic variables are defined as $\hat{s} = (p_1+p_2)^2$, $\hat{t} = (p_1+p_5)^2$, $\hat{u} =
(p_2+p_5)^2$, and $M_\Phi^2 = p_5^2$. In our second line, we have written the differential cross-section in terms of $\hat{u}\hat{t} =
p_t^2 \hat{s}$ for the $2\rightarrow 2$ process.
To find the resummation coefficients for a differential cross-sections[@Kauffman:1991jt; @Kauffman:cx; @deFlorian:2001zd; @Field:2004tt] we integrate the differential cross-section around $p_t =
0$
$$\Delta\hat{\sigma} = \int_0^{q_t^2}
dp_t^2 \frac{d\hat{\sigma}}{dp_t^2}$$
and label this result ‘real’ as it is similar to the real corrections to the LO total cross-section. Working in $N=4-2\epsilon$ dimensions, we find
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Delta\hat{\sigma}^{\textrm{real}} = \hat{\sigma}_0 z
\frac{{\alpha_{\textrm s}}}{\pi}
\biggl[&\frac{\cf}{\epsilon^2} + \frac{3}{2}\frac{\cf}{\epsilon}
-\frac{\cf}{2} \ln^2 \biggl( \frac{M_\Phi^2}{q_t^2} \biggr) \\
+&\frac{3}{2} \cf \ln \biggl( \frac{M_\Phi^2}{q_t^2} \biggr)
+ \cf - \cf\z2
\biggr].\end{aligned}$$
To regularize this result, we need to add the virtual corrections that are shown in Fig. \[diags\]b. These corrections are very similar to Drell-Yan corrections[@Altarelli:1979ub]. The virtual corrections can be written as
$$\Delta\hat{\sigma}_{\textrm{virt}} = \hat{\sigma}_0
\biggl( \frac{{\alpha_{\textrm s}}}{\pi} \biggr)
\biggl[ - \frac{\cf}{\epsilon^2} - \frac{3}{2}\frac{\cf}{\epsilon}
- \cf + 2 \cf \z2 \biggr].$$
In the Drell-Yan case, the $-\cf$ factor would be $-4\cf$. When the two results are added together the resummation coefficients are easily read off from the expression. The total expression is
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Delta\hat{\sigma} = \hat{\sigma}_0 z \biggl[
1&+ \frac{{\alpha_{\textrm s}}}{\pi} \biggl(
-\frac{\cf}{2} \ln^2 \biggl( \frac{M_\Phi^2}{q_t^2} \biggr) \\
&+\frac{3}{2}\cf \ln \biggl( \frac{M_\Phi^2}{q_t^2} \biggr)
+\cf\z2
\biggr)
\biggr].\end{aligned}$$
Keeping with the notation of Ref. [@Field:2004tt], we write these coefficients with an overbar as follows
$$\bar{A}^{(1)}_b = \Blue{\cf}, \quad
\bar{B}^{(1)}_b = - \frac{3}{2}\Blue{\cf}, \quad
\bar{C}^{(1)}_{b\bar{b}} = \frac{1}{2}\Blue{\cf}\z2.$$
It is important to note that in contrast to $W^\pm/Z^0$ production and Drell-Yan processes[@Altarelli:1979ub; @Arnold:1990yk], the $\bar{C}^{(1)}$ coefficient is positive.
Finally, let us turn to determining the $C^{(1)}$ and $C^{(2)}$ coefficients for the total cross-section resummation, although total cross-sections will not be presented in this letter. Using the results of Ref. [@Harlander:2003ai], we take the Mellin moments of the corrections in the limit $N \rightarrow \infty$ ($z \rightarrow 1$ in $z$-space). The NLO corrections are easy to color decompose due to the presence of only one color factor[@Field:2004tt]. Leaving the terms that were originally proportional to the $\delta(1-z)$ factor inside curly brackets, we find
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Delta_{b\bar{b}}^{(1)} =
\biggl[&2 \Blue{\cf} \biggr] \Red{\ln^2(N)}
+ \biggl[ 2 \Blue{\cf} \lnf \biggr] \Red{\ln(N)} \\
+ \biggl\{&2\Blue{\cf}\z2 - \Blue{\cf} + 2 \lnrf \biggr\}
+ 2\Blue{\cf}\z2\end{aligned}$$
where we have given both the renormalization scale $\mu_r$ and the factorization scale $\mu_f$ dependence in the results.
In contrast to NLO, the NNLO corrections contain a mix of color factors (both $\ca$ and $\cf$ appear). Although it is easy to see that the factor proportional to $\ln^4(N)$ should clearly be $2\cfcf$, no unique color decomposition from the results provided in Ref. [@Harlander:2003ai] can be determined for all the terms in the expression. However, the numeric result can be written
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{b\bar{b}}^{(2)} & = \nonumber
\biggl[ \frac{32}{9}
\biggr] \! \Red{\ln^4(N)}
+ \biggl[ \frac{44}{9} - \frac{8}{27} \nf
+ \frac{64}{9} \lnf
\biggr] \! \Red{\ln^3(N)} \\ \nonumber
&+ \biggl[ \frac{34}{3} + \frac{92}{9} \z2 - \frac{20}{27} \nf
+ \biggl( \frac{38}{3} - \frac{4}{9} \nf \biggr) \lnr \\ \nonumber
& - \frac{16}{3} \lnf
+ \frac{32}{9} \lnff
\biggr] \! \Red{\ln^2(N)}
+ \biggl[ \frac{404}{27} - 14 \z3 \\ \nonumber
& - \frac{56}{81} \nf
+ \biggl( \frac{34}{3} + \frac{92}{9} \z2
- \frac{20}{27} \nf \biggr) \lnf
- \biggl( 9 - \frac{2}{9} \nf \biggr) \\ \nonumber
& \times \lnff
+ \biggl( \frac{38}{3} - \frac{4}{9} \nf \biggr) \lnr \lnf
\biggr] \! \Red{\ln(N)} + \biggl\{ \frac{115}{18} \\ \nonumber
& + \frac{58}{9} \z2
- \frac{26}{3} \z3 - \frac{19}{18} \z4
+ \biggl( \frac{2}{27} - \frac{10}{27} \z2
+ \frac{2}{3} \z3 \biggr) \nf \\ \nonumber
& + \biggl( \frac{25}{12} + \frac{38}{3} \z2 \biggr) \lnr
- \biggl( \frac{1}{18} + \frac{4}{9} \z2 \biggr) \nf \lnr \\ \nonumber
& + \biggl( \frac{11}{12} - 10 \z2 - \frac{122}{9} \z3 \biggr) \lnf
+ \biggl( \frac{1}{18} + \frac{4}{9} \z2 \biggr) \nf \lnf \\ \nonumber
& + \biggl( \frac{19}{4} - \frac{1}{6} \nf \biggr) \lnrr
+ \biggl( \frac{19}{4} - \frac{32}{9} \z2
- \frac{1}{6} \nf \biggr) \lnff \\ \nonumber
& + \biggl( \frac{1}{3} \nf - \frac{19}{2} \biggr) \lnr \lnf
\biggr\}
+ \frac{34}{3} \z2 + \frac{88}{9} \z3 + \frac{364}{45} \zz2 \\ \nonumber
& - \biggl( \frac{20}{27} \z2 + \frac{16}{27} \z3 \biggr) \nf
+ \biggl( \frac{38}{3} \z2 - \frac{4}{9} \z2 \nf \biggr) \lnr \\
& - \biggl( \frac{16}{3} \z2 - \frac{128}{9} \z3 \biggr) \lnf
+ \frac{32}{9} \z2 \lnff\end{aligned}$$
We can also determine the NNLL $A^{(2)}$ and $B^{(2)}$ coefficients. $A^{(2)}$ agrees with a previous calculation[@Balazs:1998sb]. We find
$$\begin{aligned}
A^{(1)}_b &= \Blue{\cf} \\
A^{(2)}_b &= \frac{1}{2} \Blue{\cf}
\biggl(
\Blue{\ca} \biggl(
\frac{67}{18} - \z2
\biggr)
- \frac{10}{9}\Blue{\nf \tr}
\biggr)\end{aligned}$$
for $A^{(1)}$ and $A^{(2)}$ and
$$B^{(1)}_b = - \frac{3}{2} \Blue{\cf}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
B^{(2)}_b &= \Blue{\cfcf} \biggl(
\frac{3}{2}\z2 - 3 \z3 - \frac{3}{16}
\biggr) \\ \nonumber
&- \Blue{\ca\cf} \biggl(
\frac{11}{18}\z2 - \frac{3}{2}\z3
+ \frac{13}{16}
\biggr) \\
&- \Blue{\nf \cf \tr} \biggl( \frac{1}{4} + \frac{2}{9} \z2
\biggr)\end{aligned}$$
for the $B^{(1)}$ and $B^{(2)}$ coefficients. The Mellin moments $\Delta^{(1)}_{b\bar{b}}$ and $\Delta^{(2)}_{b\bar{b}}$ are novel, as is $B^{(2)}_b$.
Results and Conclusions {#results}
=======================
----- ----- -----
(a) (b) (c)
----- ----- -----
[c]{}\
(a)\
\
(b)\
\
(c)
The differential resummation coefficients and the position of the peak of the differential cross-section is of great interest to the experimental community involved with Higgs research at the LHC, particularly in the $M_\Phi=120$ GeV mass range. Here the Higgs will decay primarily into $b\bar{b}$ pairs that can be tagged. Knowing where the peak of the differential distribution lies, especially if it is below the $p_t$ of a typical trigger event, is of utmost importance. This letter will help in the analysis of the $b\bar{b}$ initial state.
The results of our calculations can be found in Figure \[dsigma\]. We have done our analysis for the LHC (a proton-proton collider at $\sqrt{S}=14$ TeV). We find that the differential distribution at the LHC peaks at a transverse momentum of approximately $15$ GeV. We find that the magnitiude of the differential cross-section is an excellent match with previously published results[@Dicus:1998hs; @Balazs:1998sb; @Campbell:2002zm]. The results for the Tevatron are extremely similar, but are smaller by a factor of $60$ and the peak moves to a transverse momentum of approximately $13$ GeV in the differential distribution.
A detailed study of the uncertainties in the calculation show that the uncertainty due to the PDF set is approximately $8-12$%. At the peak of the distribution, the uncertainty is approximately $10$% due to the PDFs. When the scale is varied by a factor of four, we see a variation in the differential cross-section of approximately $20$%. This would give us a combined uncertainty of $32$%, which is slightly better than the gluon-gluon channel[@Field:2004tt] uncertainty in the differential distribution. However, when the scale is only varied by a factor of two (as was the case for the gluon-gluon channel), the total uncertainty drops to $25$%.
We have calculated the resummation coefficients needed for NLL inclusive Higgs production via bottom-quark fusion in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">sm</span> and the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mssm</span> for the differential cross-section and for the NNLL resummation for the total cross-section. We find a smaller uncertainty in the bottom-quark initial state than the gluon-gluon initial state.
The author would like to acknowledge the help and comments of J. Smith, S. Dawson, G. Sterman, W. Vogelsong, F. Olness, and A. Field-Pollatou. I would also like to thank W. Kilgore and R. Harlander for supplying the output of their calculation[@Harlander:2003ai] including its scale dependence.
[2004]{}
S. Catani and L. Trentadue, Nucl. Phys. B [**327**]{}, 323 (1989).
R. P. Kauffman, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{}, 1415 (1991).
C. P. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B [**283**]{}, 395 (1992).
R. P. Kauffman, Phys. Rev. D [**45**]{}, 1512 (1992).
S. Catani, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason and L. Trentadue, Nucl. Phys. B [**478**]{}, 273 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9604351\].
M. Kramer, E. Laenen and M. Spira, Nucl. Phys. B [**511**]{}, 523 (1998)
C. Balazs and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B [**478**]{}, 192 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0001103\].
D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 4678 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0008152\].
D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, Nucl. Phys. B [**616**]{}, 247 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0108273\].
C. J. Glosser and C. R. Schmidt, JHEP [**0212**]{}, 016 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0209248\].
E. L. Berger and J.-w. Qiu, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 034026 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0210135\].
E. L. Berger and J.-w. Qiu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 222003 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0304267\].
G. Bozzi, S. Catani, D. de Florian and M. Grazzini, Phys. Lett. B [**564**]{}, 65 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0302104\].
B. Field, In Press, Phys. Rev. D, \[arXiv:hep-ph/0405219\].
F. I. Olness and W. K. Tung, Nucl. Phys. B [**308**]{}, 813 (1988).
R. M. Barnett, H. E. Haber and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B [**306**]{}, 697 (1988).
F. I. Olness, R. J. Scalise and W. K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 014506 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9712494\].
J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. Nadolsky and W. K. Tung, JHEP [**0207**]{}, 012 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0201195\].
F. I. Olness, private communication.
R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 013001 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0304035\].
J. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, F. Maltoni and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 095002 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0204093\].
D. Dicus, T. Stelzer, Z. Sullivan and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 094016 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9811492\].
G. Altarelli, R. K. Ellis and G. Martinelli, Nucl. Phys. B [**157**]{}, 461 (1979).
P. B. Arnold and R. P. Kauffman, Nucl. Phys. B [**349**]{}, 381 (1991).
C. Balazs, H. J. He and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 114001 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9812263\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that for product sources, rate splitting is optimal for secret key agreement using limited one-way communication at two terminals. This yields an alternative proof of the tensorization property of a strong data processing inequality originally studied by Erkip and Cover and amended recently by Anantharam et al. We derive a ‘water-filling’ solution of the communication-rate–key-rate tradeoff for two arbitrarily correlated vector Gaussian sources, for the case with an eavesdropper, and for stationary Gaussian processes.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'ref2014.bib'
title: 'Key Capacity with Limited One-Way Communication for Product Sources'
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
The fundamental limit on the amount of secret key (or common randomness) that can be generated by two terminals which observe correlated discrete memoryless sources was studied in [@csiszar2004secrecy],[@ahlswede1998common], where single-letter solutions were derived for the class of protocols with one-way communication. However, in many practical applications, the key capacity is not known, since the optimizations over auxiliary random variables in those single-letter formulas are usually hard to solve. In [@watanabe] the fundamental limit was extended to sources with continuous alphabets, and it was shown that for vector Gaussian sources it suffices to consider auxiliary random variables which are jointly Gaussian with the sources. Thus the capacity region for vector Gaussian sources was posed as a matrix optimization problem. Still, an explicit formula for the key capacity was not derived except for scalar Gaussian sources.
In this paper we provide the explicit formula for key capacity of vector Gaussian sources by considering what turns out to be more general: the key capacity of arbitrary product sources. Specifically, suppose terminals A, B and an eavesdropper observe discrete memoryless vector sources $\mathbf{X}=(X_i)_{i=1}^n$, $\mathbf{Y}=(Y_i)_{i=1}^n$ and $\mathbf{Z}=(Z_i)_{i=1}^n$ respectively, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{assump}
P_{\mathbf{XY}}=\prod_{i=1}^{n} P_{X_iY_i},\quad P_{\mathbf{XZ}}=\prod_{i=1}^{n} P_{X_iZ_i}.\end{aligned}$$ We call a source of this kind a *product source* because of the structure of its joint probability distribution. The maximal rate of secret key achievable as a function of public communication rate $r$ from A to B is denoted as $R(r)$. We show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{disp}
R(r)=\max_{\sum_{i=1}^n r_i\le r}\sum_{i=1}^n R_{i}(r_{i}),\end{aligned}$$ where $R_{i}(r_{i})$ is the maximal achievable key rate given a communication rate of $r_i$ for the $i$’th source triple: $(X_i,Y_i,Z_i)$. This is analogous to a result in rate distortion theory about rate for a product source with a sum distortion measure [@shannon1959coding], where Shannon showed that the rate distortion function is derived by summing the rates and distortions of points in the curves with the same slope.
In the case of jointly vector Gaussian sources without an eavesdropper (or with an eavesdropper but under suitable conditions), one can always apply separate invertible linear transforms on the vectors observed at A and B so that the source distribution is of the form in (\[assump\]), thus deriving an explicit formula of $R(r)$ utilizing corresponding results of scalar Gaussian sources. The solution displays a ‘water filling’ behavior similar to the rate distortion function of vector Gaussian sources [@cover2012elements]. We shall also discuss the extension to stationary Gaussian processes.
There is a curious connection between our result about $R(r)$ for product sources and the tensorization property of a strong data processing inequality originally studied by Erkip and Cover and amended recently by Anantharam et al. [@anantharam2013maximal]. Suppose $P_{XY}$ is given. In [@erkip1998efficiency] it was mistakenly claimed that $s^*(X;Y):=\sup_{U-X-Y,I(U;X)\neq0}\frac{I(U;Y)}{I(U;X)}=\rho_m^2(X;Y)$, where $\rho_m^2(X;Y)$ denotes the maximal correlation coefficient [@witsenhausen1975sequences]. In fact, [@anantharam2013maximal] shows that this is not always true and gives a general while less explicit simplification for $s^*(X;Y)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ssup}
s^*(X;Y)=\sup_{Q_X\neq P_X}\frac{D(Q_Y||P_Y)}{D(Q_X||P_X)}.\end{aligned}$$ Nevertheless, $\rho_m^2(X;Y)$ and $s^*(X;Y)$ do agree for some simple distributions of $P_{XY}$ such as Gaussian and binary with equiprobable marginals, and they both fulfill an important property called tensorization. Moreover, they are closely linked to the problem of key generation [@witsenhausen1975sequences][@zhao].[^1] To add one more connection between $s^*(X;Y)$ and key generation, we demonstrate that (\[disp\]) implies the tensorization property of $s^*(X;Y)$.
Preliminaries {#sec2}
=============
Consider the model explained in Section \[sec1\] with the sources distributed as in (\[assump\]). We use $N$ to denote block length since $n$ has been reserved for the length of the vector in (\[assump\]). The standard notation $\mathbf{X}_1^N=\mathbf{X}^N$ will be used for the block $(\mathbf{X}_i)_{i=1}^N$.
Upon receiving $\mathbf{X}^N$, terminal A computes an integer $K_1=K_1(\mathbf{X}^N)\in\mathcal{K}_1$ and sends a message $W=W(\mathbf{X}^N)\in\mathcal{W}$ through a noiseless public channel to terminal B. Then B computes the key $K_2=K_2(W(\mathbf{X}^N),\mathbf{Y}^N)$ based on available information. A rate pair $(r,R)$ is said to be achievable if it can be approached by a sequence of schemes satisfying the following conditions on the probability of agreement and security: $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{N\to\infty}\mathbb{P}(K_1\neq K_2)&=0,\\
\lim_{N\to\infty}[\log|\mathcal{K}_1|-H(K_1|W,\mathbf{Z}^N)] &=0,\\
\limsup_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\log|\mathcal{W}|&\le r,\\
\liminf_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\log|\mathcal{K}_1|&\ge R.\end{aligned}$$ The function $$\begin{aligned}
R(r):=\sup\{R:(r,R)\textrm{ is achievable}\}\end{aligned}$$ characterizes the maximal possible key rate with a certain public communication rate.
Main Results
============
Initial Efficiency in Key Generation
------------------------------------
Fix $P_{XYZ}$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
&s^*_Z(X;Y)\nonumber\\
=&\sup_{U,V}\frac{I(V;Y|U)-I(V;Z|U)}
{I(V;X|U)-I(V;Z|U)+I(U;X)-I(U;Y)},\label{ss}\end{aligned}$$ where the supremum is over all $(U,V)$ such that $(U,V)-X-(Y,Z)$ and that the denominator in (\[ss\]) doesn’t vanish. Note that the denominator is always nonnegative; if it vanishes for all $U,V$, then so does the numerator and we set $s^*_Z(X;Y)=0$. $s^*_Z(X;Y)$ is closely related to the ‘initial efficiency’ of key generation, defined as $\lim_{r\to 0}\frac{R(r)}{r}$. In the special case of no eavesdropper, this is related to the result in [@zhao], which uses the incorrect constant $\rho^2_m(X;Y)$ as we mentioned earlier. The following result gives some basic properties of $s^*_Z(X;Y)$.
\[thm1\] \
1) $0\le s^*_Z(X;Y)\le 1$.\
2) $s^*_Z(X;Y)$ tensorizes, in the sense that for product sources, $$\begin{aligned}
s^*_{Z^n}(X^n;Y^n)=\max_{1\le i\le n}s^*_{Z_i}(X_i;Y_i).\end{aligned}$$ 3) $s^*_Z(X;Y)$ is linked to the initial efficiency of key generation by $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{r\to 0}\frac{R(r)}{r}=\sup_{r> 0}\frac{R(r)}{r}=\frac{s^*_Z(X;Y)}{1-s^*_Z(X;Y)}.\end{aligned}$$ 4) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e18}
&s^*_Z(X;Y)\nonumber\\
=&\sup_{Q_{VX}}\frac{I(\bar{V};\bar{Y})-I(\bar{V};\bar{Z})}
{I(\bar{V};\bar{X})-I(\bar{V};\bar{Z})+D(Q_X||P_X)-D(Q_Y||P_Y)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{V},\bar{X},\bar{Y},\bar{Z}$ has joint distribution $P_{\bar{V}\bar{X}\bar{Y}\bar{Z}(v,x,y,z)}=Q_{VX}(v,x)P_{YZ|X}(y,z|x)$. The supremum is over all $Q_{VX}$ such that the above denominator does not vanish.
Computation can be further simplified for degraded sources $X-Y-Z$: $$\begin{aligned}
s^*_Z(X;Y)=&\sup_{U}\frac{I(U;Y|Z)}{I(U;X|Z)}\nonumber\\
=&\sup_{Q_X}\frac{D(Q_Y||P_Y)-D(Q_Z||P_Z)}{D(Q_X||P_X)-D(Q_Z||P_Z)}\label{eq19}\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_{XYZ}=Q_X P_{YZ|X}$.
1\) From the data processing inequality the denominator in (\[ss\]) is nonnegative, and $s^*_Z(X;Y)\le 1$. If there exists $U$ such that $I(U;X)-I(U;Y)>0$, we can choose $V$ independent of $U,X,Y$ so that the numerator vanishes whereas the denominator is positive, which shows that $s^*_Z(X;Y)\ge0$. Otherwise if $I(U;X)-I(U;Y)=0$ for all $U$, the numerator will always be nonnegative: $$\begin{aligned}
&I(V;Y|U)-I(V;Z|U)\nonumber\\
=&I(U,V;Y)-I(U,V;Z)-I(U;Y)+I(U;Z)\nonumber\\
=&I(U,V;X)-I(U,V;Z)-I(U;X)+I(U;Z).\end{aligned}$$ Hence $s^*_Z(X;Y)\ge0$ always holds.
2\) We only need to show that $s^*_Z(X^n;Y^n)\le \max_{1\le i\le n}s^*_{Z_i}(X_i;Y_i)$ since the other direction is obvious. For any $U,V$ such that $(U,V)-X_1^n-(Y_1^n,Z_1^n)$ and $I(U,V;X_1^n)-I(U,V;Y_1^n)>0$, $I(V;Y^n|U)-I(V;Z^n|U)>0$, let $U_1^n,V_1^n$ be as in Lemma \[lem1\] in the appendix. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{I(V;Y^n|U)-I(V;Z^n|U)}{I(U,V;X^n)-I(U,V;Y^n)}\label{leftmost}\\
\le& \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n [I(V_i;Y_i|U_i)-I(V_i;Z_i|U_i)]}{\sum_{i=1}^n [I(U_i,V_i;X_i)-I(U_i,V_i;Y_i)]}\nonumber\\
\le& \max_{i\in \mathcal{I}}\frac{I(V_i;Y_i|U_i)-I(V_i;Z_i|U_i)}
{I(U_i,V_i;X_i)-I(U_i,V_i;Y_i)}\nonumber\\
\le& \max_{1\le i\le n}\sup_{U_i,V_i}\frac{I(V_i;Y_i|U_i)-I(V_i;Z_i|U_i)}
{I(U_i,V_i;X_i)-I(U_i,V_i;Y_i)}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{I(V;Y|U)-I(V;Z|U)}
{I(V;X|U)-I(V;Z|U)+I(U;X)-I(U;Y)}\nonumber\\
=&\frac{\int[I(V;Y|U=u)-I(V;Z|U=u)]{\rm d}P_U(u)}{\int[I(V;X|U=u)-I(V;Z|U=u)
+D(P_{X|U=u}||P_X)-D(P_{Y|U=u}||P_Y)]{\rm d}P_U(u)}\label{equ18}\\
\le&\sup_{u}\frac{I(V;Y|U=u)-I(V;Z|U=u)}{I(V;X|U=u)-I(V;Z|U=u)
+D(P_{X|U=u}||P_X)-D(P_{Y|U=u}||P_Y)}\\
\le&\sup_{Q_{VX}}\frac{I(\bar{V};\bar{Y})-I(\bar{V};\bar{Z})}
{I(\bar{V};\bar{X})-I(\bar{V};\bar{Z})+D(Q_X||P_X)-D(Q_Y||P_Y)}.\label{equ20}\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathcal{I}$ is the set of indices such that $I(U_i,V_i;X_i)-I(U_i,V_i;Y_i)\neq 0$, and the suprema are over all $U_i,V_i$ such that $(U_i,V_i)-X_i-(Y_i,Z_i)$ and $I(U_i,V_i;X_i)-I(U_i,V_i;Y_i)\neq 0$. Supremizing with respect to $U,V$ on (\[leftmost\]) shows the tensorization property of $\frac{s^*_Z(X;Y)}{1-s^*_Z(X;Y)}$, which is equivalent to the tensorization property of $s^*_Z(X;Y)$.
3\) The achievable region of $(r,R)$ is the union of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{region0}
&[I(U,V;X)-I(U,V;Y),\infty)\nonumber\\
&\times[0,I(V;Y|U)-I(V;Z|U)]\end{aligned}$$ over all $U,V$ such that $(U,V)-X-(Y,Z)$ [@csiszar2004secrecy]. Thus $\sup_{r> 0}\frac{R(r)}{r}=\frac{s^*_Z(X;Y)}{1-s^*_Z(X;Y)}$ follows immediately from the definition of $s^*_Z(X;Y)$. The claim of $
\lim_{r\downarrow0}\frac{R(r)}{r}=\sup_{r> 0}\frac{R(r)}{r}
$ follows from the convexity of the achievable rate region.
4\) One direction of the inequality is obvious: if $U,V$ are such that $I(V;Y|U)-I(V;Z|U)\ge 0$, we have (see (\[equ18\])-(\[equ20\])).
Conversely, for any $Q_{VX}$, consider $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{(1)}_{VXYZ}&=Q_{VX}P_{YZ|X},\\
Q^{(0)}_{VXYZ}&=P_V\cdot\frac{P_{XYZ}-\alpha Q^{(1)}_{XYZ}}{1-\alpha},\label{eq23}\\
P^{\alpha}_{XYZUV}(x,y,z,u,v)
=&(1-\alpha)Q^{(0)}_{VXYZ}(v,x,y,z)1_{u=0}\nonumber\\
&+\alpha Q^{(1)}_{VXYZ}(v,x,y,z)1_{u=1},\end{aligned}$$ where $P_V$ is an arbitrary probability distribution on $\mathcal{V}$. We can assume that $P_{XYZ}(x,y,z)>0$ for all $x,y,z$ so that (\[eq23\]) is a well-defined distribution for $\alpha>0$ small enough. Then, we can verify that $P^{\alpha}_{XYZ}=P_{XYZ}$, $(U,V)-X-(Y,Z)$, and $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{\alpha\downarrow 0}\frac{I(V;Y|U)-I(V;Z|U)}
{I(V;X|U)-I(V;Z|U)+I(U;X)-I(U;Y)}\nonumber\\
=&\frac{I(\bar{V};\bar{Y})-I(\bar{V};\bar{Z})}
{I(\bar{V};\bar{X})-I(\bar{V};\bar{Z})+D(Q_X||P_X)-D(Q_Y||P_Y)},\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{UVXYZ}:=P^{\alpha}_{UVXYZ}$. Thus (\[e18\]) holds.
The proof of (\[eq19\]) is omitted here due to space constraint.
Thanks to Theorem \[thm1\], we can always eliminate one auxiliary r.v. if we only want to compute $s_Z^*(X;Y)$ instead of the rate region, which considerably reduces the dimension in the optimization problem. The interpretation of the tensorization of $s^*_Z(X;Y)$ is that, with small allowable public communication, it is always efficient to only use the best component of the product sources. Alternatively, the fact that rate splitting is optimal for product sources (as we shall prove in the sequel) implies the tensorization property of $s_Z^*(X;Y)$.
Secret Key Generation from Product Sources
------------------------------------------
We show that by appropriately splitting the communication rate to each ‘factor’ in the product source, producing keys separately and combining them (called ‘rate splitting’), one can always achieve the optimal key rate.
\[thm3\] In the problem of key generation from product sources satisfying (\[assump\]), the maximum key rate satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq18}
R(r)=\max_{\sum_{i=1}^n r_i\le r}\sum_{i=1}^n R_{i}(r_{i}),\end{aligned}$$ which can be achieved by rate splitting. Here $R_{i}(r_i)$ is the key-rate–communication-rate function corresponding to the $i$’th source triple $(X_i,Y_i,Z_i)$. Further, if $R_{i}(\cdot)$ is differentiable and $$\begin{aligned}
R(r)=\sum_{i=1}^n R_{i}(r^*_{i}),\end{aligned}$$ then for each $i$, either $R'_{i}(r^*_{i})=\mu$ or $r^*_{i}=0$, where $\mu$ is some constant.
Each rate of $R_{i}(r^*_{i})$ can be approached by a scheme that operates on each of the $i$’th source triple separately. From the second equation in (\[assump\]), the combination of these schemes form a legitimate scheme for the product source. Thus, the direction of $R(r)\ge\sum_{i=1}^n R_{i}(r_{i})$ is trivial.
By (\[region0\]) the achievable region of $(r,R)$ is the union of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{region}
&[I(U,V;X_1^n)-I(U,V;Y_1^n),\infty)\nonumber\\
&\times[0,I(V;Y_1^n|U)-I(V;Z_1^n|U)]\end{aligned}$$ over all $(U,V)$ such that $(U,V)-X_1^n-(Y_1^n,Z_1^n)$. The achievable region with rate splitting is the union of $$\begin{aligned}
&\left[\sum_{i=1}^n I(U_i,V_i;X_i)-\sum_{i=1}^n I(U_i,V_i;Y_i),\infty\right)\nonumber\\
&\times\left[0,\sum_{i=1}^n I(V_i;Y_i|U_i)-\sum_{i=1}^nI(V_i;Z_i|U_i)\right]\end{aligned}$$ over all $(U_i,V_i)$ such that $(U_i,V_i)-X_i-(Y_i,Z_i)$. The second union contains the first union, according to result of Lemma \[lem1\] in the appendix. Hence we also have $R(r)\le\sum_{i=1}^n R_{i}(r^*_{i})$ for some $r^*_{i}$, $i=1\dots n$. The last claim in the theorem for differentiable $R_{i}(\cdot)$ is from the KKT condition.
As an application, we derive a ‘water-filling’ solution for the communication-rate–key-rate tradeoff from two arbitrarily correlated vector Gaussian sources. For a nonnegative definite matrix $\bf\Sigma$, let ${\bf \Sigma}^{-1/2}$ be a positive definite matrix such that ${\bf \Sigma}^{-1/2}{\bf \Sigma\Sigma}^{-1/2}={\bf I}_r$, where ${\bf I}_{r}$ denotes the identity matrix of dimension $r={\rm rank}({\bf \Sigma})$. Also write ${\bf \Sigma}^{-1}=({\bf \Sigma}^{-1/2})^2$, which agrees with the definition of inverse matrix when $\bf \Sigma$ is invertible. Note that ${\bf \Sigma}^{-1/2}$ (and therefore ${\bf \Sigma}^{-1}$) may not be unique, although their choices do not affect the value of our key capacity expression. The following fact about Gaussian distributions is useful. The proof is based on singular value decomposition and is omitted here due to limitation of space.
\[lem3\] Suppose $\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y},\mathbf{Z}$ are jointly Gaussian vectors. There exist invertible linear transforms $\mathbf{X}\mapsto \bar{\mathbf{X}}$, $\mathbf{Y}\mapsto \bar{\mathbf{Y}}$, $\mathbf{Z}\mapsto \bar{\mathbf{Z}}$ such that all the five covariance matrices $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\bar{\mathbf{X}}}$, $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\bar{\mathbf{Y}}}$, $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\bar{\mathbf{Z}}}$, $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\bar{\mathbf{X}}\bar{\mathbf{Y}}}$, $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\bar{\mathbf{X}}\bar{\mathbf{Z}}}$ are diagonalized if and only if $\mathbf{\Sigma}^{-1/2}_{\mathbf{X}}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\mathbf{X}\mathbf{Z}}\mathbf{\Sigma}^{-1}_{\mathbf{Z}}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\mathbf{Z}\mathbf{X}}\mathbf{\Sigma}^{-1/2}_{\mathbf{X}}$ commutes with $\mathbf{\Sigma}^{-1/2}_{\mathbf{X}}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\mathbf{X}\mathbf{Y}}\mathbf{\Sigma}^{-1}_{\mathbf{Y}}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\mathbf{Y}\mathbf{X}}\mathbf{\Sigma}^{-1/2}_{\mathbf{X}}$.
\[rem2\] Luckily, the commutativity assumption is satisfied by stationary Gaussian processes (asymptotically over large blocklengths). This is due to the commutativity of convolution.
\[cor2\] If $\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y}$ are jointly Gaussian vectors, then there exist invertible linear transforms $\mathbf{X}\mapsto \bar{\mathbf{X}}$, $\mathbf{Y}\mapsto \bar{\mathbf{Y}}$ such that $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\bar{\mathbf{X}}}$, $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\bar{\mathbf{Y}}}$, $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\bar{\mathbf{X}}\bar{\mathbf{Y}}}$ are diagonalized.
Thanks to Theorem \[thm3\] and Corollary \[cor2\], the task of finding the key capacity of arbitrarily correlated Gaussian vector sources in the absence of eavesdroppers is reduced to the case of product Gaussian sources $(X^n,Y^n)$ satisfying (\[assump\]). In the presence of an eavesdropper, it is not always possible to reduce the problem to the case of product sources, since the conditions in Theorem \[thm3\] are not always fulfilled; but we discuss its practical relevance later. We now present the key capacity of product Gaussian sources. The solution displays a ‘water-filling’ behaviour which is reminiscent of the rate-distortion function for Gaussian vectors [@cover2012elements].
\[thm4\] If $(X^n,Y^n,Z^n)$ are product Gaussian sources, then the achievable communication and key rates are parameterized by $\mu>0$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rp}
r=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i:\beta_i>\mu}\log\frac{\beta_i(\mu+1)}{(\beta_i+1)\mu},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rk}
R=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i:\beta_i>\mu}\log\frac{\beta_i+1}{\mu+1},\end{aligned}$$ where $
\beta_i:=\frac{\rho_{X_iY_i}^2-\rho_{X_iZ_i}^2}{1-\rho_{X_iY_i}^2}.
$
The initial efficiency is $\max_{1\le i\le n}\beta_i^+$, where $\beta_i^+:=\max\{\beta_i,0\}$.
Reference [@watanabe] derived an explicit formula for the achievable key rate in the case of degraded scalar sources: $$\begin{aligned}
R(r)=& \frac{1}{2}\log\frac{\Sigma_{y|xz}2^{-2r}
+\Sigma_{y|z}(1-2^{-2r})}{\Sigma_{y|xz}}\label{scalar}\\
=& \frac{1}{2}
\log\left(\frac{1-\rho_{xz}^2}
{1-\rho_{xy}^2}+\frac{\rho_{xy}^2-\rho_{xz}^2}
{1-\rho_{xy}^2}2^{-2r}\right).\label{scalar1}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the achievable rate region depends only on the marginal distributions $P_{XY}$ and $P_{XZ}$ (see (\[region0\])), hence (\[scalar1\]) holds as long as $\rho_{xy}\ge\rho_{xz}$, in which case $X,Y,Z$ is stochastically degraded [@cover2012elements] in that order. When $\rho_{xy}<\rho_{xz}$, from (\[region\]) we see that $R(r)=0$ since $X,Z,Y$ is stochastically degraded in that order. Hence in all cases, we can further simplify $$\begin{aligned}
\label{scalar2}
R(r)= \frac{1}{2}
\log\left(1+\beta^+-\beta^+ 2^{-2r}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta:=\frac{\rho_{xy}^2-\rho_{xz}^2}{1-\rho_{xy}^2}$ and recall the notation $\beta^+:=\max\{\beta,0\}$.
Now consider the product sources, and suppose $r^*_{i}$ are the numbers that achieve the maximum in Theorem \[thm3\]. According to Theorem \[thm3\], either $R_{i}'(r^*_{i})=\frac{\beta^+_i 2^{-2r^*_{i}}}{1+\beta^+_i-\beta^+_i 2^{-2r^*_{i}}}=\mu$ or $r^*_{i}=0$ for each $i$, where $\mu$ is some constant. For fixed $\mu$, this means $$\begin{aligned}
r^*_{i}=\max\left\{0,\frac{1}{2}\log
\frac{(1+\mu)\beta^+_i}{\mu(1+\beta^+_i)}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Equivalently, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rp}
r^*_{i}=\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{\beta^+_i(m_i+1)}{(\beta^+_i+1)m_i},\end{aligned}$$ where $m_i:=\min\{\mu,\beta^+_i\}$. The claim then follows by substituting the value of $r^*_{i}$ into (\[scalar2\]) and applying (\[eq18\]).
Theorem \[thm4\] can be used to derive the key-rate–communication-rate tradeoff for Wiener class[^2] stationary Gaussian processes, in which case the linear transforms in Lemma \[lem3\] can be easily found. We shall only discuss the basic idea here since a rigorous derivation is complicated and involves the asymptotic behaviour of Toeplitz matrices. Consider first passing $Y$ through a filter whose impulse response is $R_{XY}$, [^3] the correlation function between $X$ and $Y$, resulting in a new process $\hat{Y}$. Similarly, construct $\hat{Z}$ by convolving with $R_{XZ}$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
R_{X\hat{Y}}&=R_{XY}*R_{YX},\\
R_{X\hat{Z}}&=R_{XZ}*R_{ZX},\end{aligned}$$ become symmetric functions. Setting $\bar{\mathbf{X}}={\bf Q}X^n$, $\bar{\mathbf{Y}}={\bf Q}\hat{Y}^n$, $\bar{\mathbf{Z}}={\bf Q}\hat{Z}^n$ where $\bf Q$ the sine/cosine orthogonal matrix, the covariance matrices $\bf\Sigma_{\bar{X}}$, $\bf\Sigma_{\bar{Y}}$, $\bf\Sigma_{\bar{Z}}$, $\bf\Sigma_{\bar{X}\bar{Y}}$, $\bf\Sigma_{\bar{X}\bar{Z}}$ will be approximately diagonal (asymptotically for large $n$).
In summary, in the spectral representation the original Gaussian sources are converted sources satisfying the product assumption (\[assump\]), and the correlation coefficients corresponding to frequency $\omega$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{X'Y'}(\omega)=&\frac{|S_{XY}(\omega)|}{\sqrt{S_{X}(\omega)S_{Y}(\omega)}},\label{rho}\\
\rho_{X'Z'}(\omega)=&\frac{|S_{XZ}(\omega)|}{\sqrt{S_{X}(\omega)S_{Z}(\omega)}},\label{rho1}\end{aligned}$$ where $S_{X},S_{Y},S_{Z},S_{XY},S_{XZ}$ denote the spectral densities and joint spectral densities. Using (\[rho\]), (\[rho1\]) and Theorem \[thm4\], the key capacity of Gaussian processes is obtained as follows:
For Wiener class stationary Gaussian processes, we have $$\begin{aligned}
r=&\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{\beta(\omega)>\mu}\log\frac{\beta(\omega)(\mu+1)}{(\beta(\omega)
+1)\mu}{\rm d}\omega,\\
R=&\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{\beta(\omega)>\mu}
\log\frac{\beta(\omega)+1}{\mu+1}{\rm d}\omega.\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta(\omega)=\frac{|S_{XY}(\omega)|^2S_Z(\omega)-|S_{XZ}
(\omega)|^2S_Y(\omega)}{S_X(\omega)S_Y(\omega)S_Z(\omega)-
|S_{XY}(\omega)|^2S_Z(\omega)}$.
Details of the proof are omitted here.
Initial efficiency is the essential supremum of $\beta^+$.
Discussion
==========
The evidence points to the principle that rate splitting is optimal for product resources asymptotically in most coding problems admitting single-letter information theoretic solutions. Indeed, the algebraic manipulations in the converse proofs usually rely only on the independence of $\{X_t\}$, rather than that they are identically distributed. Hence the main element in proving such a result about rate splitting (e.g. Lemma \[lem1\] in the appendix) is usually related to the converse proof of the corresponding coding theorem. However, this is not the case for coding problems of combinatorial nature. For example, the zero-error capacity of independent channels operating in parallel is not the sum of the zero-error capacities of the individual channels [@alon1998shannon].
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was supported by NSF under Grants CCF-1116013, CCF-1319299, CCF-1319304, and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under Grant FA9550-12-1-0196.
\[lem1\] Suppose that $\{(X_i,Y_i,Z_i)\}_{i=1}^n$ possess the product structure of (\[assump\]), and $(U,V)$ are r.v.’s such that $(U,V)-X_1^n-(Y_1^n,Z_1^n)$. Then there exist $U_1^n$ and $V_1^n$ such that $(U_i,V_i)-X_i-(Y_i,Z_i)$ for $i=1,\dots,n$ and $$\begin{aligned}
I(U,V;X_1^n)-I(U,V;Y_1^n)\ge&\sum_{i=1}^n [I(U_i,V_i;X_i)-I(U_i,V_i;Y_i)],\label{e43}\\
I(V;Y_1^n|U)-I(V;Z_1^n|U)=&\sum_{i=1}^n [I(V_i;Y_i|U_i)-I(V_i;Z_i|U_i)].\label{e1}\end{aligned}$$
Choose a random vector $\bar{Z}^n$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&P_{UVX^nY^n\bar{Z}^n}(u,v,x^n,y^n,z^n)\nonumber\\
=&P_{UVX^n}(u,v,x^n)P_{Y^n|X^n}(y^n|x^n)P_{Z^n|X^n}(z^n|x^n).\end{aligned}$$ Define $\bar{U}_i=(Y^{i-1},\bar{Z}_{i+1}^n,U)$ and $V_i=V$. Then $(\bar{U}_i,V_i)-X_i-(Y_i,\bar{Z}_i)$ forms a Markov chain for each $i$. Moreover $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq184}
I(V;Y_1^n|U)-I(V;\bar{Z}_1^n|U)=&\sum_{i=1}^n [I(V_i;Y_i|\bar{U}_i)-I(V_i;\bar{Z}_i|\bar{U}_i)]\end{aligned}$$ holds, c.f. [@ahlswede1993common Lemma 4.1]. Next, observe that $$\begin{aligned}
&I(U,V;X_1^n)-I(U,V;Y_1^n)\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{i=1}^n[I(U,V;X_i|X_{i+1}^n,Y^{i-1})-I(U,V;Y_i|X_{i+1}^nY^{i-1})]\label{st1}\\
=&\sum_{i=1}^n[I(U,V,X_{i+1}^n,Y^{i-1};X_i)-I(U,V,X_{i+1}^nY^{i-1};Y_i)]\label{st2}\\
=&\sum_{i=1}^n[I(U,V,X_{i+1}^n,Y^{i-1},\bar{Z}^n_{i+1};X_i)\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad\quad-I(U,V,X_{i+1}^nY^{i-1},\bar{Z}^n_{i+1};Y_i)]\label{st3}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=&\sum_{i=1}^n[I(U,V,Y^{i-1},\bar{Z}^n_{i+1};X_i)-I(U,V,Y^{i-1},\bar{Z}^n_{i+1};Y_i)]\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{i=1}^n[I(X_{i+1}^n;X_i|U,V,Y^{i-1},\bar{Z}^n_{i+1})\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad\quad-I(X_{i+1}^n;Y_i|U,V,Y^{i-1},\bar{Z}^n_{i+1})]\\
\ge&\sum_{i=1}^n[I(U,V,Y^{i-1},\bar{Z}^n_{i+1};X_i)-
I(U,V,Y^{i-1},\bar{Z}^n_{i+1};Y_i)]\label{st4}\\
=&\sum_{i=1}^n[I(\bar{U}_i,V_i;X_i)-I(\bar{U}_i,V_i;Y_i)].\label{eq190}\end{aligned}$$ Here, (\[st1\]) is again by [@ahlswede1993common Lemma 4.1], and (\[st2\]) is from $(X_i,Y_i)\perp(X_{i+1}^n,Y^{i-1})$. Equality (\[st3\]) is from $\bar{Z}_{i+1}^n-(U,V,X_{i+1}^n,Y^{i-1})-(X_i,Y_i)$. Inequality (\[st4\]) is because of $I(X_{i+1}^n;X_i|U,V,Y^{i-1},\bar{Z}^n_{i+1})=I(X_{i+1}^n;X_i,Y_i|U,V,Y^{i-1},\bar{Z}^n_{i+1})$. Finally choose a random vector $U^n$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
P_{U_i|V_iX_iY_iZ_i}(u_i|v_i,x_i,y_i,z_i)=P_{\bar{U}_i|V_iX_i}(u_i|v_ix_i).\end{aligned}$$ Since $P_{U_iV_iX_iZ_i}=P_{\bar{U}_iV_iX_i\bar{Z}_i}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
I(V_i;Z_i|U_i)=&I(V_i;\bar{Z}_i|\bar{U}_i).\label{e185}\end{aligned}$$ By the same token, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
I(V_i;Y_i|U_i)=&I(V_i;Y_i|\bar{U}_i),\quad
I(U_i,V_i;Y_i)=&I(\bar{U}_i,V_i;Y_i),
\\
I(U_i,V_i;X_i)=&I(\bar{U}_i,V_i;X_i),\quad
I(V;Z_1^n|U)=&I(V;\bar{Z}_1^n|U).\label{e184}\end{aligned}$$ The last five identities and , complete the proof.
[^1]: For the reason we just discussed, the $\rho^2_m(X;Y)$ in the expressions of efficiency functions in [@zhao] should be replaced by $s^*(X;Y)$.
[^2]: We say a Gaussian process is in the Wiener class if its correlation function is absolutely summable [@gray2006toeplitz]. This is merely a technical condition which facilitates the proof.
[^3]: When $R_{XY}$ is bandlimited, convolution with $R_{XY}$ becomes a degenerate linear transform. In this case we can use a signal $\hat{R}_{XY}$ as an alternative, where $\hat{R}_{XY}$ has full spectrum and agrees with $R_{XY}$ in the pass-band of $R_{XY}$. The final formula of key capacity however will remain unchanged.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a model for a Chern insulator on the square lattice with complex first and second neighbor hoppings and a sublattice potential which displays an unexpectedly rich physics. Similarly to the celebrated Haldane model, the proposed Chern insulator has two topologically non-trivial phases with Chern numbers $\pm1$. As a distinctive feature of the present model, phase transitions are associated to Dirac points that can move, merge and split in momentum space, at odds with Haldane’s Chern insulator where Dirac points are bound to the corners of the hexagonal Brillouin zone. Additionally, the obtained phase diagram reveals a peculiar phase transition line between two distinct topological phases, in contrast to the Haldane model where such transition is reduced to a point with zero sublattice potential. The model is amenable to be simulated in optical lattices, facilitating the study of phase transitions between two distinct topological phases and the experimental analysis of Dirac points merging and wandering.'
author:
- 'Miguel Gonçalves$^{1}$, Pedro Ribeiro$^{1,2}$, Eduardo V. Castro$^{1,2,3}$'
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: Dirac points merging and wandering in a model Chern insulator
---
Introduction
============
The study of topological phases in electronic systems, particularly topological insulators, have become an area of vast interest in condensed matter physics [@RevModPhys.82.3045; @QZrmp11; @bernevigBook]. Arguably, the first experimenal realization of a topological electron system is associated with the discovery of the quantum Hall effect by von Klitzing [@Klitzing1980] almost fourty years ago. This phenomenon takes place in two-dimensional systems at high magnetic fields, when a quantized Hall conductivity and dissipationless surface conducting states appear. High magnetic fields are not easy to realize, which motivates the interest for an effect with the same transport properties under a zero applied magnetic field [–]{} the quantum anomalous Hall effect [@NSO+10].
Both quantum Hall and quantum anomalous Hall systems are two-dimensional insulators with broken time-reversal symmetry. Their topological character is associated with a topological invariant called first Chern number ($C$), which is equal to the Hall conductivity in units of $e^{2}/h$ [@Xiao2010]. Different Chern numbers describe different topological phases of matter, while $C=0$ corresponds to the normal insulating phase. In modern language this systems are known as Chern insulators [@bernevigBook].
 Phase diagram of the Haldane model. (b) Phase diagram of the model proposed in Eq. \[eq:Ham\].](Images/fig1){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
The first theoretical realization of the quantum anomalous Hall effect is due to Haldane [@Haldane1988]. He proposed a Chern insulator toy model considering a honeycomb lattice with two different types of atoms subjected to a sublattice potential $\pm M$ and with second nearest neighbor complex hoppings of the type $t_{2}e^{\pm i\phi}$. These hoppings were responsible for breaking time reversal symmetry and are the effect of a local magnetic flux density built in such a way that its total flux in the unit cell, and therefore in the whole system, is zero. Depending on the values chosen for the parameters of the Haldane model [–]{} $M$ and $\phi$ [–]{} it is possible to obtain a trivial insulating phase ($C=0$) or topological phases with $C=\pm1$, as can be seen in fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\](a) where we show the phase diagram of the Haldane model, reproduced here for clarity and comparison. Believed to be of unlikely realization in a solid state system, this model settled ground to the discovery of time reversal invariant topological insulators [@KM05; @bernevig2006quantum; @BHZ2006; @KWB+07], which fuelled the field in the last decade [@Chiu2016]. The observation of the quantum anomalous Hall effect was acheived in a magnetic topological insulator [@qhaexp2013]. This was followed by an experimental realization of the pioneer Haldane model using cold atoms trapped in optical lattices [@Jotzu2014], opening the door to study the effect of interactions [@2018arXiv180800978G] and disorder [@2018arXiv180711247G; @PhysRevB.92.085410; @PhysRevB.93.245414] in Chern insulators experimentally in a controlled way.
In the presence of multiple energy bands and translational invariance, a topological phase transition is associated to a gap closing at some band crossing point(s) in the reciprocal space [@haldane2004berry; @SF008]. If the energy dispersion relation near these points is linear in the reciprocal space vector $\bm{k}$, they are called Dirac points [@bernevigBook]. Since Dirac points are monopoles of Berry curvature [@haldane2004berry], they arise naturally in Chern insulators at the boundary between phases with different Chern number. In the Haldane model, as recognized in the seminal paper [@Haldane1988], there is a single Dirac point along the full phase transition line shown in fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\](a), except at the point $M=0$, $\phi=0$, where there are two Dirac points [–]{} the case of graphene. Either one or two, Dirac points in the Haldane model are bound to the corners of the hexagonal Brillouin zone and they do not move by changing the parameters $M$ and $\phi$ of the model.
Under certain conditions, Dirac points can move, merge and split in $\bm{k}$-space for continuous variations of the Hamiltonian parameters. This can be achieved, for example, by considering models with asymmetric changes in the hopping parameters [@Montambaux2009prb; @Montambaux2009; @Lim2012; @Hasegawa2012; @sticlet2013]. In graphene, hopping changes may be induced by applying strain [@PhysRevB.80.045401; @VKG10], but the high strain values required strongly limit the effect. To circumvent this limitation, moving and merging Dirac points have been proposed in ac-driven graphene [@Delplace2013], patterned graphene [@Dvorak2015], and artificial graphene [@Feilhauer2015]. They have also been proposed in honeycomb optical lattices [@Wunsch2008; @Sriluckshmy2014] and square optical lattices [@Hou2014], which seem to be even better platforms. Indeed, the ability to create, move and merge Dirac points [@Tarruell2012; @Tarnowski2017], has been recently demonstrated using honeycomb optical lattices. Possible applications of merging Dirac points range from valleytronics [@Ang2017] to plasmonics [@Pyatkovskiy2016]. Interesting effects due to electron-electron interactions [@Dora2013; @Wang2013] and disorder have also been proposed [@Carpentier2013].
Here we propose new model for a Chern insulator realized on the square lattice, with a richer phase diagram than the Haldane model, as shown in fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\](b). Two interesting properties stand out: (i) a topological transition between $C=\pm1$ phases exists for a finite staggered potencial range $-1<M<+1$, as depicted by the vertical red line in fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\](b), while in the Haldane model such transition is reduced to the point $M=0$, $\phi=0$; (ii) up to four Dirac points are found at the phase transition lines, which are allowed to wander, merge, and split in reciprocal space as a function of the model parameters $M$ and $\phi_{3}$ (to be explained below), while in the Haldane model they are bound to fixed momenta. The model can be simulated using a square optical lattice, enabling the simultaneous analysis of Chern insulating phases and their phase transitions, as well as the movement, merging and splitting of Dirac points. Semi-Dirac points are also realized for some merging conditions.
Model and methods
=================
A simple square lattice model
-----------------------------
We present here a toy model composed by a lattice with two interpenetrating square lattices of atoms A and B, as shown in fig. \[fig:lattice\_model\]. This model considers complex hoppings between first and second neighbors, respectively of the type $t_{1}e^{i\varphi_{1}^{\alpha}}$ and $t_{2}e^{i\varphi_{2}^{\beta}}$, with $\alpha$ and $\beta$ being respectively the four indexes of the first and second neighbors. The phases $\varphi_{1}^{\alpha}$ and $\varphi_{2}^{\beta}$ were imposed in such a way that the total flux in the unit cell, $\Phi_{T}$, is null. Designating $\phi_{i}$ as the flux over each of the four triangles composing the unit cell, as represented in fig. \[fig:lattice\_model\], we impose $\Phi_{T}=\sum_{i=1}^{4}\phi_{i}=0$. This condition does not univocally fix the phases, and we indicate our choice for the phases $\varphi_{1}^{\alpha}$ and $\varphi_{2}^{\beta}$ explicitly in Fig. \[fig:lattice\_model\].
![Representation of the lattice used for the toy model. The red and blue atoms correspond respectively to different atoms of types A and B. The complex hopping phases are given for each hopping and the flow of the corresponding flux is represented by the arrows. \[fig:lattice\_model\]](Images/fig2){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
The free parameters of our model were chosen to be the phase $\phi_{3}$ (and not $\phi$ to clearly distinguish from the fluxes in Haldane model) represented in fig. \[fig:lattice\_model\] and a sublattice potential $M$: $+M$ for sites A and $-M$ for sites B. For the present choice, the remaining fluxes are given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{1}= & -\pi/2\nonumber \\
\phi_{2}= & \pi\nonumber \\
\phi_{4}= & -\pi/2-\phi_{3}\,.\label{eq:phi124}\end{aligned}$$ The considered fluxes are asymmetric in that they explicitly break the $C_{4}$ symmetry of the original lattice.
The Hamiltonian of the present model is easily written in direct space using second quantization and the field operators $c_{\boldsymbol{r}}^{\dagger}$, where $c_{\boldsymbol{r}}^{\dagger}=(a_{\boldsymbol{r}}^{\dagger},b_{\boldsymbol{r}}^{\dagger})$ is the creation operator in the sublattice pseudospin space ($a,b$ denoting the A and B sublattices, respectively) acting on the unit cell at position $\boldsymbol{r}$. Taking into account translational invariance and introducing the Bloch basis, $c_{\bm{r}}^{\dagger}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{\bm{{k}}}e^{-i\bm{{k.\bm{{r}}}}}c_{\bm{{k}}}^{\dagger}$, we can write the Hamiltonian of our toy model in the reciprocal space as $H=\sum_{\bm{k}}\Psi_{\bm{k}}^{\dagger}H(\bm{k})\Psi_{\bm{k}}$, where $\Psi_{\bm{k}}^{\dagger}=(a_{\bm{k}}^{\dagger},b_{\bm{k}}^{\dagger})$ and
$$H(\bm{k})=\begin{bmatrix}g(\bm{k})+M & f(\bm{k})\\
f^{*}(\bm{k}) & -g(\bm{k})-M
\end{bmatrix}\,,\label{eq:Ham}$$
with $$\begin{aligned}
g(\bm{k})= & 2t_{2}[cos(\bm{k}.\bm{a_{1}})-cos(\bm{k}.\bm{a_{2}})]\,,\label{eq:gk}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
f(\bm{k})= & t_{1}[-i+e^{i\bm{k}.\bm{a_{1}}}+e^{-i\phi_{3}}e^{i\bm{k}.\bm{a_{2}}}+e^{i\bm{k}.(\bm{a_{1}}+\bm{a_{2}})}]\,,\label{eq:fk}\end{aligned}$$ and the primitive unit vectors $\bm{a_{1}}=a(1,0)$ and $\bm{a_{2}}=a(0,1)$, written in terms of the lattice constant $a$.
It is useful to write the hamiltonian in terms of the Pauli matrices. In units where the lattice constant $a=1$, it becomes
$$H(\bm{k})=\bm{h(\bm{k})}.\bm{\sigma}\,,\label{eq:hamgeneral}$$
with the vector $\boldsymbol{h}$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
h_{x}(\bm{k})= & t_{1}[\cos k_{x}+\cos(-\phi_{3}+k_{y})+\cos(k_{x}+k_{y})]\nonumber \\
h_{y}(\bm{k})= & t_{1}[1-\sin k_{x}-\sin(-\phi_{3}+k_{y})-\sin(k_{x}+k_{y})]\nonumber \\
h_{z}(\bm{k})= & 2t_{2}(\cos k_{x}-\cos k_{y})+M\,,\label{eq:hvec}\end{aligned}$$ and $\boldsymbol{\sigma}=(\sigma_{x},\sigma_{y},\sigma_{z})$ is the vector of Pauli matrices. From eq. , the band spectrum is simply obtained as $\epsilon(\bm{k})=\pm|\bm{h}|$. As shown below, analytic expression for band crossing points can be obtained by solving $\epsilon(\bm{k})=0$.
When the Hamiltonian is in the form of eq. , the Chern number $C$ can be calculated using the following expression [@Xiao2010],
$$C=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{\mathrm{BZ}}\frac{\partial\bm{h}}{\partial k_{x}}\times\frac{\partial\bm{h}}{\partial k_{y}}\cdot\frac{\bm{h}}{|h|^{3}}\,dk_{x}dk_{y}\,,\label{eq:chern_number}$$
where the integration is performed over the Brillouin zone (BZ): $k_{x},k_{y}\in[-\pi,\pi]$.
Low energy, continuum approximation {#subsec:low_energy_intro}
-----------------------------------
In the presence of a topological phase transition, the spectral gap existing in the insulating phase closes at some band crossing points. These gap closing points are responsible for the change in the Chern number between the phases. Near these points the band crossing is generally linear [@haldane2004berry], and we are able to linearize the Hamiltonian in eq. provided we are close enough to the phase transition.
Let us assume that a band crossing point exists at point P in the BZ associated to a given phase transition in the phase diagram. After linearization around P, assuming the parameters are such that the system is close to the phase transition, we may approximate eq. by
$$H^{\mathrm{P}}(\bm{\kappa})=\kappa_{\alpha}\mathcal{G}_{\alpha\beta}^{\mathrm{P}}\sigma_{\beta}\,,\label{eq:Gab}$$
where $\bm{\kappa}\equiv(\kappa_{x},\kappa_{y})=\bm{k}-\bm{k}_{\mathrm{P}}$ is the small momentum relative to $\boldsymbol{k}_{\mathrm{P}}$, with $\boldsymbol{k}_{\mathrm{P}}$ the momentum associated to the band crossing point P. In eq. , summation over repeated indeces is assumed, with $\kappa_{z}=1$, and the matrix $\mathcal{G}^{\mathrm{P}}$ is the matrix obtained by expanding the Hamiltonian in eq. around a given band crossing point P. Due to the linear form of the approximate Hamiltonian in eq. , these gap closing points are called *Dirac points*.
The contribution of the Dirac point P to the Chern number, $C_{\mathrm{P}}$, is obtained using eq. and ,
$$C_{\mathrm{P}}=\frac{1}{2}\text{sgn}[\det(\mathcal{G}^{\mathrm{P}})]\,.\label{eq:chern_point}$$
If we obtain $C_{\mathrm{P}}$ in two distinct phases close to the phase transition, we may then compute the difference between the two results, $\Delta C_{\mathrm{P}}$. Since the high energy contributions cancel, we obtain the total contribution of this Dirac point to the change in Chern number at the phase transition [@Lovesey2014]. We use $\Delta C_{\mathrm{P}}$ to further characterize the phase diagram of the proposed Chern insulator.
Results
=======
Phase diagram {#subsec:phase_diagram}
-------------
The obtained phase diagram is shown in fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\](b). It was obtained through eq. and confirmed numerically with the Fukui method [@Fukui2005].
The $C=0$ phase corresponds to a normal insulator. The energy gap closes at the dashed and dotted curves which correspond to phase transition lines between a trivial and a topological phase. There are two topological phases with $C=\pm1$ corresponding to the filled regions in fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\](b). They are separated by a vertical phase transition line existing at $\phi_{3}=\pi/2$. The equations for the dotted, dashed, and solid phase transition lines shown in fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\](b) are
$$\begin{cases}
M(\phi_{3})=\pm2\sqrt{2}t_{2}\cos(\phi_{3}/2) & \text{{dotted(+)/dashed(-)}}\\
\phi_{3}=\pi/2\cap\Big|\frac{M}{2t_{2}}\Big|<1 & \text{{solid\,(vertical)}}\,.
\end{cases}$$
There is yet another line not depicted in fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\](b), correponding to $\phi=\pi/2$ and $-4t_{2}<M<-2t_{2}$, which does not correspond to any phase transition but for which the energy spectrum is gapless.
{width="95.00000%"}
Wandering of Dirac points and its consequences {#subsec:wandering_dirac_points}
----------------------------------------------
We have analyzed the evolution of the number of Dirac points, as well as their position in the BZ, along the phase transition lines shown in fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\](b). We have verified that the position of the Dirac points changes along the transition lines. Furthermore, the number of band crossing points is not conserved. In this section we provide a detailed analysis of this behavior.
### Single band crossing point
The dotted curve in fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\](b) is associated with a single band crossing point everywhere, except at $\phi_{3}=\pm\pi$ where there are two Dirac points. The same applies to the dashed curve, except at $\phi_{3}=\pi/2$, where it also has two band crossing points. For for $\phi_{3}\neq\{\pm\pi,\pi/2\}$, the position of the single Dirac point along these curves is given, for the dotted curve, by
$$\begin{cases}
(k_{x},k_{y})=(x_{M_{+}},y_{M_{+}}) & \phi_{3}<0\\
(k_{x},k_{y})=(x_{M_{-}},y_{M_{-}}) & \phi_{3}>0
\end{cases}\,,$$
and for the dashed curve, by
$$\begin{cases}
(k_{x},k_{y})=(x_{M_{-}},y_{M_{-}}) & \phi_{3}<0\\
(k_{x},k_{y})=(x_{M_{+}},y_{M_{+}}) & \phi_{3}>0
\end{cases}\,,$$
where
$$\begin{cases}
x_{M_{\pm}}=\pm2\text{arctan}\left[\frac{M+2t_{2}}{\sqrt{8t_{2}^{2}-M^{2}}\pm2t_{2}}\right]\\
y_{M_{\pm}}=2\text{arctan}\left[\frac{\sqrt{8t_{2}^{2}-M^{2}}\mp M}{\sqrt{8t_{2}^{2}-M^{2}}\pm(M+4t_{2})}\right]
\end{cases}\,.\label{eq:xMyM}$$
### Multiple band crossing points
At $\phi_{3}=\pm\pi$, we have two Dirac points at $(k_{x},k_{y})=(-3\pi/4,-3\pi/4)$ and $(k_{x},k_{y})=(\pi/4,\pi/4)$. For $\phi_{3}=\pi/2$, the phase transition line is very rich in terms of band crossing points as their number ranges between 1 and 4 due to merging and splitting of Dirac points. This case is analyzed in the following.
Let us fix $\phi_{3}=\pi/2$. As long as $M>2t_{2}$, we are not yet at the phase transition line and there is a gap in the energy spectrum corresponding to a trivial insulator [\[]{}fig. \[fig:dirac\_points\_motion\_spectrum\](a)[\]]{}. This gap closes for $M=2t_{2}$, at a single band crossing point, $(k_{x},k_{y})=(\pi/2,0)$, [\[]{}fig. \[fig:dirac\_points\_motion\_spectrum\](b)[\]]{}. This band crossing point is not a conventional Dirac point, as the energy spectrum is quadratic in the $k_{y}$ direction and linear in $k_{x}$ [–]{} which is called a semi-Dirac point [@Montambaux2018]. This is known to be a consequence of the merging of two Dirac points [@Montambaux2009; @Montambaux2009prb; @pardoSemDirac; @Li2015; @Adroguer2016], in this case in the $k_{y}$ direction. Indeed, topological phase transitions accompained with higher order band crossings, for example quadratic band crossings, exist and can be interpreted as the merging of two or more Dirac points [@SYF+09].
Slightly reducing $M$, still with fixed $\phi_{3}=\pi/2$, we observe that the semi-Dirac point splits in the above mentioned two Dirac points in the $k_{y}$ direction [\[]{}fig. \[fig:dirac\_points\_motion\_spectrum\](c)[\]]{}, which we call $\mathrm{P}_{+}$ and $\mathrm{P}_{-}$. These points move away from each other in the $k_{y}$ direction, untill they reach the boundaries of the BZ for $M=-2t_{2}$ [\[]{}fig. \[fig:dirac\_points\_motion\_spectrum\](f)[\]]{}, where they again merge. Their coordinates for $-2t_{2}<M<2t_{2}$ are given by $$P_{\pm}=\left\{ \frac{\pi}{2},\pm\text{\ensuremath{\arccos}}\left(\frac{M}{2t_{2}}\right)\right\} \,.\label{eq:pp}$$ For $M=0$ [\[]{}fig. \[fig:dirac\_points\_motion\_spectrum\](d)[\]]{}, a new band crossing point shows up at the boundaries of the BZ, $(k_{x},k_{y})=(\pm\pi,\pm\pi)$. This point is also a semi-Dirac point, being quadratic in the $k_{x}$ direction. For $-2t_{2}<M<0$ [\[]{}fig. \[fig:dirac\_points\_motion\_spectrum\](e)[\]]{}, this single point splits in two in the $k_{x}$ direction, which we call $P'_{+}$ and $P'_{-}$, with coordinates given by $$P'_{\pm}=\left\{ \pi,\pm\text{arccos}\left(-\frac{M}{2t_{2}}-1\right)\right\} \,.\label{eq:pprime}$$ An important detail not shown in the figures is that these points exist for $-4t_{2}<M<0$, and therefore survive outside the boundaries of the $\phi_{3}=\pi/2$ phase transition line. They give rise to the gapless spectrum associated with the extension of the vertical transition line in fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\](b), mentioned in section \[subsec:phase\_diagram\].
A global overview of the motion, merging and splitting of the Dirac points for the $\phi=\pi/2$ gapless region of the phase diagram ($-4t_{2}<M<2t_{2}$) is given in figure \[fig:dirac\_point\_motion\_overview\].
![Overview of the motion, merging and splitting of the Dirac points in the BZ for $\phi_{3}=\pi/2$ and $-4t_{2}<M<2t_{2}$ [\[]{}along the vertical line in Fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\](b)[\]]{}. All four Dirac points existing in this region, $P_{\pm}$ and $P'_{\pm}$ [\[]{}eq. and , are depicted in the figure with the corresponding motion lines given in the legend. The arrows point to regions of higher $M$ and the dots describe the merging or splitting of Dirac points.\[fig:dirac\_point\_motion\_overview\]](Images/fig4)
### Contribution to the topological invariant
Based on the methods from section \[subsec:low\_energy\_intro\], we computed the contributions of Dirac points to the Chern number for the different phase transition curves. For curves associated to a single Dirac point [\[]{}dashed and dotted in fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\](b)[\]]{}, its contribution was confirmed to be trivially $\Delta C=1$.
For the $\phi_{3}=\pi/2$ phase transition line the contributions are as follows. By expanding the Hamiltonian in eq. around $P_{+}$, the contribution to the Chern number obtained from eq. is
$$C_{P_{+}}=\begin{cases}
-1/2 & \phi_{3}\lesssim\pi/2\\
1/2 & \phi_{3}\gtrsim\pi/2
\end{cases}\,.$$
This meas that $P_{+}$ contributes with $\Delta C_{P_{+}}=1$ for the change in the Chern number. Doing the same for $P_{-}$, we verified that this point had exactly the same contribution. Therefore, $P_{+}$ and $P_{-}$ contribute to a total change of $\Delta C=2$ between the topological phases. For the points $P'_{+}$ and $P'_{-}$, we obtained that for all their domain of existence
$$C_{P'_{+}}=-C_{P'_{-}}=\begin{cases}
1/2 & \phi_{3}\lesssim\pi/2\\
-1/2 & \phi_{3}\gtrsim\pi/2
\end{cases}\,,$$
thus giving canceling contributions. We then conclude that $P_{+}$ and $P_{-}$ are the points responsible for the change from $C=-1$ to $C=1$ between topological phases. It thus makes sense that $P_{+}$ and $P_{-}$ exist for $-2t_{2}<M<2t_{2}$, while and the additional points $P'_{+}$ and $P'_{-}$ exist for $-4t_{2}<M<0$. If the latter were to have any net contribution for the topological transition, we would have a phase transition for $-4t_{2}<M<2t_{2}$ which is not the case.
Conclusions
===========
We have put forward a new model for a Chern insulator which is characterized by a richer phase diagram than the celebrated Haldane Chern insulator. An interesting new result regarding the obtained phase diagram is the appearance of a phase transition line between topological phases in the $(M,\phi_{3})$ parameter space. This implies a transition between non-trivial phases for non-zero sublattice potential. This phenomenon does not occur for the Haldane model in which the transition between $C=\pm1$ phases occurs only for $M=0$ [\[]{}compare fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\](a) with \[fig:phase\_diagram\](b)[\]]{}.
Another striking characteristic of the proposed Chern insulator is that Dirac points at the phase transition lines can move, merge, and split in reciprocal space, while in the Haldane model they are bound to fixed momenta. Of particular relevance is the behavior of Dirac points for the vertical transition line in fig. \[fig:phase\_diagram\](b), when $\phi_{3}=\pi/2$. There, up to four Dirac points are found, which move as $M$ is changed, merging in pairs as semi-Dirac points, with subsequent annihilation or splitting. Of the four Dirac points found, only two contribute to the change $\Delta C=2$ in Chern number across the phase transition, where $C=+1$ on one side of the transition line and $C=-1$ on the other. The phase transition exists as long as both points are separated and ceases to exist when they merge and a trivial insulating gap is opened.
The model here proposed extends the physics of moving and merging Dirac points, studied previously in models with tunable hopping values [@Wunsch2008; @Montambaux2009; @Hou2014], to the realm of Chern insulators where only hopping phases ($\phi_{3}$ in the present case), and not their absolute values, have to be changed. It also enables the study of semi-Dirac points [@Li2015] within the same set up where Chern insulating phases are realized.
The realization of the Haldane Chern insulator [@Jotzu2014], as well as the ability to create, move and merge Dirac points [@Tarruell2012; @Tarnowski2017], has been recently demonstrated using ultracold atoms in an optical lattice. In Refs. [@Jotzu2014] and [@Tarruell2012; @Tarnowski2017], a challenging honeycomb lattice to trap fermionic atoms had to be realized using interfering laser beams. Within the present model, a much simpler square lattice is required, thus facilitating the study of Chen insulating properties and Dirac points merging and wandering, which can be done simultaneously within the same setting. It would also be interesting to study the effect of interactions in such a rich playground [@Cocks2012].
The authors acknowledge partial support from FCT-Portugal through Grant No. UID/CTM/04540/2013. PR acknowledges support by FCT-Portugal through the Investigador FCT contract IF/00347/2014.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present a framework for studying the problem of media streaming in technology and cost heterogeneous environments. We first address the problem of efficient streaming in a technology-heterogeneous setting. We employ random linear network coding to simplify the packet selection strategies and alleviate issues such as duplicate packet reception. Then, we study the problem of media streaming from multiple cost-heterogeneous access networks. Our objective is to characterize analytically the trade-off between access cost and user experience. We model the Quality of user Experience (QoE) as the probability of interruption in playback as well as the initial waiting time. We design and characterize various control policies, and formulate the optimal control problem using a Markov Decision Process (MDP) with a probabilistic constraint. We present a characterization of the optimal policy using the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation. For a fluid approximation model, we provide an exact and explicit characterization of a threshold policy and prove its optimality using the HJB equation.
Our simulation results show that under properly designed control policy, the existence of alternative access technology as a complement for a primary access network can significantly improve the user experience without any bandwidth over-provisioning.
author:
- 'Ali ParandehGheibi, Asuman Ozdaglar and Muriel Médard[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'TAC.bib'
title: 'QoE-aware Media Streaming in Technology and Cost Heterogeneous Networks'
---
Media streaming, Quality of Experience (QoE), Heterogeneous networking, Network association policy, Network coding.
Introduction {#introduction_sec}
============
Media streaming is fast becoming the dominant application on the Internet [@Lab09]. The popularity of available online content has been accompanied by the growing usage of wireless handheld devices as the preferred means of media access. The predictions by Cisco Visual Networking Index [@cisco_VNI] show that by 2015, the various forms of video (TV, VoD, Internet Video, and P2P) will exceed 90 percent of global consumer traffic, and 66 percent of total mobile traffic. In order to cope with the demand, the wireless service providers generally build new infrastructure. Another approach that seems to be gaining momentum in the industry is offloading mobile data traffic onto another network through dual-mode such as additional WiFi interfaces [@cisco_mobile]. This approach requires the wireless devices to operate seamlessly in an environment with heterogeneous access methods (WiFi, 3G and 4G) and different access costs (cf. Figure \[fig:MultiServer\]). For example, accessing public WiFi networks is free but unreliable, while there are additional charges associated with more reliable 3G or 4G data networks. The goal of this work is to design network access policies that minimize the access cost in such heterogeneous environments, while guaranteeing an acceptable level of quality of user experience.
![Media streaming from heterogeneous servers.[]{data-label="fig:MultiServer"}](MultiServer)
In particular, we focus on media streaming applications which are intrinsically delay-sensitive. Hence, they need to be managed differently from the traditional less delay-sensitive applications such as Web, Email and file downloads. Most of the current approaches for providing a reasonable Quality of Service (QoS) for streaming applications are based on resource over-provisioning, without considering the transient behavior of the service provided to such applications. In this work, we pay special attention to communication and control techniques that are specifically designed with Quality of user Experience (QoE) in mind. The goal, on one hand, is to make the optimal use of the limited and possibly unreliable resources to provide a seamless experience for the user. On the other hand, we would like to provide a tool for the service providers to improve their service delivery (specifically for delay-sensitive applications) in the most economical way. Our contributions are summarized in the following.
We first address the problem of efficient streaming in technology-heterogeneous settings, where a user receives a stream over multiple paths from different servers. Each sever can be a wireless access point or another peer operating as a server. We consider a model that the communication link between the receiver and each server is unreliable, and hence, it takes a random period of time for each packet to arrive at the receiver from the time that the packet is requested from a particular server. One of the major difficulties with such multi-server systems is the packet tracking and duplicate packet reception problem, i.e., the receiver need to keep track of the index of the packets it is requesting from each server to avoid requesting duplicate packets. Since the requested information is delay sensitive, if a requested packet does not arrive within some time interval, the receiver need to request the packet from another server. This may eventually result in receiving duplicate packets and waste of resources. We address this issue and discuss that using random linear network coding (RLNC)[@RLNC] across packets within each block of the media file we can alleviate this issue. This technique assures us that, with high probability, no redundant information will be delivered to the receiver.
We would like to emphasize that one of the critical roles of network coding techniques in this work, other than efficient and seamless streaming, is to simplify greatly the communication models, so that we can focus on end-user metrics and trade-offs. For example, if each server can effectively transmit packets according to an independent Poisson process, using RLNC we can merge these processes into one Poisson process of sum rate. Hence, the system model boils down to a single-server single-receiver system.
We then study the problem of media streaming in a cost-heterogeneous environment. We consider a system wherein network coding is used to ensure that packet identities can be ignored, and packets may potentially be obtained from two classes of servers with different rates of transmission. The wireless channel is unreliable, and we assume that each server can deliver packets according to a Poisson process with a known rate. Further, the costs of accessing the two servers are different; for simplicity we assume that one of the servers is free. Thus, *our goal is to develop an algorithm that switches between the free and the costly servers in order to satisfy the desired user experience at the lowest cost.*
The user experience metrics that we consider in this work are the initial buffering *delay* before the media playback, and the probability of experiencing an interruption throughout media playback. Interruption probability captures the reliability of media playback. Such metrics best capture the user experience for most of media streaming applications e.g. Internet video, TV, Video on Demand (VoD), where the user may tolerate some initial delay, but expects a smooth sequential playback. In [@JSAC], we characterized the optimal trade-off between these metrics for a single-server single-receiver system. In particular, we established the following relation $$\label{int_exp}
\textrm{Probability of interruption} = e^{-I(R) \cdot \textrm{(initial buffering)}},$$ where $I(R)$ is the *interruption exponent* or reliability function, which depends the arrival rate $R$ of the stream. This result is analogous to information theoretic error exponent results relating the error probability of a code to the block length of that code.
In a cost-heterogeneous system, the user experience such as initial waiting time may be improved by simultaneously accessing free and costly access methods. This adds another dimension to the problem the end-user is facing. Certain levels of user satisfaction can only be achieved by paying a premium for extra resource availability. Figure \[fig:3dim\] illustrates a conceptual three-dimensional cost-delay-reliability trade-off curve.
![Trade-off between the achievable QoE metrics and cost of communication.[]{data-label="fig:3dim"}](3dim)
The objective of this paper is to understand the trade-off between initial waiting time, and the usage cost for attaining a target probability of interruption, and design control policies to achieve the optimal trade-off curve. We study several classes of server selection policies. Using the QoE trade-offs for a single-server system, we obtain a lower bound on the cost of offline policies that do not observe the trajectory of packets received. We show that such policies have a threshold form in terms of the time of association with the costly server. Using the offline algorithm as a starting point, we develop an *online* algorithm with lower cost that has a threshold form – both free and costly servers are used until the queue length reaches a threshold, followed by only free server usage. We then develop an online risky algorithm in which the risk of interruption is spread out across the trajectory. Here, only the free server is used whenever the queue length is above a certain threshold, while both servers are used when the queue length is below the threshold. The threshold is designed as a function of the initial buffering and the desired interruption probability. We numerically compare the performance of the proposed control policies. Our simulation results show online risky algorithm performs the best. Moreover, we observe that the existence of costly networks as a complement for unreliable but cheaper networks can significantly improve the user experience without incurring a significant cost.
We formulate the problem of finding the optimal network association policy as a Markov Decision Process (MDP) with a probabilistic constraint. Similarly to the Bellman equation proposed by Chen [@Chen04], for a discrete-time MDP with probabilistic constraints, we write the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation for our continuous-time problem by proper state space expansion. The HJB equation is instrumental in optimality verification of a particular control policy for which the expected cost is explicitly characterized. However, due to discontinuity of the queue-length process for the Poisson arrival model, a closed-form characterizations of our proposed policies are not available for the verification of the HJB equation. Therefore, we consider a fluid approximation model, where the arrival process is modeled as a controlled Brownian motion with a drift. In this case, we provide and exact and explicit characterization of a threshold policy that satisfies the QoE constraints. We show that the expected cost corresponding to this threshold policy indeed is the solution of the corresponding HJB equation, thus proving the optimality of such policies.
Related Work
------------
The set of works related to this thesis spans several distinct areas of the literature. One of the major difficulties in the literature is the notion of *delay*, which greatly varies across different applications and time scales at which the system is modeled. The role of delay-related metrics has been extensive in the literature on Network Optimization and Control. Neely [@Neely06; @Neely10] employs Lyapunov optimization techniques to study the delay analysis of stochastic networks, and its trade-offs with other utility functions. Other related works such as [@Srikant99], [@Berry02] take the flow-based optimization approach, also known as Network Utility Maximization (NUM), to maximize the *delay-related* utility of the users. Closer to our work is the one by Hou and Kumar [@HouKumar10] that considers per-packet delay constraints and successful delivery ratio as user experience metrics. Such flow-based approaches are essentially operating at the steady state of the system, and fail to capture the end-user experience for delay-sensitive applications of interest.
Media streaming, particularly in the area of P2P networks, has attracted significant recent interest. For example, works such as [@ZhoChi07; @BonMas08; @ZhaLuiChi_09; @YinSri10] develop analytical models on the trade-off between the steady state probability of missing a block and buffer size under different block selection policies. Unlike our model, they consider live streaming, e.g. video conferencing, with deterministic channels. However, we focus on content that is at least partially cached at multiple locations, and must be streamed over one or more unreliable channels. Further, our analysis is on transient effects—we are interested in the first time that media playback is interrupted as a function of the initial amount of buffering. Also related to our work is [@KumAlt07], which considers two possible wireless access methods (WiFi and UMTS) for file delivery, assuming particular throughput models for each access method. In contrast to this work, packet arrivals are stochastic in our model, and our streaming application requires hard constraints on quality of user experience.
Another body of related work is the literature on constrained Markov decision processes. There are two main approaches to these problems. Altman [@Altman_book], Piunovskiy [@Piunovskiy97; @Piunovskiy98] and Feinberg and Shwartz [@Feinberg95] take a convex analytic approach leading to linear programs for obtaining the optimal policies. On the other hand, Chen [@Chen04], Chen and Blankenship [@ChenBlankenship04], Piunovskiy [@Piunovskiy00] use the more natural and straightforward Dynamic Programming approach to characterize all optimal policies. These works mainly focus on different variations of the discrete-time Markov decision processes. In this work, we take the dynamic programming approach for the control of a continuous-time Markovian process. Further, we employ stochastic calculus techniques used in treatment of stochastic control problems [@BrockettBook] to properly characterize the optimal control policies.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:coding\], we discuss using network coding techniques to guarantee efficient streaming in a technology heterogeneous system. Section \[sec:model\] describes the system model and QoE metrics for a media streaming scenario from cost-heterogeneous servers. In Section \[sec:policies\], we present and compare several server association policies. The dynamic programming approach for characterization of the optimal control policy is discussed in Section \[dp\_sec\]. We present the fluid approximation model and establish the optimality of an online threshold policy in Section \[fluid\_sec\]. Finally, Section \[sec:conclusion\] provides a summary of the contributions of this paper with pointers for potential extensions in the future.
Network Coding for Efficient Streaming in Technology-heterogeneous Systems {#sec:coding}
==========================================================================
In this part, we study the problem of streaming a media file from multiple servers to a single receiver over unreliable communication channels. Each of the servers could be a wireless access point, base station, another peer, or any combination of the above. Such servers may operate under different protocols in different ranges of the spectrum such as WiFi (IEEE 802.11), WiMAX (IEEE 802.16), HSPA, EvDo, LTE, etc. We refer to such system as a technology-heterogeneous multi-server system. In this setup, the receiver can request different pieces of the media file from different servers. Requesting packets form each server may cause delays due to channel uncertainty. However, requesting one packet from multiple servers introduces the need to keep track of packets, and the duplicate packet reception problem. In this section, we discuss methods that enable efficient streaming across different paths and network interfaces. This greatly simplifies the model when analyzing such systems.
In order to resolve such issues of the multi-server and technology-heterogeneous systems, let us take a closer look at the process of media streaming across different layers. Media files are divided into blocks of relatively large size, each consisting of several frames. The video coding is such that all the frames in the block need to be available before any frames can be played. Blocks are requested in sequence by the playback application from the user-end. The server (or other peers) packetize the requested block and transmit them to the user as in Figure \[layers\_fig\].
![The media player (application layer) requires complete blocks. At the network layer each block is divided into packets and delivered. []{data-label="layers_fig"}](layers){width="4in"}
Now consider the scenario, illustrated in Figure \[multipath\_fig\], where there are multiple paths to reach a particular server. Each of these paths could pass through different network infrastructures. For example, in Figure \[multipath\_fig\], one of the paths is using the WiFi access point, while the other one is formed by the LTE (Long Term Evolution) network.
![Streaming over multiple paths/interfaces.[]{data-label="multipath_fig"}](Multipath_schedule){width="5in"}
The conventional approach in exploiting the path diversity in such scenarios is scheduling each packet to be delivered over one of the available paths. For instance, odd-numbered packets are assigned to path 1, and even-numbered packets are assigned to path 2. This approach requires a deterministic and reliable setting, where each path is lossless and the capacity and end-to-end delay of each path is known. However, the wireless medium is intrinsically unreliable and time varying. Moreover, flow dynamics in other parts of the network may result in congestion on a particular path. Therefore, the slowest or most unreliable path becomes the bottleneck. In order to compensate for that, the scheduler may add some redundancy by sending the same packet over multiple paths, which results in duplicate packet reception and loss of performance. There is a significant effort to use proper scheduling and control mechanisms to reduce these problems. For more information on this approach, generally known as MultiPath TCP (MPTCP), please refer to the works by Wischik *et al.* [@MPTCP1; @MPTCP2], and IETF working draft on MPTCP [@MPTCP_IETF].
![Streaming over multiple paths/interfaces using Network Coding.[]{data-label="multipath_NC_fig"}](Multipath_NC){width="5in"}
We propose random linear network coding (RLNC) to alleviate the duplicate packet reception problem. Figure \[multipath\_NC\_fig\] illustrates an example. Here, instead of requesting a particular packet in block $i$, the receiver simply requests a random linear combination of all the packets in block $i$. The coefficients of each combination are chosen uniformly at random from a Galois field of size $q$. The coded packets delivered to the receiver can be thought of as linear equations, where the unknowns are the original packets in block $i$. Block $i$ can be fully recovered by solving a system of linear equations if it is full rank. Note that we can embed the coding coefficients in the header of each coded packet so that the receiver can form the system of linear equations. For more implementation details, please refer to Sundararajan *et al.* [@TCP_jaykumar]. It can be shown that if the field size $q$ is large enough, the received linear equations are linearly independent with very high probability [@RLNC]. Therefore, for recovering a block of $W$ packets, it is sufficient to receive $W$ linearly independent coded packets from different peers. Each received coded packet is likely to be independent of previous ones with probability $1-\delta(q),$ where $\delta(q)\rightarrow 0$ as $q \rightarrow \infty$.
By removing the notion of *unique identity* assigned to each packet, network coding allows significant simplification of the scheduling and flow control tasks at the server. For instance, if one of the paths get congested or drops a few of the packets, the server may complete the block transfer by sending more coded packets over the other paths. Hence, the sender may perform TCP-like flow management and congestion control on each of the paths *independently*. Therefore, network coding provides a mean to homogenize a technology-heterogeneous system as if the receiver only has single interface.
Note that such random linear coding does not introduce additional decoding delay for each block, since the frames in a block can only be played out when the whole block is received. So there is no difference in delay whether the end-user received $W$ uncoded packets of the block or $W$ independent coded packets that can then be decoded.
In the following, we discuss the conditions under which we can convert a technology-heterogeneous multi-server system to a single-path single-server system. Consider a single user receiving a media file from various servers it is connected to. Assume that the media file is divided into blocks of $W$ packets. Each server sends random linear combinations of the packets within the current block to the receiver. We assume that the linear combination coefficients are selected from a Galois field of large enough size, so that no redundant packet is delivered to the receiver. Moreover, we assume that the block size $W$ is small compared to the total length of the file, but large enough to ignore the boundary effects of moving from one block to the next. For simplicity of the analysis, we assume in this work that the arrival process of packets from each server is a Poisson process. Since, network coding allows for independent flow control on each path, we may assume that the arrival process from each server is independent of other arrival processes. Moreover, since we can assume no redundant packet is delivered from different peers, we can combine the arrival processes into one Poisson process of the sum-rate $R$. Thus, our simplified model is just a single-server-single-receiver system.
We summarize the above discussions into the following Assumption, which is the key for development of the analytical results in the subsequent parts.
\[prop:multipath\_model\] Consider one or more servers streaming a single media file to a single client over $m$ independent path using random linear network coding. The packet delivery process over path $k$ is modeled as a Poisson process of rate $R_k$. The effective packet delivery process observed at the receiver is a Poisson process of rate $R = \sum_{k=1}^m R_k$.
Note that, for simplicity of the system model and analysis, we are neglecting a few complexities associated with network coding approach such as the effect of field size, feedback imperfections, and other uncertainties
Assumption \[prop:multipath\_model\] provides the necessary tool for analyzing technology-heterogeneous multi-server systems as a single-server system. For instance, we can apply most of the results of [@JSAC] on fundamental delay-interruption trade-offs. This is essential for tractability of the analysis of cost-heterogeneous systems, which is the focus of the subsequent part.
System Model and QoE Metrics {#sec:model}
============================
We consider a media streaming system as follows. A single user is receiving a media stream of infinite size, from various servers or access points. The receiver first buffers $D$ packets from the beginning of the file, and then starts the playback at unit rate.
We assume that time is continuous, and the arrival process of packets from each server is a Poisson process independent of other arrival processes. Further, we assume that each server sends random linear combination of the packets in the source file. Therefore, by discussions of Section \[sec:coding\], no redundant packet is delivered from different servers. Therefore, we can combine the arrival processes of any subset of the servers into one Poisson process of rate equal to the sum of the rates from the corresponding servers (cf. Assumption \[prop:multipath\_model\]).
There are two types of servers in the system: free [^2] servers and the costly ones. There is no cost associated with receiving packets from a free server, but a unit cost is incurred per unit time the costly servers are used. As described above, we can combine all the free servers into one free server from which packets arrive according to a Poisson process of rate $R_0$. Similarly, we can merge all of the costly servers into one costly server with effective rate of $R_c$. At any time $t$, the user has the option to use packets only from the free server or from both the free and the costly servers. In the latter case, the packets arrive according to a Poisson process of rate $$R_1 = R_0 + R_c.$$ The user’s action at time $t$ is denoted by $u_t \in \{ 0,1 \}$, where $u_t =0$ if only the free server is used at time $t,$ while $u_t =1$ if both free and costly servers are used. We assume that the parameters $R_0$ and $R_1$ are known at the receiver. Figure \[MultiServer\_model\_fig\] illustrates the system model.
![Streaming frow two classes of servers: costly and free.[]{data-label="MultiServer_model_fig"}](MultiServer_model){width="3in"}
The dynamics of the receiver’s buffer size (queue-length) $Q_t$ can be described as follows $$\label{buffer_het}
Q_t = D + N_t + \int_0^t u_\tau dN^c_\tau - t,$$ where $D$ is the initial buffer size, $N_t$ Poisson processes of rate $R_0$ and $N^c_t$ is a Poisson counter of rate $R_c$ which is independent of the process $N_t$. The last term correspond to the unit rate of media playback.
The user’s association (control[^3]) policy is formally defined below.
\[policy\_def\] \[Control Policy\] Let $$h_t = \{Q_s: 0\leq s\ \leq t\} \cup \{u_s: 0\leq s\ < t\}$$ denote the history of the buffer sizes and actions up to time $t$, and $\mathcal H$ be the set of all histories for all $t$. A *deterministic association policy* denoted by $\pi$ is a mapping $\pi : \mathcal H \longmapsto \{ 0,1 \} $, where at any time $t$ $$u_t = \pi(h_t) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \hbox{if only the free server is chosen,} \\
1, & \hbox{if both servers are chosen.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Denote by $\Pi$ the set of all such control policies.
We use the initial buffer size $D$, and interruption probability as QoE metrics. The interruption event occurs when the queue-length $Q_t$ reaches zero. However, this event not only depends on the initial buffer size $D$, but also on the control policy $\pi$. To emphasize this dependency, we denote the interruption probability by $$\label{p_int_pi}
p^{\pi}(D) = \pr \{\tau_0 < \infty\},$$ where $$\tau_0 = \inf\{t: Q_t = 0\}.$$
\[feas\_policy\_def\] The policy $\pi$ is defined to be $(D,\epsilon)$-*feasible* if $p^{\pi}(D) \leq \epsilon$. The set of all such feasible policies is denoted by $\Pi(D,\epsilon)$.
The third metric that we consider in this work is the expected cost of using the costly server which is proportional to the expected usage time of the costly server. For any $(D,\epsilon)$, the usage cost of a $(D,\epsilon)$-feasible policy $\pi$ is given by[^4] $$\label{cost_def}
J^{\pi}(D,\e) = \E \Big[\int_0^{\tau_0} u_t dt\Big].$$
The *value function* or optimal cost function $V$ is defined as $$\label{value_def}
V(D, \e) = \min_{\pi \in \Pi(D,\epsilon)} J^{\pi}(D,\e),$$ and the optimal policy $\pi^*$ is defined as the optimal solution of the minimization problem in (\[value\_def\]).
In our model, the user expects to buffer no more than $D$ packets and have an interruption-free experience with probability higher than a desired level $1-\epsilon$. Note that there are trade-offs among the interruption probability $\epsilon$, the initial buffer size $D$, and the usage cost. These trade-offs depend on the association policy as well as the system parameters $R_0$, $R_c$ and $F$.
Throughout the rest of this work, we study the case that $R_0 > 1$ and the file size $F$ goes to infinity, since the control policies in this case take simpler forms. Moreover, the cost of such control policies in this case provide an upper bound for the finite file size case. The following Lemma summarizes the main result from [@JSAC], characterizing the fundamental trade-off between the interruption probability and initial buffering, for a single-server single-receiver system.
\[pd\_exact\_lemma\] Consider a single receiver receiving a media stream from a single server according to a Poisson process of rate $R$. Let $D$ denote the initial buffer size before the playback, and set the playback rate to one. The probability of interruption in media playback is given by $$\label{pd_exact}
p(D) = e^{-I(R) D},$$ where $I(R)$ is the largest root of $\gamma(r) = r + R(e^{-r} -1)$.
We first characterize the region of interest in the space of QoE metrics. In this region, a feasible control policy exists and is non-degenerate. We then use these results to design proper association policies.
\[boundary\_thm\] Let $(D,\e)$ be user’s QoE requirement when streaming an infinite file from two servers. The arrival rate of the free server is given by $R_0 > 1$, and the total arrival rate when using the costly server is denoted by $R_1 > R_0$. Then
\(a) For any $(D,\epsilon)$ such that $D\geq \frac{1}{I(R_0)}\log\big(\frac1\epsilon\big)$, $$\min_{\pi \in \Pi} J^{\pi}(D,\e) = 0.$$
\(b) For any $(D,\epsilon)$ such that $D < \frac{1}{I(R_1)}\log\big(\frac1\epsilon\big)$, $$\min_{\pi \in \Pi} J^{\pi}(D,\e) = \infty.$$
Consider the degenerate policy $\pi_0 \equiv 0$. This policy is equivalent to a single-server system with arrival rate $R = R_0$. By Lemma \[pd\_exact\_lemma\], the policy $\pi_0$ is $(D,\epsilon)$-feasible for all $D\geq \frac{1}{I(R_0)}\log\big(\frac1\epsilon\big)$. Note that by (\[cost\_def\]) this policy does not incur any cost, which results in part (a).
Moreover, for all $(D,\epsilon)$ with $D < \frac{1}{I(R_1)}\log\big(\frac1\epsilon\big)$, there is no $(D,\epsilon)$-feasible policy. This is so since the buffer size under any policy $\pi$ is stochastically dominated by the one governed by the degenerate policy $\pi_1 \equiv 1$. Hence, $$p^{\pi}(D) \geq p^{\pi_1}(D) = \exp(-I(R_1) D) > \epsilon.$$ Using the convention of infinite cost for infeasible policies, we obtain the result in part (b).
![Non-degenerate, zero-cost and infeasible regions for QoE metrics $(D,\e)$.[]{data-label="regions_fig"}](regions_nocolor){width="3.5in"}
For simplicity of notation, let $\alpha_0 = I(R_0)$, and $\alpha_1 = I(R_1)$. By Theorem \[boundary\_thm\] we focus on the region $$\label{S_def}
\mathcal R = \Big\{(D,\epsilon): \frac{1}{\alpha_1}\log\big(\frac1\epsilon\big) \leq D \leq \frac{1}{\alpha_0}\log\big(\frac1\epsilon\big)\Big\}$$ to analyze the expected cost of various classes of control policies. Figure \[regions\_fig\] illustrates a conceptual example of this non-degenerate region as well as the zero-cost and infeasible regions.
Design and Analysis of Association Policies {#sec:policies}
===========================================
In this part, we propose several classes of parameterized control policies. We first characterize the range of the parameters for which the association policy is feasible for a given initial buffer size $D$ and the desired level of interruption probability $\epsilon$. Then, we try to choose the parameters such that the expected cost of the policy is minimized. All of the proofs of the main theorems are included in Appendix \[app:policy\_analysis\].
Off-line Policy
---------------
Consider the class of policies where the decisions are made off-line before starting the media streaming. In this case, the arrival process is not observable by the decision maker. Therefore, the user’s decision space reduces to the set of deterministic functions $u: \R \rightarrow \{0,1\}$, that maps time into the action space.
\[offline\_form\_thm\] Let the cost of a control policy be defined as in (\[cost\_def\]). In order to find a minimum-cost off-line policy, it is sufficient to consider policies of the form: $$\label{offline_form}
\pi(h_t) = u_t = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \hbox{if $t \leq t_s$} \\
0, & \hbox{if $t > t_s,$}
\end{array}
\right.$$ which parameterized are by a single parameter $t_s \geq 0$.
In general, any off-line policy $\pi$ consists of multiple intervals in which the costly server is used. Consider an alternative policy $\pi'$ of the form of (\[offline\_form\]) where $t_s = J^{\pi}$. By definition of the cost function in (\[cost\_def\]), the two policies incur the same cost. Moreover, the buffer size process under policy $\pi$ is stochastically dominated by the one under policy $\pi'$, because the policy $\pi'$ counts the arrivals from the costly server earlier, and the arrival process is stationary. Hence, the interruption probability of $\pi'$ is not larger than that of $\pi$. Therefore, for any off-line policy, there exists another off-line policy of the form given by (\[offline\_form\]).
\[offline\_range\_thm\] Consider the class of off-lines policies of the form (\[offline\_form\]). For any $(D,\e) \in \mathcal R$, the policy $\pi$ defined in (\[offline\_form\]) is feasible if $$\label{ts_range}
t_s \geq t_s^* = \frac{R_0}{R_1 - R_0} \bigg[ \frac{1}{\alpha_0} \log\Big( \frac{1}{\e - e^{-\alpha_1 D}} \Big) - D \bigg].$$
Note that obtaining the optimal off-line policy is equivalent to finding the smallest $t_s$ for which the policy is still feasible. Therefore, $t_s^*$ given in (\[ts\_range\]) provides an upper bound on the minimum cost of an off-line policy. Observe that $t^*_s$ is almost linear in $D$ for all $(D,\e)$ that is not too close to the lower boundary of region $\mathcal R$. As $(D,\e)$ gets closer to the boundary, $t^*_s$ and the expected cost grows to infinity, which is in agreement with Theorem \[boundary\_thm\]. In this work, we pick $t^*_s$ as a benchmark for comparison to other policies that we present next.
Online Safe Policy
------------------
Let us now consider the class of online policies where the decision maker can observe the buffer size history. Inspired by the structure of the optimal off-line policies, we first focus on a *safe* control policy in which, in order to avoid interruptions, the costly server is used at the beginning until the buffer size reaches a certain threshold, after which the costly server is never used. This policy is formally defined below.
\[safe\_def\] The online safe policy $\pi^S$ parameterized by the threshold value $S$ is given by $$\label{safe_policy}
\pi^S(h_t) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \hbox{if $t \leq \tau_s$} \\
0, & \hbox{if $t > \tau_s$,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\tau_S = \inf \{t \geq 0: Q_t \geq S\}$.
\[safe\_thm\] Let $\pi^S$ be the safe policy defined in Definition \[safe\_def\]. For any $(D,\e) \in \mathcal R$, the safe policy is feasible if $$\label{S_range}
S \geq S^* = \frac{1}{\alpha_0} \log\Big( \frac{1}{\e - e^{-\alpha_1 D}} \Big).$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{safe_cost}
\min_{S\geq S^*} J^{\pi^S}(D,\e)\!\!\!\! &=& \!\!\!\! J^{\pi^{S^*}}(D,\e)
= \frac{1}{R_1 - 1} \bigg[ \frac{1}{\alpha_0} \log\Big( \frac{1}{\e - e^{-\alpha_1 D}} \Big) - D +\xi\bigg],\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi \in [0,1)$.
Let us now compare the online safe policy $\pi^{S^*}$ with the off-line policy defined in (\[offline\_form\]) with parameter $t_s^*$ as in (\[ts\_range\]). We observe that the cost of the online safe policy is almost proportional to that of the off-line policy, where the cost ratio of the off-line policy to that of the online safe policy is given by $$\frac{R_0(R_1-1)}{R_1-R_0} = 1 + \frac{R_1(R_0-1)}{R_1-R_0} > 1.$$ Note that the structure of both policies is the same, i.e, both policies use the costly server for a certain period of time and then switch back to the free server. As suggested here, the advantage of observing the buffer size allows the online policies to avoid excessive use of the costly server when there are sufficiently large number of arrivals from the free server. In the following, we present another class of online policies.
Online Risky Policy
-------------------
In this part, we study a class of online policies where the costly server is used only if the buffer size is below a certain threshold. We call such policies “risky” as the risk of interruption is spread out across the whole trajectory, unlike the “safe” policies. Further, we constrain risky policies to possess the property that the action at a particular time should only depend on the buffer size at that time, i.e., such policies are *stationary Markov* with respect to buffer size as the state of the system. The risky policy is formally defined below.
\[risky\_def\] The online risky policy $\pi^T$ parameterized by the threshold value $T$ is given by $$\label{risky_policy}
\pi^T(h_t) = \pi^T(Q_t)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \hbox{if $0< Q_t < T$} \\
0, & \hbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$
\[risky\_thm\] Let $\pi^T$ be the risky policy defined in Definition \[risky\_def\]. For any $(D,\e) \in \mathcal R$, the policy $\pi^T$ is feasible if the threshold $T$ satisfies $$\label{threshold}
T \geq T^* = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{\a _1-\a _0}\big[\log\big(\frac{\beta}{\e}\big) - \a_0 D \big], & \hbox{if $D \geq \bar D$,} \\
\frac{1}{\a_1}\log\Big(\frac{\e + \beta(1-e^{-\a_1 D}) - 1}{\e - e^{-\a_1 D}}\Big), & \hbox{if $D \leq \bar D$,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\beta = \frac{\a_1}{\a_0 (1-\frac{\a_0}{2})}$ and $\bar D = \frac{1}{\a_1}\log\big(\frac{\beta}{\e}\big)$.
Theorem \[risky\_thm\] facilitates the design of risky policies with a single-threshold structure, for any desired initial buffer size $D$ and interruption probability $\e$. For a fixed $\e$, when $D$ increases, $T^*$ (the design given by Theorem \[risky\_thm\]) decreases to zero. On the other hand, if $D$ decreases to $\frac{1}{\a_1}\log\big(\frac1\e\big)$ (the boundary of $\mathcal R$), the threshold $T^*$ quickly increases to infinity, i.e., the policy does not switch back to the free server unless a sufficiently large number of packets is buffered. Figure \[T\*D\_figure\] plots $T^*$ and $D$ as a function of $D$ for a fixed $\e$. Observe that, for large range of $D$, $T^* \leq D$, i.e., the costly server is not initially used. In this range, owing to the positive drift of $Q_t$, the probability of ever using the costly server exponentially decreases in $(D - T^*)$.
![The switching threshold of the online risky policy as a function of the initial buffer size for $\e = 10^{-3}$ (See Theorem \[risky\_thm\]).[]{data-label="T*D_figure"}](T_D){width="4in"}
Next, we compute bounds on the expected cost of the online risky policy and compare with the previously proposed policies.
\[risky\_cost\_thm\] For any $(D, \e) \in \mathcal R$, consider an online risky policy $\pi^{T^*}$ defined in Definition \[risky\_def\], where the threshold $T^*$ is given by (\[threshold\]) as function of $D$ and $\e$. If $D \geq \bar D$ then $$\label{risky_cost1}
J^{\pi^{T^*}}(D,\e) \leq \frac{\beta}{\a_1(R_1-1)}e^{-a_0(D- T^*)},$$ and if $D \leq \bar D$ $$\label{risky_cost2}
J^{\pi^{T^*}}(D,\e) \leq \frac{1 - e^{-\a_1 D}}{(R_1-1)(1 - e^{-\a_1 T^*})}\Big(T^*+1+\frac{\beta}{\a_1}\Big) - \frac{D}{R_1-1},$$ where $\beta = \frac{\a_1}{\a_0 (1-\frac{\a_0}{2})}$ and $\bar D = \frac{1}{\a_1}\log\big(\frac{\beta}{\e}\big)$.
In the following, we compare the expected cost of the presented policies using numerical methods, and illustrate that the bounds derived in Theorems \[offline\_range\_thm\], \[safe\_thm\] and \[risky\_cost\_thm\] on the expected cost function are close to the exact value.
Performance Comparison
----------------------
Figure \[cost\_comparison\_fig\] compares the expected cost functions of the off-line, online safe and online risky policies as a function of the initial buffer size $D$, when the interruption probability is fixed to $\e = 10^{-3}$, the arrival rate from the free server is $R_0 = 1.05$, and the arrival rate from the costly server is $R_c = R_1-R_0 = 0.15$. We plot the bounds on the expected cost given by Theorems \[offline\_range\_thm\], \[safe\_thm\] and \[risky\_cost\_thm\] as well as the expected cost function numerically computed by the Monte-Carlo method. Figure \[cost\_comparison\_fig\] shows that the analytical bounds we computed for the expected cost of various control policies closely match the exact cost functions computed via simulations.
![Expected cost (units of time) of the presented control policies as a function of the initial buffer size for interruption probability $\e = 10^{-3}$. The analytical bounds are given by Theorems \[offline\_range\_thm\], \[safe\_thm\] and \[risky\_cost\_thm\].[]{data-label="cost_comparison_fig"}](J_D_sim){width="4in"}
Observe that the expected cost of the risky policy is significantly smaller that both online safe and off-line policies. For example, the risky policy allows us to decrease the initial buffer size from 70 to 20 with an average of $70 \times 0.15 \approx 10$ extra packets from the costly server. The expected cost in terms of the number packets received from the costly server is 43 and 61 for the online safe and off-line policy, respectively.
Moreover, note that it is merely the existence of the costly server as a backup that allows us to improve the user’s quality of experience without actually using too many packets from the costly server. For example, observe that the risky policy satisfies QoE metrics of $D = 35$ and $\e = 10^{-3}$, by only using on average about one extra packet from the costly server. However, without the costly server, in order to decrease the initial buffer size from 70 to 35, the interruption probability has to increase from $10^{-3}$ to about $0.03$ (see Lemma \[pd\_exact\_lemma\]).
Dynamic Programming Approach {#dp_sec}
============================
In this section, we present a characterization of the optimal association policy in terms of the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation. Note that because of the probabilistic constraint over the space of sample paths of the buffer size, the optimal policy is not necessarily Markov with respect to the buffer size as the state of the system. We take a similar approach as in [@Chen04] where by expanding the state space, a Bellman equation is provided as the optimality condition of an MDP with probabilistic constraint. In particular, consider the pair $(Q_t,p_t)$ as the state variable, where $Q_t$ denotes the buffer size and $p_t$ represents the desired level of interruption probability given the information at time $t$. Note that $p_t$ is a Martingale by definition [@SP_book]. The evolution of $Q_t$ is governed by the following stochastic differential equation $$\label{x_SDE}
dQ_t = -dt + dN^u,\quad Q_0 = D,$$ where $N^u$ is a Poisson counter with rate $R_{u_t} = R_0 + u_t\cdot R_c$. For any $(D,\e) \in \mathcal R$ and any optimal policy $\pi$, the constraint $p^{\pi}(D) \leq \e$ is active. Hence, we consider the sample paths of $p_t$ such that $p_0 = \e$. Moreover, we have $\E[p_t] = \e$ for all $t$, where the expectation is with respect to the Poisson jumps. Let $dp_t = \p_t - p_t$ be the change in state $p$, if a Poisson jump occurs in an infinitesimal interval of length $dt$. Also, let $dp_t = dp_0$ be the change in state $p$ if no jump occurs. Therefore, $$0 = \E[dp_t] = R_{u_t} dt (\p_t - p_t) + (1-R_{u_t} dt)dp_0.$$ By solving the above equation for $dp_0$, we obtain the evolution of $p_t$ as a function of the control process $\p_t$ and $u_t$: $$\label{p_SDE}
dp_t = (p_t - \p_t) (R_{u_t} dt - dN^u), \quad p_0 = \e.$$
Similarly to the arguments of Theorem 2 of [@Chen04], by principle of optimality we can write the following dynamic programming equation $$\label{HJB_eq1}
V(Q, p) = \min_{u \in\{0,1\}, \p \in[0,1]} \big\{ u dt +\E[V(Q+dQ, p+dp)] \big\}.$$
If $V$ is continuously differentiable, by Itō’s Lemma for jump processes, we have $$\begin{aligned}
V(Q+dQ, p+dp) - V(Q,p) &=& \frac{\partial V}{\partial Q} (-dt) + \frac{\partial V}{\partial p} \cdot (p - \p)R_u dt + \big(V(Q+1,\p) - V(Q,p)\big)dN^u,\end{aligned}$$ which implies the following HJB equation after dividing (\[HJB\_eq1\]) by $dt$ and taking the limit as $t$ goes to zero: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HJB}
\frac{\partial V (Q,p)}{\partial Q} &=& \min_{u \in\{0,1\}, \p \in[0,1]} \big\{ u+ \frac{\partial V}{\partial p} \cdot (p - \p)R_u \nonumber + R_u \big(V(Q+1,\p) - V(Q,p)\big) \big\}\end{aligned}$$
The optimal policy $\pi$ is obtained by characterizing the optimal solution of the partial differential equation in (\[HJB\]) together with the boundary condition $V(Q,1) = 0$. Since such equations are in general difficult to solve analytically, we use the *guess and check* approach, where we propose a candidate for the value function and verify that it nearly satisfies the HJB equation almost everywhere. For any $(Q,p) \in \mathcal R$, define $$\label{T_xp}
T(Q,p) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{\a _1-\a _0}\big[\log\big(\frac{\theta}{p}\big) - \a_0 Q \big], & \hbox{if $Q \geq \frac{1}{a_1}\log\big(\frac{\theta}{p}\big)$,} \\
\frac{1}{\a_1}\log\Big(\frac{p + \theta(1-e^{-\a_1 Q}) - 1}{p - e^{-\a_1 Q}}\Big), & \hbox{otherwise,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\theta = \frac{\a_1}{\a_0}$. The candidate solution for HJB equation (\[HJB\]) is given by $$\label{candidate1}
\bar V(Q,p) = \frac{1}{\a_0(1-\frac{\a_0}{2})(R_1-1)}e^{-a_0(Q- T(Q,p))},$$ when $Q \geq \frac{1}{a_1}\log\big(\frac{\theta}{p}\big)$, and $$\label{candidate2}
\bar V(Q,p) = \frac{p + \theta(1-e^{-\a_1 Q}) - 1}{(R_1-1)(\theta -1)}\big(T(Q,p)+\frac{\beta}{\a_1}\big) - \frac{Q}{R_1-1},$$ when $Q < \frac{1}{a_1}\log\big(\frac{\theta}{p}\big)$. Note that the candidate solution is derived from the structure of the expected cost of the risky policy (cf. Theorem \[risky\_cost\_thm\]). We may verify that $\bar V$ satisfies the HJB equation (\[HJB\]) for all $(Q,p)$ such that $Q \geq \frac{1}{a_1}\log\big(\frac{\theta}{p}\big)$ or $Q \leq \frac{1}{a_1}\log\big(\frac{\theta}{p}\big)-1$, but for other $(Q,p)$ the HJB equation is only approximately satisfied. This is due to the discontinuity of the queue-length process which does not allow us to exactly match the expected cost starting from below the threshold with the one starting from above the threshold. Therefore, owing to approximate characterization of the cost of the risky policy, we may not prove or disprove optimality of this policy.
In the following, we use a fluid model to provide an *exact* characterization of the optimal control policy using appropriate HJB equation. We show that the optimal policy takes a threshold structure similarly to the online risky policy.
Optimal Association Policy for a Fluid Model {#fluid_sec}
============================================
Thus far, we concentrated on design and analysis of various network association policies in an uncertain environment, where network uncertainties are modeled using a Poisson arrival process. We provided closed-form approximations of the cost of different policies. However, an exact analytical solution is required to prove optimality of the risky policy. This is particularly challenging, since an exact distribution of threshold over-shoots is desired, owing to the discontinuous nature of the Poisson process. In this part, we exploit a second-order approximation of the Poisson process [@Kurtz78] and model the receiver’s buffer size using a controlled Brownian motion with drift.
Consider the system model as in Figure \[MultiServer\_model\_fig\], with following queue-length dynamics at the receiver: $$\label{brownian_model}
dQ_t = (R_{u_t} - 1) dt + dW_t, \quad Q_0 = D,$$ where $W_t$ is the Wiener process, $u_t \in \{0, 1\}$ is the receiver’s decision at time $t$ on using the free or costly server. As in the preceding part, we assume that the media file size $F$ is infinite and $R_1 > R_0 > 1$.
Define the control policy (network association policy) as in Definition \[policy\_def\]. The goal is to find a feasible policy that minimizes the usage cost defined in (\[cost\_def\]) such that the interruption probability $p^{\pi}(D)$ defined in (\[p\_int\_pi\]) is at most $\e$. As in the previous part, the set of feasible policies and the value function is given by Definition \[feas\_policy\_def\] and (\[value\_def\]), respectively. The following lemma is the counterpart of Lemma \[pd\_exact\_lemma\] for the fluid model.
\[lemma:degenerate\] Let $\pi_i \equiv i$ denote a degenerate policy, for $i \in \{0, 1\}$. The interruption probability for such policy is given by $$\label{pint_degenerate}
p^{\pi_i}(D) = e^{-\t_i D}, \quad \foral D \geq 0,$$ where $\t_i = 2(R_i - 1)$, for $i \in \{0,1\}$.
See Appendix \[app:fluid\_policy\_analysis\].
First, we provide a characterization of the optimal policy via a Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation. As in Section \[dp\_sec\], we expand the state variables to $(Q,p)$, where $Q$ is the queue-length with dynamics given by \[brownian\_model\], and $p$ is the desired interruption probability. Using Martingale representation theorem [@SP_book], we may write the dynamics of $p$ as follows: $$\label{p_dynamics}
dp_t = \ph_t \ dW_t, \quad p_0 = \e,$$ where $\ph_t$ is a predictable process which is adapted with respect to natural filtration of the history process. In this work, we focus on the control processes that are Markovian with respect to the state process $(Q_t, p_t)$. Therefore, using the principal of optimality, we may write the following dynamic programming equation: $$\label{HJB_fluid1}
V(Q, p) = \min_{(u, \ph) \in\{0,1\}\times \R} \big\{ u dt +\E[V(Q+dQ, p+dp)] \big\},$$ where $(u, \ph)$ are the control actions. For a twice differentiable function $V$, we may exploit Itō’s Lemma to get $$\begin{aligned}
dV(Q,p) &=& \frac{\partial V}{\partial Q} dQ + \frac{\partial V}{\partial p} dp + \frac12 \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial Q^2} (dQ)^2 + \frac12 \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial p^2} (dp)^2 + \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial Q \partial p} dQ dp \\
&\stackrel{(a)}{=}& \frac{\partial V}{\partial Q} ((R_{u} - 1) dt + dW) +\frac{\partial V}{\partial p} (\ph \ dW) \\
&& + \frac12 \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial Q^2} dt + \frac12 \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial p^2} (\ph)^2 dt + \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial Q \partial p} \ph dt,\end{aligned}$$ where $(a)$ follows from state dynamics in (\[brownian\_model\]) and (\[p\_dynamics\]). Replacing the above equation back in (\[HJB\_fluid1\]), and taking the expectation with respect to $dW$, and limit as $dt$ tends to zero, we obtain the following HJB equation $$\label{HJB_fluid2}
0 = \min_{(u, \ph) \in\{0,1\}\times \R} \bigg\{ u + \frac{\partial V}{\partial Q} (R_{u} - 1) + \frac12 \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial Q^2} + \frac12 \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial p^2} (\ph)^2 + \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial Q \partial p} \ph \bigg\}.$$
Note that we require the following boundary conditions for the value function: $$\label{BC_valuefunction}
V(Q, 1) = V(0, p) = 0, \quad \foral Q \geq 0, 0 \leq p \leq 1$$
Providing an analytical solution for the partial differential equation in (\[HJB\_fluid2\]) is often challenging. However, we may take a guess and check approach and use a threshold policy as the basis of our guess. Note that we need to verify the HJB equation for the set of state variables that reachable by a feasible policy. In particular, in light of Lemma \[lemma:degenerate\], it is clear that for $p \leq e^{-\t_1 Q}$, there is no feasible policy and the value function $V(Q,p) = \infty$. Moreover, for all $p \geq e^{-\t_0 Q}$, observe that the degenerate policy $\pi_0 \equiv 0$ is optimal, $V(Q,p) = 0$ which also satisfies the HJB equation and the boundary conditions. Therefore, we focus on the non-degenerate region $$\label{Region_def}
\mathcal R = \Big\{(Q,p): Q\geq 0, e^{-\t_1 Q} < p < e^{-\t_0 Q} \Big\}.$$
Figure \[regions\_fig\] illustrates a conceptual example of this non-degenerate region. In the following, we first define a threshold policy similar to the risky policy of Definition \[risky\_def\], and present a closed-form characterization of its cost function. Then, we show that, for a proper choice of the threshold the associated cost function satisfies the HJB equation in (\[HJB\_fluid2\]), and the optimal solution of the minimization problem in (\[HJB\_fluid2\]) coincides with the threshold policy. Hence, we establish the optimality of the proposed policy.
\[thm:threshold\_policy\] Let $\pi^T$ be the threshold policy as in Definition \[risky\_def\], parameterized with threshold value $T$. Also, let the queue-length dynamics be governed by (\[brownian\_model\]). Then, the interruption probability for this policy is given by $$\label{pint_threshold}
p^T(D) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
e^{-\t_1 D} + p(T) (1- \frac{\t_0}{\t_1}) \big(1- e^{-\t_1 D} \big), & \hbox{$0 \leq D \leq T$} \\
p(T) e^{-\t_0(D-T)}, & \hbox{$D \geq T$,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $$p(T) = \frac{e^{-\t_1 T}}{\frac{\t_0}{\t_1} + (1- \frac{\t_0}{\t_1}) e^{-\t_1 T}},$$ and $\theta_i \triangleq 2(R_i - 1)$, for $i \in \{0,1\}$.
See Appendix \[app:fluid\_policy\_analysis\].
\[cor:threshold\_policy\] Let $\pi^T$ be the threshold policy as in Definition \[risky\_def\]. Then, the policy $\pi^T$ is $(D,\e)$-feasible (cf. Definition \[feas\_policy\_def\]) for the following choices of the threshold $T$:
1. For all $\e \geq e^{-\t_0 D}$, let $T = 0$.
2. For all $e^{-\t_1 D} \leq \e \leq e^{-\t_0 D}$, let $T = T(D,\e)$ be the unique solution of $p^T(D) = \e,$ where $p^T(D)$ is given by (\[pint\_threshold\]).
3. For all other $\e$, there exists no such $T$.
The proof directly follows from the characterization of the interruption probability in Theorem \[thm:threshold\_policy\], noting the fact that $p^T(D) \in [e^{-\t_1 D}, e^{-\t_0 D}]$ is monotonically decreasing in $T$.
Next, we provide a exact characterization of the expected cost of the threshold policy $\pi^T$ for a given threshold $T$. This allows us to obtain a proper candidate solution for the HJB equation.
\[thm:threshold\_cost\] Let $\pi^T$ be the threshold policy as in Definition \[risky\_def\]. Define $J^T(D)$ as the expected cost associated with policy $\pi^T$ given the initial condition $D$ for queue-length dynamics (\[brownian\_model\]) and threshold $T$. The *cost-to-go* function $J^T(D)$ is given by $$\label{J_D}
J^T(D) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
e^{-\t_0(D - T)} J(T), & \hbox{$D \geq T$} \\
(J(T) + \frac{2}{\t_1}T)\frac{1-e^{-\t_1 D}}{1-e^{-\t_1 T}} - \frac{2}{\t_1}D, & \hbox{$D \leq T$,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $$\label{J_T}
J(T) = \frac{\frac{2}{\t_1^2}\big[1 - (1+\t_1 T)e^{-\t_1 T}\big]}{\frac{\t_0}{\t_1} + (1- \frac{\t_0}{\t_1}) e^{-\t_1 T}}.$$
See Appendix \[app:fluid\_policy\_analysis\].
The following theorem provide a candidate for value function and verify the optimality condition given by HJB equation in (\[HJB\_fluid2\]).
\[thm:value\_function\_HJB\] For all $(Q,p) \in \mathcal R$, define $$\label{value_function_candidate}
V(Q,p) = J^{T(Q,p)}(Q),$$ where $J^T(\cdot)$ is defined in (\[J\_D\]), $\mathcal R$ is defined in (\[Region\_def\]), and $T(Q,p)$ is the unique solution of $$p^T(Q) = p.$$ Then, the HJB equation (\[HJB\_fluid2\]) and boundary condition (\[BC\_valuefunction\]) hold for all $(Q,p) \in \mathcal R$.
See Appendix \[app:fluid\_policy\_analysis\].
Theorem \[thm:value\_function\_HJB\] verifies that the value function $V(Q,p)$ given by (\[value\_function\_candidate\]) is indeed the optimal cost function defined in (\[value\_def\]). Furthermore, we can conclude that the policy $\pi^*(Q,p)$ achieving the minimum in the HJB equation (\[HJB\_fluid2\]) is optimal. In general, the optimal policy depends on both state variables $(Q,p)$ and is not Markov with respect to $Q$. In the following, we show that the state trajectory steered by the optimal policy is limited to a one-dimensional manifold and the threshold policy $\pi^T$ is optimal for all $(Q,p) \in \mathcal R$. Recall the policy $\pi^T$ boils down to the optimal policy $\pi_0 \equiv 0$ for all other admissible states, by using threshold value $T=0$.
\[thm:threshold\_optimalit\] Let $\pi^*(Q,p)$ attain the minimum in the HJB equation (\[HJB\_fluid2\]) for any $(Q,p) \in \mathcal R$. Let $(Q^*_t, p^*_t)$ denote the state trajectory given the initial condition $(D,\e)$, under the control trajectory $(u^*_t, \ph^*_t) = \pi^*(Q^*_t, p^*_t)$. Then, the state trajectory is limited to a one-dimensional invariant manifold $\mathcal M(D,\e)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{manifold_fluid}
&& \mathcal M{(D,\e)}= \big\{(Q,p): p = p^{T(D,\e)}(Q) \big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $T(D, \e)$ is the solution of $p^T(D) = \e$, and $p^T(\cdot)$ is defined in (\[pint\_threshold\]). Moreover, the optimal policy $\pi^*(Q,p)$ coincides with the threshold policy $\pi^{T(D,\e)}(Q)$.
See Appendix \[app:fluid\_policy\_analysis\].
Figure \[manifold\_fig\] illustrates a conceptual figure describing the intuition behind Theorem \[thm:threshold\_optimalit\]. Observe that the optimal policy satisfying the HJB equation, divides the feasible state space into two sub-regions corresponding to $u^* =0$ and $u^* = 1$, i.e., the policy switches costly server on/off when the state of the system crosses the boundary between these sub-regions. Theorem \[thm:threshold\_optimalit\] states that for any initial condition $(Q_0, p_0) = (D,\e)$ the state trajectory lies on a one-dimensional manifold $\mathcal M(D,\e)$. Figure \[manifold\_fig\] illustrates these manifolds for different initial conditions. Since the state trajectory is limited to a one-dimensional space, the decision of switching to the costly server merely depends on the queue-length process. The proof of Theorem \[thm:threshold\_optimalit\] in Appendix \[app:fluid\_policy\_analysis\], shows that the queue-length at the switch point for each manifold $\mathcal M(D,\e)$ coincides with the threshold $T(D,\e)$ specified in Corollary \[cor:threshold\_policy\].
![Trajectory of the optimal policy lies on a one-dimensional manifold.[]{data-label="manifold_fig"}](manifold){width="4in"}
Conclusions and Future Work {#sec:conclusion}
===========================
We presented a new framework for studying media streaming systems in volatile environments, with focus on quality of user experience. We proposed two intuitive metrics that essentially capture the notion of *delay* from the end-user’s point of view. The proposed metrics in the context of media streaming, are initial buffering delay, and probability of interruption in media playback. These metrics are tractable enough to be used as a benchmark for system design.
We first addressed the problem of streaming in a technology-heterogeneous multi-server system. The main challenge in multi-server systems is inefficiencies in multi-path streaming due to duplicate packet reception. This issue can also significantly complicates the analysis. We proposed random linear network coding as the solution to this challenge. By sending random linear combination of packets, we remove the notion of identity from packets and hence, guarantee that no packet is redundant. Using this approach allows us to significantly simplify the flow control of multi-path streaming scenarios, and model heterogeneous multi-server systems as a single-server system.
Equipped with tools provided by network coding, we added another level of complexity to the multi-server system. We used our framework to study multi-server systems when the access cost varies across different servers. Our objective was to investigate the trade-offs between the network usage cost and the user’s QoE requirements parameterized by initial waiting time and allowable probability of interruption in media playback. For a Poisson arrival model, we analytically characterized and compared the expected cost of both off-line and online policies, finally showing that a threshold-based online risky policy achieves the lowest cost. The threshold policy uses the costly server if and only if the receiver’s buffer is below a certain threshold. Moreover, we observed that even rare but properly timed usage of alternative access technologies significantly improves user experience without any bandwidth over-provisioning.
We formulated the access cost minimization problem as a Markov decision problem with probabilistic constraints, and characterized the optimal policy by the HJB equation. For a fluid approximation model, we established the optimality of a threshold-based online policy in the class of deterministic Markov policies using the HJB equation as a verification method.
The framework that we have developed in this work can also be used to design adaptive resolution streaming systems that not only depend on the channel conditions but also on the delay requirement of the application, which is captured by the queue-length at the receiver. As for other extensions of this work, we would like to study more accurate models of channel variations such as the two-state Markov model due to Gillbert and Elliot. In this work we focused on deterministic network association policies. Another extension of this work would consist of studying randomized control policies.
Analysis of the Control Policies for the Poisson Arrival Model {#app:policy_analysis}
==============================================================
**of Theorem \[offline\_range\_thm\].** By Definition \[feas\_policy\_def\], we need to show that $p^\pi(D) \leq \e$. By a union bound on the interruption probability, it is sufficient to verify $$\label{union_bd}
\pr\Big(\min_{0\leq t\leq t_s} Q_t \leq 0 \big| Q_0 = D\Big) + \pr\Big(\min_{t > t_s} Q_t \leq 0 \big| Q_0 = D\Big) \leq \e.$$
In the interval $[0,t_s]$, $Q_t$ behaves as in a single-server system with rate $R_1$. Hence, by Lemma \[pd\_exact\_lemma\] we get $$\label{pint_bd1}
\pr\Big(\min_{0\leq t\leq t_s} Q_t \leq 0 \big| Q_0 = D\Big) \leq e^{-\alpha_1 D}.$$
For the second term in (\[union\_bd\]), we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\pr\Big(\min_{t > t_s} Q_t \leq 0 \big| Q_0 = D\Big) &=& \sum_{q = D-t_s}^\infty \pr\Big(\min_{t > t_s} Q_t \leq 0 \big| Q_{t_s} = q\Big) \pr(Q_{t_s} = q) \\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\leq}& \sum_{q = D-t_s}^\infty e^{-\a_0 q} \pr(Q_{t_s} = q) \\
&=& \sum_{k = 0}^\infty e^{-\a_0 (D+k-{t_s})} \pr(N_{t_s} + N^c_{t_s} = k) \\
& \stackrel{(b)}{=}& \sum_{k = 0}^\infty e^{-\a_0 (D+k-{t_s})} \frac{e^{-R_1 {t_s}}(R_1 {t_s})^k}{k!}\\
&=& e^{-\a_0 (D-{t_s})+R_1 {t_s} (e^{-\a_0}-1)} \sum_{k = 0}^\infty \frac{e^{-R_1 {t_s} e^{-\a_0}}(R_1 {t_s} e^{-\a_0})^k}{k!}\\
&=& \exp\Big(-\a_0 (D-{t_s})+R_1 {t_s} (e^{-\a_0}-1)\Big)\cdot 1 \\
&\stackrel{(c)}{=}& \exp\Big(-\a_0 (D-{t_s})+R_1 {t_s} (-\frac{\a_0}{R_0})\Big) \\
&\stackrel{(d)}{\leq}& \e - e^{-\alpha_1 D},\end{aligned}$$
where (a) follows from Lemma \[pd\_exact\_lemma\] and the fact that $u_t = 0$, for $t \geq t_s$. (b) is true because $N_{t_s} + N^c_{t_s}$ is a Poisson random variable with mean $R_1 t_s$. (c) holds since $\a_0 = I(R_0)$ is the root of $\gamma(r) = r + R_0(e^{-r} -1 )$. Finally, (d) follows from the hypothesis of the theorem.
By combining the above bounds, we may verify (\[union\_bd\]) which in turns proves feasibility of the proposed control policy.
**of Theorem \[safe\_thm\].** Similarly to the proof of Theorem \[offline\_range\_thm\], we need to show that the total probability of interruption before and after crossing the threshold $S$ is bounded from above by $\e$. Observe that for any realization of $\tau_S$ the bound in (\[pint\_bd1\]) still holds. Further, since the costly server is not used after crossing the threshold and $Q_{\tau_S} \geq S$, Lemma \[pd\_exact\_lemma\] implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pint_bd2}
\pr\Big(\min_{t > \tau_S} Q_t \leq 0 \big| Q_0 = D\Big) \leq e^{-\alpha_0 S} \leq \e - e^{-\alpha_1 D},&&\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality follows from (\[S\_range\]). Finally, combining (\[pint\_bd1\]) and (\[pint\_bd2\]) gives $p^{\pi^S}(D) \leq \e$, which is the desired feasibility result.
For the second part, first observe that $J^{\pi^{S}}(D,\e) = \E[\tau_S]$. In order to cross a threshold $S \geq S^*$, the threshold $S^*$ must be crossed earlier, because $Q_0 = D \leq S^*$. Hence, $\tau_S$ stochastically dominates $\tau_S^*$, implying $$J^{\pi^{S}}(D,\e) = \E[\tau_S] \geq \E[\tau_{S^*}] =J^{\pi^{S^*}}(D,\e), \quad \foral S\geq S^*.$$
It only remains to compute $\E[\tau_{S^*}]$. It follows from Wald’s identity or Doob’s optional stopping theorem [@SP_book] that $$\label{Walds_stopping}
D + (R_1 - 1)\E[\tau_{S^*}] = \E[Q_{\tau_{S^*}}] = S^* + \xi,$$
where $\xi \in [0,1)$ because the jumps of a Poisson process are of units size, and hence the overshoot size when crossing a threshold is bounded by one, i.e., $S^* \leq Q_{\tau_{S^*}} < S^*+1$. Rearranging the terms in (\[Walds\_stopping\]) and plugging the value of $S^*$ from (\[S\_range\]) immediately gives the result.
\[stop\_lemma\] Let $Q_t$ be the buffer size of a single-server system with arrival rate $R > 1$. Let the initial buffer size be $D$ and for any $T\geq D > 0$ define the following stopping times $$\label{stop_def}
\tau_T = \inf \{t > 0: Q_t \geq T\},\quad \tau_e = \inf \{t \geq 0: Q_t \leq 0\}.$$ Then $$\label{stop_prob}
\pr(\tau_e > \tau_T) = \frac{1-e^{-I(R) D}}{1-\E[e^{-I(R) Q_{\tau_T}}|\tau_e > \tau_T]},$$ where $I(R)$ is defined in Lemma \[pd\_exact\_lemma\].
Let $Y(t) = e^{-I(R) Q_t}$. We may verify that $Y(t)$ is a Martingale and uniformly integrable. Also, define the stopping time $\tau = \min\{\tau_T, \tau_e\}$. Since $R>1$, we have $\pr(\tau \geq t) \leq \pr(0 < Q_t < T) \rightarrow 0$, as $t\rightarrow \infty$. Hence, $\tau < \infty$ almost surely. Therefore, we can employ Doob’s optional stopping theorem [@SP_book] to write $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-I(R) D} &=& \E[Y(0)] = \E[Y(\tau)] \\
&=& \pr(\tau_e \leq \tau_T) \cdot 1\\
&& + \pr(\tau_e > \tau_T) \E[e^{-I(R) Q_{\tau_T}} |\tau_e > \tau_T].\end{aligned}$$ The claim immediately follows from the above relation after rearranging the terms.
**of Theorem \[risky\_thm\].** Let us first characterize the interruption probability of the policy $\pi^T$ when the initial buffer size is $D = T$. In this case, by definition of $\pi^T$ the behavior of $Q_t$ is initially the same as a single-server system with rate $R_1$ until the threshold $T$ is crossed. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
p^{\pi^{T}}(T) &=& \pr\Big(\min_{t \geq 0} Q_t \leq 0 \big| Q_0 = T\Big) \nonumber \\
&=& \pr(\tau_e < \tau_{T})\cdot 1 \nonumber \\
&& + \pr(\tau_{T} < \tau_e)\pr\Big(\min_{t \geq \tau_{T}} Q_t \leq 0 \big| \tau_{T} < \tau_e, Q_0 = T\Big) \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{e^{-\a_1 T} - \E[e^{-\a_1 Q_{\tau_{T}}}|\tau_e > \tau_{T}]}{1-\E[e^{-\a_1 Q_{\tau_{T}}}|\tau_e > \tau_{T}]} \nonumber \\
&&+ \frac{\big(1-e^{-\a_1 T}\big)\pr\Big(\min_{t \geq \tau_{T}} Q_t \leq 0 \big| \tau_{T} < \tau_e, Q_0 = T\Big) }{1-\E[e^{-\a_1 Q_{\tau_{T}}}|\tau_e > \tau_{T}]},
\label{eqn:step1}\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows directly from Lemma \[stop\_lemma\]. Further, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pint_cond}
&& \!\!\!\!\!\! \pr\Big(\min_{t \geq \tau_{T}} Q_t \leq 0 \big| \tau_{T} < \tau_e, Q_0 = T\Big) \nonumber = \int_{T}^{T + 1} \pr\Big(\min_{t \geq \tau_{T}} Q_t \leq 0 \big| Q_{\tau_{T}}\Big) d\mu (Q_{\tau_{T}}) \nonumber \\
&& \stackrel{(a)}{=} \int_{T}^{T + 1} \pr\Big(\min_{t \geq 0} Q_t \leq 0 \big| Q_0\Big) d\mu (Q_0) \nonumber \\
&& \stackrel{(b)}{=} \int_{T}^{T + 1} \pr\Big(\min_{t \geq 0} Q_t \leq 0 \big| \min_{t \geq 0} Q_t \leq T, Q_0\Big)\nonumber \pr\big(\min_{t \geq 0} Q_t \leq T| Q_0\big) d\mu (Q_0) \nonumber \\
&& \stackrel{(c)}{=} \int_{T}^{T + 1} p^{\pi^{T}}(T) e^{-\a_0(Q_0 - T)} d\mu (Q_0) \nonumber \\
&& = \E[e^{-\a_0(Q_{\tau_{T}} - T)}| \tau_{T} < \tau_e] p^{\pi^{T}}(T),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ denotes the conditional distribution of $Q_{\tau_{T}}$ given $\tau_{T} < \tau_e$. Note that $Q_{\tau_{T}} \in [T, T+1]$ because the size of the overshoot is bounded by one. Further, (a) follows from stationarity of the arrival processes and the control policy, (b) holds because a necessary condition for the interruption event is to cross the threshold $T$ when starting from a point $Q_0 \geq T$. Finally (c) follows from Lemma \[pd\_exact\_lemma\] and the definition of the risky policy. The relations (\[eqn:step1\]) and (\[pint\_cond\]) together result in $$\label{pint_risky}
p^{\pi^{T}}(T) = \frac{ e^{-\a_1 T} \big(1-\E_\mu[e^{-\a_1 (Q_{\tau_{T}} - T)}]\big) }{ 1- \E_\mu[e^{-\a_0(Q_{\tau_{T}} - T)}] + \kappa },$$ where $\kappa = \E_\mu[e^{-\a_0 Q_{\tau_{T}} -(\a_1 - \a_0)T}] - \E_\mu[e^{-\a_1 Q_{\tau_{T}} }] \geq 0$. Therefore, using the fact that $$\label{fact}
1- x \leq e^{-x} \leq 1 - x +\frac{x^2}{2}, \quad \foral x \geq 0,$$ we can provide the following bound $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pint_riksy_bd}
p^{\pi^{T}}(T) &\leq & \frac{ e^{-\a_1 T} \big(\a_1 \E_\mu[Q_{\tau_{T}} - T]\big)}{\a_0 \E_\mu[Q_{\tau_{T}} - T]\Big(1 - \frac{\a_0}{2} \cdot \frac{\E_\mu[(Q_{\tau_{T}} - T)^2]}{\E_\mu[Q_{\tau_{T}} - T]} \Big)} \nonumber \\
&\leq& \frac{\a_1}{\a_0(1-\frac{\a_0}{2})} e^{-\a_1 T} \nonumber \\
&=& \beta e^{-\a_1 T},\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality holds, since $0 \leq Q_{\tau_{\bar D}} - \bar D \leq 1$.
Now we prove feasibility of the risky policy $\pi^{T^*}$ when $D > \bar D$. Observe that by (\[threshold\]), $D > T^*$, hence the behavior of the buffer size $Q_t$ is the same as the one in a single-server system with rate $R_0$ until the threshold $T^*$ is crossed. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
p^{\pi^{T^*}}(D) &=& \pr\Big(\min_{t \geq 0} Q_t \leq 0 \big| Q_0 = D\Big) \\
&=& \pr\Big(\min_{t \geq 0} Q_t \leq 0 \big| \min_{t \geq 0} Q_t \leq T^*, Q_0=D\Big) \pr\big(\min_{t \geq 0} Q_t \leq T^*| Q_0=D\big) \\
&=& p^{\pi^{T^*}}(T^*) e^{-\a_0(D-T^*)} \\
&\leq& \beta e^{-(\a_1-\a_0) T^* - \a_0 D} = \e,\end{aligned}$$ where the inequality follows from (\[pint\_riksy\_bd\]), and the last equality holds by (\[threshold\]).
Next we verify the feasibility of the policy $\pi^{T^*}$ for $D \leq \bar D$. In this case, $D \leq T^*$ and by definition of the risky policy the system behaves as a single-server system with arrival rate $R_1$ until the threshold $T^*$ is crossed or the buffer size hits zero (interruption). Hence, we can bound the interruption probability as follows $$\begin{aligned}
p^{\pi^{T^*}}(D) &=& \pr(\tau_e < \tau_{T^*}) \cdot 1
+ \pr(\tau_{T^*} < \tau_e) \pr\Big(\min_{t \geq \tau_{T^*}} Q_t \leq 0 \big| \tau_{T^*} < \tau_e, Q_0 = D\Big)\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{=}& 1 - \pr(\tau_{T^*} < \tau_e)\Big(1 - \E_\mu[e^{-\a_0(Q_{\tau_{T^*}} - T^*)}] p^{\pi^{T^*}}(T^*) \Big)\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{=}& 1 - \frac{1-e^{-\a_1 D}}{1-\E_\mu[e^{-\a_1 Q_{\tau_{T^*}} }]} \Big(1 - \E_\mu[e^{-\a_0(Q_{\tau_{T^*}} - T^*)}] p^{\pi^{T^*}}(T^*) \Big)\\
& \stackrel{(c)}{\leq}& 1 - \frac{1-e^{-\a_1 D}}{1-\E_\mu[e^{-\a_1 Q_{\tau_{T^*}} }]} \Big(1 - \E_\mu[e^{-\a_0(Q_{\tau_{T^*}} - T^*)}] \beta e^{-\a_1 T^*} \Big)\\
& \stackrel{(d)}{\leq}& \frac{(\beta-1)(1 - e^{-\a_1 D})}{1-\E_\mu[e^{-\a_1 Q_{\tau_{T^*}} }]} + 1 - \beta(1 - e^{-\a_1 D})\\
& \stackrel{(e)}{\leq}& \frac{(\beta-1)(1 - e^{-\a_1 D})}{1-e^{-\a_1 T^*} } + 1 - \beta(1 - e^{-\a_1 D}) \stackrel{(f)}{=} \e,\end{aligned}$$ where (a) follows from (\[pint\_cond\]), (b) is a direct consequence of Lemma \[stop\_lemma\], (c) is a result of (\[pint\_riksy\_bd\]), (d) may be verified by noting that $\a_0 = I(R_0)$, $\a_1 = I(R_1)$ and $R_1 \geq R_0$, (e) holds since $\beta \geq 1$ and $Q_{\tau_{T^*}} \geq T^*$. Finally, (f) immediately follows from plugging in the definition of $T^*$ from (\[threshold\]).
Therefore, the risky policy $\pi^{T^*}$ is feasible by Definition \[feas\_policy\_def\]. Observe that the buffer size under any policy $\pi^T$ of the form (\[risky\_policy\]) with $T\geq T^*$ stochastically dominates that of policy $\pi^{T^*}$, because $\pi^T$ switches to the costly server earlier, and stays in that state longer. Hence, $\pi^T$ is feasible for all $T\geq T^*$.
**of Theorem \[risky\_cost\_thm\].** Similarly to the proof of Theorem \[risky\_thm\], we first consider the risky policy $\pi^T$ with the initial buffer size $T$. By definition of $\pi^{T}$, the costly server is used until the threshold $T$ is crossed. Thus the expected cost of this policy is bounded by the expected time until crossing the threshold plus the expected cost given that the threshold is crossed, i.e., $$J^{\pi^{T}}(T,\e) \leq \frac{\E[Q_{\tau_{T}}] - T}{R_1-1} + E[e^{-\a_0(Q_{\tau_{T}} - T)}] J^{\pi^{T}}(T,\e),$$ where $\tau_{T}$ is defined in (\[stop\_def\]). The above relation implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{risky_cost_bd}
J^{\pi^{T}}(T,\e) &\leq& \frac{1}{R_1-1} \cdot \frac{\E[Q_{\tau_{T}} - T] }{1- \E[e^{-\a_0(Q_{\tau_{T}} - T)}]} \nonumber \\
&\leq& \frac{1}{R_1-1} \cdot \frac{\E[Q_{\tau_{T}} - T] }{1 - \E\big[1 - \a_0(Q_{\tau_{T}} - T) + \frac{\a_0^2}{2} (Q_{\tau_{T}} - T)^2 \big] } \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{R_1-1} \cdot \frac{1}{\a_0\Big(1 - \frac{\a_0}{2} \cdot \frac{\E_[(Q_{\tau_{T}} - T)^2]}{\E_[Q_{\tau_{T}} - T]}\Big)} \nonumber \\
&\leq& \!\! \frac{1}{\a_0(R_1-1)(1-\frac{\a_0}{2})} = \frac{\beta}{\a_1(R_1-1)},\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality follows from the fact in (\[fact\]), and the last equality holds by definition of $\beta$. Now for any $D\geq \bar D$ we can write $$\begin{aligned}
J^{\pi^{T^*}}(D,\e) &=& \pr\Big(\min_{t \geq 0} Q_t \leq T^* \big | Q_0 = D \Big) J^{\pi^{T^*}}(T^*,\e) \\
&=& e^{-a_0(D- T^*)} J^{\pi^{T^*}}(T^*,\e)\end{aligned}$$ where the inequality holds by Lemma \[pd\_exact\_lemma\]. Combining this with (\[risky\_cost\_bd\]) gives the result in (\[risky\_cost1\]).
If $D\leq \bar D$, the risky policy uses the costly server until the threshold $T^*$ is crossed at $\tau_{T^*}$ or the interruption event ($\tau_e$), whichever happens first. Afterwards, no extra cost is incurred if an interruption has occurred. Otherwise, by (\[risky\_cost\_bd\]) an extra cost of at most $\frac{\beta}{\a_1(R_1-1)} $ is incurred, i.e., $$J^{\pi^{T^*}}(D,\e) \leq \E\big[\min\{\tau_e, \tau_{T^*}\}\big] + \pr(\tau_{T^*} < \tau_e) \frac{\beta}{\a_1(R_1-1)}.$$
By Doob’s optional stopping theorem applied to the Martingale $Z_t = Q_t - (R_1-1)t$, we obtain
$$D = \pr(\tau_{T^*} < \tau_e) \E[Q_{\tau_{T^*}}| \tau_{T^*} < \tau_e] -(R_1-1)\E\big[\min\{\tau_e, \tau_{T^*}\}\big],$$ which implies $$\E\big[\min\{\tau_e, \tau_{T^*}\}\big] \leq \frac{\pr(\tau_{T^*} < \tau_e) (T^*+1) - D}{R_1-1}.$$
By combining the preceding relations we conclude that $$J^{\pi^{T^*}}(D,\e) \leq \frac{\pr(\tau_{T^*} < \tau_e)}{R_1-1}\Big(T^*+1+\frac{\beta}{\a_1}\Big) - \frac{D}{R_1-1},$$ which immediately implies (\[risky\_cost2\]) by employing Lemma \[stop\_lemma\].
Analysis of the Threshold Policy for the Fluid Approximation Model {#app:fluid_policy_analysis}
==================================================================
**of Lemma \[lemma:degenerate\].** There are multiple approaches to prove the claim. We prove a more general case using Doob’s optional stopping theorem that will be useful in the later arguments. We only consider $i = 0$; the other case is the same.
Let $Y_t = e^{-\t_0 Q_t}$. It is straightforward to show that $Y_t$ is a Martingale with respect to $W_t$. Now consider the boundary crossing problem, where we are interested in the probability of hitting zero before a boundary $b > D$. Let $\tau$ denote the hitting time of either boundaries. For any $n > 0$, we may apply Doob’s optional stopping theorem [@SP_book] to the stopped Martingale $Y_{\tau \wedge n}$ to write $$\E[Y_{\tau \wedge b}] = \E[e^{-\t_0 Q_{\tau \wedge n}}] = e^{-\t_0 D}, \quad \foral n.$$
Now, we take the limit as $n \rightarrow \infty$ and exploit the dominant convergence theorem to establish: $$\label{doob_result}
\E[Y_\tau] = \E[e^{-\t_0 Q_\tau}] = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\E[e^{-\t_0 Q_{\tau \wedge n}}] = e^{-\t_0 D}.$$
Finally, using the Borel-Cantelli Lemma, we can show $\tau$ is finite with probability one, which allows us to decompose (\[doob\_result\]) and characterize the boundary crossing probabilities as $$\begin{aligned}
\pr(Q_\tau = 0)\cdot 1 + \pr(Q_\tau = b) \cdot e^{-\t_0 b} &=& e^{-\t_0 D}, \\
\pr(Q_\tau = 0) + \pr(Q_\tau = b) &=& 1.\end{aligned}$$
Solving the above equations gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{crossing0_prob}
\pr(Q_\tau = 0) &=& \frac{e^{-\t_0 D} - e^{-\t_0 b}}{1 - e^{-\t_0 b}}, \\
\pr(Q_\tau = b) &=& \frac{1 -e^{-\t_0 D} }{1 - e^{-\t_0 b}}.\label{crossingb_prob}\end{aligned}$$
Taking the limit as $b \rightarrow \infty$ proves the claim.
**of Theorem \[thm:threshold\_policy\].** We first characterize the interruption probability for the cases $D > T$ and $D < T$ given $p(T)$, which is the interruption probability starting from $D=T$.
For any $x \geq 0$, define $\tau_x$ as the first hitting time of boundary $x$, i.e., $$\label{hitting_time_def}
\tau_x = \inf\{t\geq 0: Q_t = x\}.$$
For the case $D > T$, using path-continuity of $Q_t$, strong Markov property and Lemma \[lemma:degenerate\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
p(D) &=& \pr(\tau_0 < \infty| Q_0 = D) \\
&=& \pr(\tau_0 < \infty | Q_0 = T) \cdot \pr(\tau_T < \infty | Q_0 = D)\\
&=& e^{-\t_0(D-T)}p(T).\end{aligned}$$
For the case $D < T$, we use the boundary crossing probabilities (\[crossing0\_prob\]) and (\[crossingb\_prob\]) that we derived in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:degenerate\]. Note that for the threshold policy when $D < T$, the drift is set to $R_1 -1 = 2\t_1$. Hence, by total probability theorem and strong Markov property, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
p(D) &=& \pr(\tau_0 < \infty| Q_0 = D) \\
&=& 1\cdot\pr(\tau_0 < \tau_T | Q_0 = D) + \pr(\tau_0 < \infty | Q_0 = T)\cdot \pr(\tau_T < \tau_0 | Q_0 = D) \\
&=& \frac{e^{-\t_1 D} - e^{-\t_1 b}}{1 - e^{-\t_1 b}} + p(T)\frac{1 -e^{-\t_1 D} }{1 - e^{-\t_1 b}}.\end{aligned}$$ We may obtain the desired result after simple manipulations of the above relation, once we compute $p(T)$.
In order to characterize $p(T)$, we use an analogue of one-step deviation analysis for Markov chains. Let $Q_0 = T$, and consider a small deviation $Q_h$, where $h$ is a small time-step. Since $Q_t$ is a Brownian motion with drift, $Q_h$ has a normal distribution with variance $h$, and mean of $T+\a h$, where $\a \in [R_0 -1, R_1 -1]$. Therefore, the probability of $Q_h \geq T$ is $(\frac12 + \delta) + o(h)$, where $\delta$ is a small constant of the same order of $h$, and $\frac{o(h)}{h} \rightarrow 0$ as $h\rightarrow 0$. By strong Markov property of the Brownian motion, (\[crossing0\_prob\]) and (\[crossingb\_prob\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pT_equation}
p(T) &=& \pr(\tau_0 < \infty | Q_0 = T) \nonumber \\
&=& \pr(\tau_0 < \infty | Q_h \geq T) (\frac12 + \delta) + \pr(\tau_0 < \infty | Q_h < T) (\frac12 - \delta) + o(h) \nonumber\\
&=& \Big[ 0 + p(T) \E_{Q_h}[\pr(\tau_T < \infty)| Q_h \geq T] \Big] (\frac12 + \delta) \nonumber\\
&& + \Big[1 \cdot \E_{Q_h}[\pr(\tau_0 < \tau_T)| Q_h < T] + p(T) \E_{Q_h}[\pr(\tau_T < \tau_0)| Q_h < T]\Big] (\frac12 - \delta) \nonumber\\
&& + o(h) \nonumber\\
&=& \Big[ 0 + p(T) \E[ e^{-\t_0 Z} | Z \geq 0] \Big] (\frac12 + \delta)\nonumber\\
&& + \E\Big[ \frac{e^{-\t_1 T} (e^{-\t_1 Z}-1)}{1-e^{-\t_1 T}} \Big| Z < 0\Big] (\frac12 - \delta) \nonumber\\
&& + p(T) \E\Big[ 1 - \frac{e^{-\t_1 T} (e^{-\t_1 Z}-1)}{1-e^{-\t_1 T}} \Big| Z < 0\Big] (\frac12 - \delta) + o(h),\end{aligned}$$ where $Z = Q_h - T$ is a Gaussian random variable with mean $\a h$ and variance $h$. In order to obtain $p(T)$, we need to compute $E[e^{-\t_0 Z} | Z \geq 0]$ and $E[e^{-\t_1 Z} | Z < 0]$. We may compute these expressions exactly, but it is simpler to compute upper and lower bounds and then take the limit as $h\rightarrow 0$. By (\[fact\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Z_bound1}
E[e^{-\t_0 Z} | Z \geq 0] &\leq& \E[1 - \t_0 Z + \frac{(\t_0 Z)^2}{2} | Z \geq 0] = 1 - \t_0 \beta \sqrt{h} + o(\sqrt{h}), \nonumber \\
E[e^{-\t_0 Z} | Z \geq 0] &\geq& \E[1 - \t_0 Z | Z \geq 0] = 1 - \t_0 \beta \sqrt{h} + o(\sqrt{h}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta$ is a constant. Similarly, we get $$1 + \t_1 \beta \sqrt{h} + o(\sqrt{h}) \leq E[e^{-\t_1 Z} | Z < 0] \leq 1 + \t_1 \beta \sqrt{h} + o(\sqrt{h}).$$
Plugging these relations back in (\[pT\_equation\]), dividing by $\beta \sqrt{h}$ and taking the limit as $h$ goes to zero, we obtain the following equation $$\label{Z_bound2}
p(T) \Big[\t_0 +\frac{e^{-\t_1 T}}{1-e^{-\t_1 T}}\t_1 \Big] = \frac{e^{-\t_1 T}}{1-e^{-\t_1 T}}\t_1,$$ which gives the desired result for $p(T)$ after rearranging the terms.
**of Theorem \[thm:threshold\_cost\].** The proof technique for this theorem is analogous to that of Theorem \[thm:threshold\_policy\]. First, we consider the cases $D>T$ and $D<T$ and characterize the expected cost in terms of $J(T)$. Let $\tau_x$ be defined as in (\[hitting\_time\_def\]).
For the case $D > T$, note that no cost is incurred until the threshold $T$ is reached. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
J(D) &=& \E \bigg[\int_0^{\tau_e} u_t dt \Big |Q_0 = D\bigg]\\
&=& \E \bigg[\int_0^{\tau_e} u_t dt \Big | \tau_T = \infty, Q_0 = D \bigg] \pr(\tau_T = \infty | Q_0 = D) \\
&& + \E \bigg[\int_0^{\tau_e} u_t dt \Big | \tau_T < \infty , Q_0 = D\bigg] \pr(\tau_T < \infty | Q_0 = D) \\
&= & 0 + \E\bigg[0 +\int_{\tau_T}^{\tau_e} u_t dt \Big | \tau_T < \infty, Q_0 = D \bigg] \pr(\tau_T < \infty | Q_0 = D)\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{=}& \E\bigg[\int_{0}^{\tau_e} u_t dt \Big | Q_0 = T \bigg] \pr(\tau_T < \infty | Q_0 = D)\\
&=&J(T) \pr(\tau_T < \infty| Q_0 = D) \stackrel{(b)}{=} J(T)e^{-\t_0(D-T)},\end{aligned}$$ where $(a)$ follows from the memoryless property of Brownian motion and $(b)$ is a consequence of Lemma \[lemma:degenerate\].
For the case $D < T$, we can use a strong Markov property to write the following for a small time-step $h$: $$\begin{aligned}
J(D) &=& J(Q_0) = 1\cdot h + \E_W[J(Q_h)] \\
&=& h + \E_W\Big[J(D) + \frac{\partial J}{\partial D} ((R_1 - 1)h + W_h) + \frac12 \cdot \frac{\partial^2 J}{\partial D^2} \cdot h \Big] + o(h) \\
&=& h + J(D) + (R_1 - 1) \frac{\partial J}{\partial D}\cdot h + \frac12 \cdot \frac{\partial^2 J}{\partial D^2} \cdot h + o(h),\end{aligned}$$ which gives the following ordinary differential equation after dividing by $h$ and taking the limit as $h\rightarrow 0$ $$\label{J_ODE}
\frac{\partial^2 J}{\partial D^2} + \t_1 \frac{\partial J}{\partial D} + 2 = 0,\quad 0\leq D\leq T.$$
It is straightforward to solve the differential equation in (\[J\_ODE\]) with the boundary condition $J(0) = 0$, and $J(T)$ as a parameter. This result completes the characterization of $J(D)$ described in (\[J\_D\]) as a function of $J(T)$. Also, note that if we set the boundary condition $J(T) = 0$, $J(D)$ gives the expected time to hit either of the boundaries at $0$ or $T$, i.e., we get $$\label{E_minT}
\E\Big[\min\{\tau_0, \tau_T\}\big| Q_0 = D\Big] = \frac{2}{\t_1}\bigg[T \cdot \frac{1- e^{-\t_1 D}}{1- e^{-\t_1 T}} - D \bigg]$$
Now, we use a similar technique as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:threshold\_policy\] to compute $J(T)$. Consider a small time step deviation $h > 0$ from the initial condition $Q_0 = T$. Similarly to (\[pT\_equation\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
J(T) &=& \gamma h + \Big[ J(T) \E_{Q_h}[\pr(\tau_T < \infty)| Q_h \geq T] \Big] \pr(Q_h \geq T | Q_0 = T) \\
&& + \bigg[ 1\cdot \E\Big[\min\{\tau_0, \tau_T\}\big| Q_h < T\Big] + 0 \cdot \E_{Q_h}[\pr(\tau_0 < \tau_T)| Q_h < T] \\
&& \qquad + J(T) \E_{Q_h}[\pr(\tau_T < \tau_0)| Q_h < T]\bigg] \pr(Q_h < T | Q_0 = T) +o(h)\\
&=& \gamma h + J(T) \E[ e^{-\t_0 Z} | Z \geq 0] (\frac12 + \delta)\nonumber\\
&& + \E\Big[\min\{\tau_0, \tau_T\}\big| Q_h < T\Big] (\frac12 - \delta) \nonumber\\
&& + J(T) \E\Big[ 1 - \frac{e^{-\t_1 T} (e^{-\t_1 Z}-1)}{1-e^{-\t_1 T}} \Big| Z < 0\Big] (\frac12 - \delta) + o(h),\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ is a constant bounded by 1, $\delta = \Theta(h)$, and $Z = Q_h -T$ is a Gaussian random variable with mean $\a h$ and variance $h$ for some constant $\a$. The second inequality in the preceding relations follows from (\[crossingb\_prob\]) and Lemma \[lemma:degenerate\]. By (\[E\_minT\]), applying the bounds in (\[Z\_bound1\]) and (\[Z\_bound2\]), dividing by $\beta \sqrt{h}$ and taking the limit at $h\rightarrow 0$, we obtain the following equation $$J(T)\bigg[\t_1 \frac{e^{-\t_1 T}}{1- e^{-\t_1 T}} + \t_0\bigg] = \frac{2}{\t_2} \bigg[1- \t_1 T \frac{e^{-\t_1 T}}{1- e^{-\t_1 T}} \bigg],$$ which gives us the desired expression in (\[J\_T\]) after rearranging the terms.
**of Theorem \[thm:value\_function\_HJB\].** In order to facilitate verification of the HJB equation (\[HJB\_fluid2\]), we rewrite and slightly manipulate the candidate solution $V(Q,p)$ given by (\[value\_function\_candidate\]). Recall that $$\label{V_candidate}
V(Q,p) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
V_0(Q,p), & \hbox{$Q \geq T(Q,p)$} \\
V_1(Q,p), & \hbox{$Q \leq T(Q,p)$,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $$\label{V0}
V_0(Q,p) = e^{-\t_0(Q - T(Q,p))} J(T(Q,p)),$$ $$\label{V1}
V_1(Q,p) = \big[J(T(Q,p)) + \frac{2}{\t_1}T(Q,p)\big]\frac{1-e^{-\t_1 Q}}{1-e^{-\t_1 T(Q,p)}} - \frac{2}{\t_1}Q,$$ $$\label{J_TQp}
J(T(Q,p)) = \frac{\frac{2}{\t_1^2}\big[1 - (1+\t_1 T(Q,p))e^{-\t_1 T(Q,p)}\big]}{\frac{\t_0}{\t_1} + (1- \frac{\t_0}{\t_1}) e^{-\t_1 T(Q,p)}}.$$
Note that $p^{T(Q,p)}(Q) = p$; and by definition of $p^T(\cdot)$ in (\[pint\_threshold\]) we may verify that the condition $Q \gtrless T(Q,p)$ is equivalent to $p \gtrless \frac{e^{-\t_1 Q}}{\frac{\t_0}{\t_1} + (1- \frac{\t_0}{\t_1}) e^{-\t_1 Q}}.$ Therefore, we can partition the feasible region $\mathcal R$ into two sub-regions $\mathcal R_0$ and $\mathcal R_1$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal R_0 &=& \big\{(Q,p): p \geq \frac{e^{-\t_1 Q}}{\frac{\t_0}{\t_1} + (1- \frac{\t_0}{\t_1}) e^{-\t_1 Q}}\big\} \cap \mathcal R, \\
\mathcal R_1 &=& \big\{(Q,p): p < \frac{e^{-\t_1 Q}}{\frac{\t_0}{\t_1} + (1- \frac{\t_0}{\t_1}) e^{-\t_1 Q}}\big\} \cap \mathcal R.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we need to verify HJB for two regions separately, using the proper expression in (\[V\_candidate\]).
In order to verify the HJB equation for the candidate solution (\[value\_function\_candidate\]), we also need to characterize the optimal value of the minimization problem in (\[HJB\_fluid2\]). First, we characterize the optimal solution pair $(u^*, \ph^*)$ for any feasible state $(Q,p)\in \mathcal R$. Observe that the optimization problem in (\[HJB\_fluid2\]) can be decomposed into two smaller problems: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{u_opt_problem}
u^*(Q,p) &=& \textrm{argmin}_{u \in \{0,1\}} \bigg\{ u + \frac{\partial V}{\partial Q} (R_{u} - 1) \bigg\}, \\
\ph^*(Q,p) &=& \textrm{argmin}_{\ph} \bigg\{ \frac12 \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial p^2} (\ph)^2 + \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial Q \partial p} \ph \bigg\} \label{p_opt_problem}.\end{aligned}$$
The minimization problem in (\[p\_opt\_problem\]) is quadratic and hence convex in $\ph$. So we can use first order optimality condition to get $$\label{p_opt}
\ph^*(Q,p) = - {\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial Q \partial p}(Q,p)} / {\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial p^2}(Q,p) }.$$
For the problem in (\[u\_opt\_problem\]), $u^*(Q,p) = 0$ is and only if $$0 + \frac{\partial V}{\partial Q} (R_{0} - 1) \leq 1 + \frac{\partial V}{\partial Q} (R_{1} - 1),$$ or equivalently $$\label{u_opt_cond}
\frac{\partial V}{\partial Q}(Q,p) \geq - \frac{1}{R_1 - R_0}.$$
Using the chain rule and the implicit function theorem, we can analytically calculate $\frac{\partial V}{\partial Q}$ from (\[V\_candidate\]) to conclude that the condition in (\[u\_opt\_cond\]) holds if and only if $(Q,p) \in \mathcal R_0$. In other words, $u^*(Q,p) = 0$ for all $(Q,p) \in \mathcal R_0$ and $u^*(Q,p) = 1$ for all $(Q,p) \in \mathcal R_1$.
In summary, the HJB equation in (\[HJB\_fluid2\]) boils down to the following equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HJB_partition1}
0 &=& \frac{\t_0}{2} \frac{\partial V_0}{\partial Q} + \frac12 \frac{\partial^2 V_0}{\partial Q^2} - \frac12 \Big(\frac{\partial^2 V_0}{\partial Q \partial p}\Big)^2 / \frac{\partial^2 V_0}{\partial p^2} , \quad \foral (Q,p) \in \mathcal R_0, \\
0 &=& 1 + \frac{\t_1}{2} \frac{\partial V_1}{\partial Q} + \frac12 \frac{\partial^2 V_1}{\partial Q^2} - \frac12 \Big(\frac{\partial^2 V_1}{\partial Q \partial p}\Big)^2 / \frac{\partial^2 V_1}{\partial p^2} , \quad \foral (Q,p) \in \mathcal R_1, \label{HJB_partition2}\end{aligned}$$ where $V_0(Q,p)$ and $V_1(Q,p)$ are given by (\[V0\]) and (\[V1\]), respectively. The verification of (\[HJB\_partition1\]) and (\[HJB\_partition2\]) is straightforward but tedious. We omit the details for brevity. We may simply use symbolic analysis tools such as Mathematica for this part.
**of Theorem \[thm:threshold\_optimalit\].** From the proof of Theorem \[thm:value\_function\_HJB\], we have characterized the optimal policy $\pi^*:\R \times [0,1] \rightarrow \{0,1\}\times \R$ as $$\pi^*(Q,p) = \Big(u^*(Q,p), \ph^*(Q,p)\Big),$$ where $u^*(Q,p) = 0$ if and only if $(Q,p) \in \mathcal R_0$ and $\ph^*(Q,p)$ given by (\[p\_opt\]) can be explicitly computed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ph_opt_explicit}
\ph^*(Q,p) &=& - \t_0 p, \quad \foral (Q,p) \in \mathcal R_0,\nonumber \\ \vspace{.1in}
\ph^*(Q,p) &=& - \bigg[\frac{(1-p)e^{\t_1 Q}}{(1-p e^{\t_1 Q})^2} -\frac{1}{1-p e^{\t_1 Q}} \bigg]/ \bigg[\frac{(1-p)(e^{2\t_1 Q} - e^{\t_1 Q})}{\t_1(1-p e^{\t_1 Q})^2} -\frac{2(e^{\t_1 Q} - 1)}{\t_1(1-p e^{\t_1 Q})} \bigg]\nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{\t_1}{(1+p)e^{\t_1 Q} -2},\hspace{140pt} \foral (Q,p) \in \mathcal R_1.\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, the dynamics of the state process under the optimal control policy is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
dQ^*_t &=& (R_{u^*(Q^*_t, p^*_t)} - 1) dt + dW_t, \\
dp^*_t &=& \ph^*(Q^*_t, p^*_t) dW_t.\end{aligned}$$
For the proof of the first claim, observe that for a given manifold $\mathcal M(D,\e)$, we have $$\label{T_constant_claim}
T(Q,p) = T(D,\e), \quad \foral (Q,p) \in \mathcal M(D,\e).$$ This claim holds by definition of $\mathcal M(D,\e)$ in (\[manifold\_fluid\]), and the fact that $T(Q,p)$ is the unique solution of $p^{T}(Q) = p$. Next, we show that if $(Q^*_t, p^*_t) \in \mathcal M(D,\e)$ for any $t\geq 0$, then after executing the optimal policy $\pi^*$, the state process stays on the manifold $\mathcal M(D,\e)$. First, consider the case where $Q^*_t \geq T(Q^*_t,p^*_t) = T(D,\e)$. In this case, $u^*(Q^*_t,p^*_t) = 0$ and $ \ph^*(Q^*_t, p^*_t) = -\t_0 p^*_t$. We would like to show that the solution of the stochastic differential equation $dp^*_t = -\t_0 p^*_t dW_t$ coincides with the invariant manifold given by $\tilde p_t = e^{-\t_0(Q^*_t - T(D,\e))}p(T(D,\e))$. By employing Itō’s Lemma we can check that $e^{-\t_0(Q^*_t - T(D,\e))}p(T(D,\e))$ is indeed the desired solution. In particular, using the proper evolution of the queue-length process $Q^*_t$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
d\tilde p_t &=& -\t_0 e^{-\t_0(Q^*_t - T(D,\e))}p(T(D,\e)) (dQ^*_t) \\
&& + \frac12 \t_0^2 e^{-\t_0(Q^*_t - T(D,\e))}p(T(D,\e)) dt \\
&=& e^{-\t_0(Q^*_t - T(D,\e))}p(T(D,\e)) \Big[ -\t_0 (\frac{\t_0}{2} dt + dW_t) +\frac12 \t_0^2 \Big] \\
&=& -\t_0 e^{-\t_0(Q^*_t - T(D,\e))}p(T(D,\e)) dW_t \\
&=& -p^*_t dW_t.\end{aligned}$$
Next, consider the case where $Q^*_t < T(Q^*_t,p^*_t) = T(D,\e)$. In this case, $u^*(Q^*_t,p^*_t) = 1$ and $ \ph^*(Q^*_t, p^*_t)$ is given by (\[ph\_opt\_explicit\]). Similarly to the previous case, we may use Itō’s Lemma to verify that the state process stays on the invariant manifold given by $$\tilde p_t = p^{T(D,\e)}(Q^*_t) = e^{-\t_1 Q^*_t} + p(T(D,\e))(1 - \frac{\t_0}{\t_1})\Big(1 -e^{-\t_1 Q^*_t}\Big).$$
By Itō’s Lemma we have $$\begin{aligned}
d\tilde p_t &=& \frac{\partial p^{T(D,\e)}(Q^*_t)}{\partial Q} dQ^*_t + \frac12 \cdot \frac{\partial^2 p^{T(D,\e)}(Q^*_t)}{\partial Q^2} dt \\
&=& -\t_1 e^{-\t_1 Q^*_t} \Big[1 - p(T(D,\e))(1 - \frac{\t_0}{\t_1})\Big] (\frac{\t_1}{2} dt + dW_t) \\
&& + \frac12 \cdot \t_1^2 e^{-\t_1 Q^*_t} \Big[1 - p(T(D,\e))(1 - \frac{\t_0}{\t_1})\Big] dt \\
&=& -p^*_t dW_t = dp^*_t,\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof of the first claim.
Now that we have established that the state process starting from $(D,\e)$ under optimal control stays on a one-dimensional invariant manifold $\mathcal M(D,\e)$, the optimality of the threshold policy $\pi^{T(D,\e)}(Q)$ is immediate. Recall that the decision process of importance is $u^*_t\in \{0,1\}$, and we know that $u^*(Q,p) = 0$ if and only if $Q \geq T(Q,p)$. Moreover, since the optimal state process stays on $\mathcal M(D,\e)$, we have $T(Q^*_t, p^*_t) = T(D,\e)$. Hence, the optimal control policy (given the initial condition) chooses the action $u^*(Q,p) = 0$ if and only if $Q \geq T(D,\e)$. Therefore, the optimal policy $\pi^*(Q,p)$ coincides with the threshold policy $\pi^{T(D,\e)}(Q)$. We may also verify that the interruption probability under the threshold policy conditioned on the history up to time $t$ is given by $p^*_t$.
[^1]: The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA. (emails: {parandeh, asuman, medard}@mit.edu). [This paper was presented in part at the 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.]{}
[^2]: The contributions of this work still hold if both servers are costly with different access costs. Here, we normalize the access cost of the cheaper server to zero.
[^3]: Throughout the rest of this paper, we use the notion of control policy and association policy, interchangeably.
[^4]: Throughout this work, we use the convention that the cost of an infeasible policy is infinite.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The [Å]{}ngström-sized probe of the scanning transmission electron microscope can visualize and collect spectra from single atoms. This can unambiguously resolve the chemical structure of materials, but not their isotopic composition. Here we differentiate between two isotopes of the same element by quantifying how likely the energetic imaging electrons are to eject atoms. First, we measure the displacement probability in graphene grown from either $^{12}$C or $^{13}$C and describe the process using a quantum mechanical model of lattice vibrations coupled with density functional theory simulations. We then test our spatial resolution in a mixed sample by ejecting individual atoms from nanoscale areas spanning an interface region that is far from atomically sharp, mapping the isotope concentration with a precision better than 20%. Although we use a scanning instrument, our method should be applicable to any atomic resolution transmission electron microscope and to other low-dimensional materials.'
author:
- 'Toma Susi$^{1,*}$, Christoph Hofer$^{1}$, Giacomo Argentero$^{1}$, Gregor T. Leuthner$^{1}$, Timothy J. Pennycook$^{1}$, Clemens Mangler$^{1}$, Jannik C. Meyer$^{1}$ & Jani Kotakoski$^{1,*}$'
title: Isotope analysis in the transmission electron microscope
---
University of Vienna, Faculty of Physics, Boltzmanngasse 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria\
$^*$Corresponding authors: [email protected] (T.S.) and [email protected] (J.K.)
Spectroscopy and microscopy are two fundamental pillars of materials science. By overcoming the diffraction limit of light, electron microscopy has emerged as a particularly powerful tool for studying low-dimensional materials such as graphene[@Geim07NM], in which each atom can be distinguished. Through advances in aberration-corrected scanning transmission electron microscopy[@Nellist04S; @Krivanek10N] (STEM) and electron energy loss spectroscopy[@Suenaga10N; @Krivanek14N], the vision of a ‘synchrotron in a microscope’[@Brown98JM] has now been realized. Spectroscopy of single atoms, including their spin state[@Lin15PRL], has together with Z-contrast imaging[@Krivanek10N] allowed the identity and bonding of individual atoms to be unambiguously determined[@Suenaga10N; @Zhou12PRL; @Ramasse13NL; @Kepaptsoglou15AN]. However, discerning the isotopes of a particular element has not been possible—a technique that might be called ‘mass spectrometer in a microscope’.
Here we show how the quantum mechanical description of lattice vibrations lets us accurately model the stochastic ejection of single atoms[@Meyer12PRL; @Susi14PRL] from graphene consisting of either of the two stable carbon isotopes. Our technique rests on a crucial difference between electrons and photons when used as a microscopy probe: due to their finite mass, electrons can transfer significant amounts of momentum. When a highly energetic electron is scattered by the electrostatic potential of an atomic nucleus, a maximal amount of kinetic energy (inversely proportional to the mass of the nucleus, $\propto \frac{1}{M}$) can be transferred when the electron backscatters. When this energy is comparable to the energy required to eject an atom from the material, defined as the displacement threshold energy $T_\mathrm{d}$—for instance, when probing pristine[@Meyer12PRL] or doped[@Susi12AN] single-layer graphene with 60–100 keV electrons—atomic vibrations become important in activating otherwise energetically prohibited processes due to the motion of the nucleus in the direction of the electron beam.
The intrinsic capability of STEM for imaging further allows us to map the isotope concentration in selected nanoscale areas of a mixed sample, demonstrating the spatial resolution of our technique. The ability to do mass analysis in the transmission electron microscope thus expands the possibilities for studying materials on the atomic scale.
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
Quantum description of vibrations
---------------------------------
The velocities of atoms in a solid are distributed based on a temperature-dependent velocity distribution, defined by the vibrational modes of the material. Due to the geometry of a typical transmission electron microscopy (TEM) study of a two-dimensional material, the out-of-plane velocity $v_\mathrm{z}$, whose distribution is characterized by the mean square velocity $\overline{v^2_\mathrm{z}}(T)$, is here of particular interest. In an earlier study[@Meyer12PRL] this was estimated using a Debye approximation for the out-of-plane phonon density of states[@Tewary09PRB] (DOS) $g_\mathrm{z}(\omega)$, where $\omega$ is the phonon frequency. A better justified estimate can be achieved by calculating the kinetic energy of the atoms via the thermodynamic internal energy, evaluated using the full phonon DOS.
As a starting point, we calculate the partition function $Z = \mathrm{Tr}\{e^{-H/(kT)}\}$, where $\mathrm{Tr}$ denotes the trace operation and $k$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T$ the absolute temperature. We evaluate this trace for the second-quantized Hamiltonian $H$ describing harmonic lattice vibrations[@Bottger83]: $$Z = \sum_{n_{j_1}\left(\mathbf{k}_1\right)=0}^{\infty} ... \sum_{n_{j_{3r}}\left(\mathbf{k}_N\right)=0}^{\infty} \exp\left(-\frac{1}{kT} \sum_{\mathbf{k}j} \hbar \omega_j(\mathbf{k})\left[n_j(\textbf{k}) + \frac{1}{2}\right]\right)
= \prod_{\mathbf{k}j} \frac{\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\hbar\omega_j(\mathbf{k})/(kT)\right)}{1-\exp\left(-\hbar\omega_j(\mathbf{k})/(kT)\right)},
\label{Eq1}$$ where $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck constant, $\mathbf{k}$ the phonon wave vector, $j$ the phonon branch index running to $3r$ ($r$ being the number of atoms in the unit cell), $\omega_j(\mathbf{k})$ the eigenvalue of the $j^{th}$ mode at $\mathbf{k}$, and $n_{j}\left(\mathbf{k}\right)$ the number of phonons with frequency $\omega_j(\textbf{k})$.
After computing the internal energy $U = F - T\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial T}\right)_V$ from the partition function via the Helmholtz free energy $F = -k T \ln Z$, we obtain the Planck distribution function describing the occupation of the phonon bands (Methods). We must then explicitly separate the energy into the in-plane $U_\mathrm{p}$ and out-of-plane $U_\mathrm{z}$ components, and take into account that half the thermal energy equals the kinetic energy of the atoms. This gives the out-of-plane mean square velocity of a single atom in a two-atom unit cell as $$\overline{v^2_\mathrm{z}}(T) = U_\mathrm{z}/(2M) = \frac{\hbar}{2M} \int_0^{\omega_\mathrm{z}} \! g_\mathrm{z}(\omega)\left[\frac{1}{2}+ \frac{1}{\exp(\hbar\omega/(kT)) - 1}\right]\omega \, \mathrm{d}\omega,
\label{Eq2}$$ where $M$ is the mass of the vibrating atom, $\omega_\mathrm{z}$ is the highest out-of-plane mode frequency, and the correct normalization of the number of modes ($\int_0^{\omega_\mathrm{z}} \! g_\mathrm{z}(\omega)\, \mathrm{d}\omega = 2$) is included in the DOS.
Phonon dispersion
-----------------
To estimate the phonon density of states, we calculated through density functional theory (DFT; $\textsc{gpaw}$ package[@Mortensen05PRB; @Enkovaara2010]) the graphene phonon band structure[@Wirtz04SSC; @Mohr07PRB] via the dynamical matrix using the ‘frozen phonon method’ (Methods; Supplementary Figure 1). Taking the density of the components corresponding to the out-of-plane acoustic (ZA) and optical (ZO) phonon modes (Supplementary Data 1) and solving Equation \[Eq2\] numerically, we obtain a mean square velocity $\overline{v^2_\mathrm{z}}\approx~3.17\times10^5$ m$^2$s$^{-2}$ for a $^{12}$C atom in normal graphene. This description can be extended to ‘heavy graphene’ (consisting of $^{13}$C instead of a natural isotope mixture). A heavier atomic mass affects the velocity through two effects: the phonon band structure is scaled by the square root of the mass ratio (from the mass prefactor of the dynamical matrix), and the squared velocity is scaled by the mass ratio itself (Equation \[Eq2\]). At room temperature, the first correction reduces the velocity by 3% in fully $^{13}$C graphene compared to normal graphene, and the second one reduces it by an additional 10%, resulting in $\overline{v^2_\mathrm{z}}_{,13}\approx2.86\times10^5$ m$^2$s$^{-2}$.
Electron microscopy
-------------------
In our experiments, we recorded time series at room temperature using the Nion UltraSTEM100 microscope, where each atom, or its loss, was visible in every frame. We chose small fields of view ($\sim$1$\times$1 nm$^2$) and short dwell times (8 $\mu$s) to avoid missing the refilling of vacancies (an example is shown in Figure \[STEMKO\]; likely this vacancy only appears to be unreconstructed due to the scanning probe). In addition to commercial monolayer graphene samples (Quantifoil R 2/4, Graphenea), we used samples of $^{13}$C graphene synthesized by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) on Cu foils using $^{13}$C-substituted CH$_4$ as carbon precursor, subsequently transferred onto Quantifoil TEM grids. An additional sample consisted of grains of $^{12}$C and $^{13}$C graphene on the same grid, synthesized by switching the precursor during growth (Methods).
![**An example of the STEM displacement measurements.** The micrographs are medium angle annular dark field (MAADF) detector images recorded at 95 kV. a) A spot on the graphene membrane, containing clean monolayer graphene areas (dark) and overlying contamination (bright). The scale bar is 2 nm. b) A closer view of the area marked by the red rectangle in panel a, with the irradiated area of the following panels similarly denoted. The scale bar is 2 Å. c–g) Five consecutive STEM frames (${\sim}$1$\times$1 nm$^2$, 512$\times$512 pixels (px), 2.2 s per frame) recorded at a clean monolayer area of graphene. A single carbon atom has been ejected in the fourth frame (panel f, white circle), but the vacancy is filled already in the next frame (panel g). The top row of (c–g) contains the unprocessed images, the middle row has been treated by a Gaussian blur with a radius of 2 px, and the colored bottom row has been filtered with a double Gaussian procedure[@Krivanek10N] ($\sigma_1=5$ px, $\sigma_2= 2$ px, weight $= 0.16$).\[STEMKO\]](Fig1_arXiv.pdf){width="59.00000%"}
From each experimental dataset (full STEM data available[@Susi16figshare]) within which a clear displacement was observed, we calculated the accumulated electron dose until the frame where the defect appeared (or a fraction of the frame if it appeared in the first one). The distribution of doses corresponds to a Poisson process[@Susi14PRL] whose expected value was found by log-likelihood minimization (Methods; Supplementary Figure 2), directly yielding the probability of creating a vacancy (the dose data and statistical analyses are included in Supplementary Data 2). Figure \[CSplot\] displays the corresponding displacement cross sections measured at voltages between 80 and 100 kV for normal (1.109% $^{13}$C) and heavy (${\sim}$99% $^{13}$C) graphene, alongside values measured earlier[@Meyer12PRL] using high-resolution TEM (HRTEM). For low-probability processes, the cross section is highly sensitive to both the atomic velocities and the displacement threshold energy. Since heavier atoms do not vibrate with as great a velocity, they receive less of a boost to the momentum transfer from an impinging electron. Thus, fewer ejections are observed for $^{13}$C graphene.
Comparing theory with experiment
--------------------------------
The theoretical total cross sections $\sigma_\mathrm{d}(T,E_\mathrm{e})$ are plotted in Figure \[CSplot\] for each voltage (Methods; Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Data 2). The motion of the nuclei was included via a Gaussian distribution of atomic out-of-plane velocities $P(v_\mathrm{z},T)$ characterized by the DFT-calculated $\overline{v_\mathrm{z}^2}$, similar to the approach of Ref. . A common displacement threshold energy was fitted to the dataset by minimizing the variance-weighted mean square error (the 100 kV HRTEM point was omitted from the fitting, since it was underestimated probably due to the undetected refilling of vacancies, also seen in Figure \[STEMKO\]). The optimal $T_\mathrm{d}$ value was found to be 21.14 eV, resulting in a good description of all the measured cross sections. Notably, this is 0.8 eV lower than the earlier value calculated by DFT, and 2.29 eV lower than the earlier fit to HRTEM data[@Meyer12PRL]. Different exchange correlation functionals we tested all overestimate the experimental value (by less than 1 eV), with the estimate $T_\mathrm{d} \in [21.25, 21.375]$ closest to experiment resulting from the C09 van der Waals functional[@Cooper10PRB] (Methods).
![**The displacement cross sections of both $^{12}$C and $^{13}$C measured at different acceleration voltages.** The STEM data is marked with squares, and earlier HRTEM data[@Meyer12PRL] with circles. The error bars correspond to the 95% confidence intervals of the Poisson means (STEM data) or to previously reported estimates of statistical variation (HRTEM data[@Meyer12PRL]). The solid curves are derived from our theoretical model with an error-weighted least-squares best-fit displacement threshold energy of 21.14 eV. The shaded areas correspond to the same model using the lowest DFT threshold $T_\mathrm{d} \in [21.25,21.375]$ eV. The inset is a closer view of the low cross section region.\[CSplot\]](Fig2.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
Despite DFT overestimating the displacement threshold energy, we see from the good fit to the normal and heavy graphene datasets that our theory accurately describes the contribution of vibrations. Further, the HRTEM data and the STEM data are equally well described by the theory despite having several orders of magnitude different irradiation dose rates. This can be understood in terms of the very short lifetimes of electronic and phononic excitations in a metallic system[@Egerton10UM] compared to the average time between impacts. Even a very high dose rate of $10^{8}$ e$^-$Å$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ corresponds to a single electron passing through a 1 nm$^2$ area every $10^{-10}$ s, whereas valence band holes are filled in[@Egerton13UM] $<10^{-15}$ s and core holes in[@Bruhwiler95PRL] $<10^{-14}$ s, while plasmons are damped within[@Yan13NP] ${\sim}10^{-13}$ s and phonons in[@Kang10PRB] ${\sim}10^{-12}$ s. Our results thus show that multiple excitations do not contribute to the knock-on damage in graphene, warranting another explanation (such as chemical etching[@Meyer12PRL]) for the evidence linking a highly focused HRTEM beam to defect creation[@Robertson12NC]. Each impact is, effectively, an individual perturbation of the equilibrium state.
Local mapping of isotope concentration
--------------------------------------
Finally, to test the spatial resolution of our method, we studied a sample consisting of joined grains of $^{12}$C and $^{13}$C graphene. Isotope labeling combined with Raman spectroscopy mapping is a powerful tool for studying chemical vapor deposition growth of graphene[@Frank14NS], which is of considerable technological interest. Earlier studies have revealed the importance of carbon solubility into different catalyst substrates to control the growth process[@Li09NL]. However, the spatial resolution of Raman spectroscopy is limited, making it impossible to obtain atomic-scale information of the transition region between grains of different isotopes.
The local isotope analysis is based on fitting the mean of the locally measured electron doses with a linear combination of doses generated by Poisson processes corresponding to $^{12}$C and $^{13}$C graphene using the theoretical cross section values at 100 kV. Although each dose results from a stochastic process, the expected doses for $^{12}$C and $^{13}$C are sufficiently different that measuring several displacements decreases the error of their mean well below the expected separation (Figure \[LocalData\]c). To estimate the expected statistical variation for a certain number of measured doses, we generated a large number of sets of $n$ Poisson doses, and calculated their means and standard errors as a function of the number of doses in each set. The calculated relative errors scale as $1/n$ and correspond to the precision of our measurement, which is better than 20% for as few as five measured doses in the ideal case. Although our accuracy is difficult to gauge precisely, by comparing the errors of the cross sections measured for isotopically pure samples to the fitted curve (Figure \[CSplot\]), an estimate of roughly 5% can be inferred.
Working at 100 kV, we selected spots containing areas of clean graphene (43 in total) each only a few tens of nanometers in size (Figure \[STEMKO\]a), irradiating 4–15 (mean 7.8) fields of view 1$\times$1 nm$^2$ in size until the first displacement occurred (Figure \[STEMKO\]f). Comparing the mean of the measured doses to the generated data, we can estimate the isotope concentration responsible for such a dose. This assignment was corroborated by Raman mapping over the same area, allowing the two isotopes to be distinguished by their differing Raman shift. A general trend from $^{12}$C-rich to $^{13}$C-rich regions is captured by both methods (Figure \[LocalData\]b), but a significant local variation in the measured doses is detectable (Figure \[LocalData\]c). This variation indicates that the interfaces formed in a sequential CVD growth process may be far from atomically sharp[@Liu14S], instead spanning a region of hundreds of nanometers, within which the carbon isotopes from the two precursors are mixed together.
![**Local isotope analysis.** a) A STEM micrograph of a hole in the carbon support film (1.3 $\mu$m in diameter), covered by a monolayer of graphene. In each of the overlaid spots, 4–15 fields of view were irradiated. The dimensions of the overlaid grid correspond to the pixels of a Raman map recorded over this area. b) Isotope concentration map where the colors of the grid squares denote $^{12}$C concentration based on the fitting of the Raman 2D band response (Methods; Supplementary Figure 3). The overlaid spots correspond to panel a, with colors denoting the concentration of $^{12}$C estimated from the mean of the measured doses. c) Locally measured mean doses and their standard errors plotted on a log scale for each grid square. The horizontal colored areas show the means $\pm$ standard errors of doses simulated for the theoretical $^{12}$C and $^{13}$C cross sections. Note that the greater variation in the experimental doses is expected for areas containing a mix of both carbon isotopes.\[LocalData\]](Fig3.pdf){width="92.00000%"}
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
It is interesting to compare our method to established mass analysis techniques. In isotope ratio mass spectrometry precisions of 0.01% and accuracies of 1% have been reported[@Muccio09A]. However, these measurements are not spatially resolved. For spatially resolved techniques, one of the most widely used is time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectroscopy (ToF-SIMS). It has a lateral resolution typically of several micrometers, which can be reduced to around 100 nm by finely focusing the ion beam[@Benninghoven94]. In the case of ToF-SIMS, separation of the $^{13}$C signal from $^{12}$C$^1$H is problematic, resulting in a reported[@Stephan01PSS] precision of 20% and an accuracy of ${\sim}$11%. The state-of-the-art performance in local mass analysis can be achieved with atom-probe tomography[@Gault2012Book] (APT), which can record images with sub-nanometer spatial resolution in all three dimensions. A recent APT study of the $^{13}$C/$^{12}$C ratio in detonation nanodiamonds reported a precision of 5%, but biases in the detection of differently charged ions limited accuracy to ${\sim}$25% compared to the natural isotope abundances[@Lewis15UM].
A limitation of ToF-SIMS is its inability to discriminate between the analyte and contaminants and that it requires uniform isotope concentrations over the beam area for accurate results. APT requires the preparation of specialized needle-like sample geometries, a laborious reconstruction process to analyse its results[@Baik15Sm], and its detection efficiency is rather limited[@Kelly07RSI]. In our case, we are only able to resolve relative mass differences between isotopes of the same element in the same chemical environment. While we do not need to resolve mass differences between different elements, since these differ in their scattering contrast, we do need to detect the ejection of single atoms, limiting the technique to atomically thin materials. However, our method captures the isotope information concurrently with atomic resolution imaging in a general-purpose electron microscope, without the need for additional detectors.
We have shown how the Ångstr[ö]{}m-sized electron probe of a scanning transmission electron microscope can be used to estimate isotope concentrations via the displacement of single atoms. Although these results were achieved with graphene, our technique should work for any low-dimensional material, including hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) and transition metal dichalcogenides such as MoS$_2$. This could potentially extend to van der Waals heterostructures[@Geim13N] of a few layers or other thin crystalline materials, provided a difference in the displacement probability of an atomic species can be uniquely determined. Neither is the technique limited to STEM: a parallel illumination TEM with atomic resolution would also work, although scanning has the advantage of not averaging the image contrast over the field of view. The areas we sampled were in total less than 340 nm$^2$ in size, containing approximately 6600 carbon atoms of which 337 were ejected. Thus while the nominal mass required for our complete analysis was already extremely small (131 zg), the displacement of only five atoms is required to distinguish a concentration difference of less than twenty percent. Future developments in instrumentation may allow the mass-dependent energy transfer to be directly measured from high-angle scattering[@Lovejoy14MM; @Argentero15UM], further enhancing the capabilities of STEM for isotope analysis.
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
Quantum model of vibrations
---------------------------
The out-of-plane mean square velocity $\overline{v^2_\mathrm{z}}(T)$ can be estimated by calculating the kinetic energy via the thermodynamic internal energy using the out-of-plane phonon density of states $g_\mathrm{z}(\omega)$, where $\omega$ is the phonon frequency. In the second quantization formalism, the Hamiltonian for harmonic lattice vibrations is[@Bottger83] $$H=\sum_{\textbf{k}}^N \sum_{j=1}^{3r}\hbar\omega_j(\textbf{k})[b_{\textbf{k}j}^\dagger b_{\textbf{k}j} + \frac{1}{2}],$$ where **k** is the phonon wave vector, $j$ is the phonon branch index running to $3r$ ($r$ being the number of atoms in the unit cell), $\omega_j(\textbf{k})$ the eigenvalue of the $j^{th}$ mode at $\textbf{k}$, and $b_{\textbf{k}j}^\dagger$ and $b_{\textbf{k}j}$ are the phonon creation and annihilation operators, respectively.
Using the partition function $Z = \mathrm{Tr}\{e^{-H/(kT)}\}$, where $\mathrm{Tr}$ denotes the trace operation and $k$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T$ the absolute temperature, and evaluating the trace using this Hamiltonian, we have $$Z = \sum_{n_{j_1}\left(\mathbf{k}_1\right)=0}^{\infty} ... \sum_{n_{j_{3r}}\left(\mathbf{k}_N\right)=0}^{\infty} \exp\left(-\frac{1}{kT} \sum_{\mathbf{k}j} \hbar \omega_j(\mathbf{k})\left[n_j(\textbf{k}) + \frac{1}{2}\right]\right)
= \prod_{\mathbf{k}j} \frac{\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\hbar\omega_j(\mathbf{k})/(kT)\right)}{1-\exp\left(-\hbar\omega_j(\mathbf{k})/(kT)\right)},
\label{SI_Eq1}$$ where $n_{j}\left(\mathbf{k}\right)=b_{\mathbf{k}j}^\dagger b_{\mathbf{k}j}$ is the number of phonons with frequency $\omega_j(\textbf{k})$.
The Helmholtz free energy is thus $$F = -k T \ln Z = k T \sum_{\textbf{k}j} \ln \left[2 \sinh (\hbar\omega_j(\textbf{k})/(2kT))\right]$$ and the internal energy of a single unit cell therefore becomes[@Bottger83] $$U = F - T\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial T}\right)_V = \sum_{\textbf{k}j} \frac{1}{2}\hbar\omega_j(\textbf{k}) \coth(\hbar\omega_j(\textbf{k})/(2kT)) = 3r \int \! \frac{1}{2}\coth(\hbar\omega/(2kT))g(\omega)\hbar\omega \, \mathrm{d} \omega,$$ where in the last step the sum is expressed as an average over the phonon density of states. Using the identity $\frac{1}{2}\coth(x/2) = \frac{1}{2}+1/(\exp(x) - 1)$ yields the Planck distribution function describing the occupation of the phonon bands, and explicitly dividing the energy into the in-plane $U_\mathrm{p}$ and out-of-plane $U_\mathrm{z}$ components, we can rewrite this as $$U = U_\mathrm{p} + U_\mathrm{z} = \int_0^{\omega_\mathrm{d}} \! (g_\mathrm{p}(\omega) + g_\mathrm{z}(\omega)) \left[\frac{1}{2}+ \frac{1}{\exp(\hbar\omega/(kT)) - 1}\right]\hbar\omega\, \mathrm{d}\omega,$$ where the number of modes is included in the normalization of the DOSes, i.e. , corresponding to the out-of-plane acoustic (ZA) and optical (ZO) modes (the in-plane DOS $g_\mathrm{p}(\omega)$ being correspondingly normalized to 4), and $\omega_\mathrm{d}$ is the highest frequency of the highest phonon mode.
Since half of the thermal energy equals the average kinetic energy of the atoms, and the graphene unit cell has two atoms, the out-of-plane kinetic energy of a single atom is $$E_\mathrm{k,z} = \frac{1}{2}M\overline{v^2_\mathrm{z}} = \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}U_\mathrm{z}.$$
Thus, the out-of-plane mean square velocity of an atom becomes $$\overline{v^2_\mathrm{z}}(T) = U_\mathrm{z}/(2M) = \frac{\hbar}{2M} \int_0^{\omega_\mathrm{z}} \! g_\mathrm{z}(\omega)\left[\frac{1}{2}+ \frac{1}{\exp(\hbar\omega/(kT)) - 1}\right]\omega \, \mathrm{d}\omega,$$ where $\omega_\mathrm{z}$ is now the highest out-of-plane mode frequency. This can be solved numerically for a known $g_\mathrm{z}(\omega)$.
For the in-plane vibrations, we would equivalently get $$\overline{v^2_\mathrm{p}} = \overline{v^2_\mathrm{x}}+\overline{v^2_\mathrm{y}}=U_\mathrm{p}/(2M) = \frac{\hbar}{2M} \int_0^{\omega_\mathrm{p}} \!g_\mathrm{p}(\omega)\left[\frac{1}{2}+ \frac{1}{\exp(\hbar\omega/(kT)) - 1}\right]\omega \, \mathrm{d}\omega.$$
Frozen phonon calculation
-------------------------
To estimate the phonon density of states, we calculated the graphene phonon band structure via the dynamical matrix, which was computed by displacing each of the two primitive cell atoms by a small displacement (0.06 Å) and calculating the forces on all other atoms in a 7$\times$7 supercell (‘frozen phonon method’; the cell size is large enough so that the forces on the atoms at its edges are negligible) using density functional theory as implemented in the $\textsc{gpaw}$ package[@Enkovaara2010]. Exchange and correlation were described by the local density approximation (LDA)[@Perdew92PRB], and a $\Gamma$-centered Monkhorst-Pack **k**-point mesh of 42$\times$42$\times$1 was used to sample the Brillouin zone. A fine computational grid spacing of 0.14 Å was used alongside strict convergence criteria for the structural relaxation (forces $< 10^{-5}$ eVÅ$^{-1}$ per atom) and the self-consistency cycle (change in eigenstates $<10^{-13}$ eV$^2$ per electron). The resulting phonon dispersion (Supplementary Figure 1) describes well the quadratic dispersion of the ZA mode near $\Gamma$, and is in excellent agreement with earlier studies[@Wirtz04SSC; @Mohr07PRB]. Supplementary Data 1 contains the out-of-plane phonon DOS.
Graphene synthesis and transfer
-------------------------------
In addition to commercial monolayer graphene (Graphenea QUANTIFOIL R 2/4), our graphene samples were synthesized by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) in a furnace equipped with two separate gas inlets that allow for independent control over the two isotope precursors[@Li09NL] (i.e. either ${\sim}$99% $^{12}$CH$_4$ or ${\sim}$99% $^{13}$CH$_4$ methane). The as-received 25 $\mu$m thick 99.999% pure Cu foil was annealed for ${\sim}$1 hour at 960 ${\ensuremath{^\circ}}$C in a 1:20 hydrogen/argon mixture with a pressure of ${\sim}$10 mbar. The growth of graphene was achieved by flowing 50 cm$^3$min$^{-1}$ of CH$_4$ over the annealed substrate while keeping the Ar/H$_2$ flow, temperature and pressure constant. For the isotopically mixed sample with separated domains, the annealing and growth temperature was increased to 1045 ${\ensuremath{^\circ}}$C and the flow rate decreased to 2 cm$^3$min$^{-1}$. After introducing $^{12}$CH$_4$ for 2 min the carbon precursor flow was stopped for 10 s, and the other isotope precursor subsequently introduced into the chamber for another 2 min. This procedure was repeated with a flow time of one minute. After the growth, the CH$_4$ flow was interrupted and the heating turned off, while the Ar/H$_2$ flow was kept unchanged until the substrate reached room temperature. The graphene was subsequently transferred onto a holey amorphous carbon film supported by a TEM grid using a direct transfer method without using polymer[@Regan10APL].
Scanning transmission electron microscopy
-----------------------------------------
Electron microscopy experiments were conducted using a Nion UltraSTEM100 scanning transmission electron microscope, operated between 80 and 100 kV in near-ultrahigh vacuum ($2\times10^{-7}$ Pa). The instrument was aligned for each voltage so that atomic resolution was achieved in all of the experiments. The beam current during the experiments varied between 8 and 80 pA depending on the voltage, corresponding to dose rates of approximately $5-50\times10^7$ e$^-$Å$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$. The beam convergence semiangle was 30 mrad and the semi-angular range of the medium-angle annular-dark-field (MAADF) detector was 60–200 mrad.
Poisson analysis
----------------
Assuming the displacement data are stochastic, the waiting times (or, equivalently, the doses) should arise from a Poisson process with mean $\lambda$. Thus the probability to find $k$ events in a given time interval follows the Poisson distribution $$f(k;\lambda) = \textrm{Pr}(X=k)=\frac{\lambda^{k}\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda}}{k!}.$$
To estimate the Poisson expectation value for each sample and voltage, the cumulative doses of each dataset were divided into bins of width $w$ (using one-level recursive approximate Wand binning[@Wand97AS]), and the number of bins with 0, 1, 2…occurrences were counted. The goodness of the fits was estimated by calculating the Cash C-statistic[@Cash79ApJ] (in the asymptotically-$\chi ^2$ formulation[@RHESSI]) between a fitted Poisson distribution and the data: $$C=\frac{2}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \left[n_i \ln{\frac{n_i}{e_i}}-(n_i-e_i)\right],$$ where $N$ is the number of occurence bins, $n_i$ is the number of events in bin $i$, and $e_i$ is the expected number of events in bin $i$ from a Poisson process with mean $\lambda$.
An error estimate for the mean was calculated using the approximate confidence interval proposed for Poisson processes with small means and small sample sizes by Khamkong[@Khamkong12OJS]: $$\textrm{CI}_{95\%} = \bar{\lambda} + \frac{Z^{2}_{2.5}}{2n}\pm Z_{2.5}\sqrt{\frac{\bar{\lambda}}{n}},$$ where $\bar{\lambda}$ is the estimated mean and $Z_{2.5}$ is the normal distribution single tail cumulative probability corresponding to a confidence level of $(100-\alpha)=95\%$, equal to 1.96.
The statistical analyses were conducted using the Wolfram Mathematica software (version 10.5), and the Mathematica notebook is included as Supplementary Data 2. Outputs of the Poisson analyses for the main datasets of normal and heavy graphene as a function of voltage are additionally shown as Supplementary Figure 2.
Displacement cross section
--------------------------
The energy transferred to an atomic nucleus from a fast electron as a function of the electron scattering angle $\theta$ is[@MottMassey1965] $$\label{E_angle}E(\theta) \approx E_\mathrm{max} \sin^2\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right),$$ which is valid also for a moving target nucleus for electron energies $>$10 keV as noted by Meyer and co-workers[@Meyer12PRL]. For purely elastic collisions (where the total kinetic energy is conserved), the maximum transferred energy $E_\mathrm{max}$ corresponds to electron backscattering, i.e. $\theta=\pi$. However, when the impacted atom is moving, $E_\mathrm{max}$ will also depend on its speed.
To calculate the cross section, we use the approximation of McKinley and Feshbach[@McKinley48PR] of the original series solution of Mott to the Dirac equation, which is very accurate for low-Z elements and sub-MeV beams. This gives the cross section as a function of the electron scattering angle as $$\sigma(\theta)=\sigma_\mathrm{R}\left[1-\beta^2 \sin^2(\theta/2)+\pi\frac{Ze^2}{\hbar c}\beta \sin\left(\theta/2)(1-\sin(\theta/2)\right)\right],$$ where $\beta=v/c$ is the ratio of electron speed to the speed of light (0.446225 for 60 keV electrons) and $\sigma_\mathrm{R}$ is the classical Rutherford scattering cross section $$\sigma_\mathrm{R}=\left(\frac{Ze^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 2 m_0 c^2} \right)^2 \frac{1-\beta^2}{\beta^4} \mathrm{csc}^4(\theta/2).$$ Using Equation \[E\_angle\] this can be rewritten as a function of the transferred energy[@Zobelli07PRB] as $$\label{sigma_E}\sigma(E)=\left(\frac{Ze^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 2m_0c^2}\frac{E_\mathrm{max}}{E}\right)^2\frac{1-\beta^2}{\beta^4}\left[1-\beta^2\frac{E}{E_\mathrm{max}}+\pi\frac{Ze^2}{\hbar c}\beta\left(\sqrt{\frac{E}{E_\mathrm{max}}}-\frac{E}{E_\mathrm{max}}\right)\right].$$
Distribution of atomic vibrations
---------------------------------
The maximum energy (in eV) that an electron with mass $m_\mathrm{e}$ and energy $E_\mathrm{e} = e U$ (corresponding to acceleration voltage $U$) can transfer to a nucleus of mass $M$ that is moving with velocity $v$ is $$\label{E_max}E_\mathrm{max}(v,E_\mathrm{e}) = \frac{(r+t)^2}{2 M} = \frac{\left(\sqrt[]{E_\mathrm{e}(E_\mathrm{e} + 2 m_\mathrm{e} c^2)} + M v c + \sqrt[]{(E_\mathrm{e} + E_\mathrm{n})(E + 2 m_\mathrm{e} c^2 + E_\mathrm{n})}\right)^2}{2 M c^2},$$ where $ r = \frac{1}{c}\, \sqrt[]{E_\mathrm{e}(E_\mathrm{e} + 2 m_\mathrm{e} c^2)} + M v$ and $t = \frac{1}{c}\, \sqrt[]{(E_\mathrm{e}+E_\mathrm{n})(E_\mathrm{e} + 2 m_\mathrm{e} c^2 + E_\mathrm{n})}$ are the relativistic energies of the electron and the nucleus, and $E_\mathrm{n} = M v^2/2$ the initial kinetic energy of the nucleus in the direction of the electron beam.
The probability distribution of velocities of the target atoms in the direction parallel to the electron beam follows the normal distribution with a standard deviation equal to the temperature-dependent mean square velocity $\overline{v^2_\mathrm{z}}(T)$, $$\label{P_vel}P(v_\mathrm{z},T) = \frac{1}{\sqrt[]{2 \pi \overline{v_\mathrm{z}^2}(T)}}\exp\left(\frac{-v_\mathrm{z}^2}{2\overline{v_\mathrm{z}^2}(T)}\right).$$
Total cross section with vibrations
-----------------------------------
The cross section is calculated by numerically integrating Equation \[sigma\_E\] multiplied by the Gaussian velocity distribution (Equation \[P\_vel\]) over all velocities $v$ where the maximum transferred energy (Equation \[E\_max\]) exceeds the displacement threshold energy $T_\mathrm{d}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(T,E_\mathrm{e})&=&\int_{E_\mathrm{max}(v,E_\mathrm{e})\geq T_\mathrm{d}}\! P(v,T) \sigma(E_\mathrm{max}(v,E_\mathrm{e})) \, \mathrm{d}v \\
&=&\int_0^{v_\mathrm{max}}\! \frac{1}{\sqrt[]{2 \pi \overline{v^2_\mathrm{z}}(T)}}\exp\left(\frac{-v^2}{2\overline{v^2_\mathrm{z}}(T)}\right)\left(\frac{Ze^2}{4\pi\epsilon_0 2m_0c^2}\frac{E_\mathrm{max}(v,E_\mathrm{e})}{E}\right)^2 \frac{1-\beta^2}{\beta^4} \nonumber \\
&&\left[1-\beta^2\frac{E}{E_\mathrm{max}(v,E_\mathrm{e})}+\pi\frac{Ze^2}{\hbar c}\beta\left(\sqrt{\frac{E}{E_\mathrm{max}(v,E_\mathrm{e})}}-\frac{E}{E_\mathrm{max}(v,E_\mathrm{e})}\right)\right]\\
&& \Theta[E_\mathrm{max}(v,E_\mathrm{e}) - E_\mathrm{d}] \, \mathrm{d}v, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $E_\mathrm{max}(v,E_\mathrm{e})$ is given by Equation \[E\_max\], the term $\Theta[E_\mathrm{max}(v,E_\mathrm{e}) - E_\mathrm{d}]$ is the Heaviside step function, $T$ is the temperature and $E_\mathrm{e}$ is the electron kinetic energy. The upper limit for the numerical integration $v_\mathrm{max} = 8 \sqrt{\overline{v^2_\mathrm{z}}}$ was chosen so that the velocity distribution is fully sampled.
Displacement threshold simulation
---------------------------------
For estimating the displacement threshold energy, we used density functional theory molecular dynamics (DFT/MD) as established in our previous studies[@Kotakoski11PRB; @Susi12AN; @Kotakoski12AN; @Susi14PRL]. The threshold was obtained by increasing the initial kinetic energy of a target atom until it escaped the structure during the MD run. The calculations were performed using the grid-based projector-augmented wave code (GPAW), with the computational grid spacing set to 0.18 [Å]{}. The molecular dynamics calculations employed a double zeta linear combination of atomic orbitals (LCAO) basis[@Larsen09PRB] for a 8$\times$6 unit cell of 96 atoms, with a 5$\times$5$\times$1 Monkhorst-Pack $\mathbf{k}$-point grid[@Monkhorst76PRB] used to sample the Brillouin zone. A timestep of 0.1 fs was used for the Velocity-Verlet dynamics[@Swope82JCP], and the velocities of the atoms initialised by a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution at 50 K, equilibrated for 20 timesteps before the simulated impact.
To describe exchange and correlation, we used the LDA[@Perdew92PRB], PBE[@Perdew96PRL], PW91[@Perdew92PRB], RPBE[@Hammer99PRB] and revPBE[@Zhang98PRL] functionals, yielding displacement threshold energies of 23.13, 21.88, 21.87, 21.63 and 21.44 eV (these values are the means of the highest simulated kinetic energies that did not lead to an ejection and the lowest that did), respectively. Additionally, we tested the C09[@Cooper10PRB] functional to see whether inclusion of the van der Waals interaction would affect the results. This does bring the calculated threshold energy down to $[21.25, 21.375]$ eV, bringing it to better agreement with the experimental fit. However, a more precise algorithm for the numerical integration of the equations of motion, more advanced theoretical models for the interaction, or time-dependent DFT may be required to improve the accuracy of the simulations further.
Varying mean square velocity with concentration
-----------------------------------------------
Since the phonon dispersion of isotopically mixed graphene gives a slightly different out-of-plane mean square velocity for the atomic vibrations, for calculating the cross section for each concentration, we assumed the velocity of mixed concentrations to be linearly proportional to the concentration $$v_\mathrm{mix} = c v_{12}+(1-c)v_{13},$$ where $c$ is the concentration of $^{12}$C and $v_{12/13}$ are the atomic velocities for normal and heavy graphene, respectively.
Raman spectroscopy
------------------
A Raman spectrometer (NT MDT Ntegra Spectra) equipped with a 532 nm excitation laser was used for Raman measurements. A computer-controlled stage allowed recording a Raman spectrum map over the precise hole on which the electron microscopy measurements were conducted, which was clearly identifiable from neighboring spot contamination and broken film holes.
The frequencies $\omega$ of the optical phonon modes vary with the atomic mass $M$ as $\omega \propto M^{-1/2}$ due to the mass prefactor of the dynamical matrix. This makes the Raman shifts of $^{13}$C graphene $(12/13)^{-1/2}$ times smaller, allowing the mapping and localization of $^{12}$C and $^{13}$C domains[@Frank14NS] with a spatial resolution limited by the size of the laser spot (nominally $\sim$400 nm). The shifts of the G and 2D bands compared to a corresponding normal graphene sample are given by $\omega(c)=\omega_{12}\left[1-\sqrt{\frac{12+c_0^{13}}{12+(1-c)}}\right]$, where $\omega_{12}$ is the G (2D) line frequency of the normal sample, $c_0^{13}=0.01109$ is the natural abundance of $^{13}$C, and $c$ is the unknown concentration of $^{12}$C in the measured spot.
Due to background signal arising from the carbon support film of the TEM grid, we analyzed the shift of the 2D band, where two peaks were in most locations present in the spectrum. However, in many spectra these did not correspond to either fully $^{12}$C or $^{13}$C graphene[@Carvalho15PRB], indicating isotope mixing within the Raman coherence length. To assign a single value to the $^{12}$C concentration for the overlay of Figure \[LocalData\], we took into account both the shifts of the peaks (to estimate the nominal concentration for each signal) and their areas (to estimate their relative abundances) as follows: $$c_{12}^\mathrm{total} = c_{12}^\mathrm{A} \frac{A}{A+B} + c_{12}^\mathrm{B} \frac{B}{A+B} = \left(1-\frac{\omega_\mathrm{A}-\omega_{12}}{\omega_{12}-\omega_{13}}\right)\frac{A}{A+B}+\frac{\omega_\mathrm{B}-\omega_{13}}{\omega_{12}-\omega_{13}}\frac{B}{A+B},$$ where $c_{12}^\mathrm{A/B}$ are the nominal concentrations of $^{12}$C determined from the measured higher and lower 2D Raman shift peak positions, $\omega_\mathrm{A/B}$ are the measured peak centers of the higher and lower 2D signals, and A and B are their integrated intensities. The peak positions of fully $^{12}$C and $^{13}$C graphene were taken from the highest and lowest peak positions in the entire mapped area (covering several dozen Quantifoil holes), giving $\omega_{12}$ = 2690 cm$^{-1}$ and $\omega_{13}$ = 2600 cm$^{-1}$. The fitted 2D spectra, arranged in the same 6$\times$6 grid as the overlay, can be found as Supplementary Figure 3.
Data availability
-----------------
The full STEM time series data on which the determination of the $^{12}$C and $^{13}$C displacement cross sections (Figure \[CSplot\]) are based are available on *figshare* with the identifier [doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3311946](http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3311946) (Ref. ). The STEM data of Figure \[LocalData\] are available upon request. All other data are contained within the article and its Supplementary information files.
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
& . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
. In (ed.) **, vol. of **, . (, ).
, , & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
** (, ).
, & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** [DOI:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3311946](http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3311946) ().
. ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
. ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
. ** ****, ().
. ** ****, ().
, , & **, vol. (, ).
, , & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
. ** ****, ().
. ** ****, ().
, & . . In , & (eds.) **, (, ).
. ** ****, ().
& ** (, ), edn.
& . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
T.S. acknowledges funding from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via project P 28322-N36, and the computational resources of the Vienna Scientific Cluster. J.K. acknowledges funding from the Wiener Wissenschafts-, Forschungs- und Technologiefonds (WWTF) via project MA14-009. C.H., G.A., C.M. and J.C.M. acknowledge funding by the European Research Council Grant No. 336453-PICOMAT. T.J.P. was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 655760-DIGIPHASE. We further thank Ondrej Krivanek for useful feedback.
T.S. performed theoretical and statistical analyses and DFT simulations, participated in STEM experiments and their analysis, and drafted the manuscript. C.H. performed sample synthesis, and participated in STEM experiments, their analysis, and the Raman analysis. G.A. participated in sample synthesis and the Raman analysis. G.T.L. participated in STEM experiments and their analysis. C.M. and T.J.P. prepared special alignments for the STEM instrument with J.K., who supervised the theoretical and statistical analyses and STEM experiments. J.K. and J.C.M conceived and supervised the study.
T.S., J.C.M. and J.K. are named on a pending patent application relating to this method of isotope analysis (application number EP16183371). All other authors declare no competing financial interests.
![**The calculated graphene phonon band structure and the corresponding density of states**. The out-of-plane component (z) is drawn in blue, in-plane (xy) one in red. $\Gamma$, M and K denote the symmetry points of the Brillouin zone, and the phonon branches are labeled with ‘Z’ = out-of-plane, ‘T’ = transverse, ‘L’ = longitudinal, ‘A’ = acoustic, ‘O’ = optical. \[Phonons\]](SIFig1.pdf){width="80.00000%"}
![**Poisson analyses of the dose data.**‘C’ denotes the value of the Cash C-statistic calculated between the fitted Poisson process and the data, ‘bw’ the bin width, and ‘cs’ the resulting cross section.\[Poisson\]](SIFig2.pdf){width="77.00000%"}
![**The recorded and fitted Raman 2D spectra.** The measured spectra are shown in blue, the fitted peaks in green, and their sum in red. The numbers at the top right corners of each panel correspond to the grid squares of Figure 3 of the main manuscript.\[Raman\]](SIFig3.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
----- ----- --------------------------------- ----------- ------------------------ -------------------- ----------- --------------------------------- ------- ---------------------- --------------------
DFT DFT
$U$ $N$ $\dot{D}$ $\lambda$ $N$ $\dot{D}$ $\lambda$
80 – – – – 4$\times$10$^{-3}$ – – – – 7$\times$10$^{-6}$
85 15 $\underset{[1.93, 2.56]}{2.25}$ 213.3 1.2$^{+0.8}_{-0.5}$ 0.2 – – – – 9$\times$10$^{-4}$
90 21 $\underset{[0.95, 2.28]}{1.62}$ 23.3 10.9$^{+9.5}_{-4.8}$ 5.3 18 $\underset{[2.22, 2.63]}{2.43}$ 127.8 2.0$^{+1.3}_{-0.8}$ 5$\times$10$^{-2}$
95 67 0.94 4.51 56.6$^{+24.0}_{-16.7}$ 59.1 60 $\underset{[2.26, 2.82]}{2.54}$ 124.2 2.1$^{+1.0}_{-0.7}$ 1.4
100 61 $\underset{[6.44, 7.94]}{7.19}$ 0.78 328$^{+119}_{-87}$ 340.1 102 $\underset{[1.01, 1.24]}{1.13}$ 19.1 13.3$^{+6.0}_{-4.1}$ 18.3
----- ----- --------------------------------- ----------- ------------------------ -------------------- ----------- --------------------------------- ------- ---------------------- --------------------
: **Parameters for determining the cross sections of article Figure 2.** The columns show the number of measured STEM time series $N$, the average dose rate$^\dagger$ $\dot{D}$ (in units of 10$^8$ e$^-$s$^{-1}$, with the lowest and highest rates given in brackets below), the expected Poisson dose $\lambda$ (in units of 10$^9$ e$^-$) and the experimental (STEM) and predicted (DFT) cross sections $\sigma_\mathrm{d}$ and their standard errors (in millibarn) for each electron acceleration voltage $U$ (in kV).[]{data-label="datatable"}
\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We derive a general integrodifferential equation for the transient behaviour of small-amplitude capillary waves on the planar surface of a viscous fluid in the presence of the Marangoni effect. [[ The equation is solved for an insoluble surfactant solution in concentration below the critical micelle concentration (cmc) undergoing convective-diffusive surface transport. The special case of a diffusion-driven surfactant is considered near the the critical damping wavelength.]{}]{} The Marangoni effect is shown to contribute to the overall damping mechanism and a first-order term correction to the critical wavelength with respect to the surfactant concentration difference and the Schmidt number is proposed.'
author:
- Li
- Fabian Denner
- Neal Morgan
- Berend van Wachem
- Daniele Dini
bibliography:
- 'Bib.bib'
title: 'The Marangoni effect on small-amplitude capillary waves in viscous fluids'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
On the free surface between any two immiscible phases, external perturbations such as [[ thermally-induced]{}]{} motion or vibrations can [[ cause]{}]{} statistical fluctuations [@Aarts2004], or interfacial waves, leading to rough surfaces [[ [@Aarts2004; @Mandelstam1913]]{}]{}. Long waves with wavelength $\lambda \gg \sqrt{\sigma/(\rho g)}\equiv l_*$ (where $\rho$ is fluid density, $g$ is gravitational acceleration and $\sigma$ is surface tension [[ coefficient]{}]{}) are gravity-driven and known as gravity waves. Short waves with wavelength $\lambda \ll l_*$ are *capillary waves* where the restoring effects of surface tension dominate gravity. Furthermore, in regions of [[ large]{}]{} viscosity, the energy dissipation is also affected by the distribution of fluid vorticity [@Prosperetti1976] leading to an increasing viscous attenuation of the capillary wave [@Lamb1932] for decreasing wavelength. The evolution of such waves is critical to the study of film stability, e.g. thin film rupture [@Scheludko1967], droplet coalescence [@Blanchette2006], polymer films [@Sferrazza1997] and foam dynamics [@Saye2013] as well as capillary-driven phenomena, such as the breakup of liquid sheets, jets [@Papageorgiou1993; @Eggers2008], bridges [@Hoepffner2013], ligaments [@Eggers2008] and curtains [@Lhuissier2016][[ .]{}]{}
In addition, interfaces [[ found in nature and engineering applications are often]{}]{} contaminated with surface-active substances. These surfactants can significantly alter interfacial flow structures and energy dissipation through the Marangoni effect as a result of the generated gradients in surface tension [@Batchelor2003; @Karakashev2014]. Hence, an understanding of how the Marangoni effect changes the damping of the interface through the attenuation of capillary waves could extend the classification of surface roughness [@Mandelstam1913] to a greater number of industrial and biological films and membranes.
The classical treatment of the capillary wave considers the interfacial displacement as an infinite superposition of modes, then assuming each component contributes according to an equipartition theorem [@Aarts2004; @Sides1999] or approximating the solution as the least-damped mode [@Lamb1932; @Chandrasekhar1981]. In either cases, whilst the long-time behaviour is sufficiently captured as the waves are damped out and converge towards a single mode, the transient behaviour remains difficult to extract [[ because of]{}]{} its dependence on multiple of such modes. To circumvent this difficulty, Prosperetti [@Prosperetti1976] recast the equation of motion for viscous fluids as an integrodifferential equation solved exactly as an initial value problem. The long-time connection of the solution with the normal mode approach [[ was also demonstrated]{}]{} through the complex characteristic equation for the discrete wave spectrum [@Lamb1932] along with the equivalence of irrotational flows with the short-time approximation of the solution. Motivated by this approach, we consider in this paper the capillary waves in viscous fluids with a [[ significant]{}]{} Marangoni effect [[ in]{}]{} the presence of a surfactant solution.
As a prelude to our discussion, we consider the implicit dispersion relation of the capillary wave $$\omega_{0}^{2}+(\mathrm{i}\omega+2\nu k^2)^{2}-4\nu^2 k^4\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{i}\omega}{\nu k^2}\right)^{1/2}=0,\label{eq:dispersion}$$ [[ derived by]{}]{} linear response theory or linearised hydrodynamics [@Delgado2008a; @Jackle1999] under the assumption of weak viscous damping, where $\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity, $k$ is wavenumber, $\omega$ is angular frequency of the capillary wave and $$\omega_0=\left(\frac{\sigma k^{3}}{\rho}+gk\right)^{1/2}$$ is the [[ angular frequency]{}]{} on an interface of an inviscid ideal fluid. For large wavenumber $k\gg 1$, $\omega_0\simeq (\sigma k^3/\rho)^{1/2}$, [[ at which]{}]{} the effects of gravity is negligible. By inspection, Eq.(\[eq:dispersion\]) suggests a critical wavenumber $k_{c}$ where there is a transition from the propagative and underdamped mode to an overdamped mode [@Delgado2008a] in which the effect of viscosity dominates the oscillatory motion of the interface. More recently, Denner [@Denner2016b] proposed a rational parametrisation for the dispersion in the underdamped regime, including critical damping, that leads to a self-similar solution of the frequency dispersion of capillary waves in viscous fluids.
The region near the critical wavelength $\lambda_\mathrm{c}=2\pi/k_\mathrm{c}$ is particularly interesting due to its proximity to the threshold [[ whereby]{}]{} complex rupture behaviours are exhibited by biological and industrial interfacial systems [@Karakashev2014; @Scheludko1967; @Yaminsky2010; @Cantat2013]. Therefore, the evolution of $\lambda_\mathrm{c}$ [[ as a result of]{}]{} the Marangoni effect could potentially provide clues to the onset of these [[ phenomena.]{}]{}
For constant surface tension, the wavenumber $k_\mathrm{c}$ can be related on dimensional grounds to the quantity $\delta_{\nu}=(\nu/\omega)^{1/2}$, which is the characteristic thickness of the penetration of vorticity that is generated at the interface boundary due to the inability of the initially irrotational flow to sustain the non-zero tangential boundary stress condition [@Batchelor2000]. [[ More precisely, it has been shown [@Denner2016b; @Denner2016c], that $k_\text{c}\sim 1/l_\text{vc}$ where $$l_\text{vc}=\frac{\mu^2}{\rho\sigma}$$ is a viscocapillary length scale under the regime $\mathrm{Oh}=1$, where $$\mathrm{Oh}=\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{\sigma\rho\, l}}=\frac{t_\sigma}{t_\mu}$$ is the Ohnesorge number. The quantity $t_\sigma=\sqrt{\rho\, l^3/\sigma}$ is the capillary timescale proportional to the period of an undamped capillary wave and $t_\mu=\rho\, l^2/\mu$ is the viscous timescale associated with the length of time taken for momentum to diffuse through a characteristic lengthscale $l$.]{}]{}
In the presence of a variable surface tension, $\lambda_\mathrm{c}$ must increase since the motion driven by surface tension gradients is always dissipative in nature due to the induced viscous shear stresses. Consider the stress boundary condition $$-[\mathbf{T}\cdot \mathbf{n}]+2H\sigma \mathbf{n} = M{{\color{black} ,}}$$ where $\mathbf{T}$ is the viscous stress tensor, $\mathbf{n}$ the normal vector, $2H=-\boldsymbol{\nabla}_s\cdot\mathbf{n}$ the mean curvature; where $$\boldsymbol{\nabla}_s=\mathbf{(I-nn)\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla}}$$ is the surface gradient operator; $M$ is the Marangoni term and $[\cdot]$ denotes the jump across the interface of the quantity within. For systems with surface-active substances, Levich and Krylov [@Levich1969] suggested $M=-\mu_s \nabla^2 \mathbf{u}_s$ where $\mathbf{u}_s=\mathbf{(I-nn)\cdot\mathbf{u}}$ is the surface velocity and $\mu_s$ is a phenomenological surface viscosity coefficient. This term explicitly accounts for the energy dissipation at the interface due to the irreversible processes involved and hence a natural consequence is that the Marangoni effect directly contributes to the overall damping of the system. However, the phenomenological and model-specific nature of $\mu_s$ does not easily yield to general analysis and so in this paper we shall adopt the classical approach commonly used in literature [@Batchelor2003] of letting $M=-\boldsymbol{\nabla}_s\sigma$, coupled with an equation of state linking surface tension $\sigma$ and surfactant concentrations (or another field such as temperature).
Specialising to the case of a predominantly-diffusive surfactant solution, the critical wavenumber $k_\mathrm{c}$ is now dimensionally related to the ratio $\delta_{\nu}/\delta_{D}$, where $\delta_{D}=(D/\omega)^{1/2}$ is the thickness of the mass transfer boundary layer with [[ surfactant]{}]{} diffusivity $D$, more commonly known as its square the Schmidt number, $$\mathrm{Sc}=\left(\frac{\delta_{\nu}}{\delta_{D}}\right)^{2}=\frac{\nu}{D}.$$
Equation of motion
==================
The dynamics of the fluid of viscosity $\mu$, and density $\rho$ in regions of Reynolds number $\mathrm{Re}\ll1$ are described by the [[ time-dependent]{}]{} Stokes’ equation
$$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\frac{\partial\mathbf{u}}{\partial t} & =-\frac{1}{\rho}\boldsymbol{\nabla} p+\nu\nabla^2\mathbf{u}-g\mathbf{j}\\
\boldsymbol{\nabla}\cdot\mathbf{u} & =0\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathbf{u}$ is the 2-dimensional fluid velocity field $(u,v)$, $p$ is the pressure and $g\mathbf{j}$ is the gravity term with $\mathbf{j}$ denoting the upward unit vector. The free surface is given by the standing wave $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
F(x,y,t) & =y-\mathrm{f}(x,t)\\
\mathrm{f}(x,t) & =a(t)\cos kx\end{aligned}$$ where the non-linear, time-dependent wave amplitude $a(t)$ satisfies the small-amplitude conditions that $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
a & \ll \lambda & &= \frac{2\pi}{k},\\
\frac{\mathrm{d}a}{\mathrm{d}t} & \ll v_\mathrm{p} & &=\frac{\omega}{k},\end{aligned}$$ for wavelength $\lambda$, wavenumber $k$, angular frequency $\omega$ and phase velocity $v_\mathrm{p}$. The linearised tangential and normal stress components, [[ $\mathrm{T}_\parallel$ and $\mathrm{T}_\perp$, respectively,]{}]{} as well as the kinematic conditions are given on the surface $y=0$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\mathrm{T}_{\parallel}\equiv & \,\frac{1}{2}\mu\left(\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}\right) & & =\mathbf{t}\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla}\sigma,\label{eq:tangential}\\
\mathrm{T}_{\perp}\equiv & -p+2\mu\frac{\partial v}{\partial y} & & =\sigma\boldsymbol{\nabla}_s\cdot\mathbf{n},\label{eq:normal}\\
& \frac{\partial F}{\partial t}+v\frac{\partial F}{\partial y} & & =0,\label{eq:kinematic}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{n}\simeq(ak\sin kx,1)$ and $\mathbf{t}\simeq(1,-ak\sin kx)$ are the leading order normal and tangent vectors. The surface tension coefficient $\sigma$ is modelled by a linear equation of state $$\sigma=\sigma_{0}-\alpha\Gamma(x,y,t),$$ where $\alpha=\left|\mathrm{d}\sigma/\mathrm{d}\Gamma(x,y,t)\right|$ is the magnitude of surface tension gradient and $\Gamma(x,y,t)$ is a function which depends on the mode of the Marangoni effect (e.g. thermal, soluto or electric etc, [@Karakashev2014].) [[ In this paper, we shall consider the soluto-Marangoni effect of an interface in the presence of a surfactant solution. Henceforth, $\Gamma=\Gamma(x,t)$ is the surface concentration of an insoluble surfactant solution and $D=D_s$ denotes the surface diffusivity coefficient.]{}]{}
Following [@Prosperetti1976], we decompose the velocity and pressure into harmonic and viscous corrections $$(\mathbf{u},\,p)=(\mathbf{u}'+\mathbf{u}'',\,p'+p''),$$ where the harmonic component $(\mathbf{u}',p')$ assumes the velocity field $$\mathbf{u}'=(u',v')=\boldsymbol{\nabla}\phi$$ for a harmonic function $\phi$ satisfying the hydrostatic potential problem $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\frac{\partial\mathbf{u}'}{\partial t} & =-\frac{1}{\rho}\boldsymbol{\nabla} p'-g\mathbf{j}\\
0 & =\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial t}+v'\frac{\partial F}{\partial y}\right)_{y=0},\end{aligned}$$ with known solution [@Lamb1932; @Prosperetti1976] $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\phi & =\frac{1}{k}\frac{\mathrm{d}a}{\mathrm{d}t}\mathrm{e}^{ky}\cos kx,\\
p' & =-\rho\left(gy+\frac{1}{k}\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}a}{\mathrm{d}t^{2}}\mathrm{e}^{ky}\cos kx\right).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the incompressible viscous correction component $(\mathbf{u}'',p'')$ satisfies the Stokes’ problem $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\frac{\partial\mathbf{u}''}{\partial t} & =-\frac{1}{\rho}\boldsymbol{\nabla} p''+\nu\nabla^2\mathbf{u}''\label{eq:viscous}\\
0 & =\left.v''\frac{\partial F}{\partial y}\right|_{y=0}\end{aligned}$$ and the incompressibility condition $\nabla\cdot\mathbf{u}''=0$.
Taking the curl of Eq.$\,$(\[eq:viscous\]) yields the vorticity equation $$\frac{\partial \omega_z}{\partial t}=\nu\nabla^2\omega_{z},\label{eq:vorticity}$$ where $\omega_{z}$ is given on the free surface $\mathrm{f}(x,t)=a\cos kx$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\omega_{z}(x,f,t) & =2\left(-\frac{\mathrm{T}_{\parallel}}{\mu}+\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}\right)\\
& =2\left(-\frac{\mathrm{T}_{\parallel}}{\mu}+\frac{\partial^{2}f}{\partial x\partial t}\right)\end{aligned}$$ using the kinematic condition $$0=\frac{\partial F}{\partial t}+(\mathbf{u}\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla})F\simeq-\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}+v$$ and the insoluble surfactant condition $$\mathbf{t}\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla}\sigma=\frac{\partial\sigma}{\partial x},$$ which neglects any surface adsorption processes.
Satisfying Eq.$\,$(\[eq:viscous\]) with the stream-function $\psi$ defined by $$\left(u'',\,v''\right)=\left(\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial y},\,-\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial x}\right),$$ we can write $$\omega_{z}=\nabla^{2}\psi$$ such that Eq.$\,$(16) takes on the bi-harmonic form $$\frac{\partial(\nabla^{2}\psi)}{\partial t}=\nabla^{4}\psi.\label{eq:bihar}$$ Furthermore, writing $$\left(\omega_{z},\,\psi\right)=\left(\Omega(y,t),\,\Psi(y,t)\right)\sin kx,$$ and assuming that $\Psi$ is bounded as $y\rightarrow-\infty$ gives the Green’s function solution of the form $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
2k\Psi & =\mathrm{e}^{ky}\left(\int_{-\infty}^{0}\Omega\mathrm{e}^{k\xi}\mathrm{d}\xi+\int_{0}^{y}\Omega\mathrm{e}^{-k\xi}\mathrm{d}\xi\right)\label{eq:psi1}\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\quad-\mathrm{e}^{-ky}\int_{-\infty}^{y}\Omega\mathrm{e}^{k\xi}\mathrm{d}\xi{{\color{black} ,}}\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega$ satisfies the second-order equation $$\frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t}=\nu\left(\frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial y^2}-k^{2}\Omega\right),\label{eq:Omega}$$ with the initial condition $\Omega(y,0)=0.$
[[ Writing the surfactant concentration in the wave form $$\Gamma(x,t)-\Gamma_0=\tilde{\Gamma}(t)\cos kx$$]{}]{} then yields the boundary condition $$\Omega(0,t)=-2k\left(\frac{\alpha\tilde\Gamma(t)}{\mu}+\frac{\mathrm{d}a}{\mathrm{d}t}\right).$$ [[ The]{}]{} Laplace transform of Eq.(\[eq:Omega\]) then gives $$\hat{\Omega}(y,s)=-2k\mathcal{L}\left[\frac{\alpha \tilde{\Gamma}}{\mu}+\frac{\mathrm{d}a}{\mathrm{d}t}\right]\mathrm{e}^{{y(k^{2}+s/\nu)^{1/2}}},$$ where $$\hat{f}(s)\equiv\mathcal{L}\left[f(t)\right]=\int^\infty_0f(t)\mathrm{e}^{-ts}\mathrm{d}t$$ is the Laplace transform of $f(t)$.
Integrating Eq.$\,$(\[eq:psi1\]), eliminating $\partial \Omega/\partial t$ using Eq.$\,$(\[eq:Omega\]) and integration by parts yield $$\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial t}=\nu[\Omega(y,t)-\Omega(0,t)\mathrm{e}^{ky}]$$ and the viscous pressure is given by $$p''=\mu\Omega(0,t)\mathrm{e}^{ky}\cos kx.$$
Substituting Eq.$\,$(8) into the normal stress condition gives the integro-differential equation of motion in the non-dimensional form
$$\begin{aligned}
{1}
& \frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}a}{\mathrm{d}\tau^{2}}+\epsilon\left(4\frac{\mathrm{d}a}{\mathrm{d}\tau}+2\beta\tilde{\Gamma}(\tau)\right)+a-4\epsilon^{2}\int_{0}^{\tau}\left(\beta\tilde{\Gamma}(\tau')+\frac{\mathrm{d}a(\tau')}{\mathrm{d}\tau'}\right)\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon\pi(\tau-\tau')}}\mathrm{e}^{-\epsilon(\tau-\tau')}-\mathrm{erfc}\sqrt{\epsilon(\tau-\tau')}\right)\mathrm{d}\tau'=0,\label{eq:EoM}\end{aligned}$$
where $$\mathrm{erfc}(z)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{z}^{\infty}\mathrm{e}^{-y^{2}}\mathrm{d}y$$ is the complementary error function, $\tau=\omega t$ is the non-dimensional time, $\tau'$ is the integration variable (a non-dimensional time discussed in sec.III), $\epsilon=\nu k^{2}/\omega$ is the non-dimensional kinematic viscosity and the non-dimensional surfactant diffusivity and surfactant strength parameters are given by $$\left(\zeta,\beta\right)=\frac{k}{\omega}\left(Dk,\frac{\alpha\Gamma_{0}}{\mu}\right).$$
In the absence of the Marangoni effect, i.e. for $\beta=0$, Eq.$\,$(\[eq:EoM\]) reduces to $$\ddot{a}+4\epsilon\dot{a}+a-4\epsilon^{2}\dot{a}*\mathcal{F}(\tau)=0\label{eq:pEoM},$$ as derived in [@Prosperetti1976], where $\dot{}=\mathrm{d}/\mathrm{d}\tau$, $*$ is the convolution operator and $\mathcal{F}(\tau)$ is the auxiliary function $$\mathcal{F}(\tau)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi\epsilon\tau}}\mathrm{e}^{-\epsilon\tau}-\mathrm{erfc}\sqrt{\epsilon\tau}.$$
Non-linear viscous dissipation via fractional integral
======================================================
The viscous equation of motion [[ in Eq.]{}]{}(\[eq:pEoM\]) can be rewritten in the form $$\ddot{a}+4\epsilon \dot{a}-4\epsilon^{3/2} \mathrm{I}^{1/2}[\mathrm{G}(\tau')\mathrm{e}^{-\epsilon(\tau-\tau')}] +(1+4\epsilon^2)a= \mathrm{J}(\tau),\label{eq:EoMviscousNL}$$ where $\mathrm{J}(\tau)$ is the forcing function given by $$\mathrm{J}(\tau)=4\epsilon^{2}a_0\mathrm{erfc}\sqrt{\epsilon\tau}$$ and $\mathrm{G}(\tau')$ is a local viscous dissipation density function defined by $$\mathrm{G}(\tau')=\dot{a}(\tau')+\epsilon a(\tau').\label{eq:GJ}$$ Recall the definition for the left-handed Riemann-Liouville fractional integral [[ of order $\varrho$]{}]{} [@Podlubny2001; @Atanackovic2014] for $t>0,\varrho\in\mathbb{C}$ via $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\mathrm{I}^{\varrho}f(\tau) & \equiv\frac{1}{\mathrm{g}(\varrho)}\int_{0}^{\tau}(\tau-\tau')^{\varrho-1}\mathrm{f}(\tau')\,\mathrm{d}\tau'.\\
& \equiv\int_{0}^{\tau}\mathrm{f}(\tau')\,\mathrm{d}\tau_{\nu}(\tau';\tau,\varrho)\label{eq:V-Time}\end{aligned}$$ where [[ $\mathrm{f}(\tau)$ is a function in time,]{}]{} $$\mathrm{g}(\varrho)=\int^\infty_0 t^{\varrho-1}\mathrm{e}^{-t}\,\mathrm{d}t$$ is the gamma function and $$\tau_{\nu}(\tau';\tau,\varrho)=\frac{\tau^{\varrho}-(\tau-\tau')^{\varrho}}{\mathrm{g}(\varrho+1)}\label{eq:inhomtime}$$
is a non-linear time which satisfies the scaling property such that for the local linear time variables $\tau'=\omega t'$ and $\tau=\omega t$, we have $$\tau_\nu(\tau';\tau,\varrho)\equiv\tau_\nu(\omega t';\omega t;\varrho)=\omega^{\varrho}\tau_\nu(t';t,\varrho).$$
We can now interpret the effect of viscosity on the system as introducing a forcing term and both a linear and non-linear viscous dissipation term. Recasting the irrotationally inviscid surface wave system into the well-known Hamiltonian form [@Miles1977; @Zhang1997], the governing equation in the fluid region $\Upsilon$ is written $$\left(\dot{h}(\mathbf{x},\tau),\dot{\Phi}(\mathbf{x},\tau)\right)=\left(\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta\Phi},-\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta h}+Q(h,\Phi)\right){{\color{black} ,}}$$ where $\mathcal{H}$ is the Hamiltonian defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\mathcal{H}[h,\Phi] & = \frac{1}{2}\int_{\Upsilon}\mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}\left[\left|\boldsymbol{\nabla}\Phi\right|^{2}+gh^{2}+\sigma(\sqrt{1+|\boldsymbol{\nabla} h|^{2}}-1)\right],\end{aligned}$$ and $h=h(\mathbf{x},t),\Phi=\phi(\mathbf{x},h,t)$ are the canonical coordinate, momentum variables denoting fluid height and interfacial fluid velocity potential, respectively, for $\mathbf{x}=(x,y)$. The term $4\epsilon\dot{a}$ can then be viewed as the linear part the dissipation function $Q(h,\Phi)$ of the system as we equate the rate of loss of energy [@Landau1966; @Zhang1997] $$\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}}{\mathrm{d}t}-\frac{\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial t} =\int_\Upsilon \left(Q(h,\Phi)\frac{\partial h}{\partial t}\right) \mathrm{d}\mathbf{x}$$ with the rate of dissipation in incompressible fluids under irrotational flow given [@Batchelor2000] by $$2\nu\int_\Upsilon \mathrm{d}\mathbf{x} \int^h_{-\infty}\left(\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial x_i \partial x_j}\right)^{2} =\nu\int_\Upsilon \mathrm{d}\mathbf{x} \int^h_{-\infty}\nabla^2 (q^{2}),$$ where $q^{2}=(\partial \phi/\partial x_i)^{2}$ for velocity potential $\phi$.
The fractional integral term in Eq.(\[eq:EoMviscousNL\]) suggests that the non-linear part of the dissipation function $Q(h,\Phi)$ is the exponential decay of $\mathrm{G}$ with decay rate $\epsilon$ (which is half the rate obtained [@Lamb1932] for the inviscid flow with velocity potential $\phi=k^{-1}\dot{a}\mathrm{e}^{ky}\cos kx$). [[ Let $$\mathrm{D}(\tau)=\int^\tau_0\mathrm{G}(\tau')\mathrm{e}^{-\epsilon(\tau-\tau')}\mathrm{d}\tau_\nu(\tau';\tau,\tfrac{1}{2}),$$ then $\mathrm{D}(\tau)$ can be interpreted as the actual non-linear viscous dissipation for which the local values of the dissipation density $\mathrm{G}(\tau')\mathrm{e}^{-\epsilon(\tau-\tau')}$ and the local linear time $\tau'$ are encoded with respect to the global inhomogeneous timescale given by the function $\tau_{\nu}(\tau';\tau,\frac{1}{2})$. From Fig.1, $\tau_\nu$ is approximately linear for small time $\tau$ and the exponentially-decaying fractional integral term can be shown [@Prosperetti1976] to be negligible. As $\tau$ increases, the timescale $\tau_\nu$ visibly slows down and deviates from the linear time. This slow-down for large $\tau$ could explain why the integral term in Eq.(\[eq:EoM\]) cannot be neglected for $\tau'\gg \epsilon^{-1}$; since the exponential decay of the local viscous dissipation is progressively retarded for increasing $\tau$. ]{}]{}
Incorporating the Marangoni effect, the equation of motion Eq.(\[eq:EoM\]) takes the same form as Eq(\[eq:EoMviscousNL\]) where the forcing function $\mathrm{J}$ and the local viscous dissipation density function $\mathrm{G}$ are transformed via the map $\Pi$ defined by $$\Pi\begin{pmatrix}\mathrm{J}(\tau)\\
\mathrm{G}(\tau)
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\mathrm{J}(\tau)\\
\mathrm{G}(\tau)
\end{pmatrix}+\beta\begin{pmatrix}-2\epsilon[\tilde{\Gamma}(\tau)+2\epsilon\gamma(\tau)]\\
\tilde{\Gamma}(\tau)+\epsilon\gamma(\tau)
\end{pmatrix}$$ where $$\gamma(\tau)=\int_{0}^{\tau}\tilde{\Gamma}(\tau')\,\mathrm{d}\tau'.$$
Surfactant modelling: Marangoni Convection
==========================================
To model the surfactant transport, we consider a mass balance [@Edwards1991] at the interface for an insoluble surfactant of concentration $\Gamma(x,t)$. The convective-diffusive equation takes the leading-order form $$\frac{\partial\Gamma(x,t)}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[\Gamma(x,t=0)u\right]=D\frac{\partial^{2}\Gamma}{\partial x^{2}}.\label{eq:SURF-TRANS}$$ Assuming the waveform $$\Gamma(x,t)-\Gamma_{0}=\tilde{\Gamma}(t)\cos kx$$ and the initial condition $\Gamma(x,t=0)=\Gamma_{0}\ll\Gamma_{\mathrm{cmc}}$ where $\Gamma_\text{cmc}$ is the critical micelle concentration for surfactant, Eq.(\[eq:SURF-TRANS\]) reduces to $$\frac{\partial\tilde{\Gamma}}{\partial t}+k^{2}D\tilde{\Gamma}=-\Gamma_{0}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x},\label{eq:surfactant}$$ where $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}=-\frac{\mathrm{d}a}{\mathrm{d}t}k+\frac{2\nu k^3}{\omega}\left(\frac{\alpha}{\mu}\tilde{\Gamma}+\frac{\mathrm{d}a}{\mathrm{d}t}\right)*\mathcal{F}.$$
The resulting equation of motion is given by the simultaneous integro-differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\ddot{a}+2\epsilon\dot{a}+a & =\epsilon\tilde{\Omega}(0,t)-2\epsilon^{2}\tilde{\Omega}(0,\tau)*\mathcal{F}(\tau),\label{eq:AMPLITUDE-EQN}\\
\dot{\tilde{\Gamma}}+\zeta\tilde{\Gamma} & =\delta\dot{a}+\epsilon\tilde{\Omega}(0,\tau)*\mathcal{F}(\tau),\label{eq:SURFACTANT-EQN}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta=a_{0}k,$ $\zeta=Dk^{2}/\omega$ for surface diffusivity coefficient $D$.
Let $F(s)=\mathcal{L}[a](s)$, $G(s)=\mathcal{L}[\tilde{\Gamma}](s)$ be the Laplace transforms of $a(\tau)$ and $\tilde{\Gamma}(\tau)$, respectively; the function $\hat{\Pi}_{\epsilon}\equiv sF(s)-a_{0}=\hat{\Pi}_{\epsilon}(s+\epsilon)=\mathrm{P}(s^{1/2})/\mathrm{Q}(s^{1/2})$ is given by
$$\hat{\Pi}_{\epsilon}=\frac{(u_{0}s-a_{0})\left\{ s(s+\zeta)+2\beta\epsilon^{1/2}[(s+\epsilon)^{1/2}-\epsilon^{1/2}]\right\} +2\epsilon\beta s(s-2\epsilon^{1/2}[(s+\epsilon)^{1/2}-\epsilon^{1/2}])}{s\epsilon^{1/2}\left\{ s(s+\zeta)+2\beta\epsilon^{1/2}[(s+\epsilon)^{1/2}-\epsilon^{1/2}]\right\} +2\epsilon\beta(s-2\epsilon^{1/2}[(s+\epsilon)^{1/2}-\epsilon^{1/2}])(\delta s-2\epsilon^{1/2}[(s+\epsilon)^{1/2}-\epsilon^{1/2}])},$$
Let $\sigma_{i}^{(n)}$ be the $n$-th order cyclic polynomial given by $$\sigma_{j}^{(n)}=\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(z_{j+i\,\mathrm{mod}(n)}-z_{j}).$$ Decomposing $\hat{\Pi}_{\epsilon}$ into partial fractions yields $$\hat{\Pi}_{\epsilon}(s+\epsilon)=\sum_{i=1}^{8}\frac{c_{i}}{s^{1/2}+z_{i}}\label{eq:PI}$$ where $-z_{i}$ are the roots of the polynomial $\mathrm{Q}(s^{1/2})$ and by comparison with Lagrange interpolation, the coefficients $c_{i}$ are given by the expression $$c_{i}=\frac{\mathrm{P}(-z_{i})}{\sigma_{i}^{(8)}(-z_{i})}.$$ Taking the inverse Laplace transform of Eq. (\[eq:PI\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\Pi_{\epsilon}(\tau) & =-\sum_{i=1}^{8}\frac{\mathrm{P}(-z_{i})}{\sigma_{i}^{(8)}}z_{i}\mathrm{e}^{z_{i}^{2}\tau}\mathrm{erfc}(z_{i}\tau^{1/2}),\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact (shown in Appendix A) that $$\deg\mathrm{Q}-\deg\mathrm{P}=2$$ which implies $\mathrm{Z}(n,0)=0$, where $$\mathrm{Z}(n,j)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{\mathrm{P}(-z_{i})}{\sigma_{i}^{(n)}}(-z_{i})^{j}.$$ Hence the amplitude is $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
a(\tau) & -a_{0}=\sum_{i=1}^{8}\frac{z_{i}}{\sigma_{i}^{(8)}}\mathrm{P}(-z_{i})\varphi(z_{i},\tau;\epsilon),\label{eq:CONVEC-SOL}\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi=\varphi(z_{i},\tau;\epsilon)$ is given by $$\varphi(z_{i},\tau;\epsilon)=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{(z_{i}^{2}-\epsilon)\tau}\mathrm{erfc}(z_{i}\tau^{1/2})+z_{i}\epsilon^{-1/2}\mathrm{erf}\sqrt{\epsilon\tau}-1}{z_{i}^{2}-\epsilon}.$$
In the next section, we derive the explicit form of the amplitude solution in the special case near the critical wavelength where convective effects are neglected.
The exact diffusive-Marangoni Amplitude Solution
================================================
Consider the solution $$\Gamma_0-\Gamma(x,t)=\Gamma_{0}\mathrm{e}^{-k^2 Dt}\cos kx,\label{eq:ansatz}$$ which satisfies the diffusively-dominant surfactant transport equation on the left-hand side of Eq.$\,$(\[eq:surfactant\]) subjected to the augmented initial condition $$\Gamma(x,0)=\Gamma_0(1-\cos kx).$$ This yields the interfacial vorticity $$\omega_{z}(x,f,t)=-2k\left(\frac{\alpha\Gamma_{0}}{\mu}\mathrm{e}^{-k^2 Dt}+\frac{\mathrm{d}a}{\mathrm{d}t}\right)\sin kx$$ and so the boundary and initial conditions to Eq.(\[eq:Omega\]) become $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\Omega(0,t) & =-2k\left(\frac{\alpha\Gamma_{0}}{\mu}\mathrm{e}^{-k^2 Dt}+\frac{\mathrm{d}a}{\mathrm{d}t}\right),\\
\Omega(y,0) & =0.\end{aligned}$$
Reverting to non-dimensional variables, taking the Laplace transform of Eq.(\[eq:EoM\]) gives $$\beta^{-1}[F(s)-F_{\nu}(s)] =\frac{(s^{2}+2\epsilon s+1)\hat{\chi}(s+\epsilon)-1}{s(s+\zeta)},\label{eq:EoMLap}$$ where $$\hat{\chi}(s)=\left[s^{2}+2\epsilon s-4\epsilon^{3/2}s^{1/2}+\epsilon^{2}+1\right]^{-1},$$ and $F_\nu(s)$ is the Laplace transform of the solution of the viscous amplitude equation in Eq.$\,$(\[eq:pEoM\]) which satisfies the equation $$sF_{\nu}(s)=a_{0}+(u_{0}s-a_{0})\hat{\chi}(s+\epsilon).$$ Evaluating term-wise, the inverse Laplace transform of $\beta^{-1}[F(s)-F_{\nu}(s)]$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
& \beta^{-1}\mathcal{L}^{-1}[F(s)-F_{\nu}(s)](\tau)\\
=\ & \frac{\mathrm{e}^{-\zeta\tau}-1}{\zeta}-\sum_{i=1}^{4}\frac{z_{i}}{\sigma_{i}^{(3)}}\mathrm{e}^{(z_{i}^{2}-\epsilon)\tau}\mathrm{erfc}(z_{i}\sqrt{\tau})\nonumber \\
-\ & \sum_{i=1}^{4}\frac{z_{i}}{\sigma_{i}}\left[\frac{1}{\zeta}\varphi(z_{i},\tau;\epsilon)-\mathrm{e}^{-\zeta\tau}\times\right.\nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad\left.\left(2\epsilon-\zeta-\frac{1}{\zeta}\right)\varphi(z_{i},\tau;\epsilon-\zeta)\right],\label{eq:termwise}\end{aligned}$$ where $z_{i}$ are the roots of the polynomial $$P(z)=z^{4}+2\epsilon z^{2}+4\epsilon^{3/2}z+\epsilon^{2}+1.$$ To simplify Eq.(\[eq:termwise\]), consider the sum $$Z(\epsilon;k)=\sum_{i=1}^{4}\frac{z_{i}^{k}}{\sigma_{i}^{(3)}(z_{i}^{2}-\epsilon)},$$ then [@Prosperetti1976] gives the relations $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
Z(\epsilon;1) & =\frac{1+4\epsilon^{2}}{1+8\epsilon^{2}},\\
\epsilon^{-\frac{1}{2}}Z(\epsilon;2) & =-\frac{4\epsilon^{2}}{1+8\epsilon^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we have the relations (derivation in the Appendix B)
$$\begin{aligned}
{1}
Z(\epsilon-\zeta;1) & =\frac{p_{-}+p_{+}}{2},\label{eq:Z1}\\
(\epsilon-\zeta)^{-\frac{1}{2}}Z(\epsilon;2) & =\frac{p_{-}-p_{+}}{2},\label{eq:Z2}\end{aligned}$$
where $$p_{\pm}=P(\pm(\epsilon-\zeta)^{\frac{1}{2}}).$$
Therefore, the solution to the full amplitude equation in Eq.$\,$(\[eq:EoM\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
a(\tau) & =a_{\nu}(\tau)-\frac{4\epsilon^{2}\beta}{(8\epsilon^{2}+1)\zeta}\mathrm{erfc}{\sqrt{\epsilon\tau}}\nonumber \\
& +\left[\frac{1}{\zeta}+\left(2\epsilon-\zeta-\frac{1}{\zeta}\right)p_{+}\right]\beta\mathrm{e}^{-\zeta\tau}\\
& +\frac{p_{+}-p_{-}}{2}\left(2\epsilon-\zeta-\frac{1}{\zeta}\right)\beta\mathrm{e}^{-\zeta\tau}\mathrm{erfc}\sqrt{(\epsilon-\zeta)\tau}\nonumber \\
& -\sum_{i=1}^{4}\frac{z_{i}}{\sigma_{i}^{(3)}}\beta\mathrm{e}^{(z_{i}^{2}-\epsilon)\tau}\mathrm{erfc}(z_{i}\sqrt{\tau})\times\nonumber \\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\left(1+\frac{1}{\zeta(z_{i}^{2}-\epsilon)}+\frac{2\epsilon-\zeta-\frac{1}{\zeta}}{z_{i}^{2}-\epsilon+\zeta}\right),\label{eq:SOL}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
a_{\nu}(\tau) & =\frac{4a_{0}\epsilon^{2}}{8\epsilon^{2}+1}\mathrm{erfc}\sqrt{\epsilon\tau}\nonumber \\
& +\sum_{i=1}^{4}\frac{z_{i}}{\sigma_{i}^{(3)}}\left(\frac{a_{0}}{z_{i}^{2}-\epsilon}-u_{0}\right)\mathrm{e}^{(z_{i}^{2}-\epsilon)\tau}\mathrm{erfc}(z_{i}\sqrt{\tau})\label{eq:VISCOUS-SOL}\end{aligned}$$ is the solution to the viscous amplitude equation [@Prosperetti1976] in Eq.$\,$(\[eq:pEoM\]).
In the region near the critical wavelength $\lambda_{c}^{(0)},$ we note that Marangoni diffusion is significant compared to Marangoni convection for $\mathrm{Sc}\ll 10^4$ in the regions near the critical wavelength. To examine this in more detail, we define the Marangoni criticality coefficient $\varsigma$ by $$\varsigma=\frac{\zeta^{(1)}-\zeta^{(0)}}{\zeta^{(2)}-\zeta^{(0)}},\label{eq:varsigma}$$ where $\zeta^{(0)}$ denotes the numerically calculated damping ratio of the capillary wave in the absence of Marangoni effect and $\zeta^{(1)},\zeta^{(2)}$ are the numerical damping ratios (1) with diffusional Marangoni effect and (2) with full convective-diffusional Marangoni effect, respectively. At $\varsigma=\frac{1}{2}$, the effects of Marangoni convection contributes equally towards the global damping ratio as the Marangoni diffusion effects. Consequently, in the region where $\varsigma>\frac{1}{2}$ the diffusional Marangoni effect contributes more towards the overall damping ratio than the convectional Marangoni effect and vice versa for $\varsigma<\frac{1}{2}$. Furthermore, the regions where $\varsigma > 0.95$ are defined as the *Marangoni diffusion regime* where Marangoni diffusion dominates compared with the convection effects and is responsible for more than 95Under room temperature and pressure (rtp) with parameters density $\rho=10^{3}\mathrm{kgm}^{-3}$, surface tension $\sigma=7.2\times10^{-2}\mathrm{Nm}^{-1}$ and viscosity $\mu=10^{-3}\mathrm{Pa\,s}$, we plot $\varsigma$ for water with respect to the non-dimensional wavelength $\lambda/\lambda_{c}^{(0)}$ normalised using the critical damping wavelength $\lambda_{c}^{(0)}$ in the absence of Marangoni effect, for Schmidt number $\mathrm{Sc}=100$ in Fig.1(a) and $\mathrm{Sc}=500$ in Fig.1(b) with various Marangoni numbers $\mathrm{Ma}>500$. We notice that in both cases, the diffusional effects as compared to the convection effects remain significant for roughly 2.5 critical wavelengths and dominate near the critical wavelength for $\mathrm{Sc}\sim O(10^2)$ and $\mathrm{Ma}\sim O(10^2)$ as shown in Fig.1(a); it is only when we increase $\mathrm{Sc}$ that the diffusional Marangoni effect noticeably lessens near $\lambda_{c}^{(0)}$. This dominance of Marangoni diffusion over convection breaks down for $\mathrm{Sc}\gg O(10^2)$ and for wavelengths $\lambda\gg 2.5\lambda_c^{(0)}$, where Marangoni convection rapidly becomes more significant than diffusional effects. In the next section, we shall focus on the diffusion solution in Eq.(\[eq:SOL\]) to analyse how the critical wavelength evolves for increasing $\mathrm{Ma}$ within the Marangoni diffusion regime.
Results and discussion
======================
Interactions of the viscosity and the Marangoni effect within the fluid yield different consequences on the interface. While both effects act as damping mechanisms to the surface waves [@Levich1969]; increasing the viscosity retards the rate at which vorticity generated at the boundary enters the bulk [@Batchelor2000; @Lamb1932], whereas increasing the concentration of surface-active substance [[ endows]{}]{} the interface with an effective surface shear and dilatational elasticity that works to suppress surface motion [@Cantat2013; @Levich1969].
We explore this viscosity-Marangoni interaction in the free-oscillation (i.e. $u_0=0$) solution in Eq.(\[eq:SOL\]) by plotting the amplitude function $a(\tau)$ in Fig.2 for various Marangoni numbers and two viscosity values. Starting from the critically damped region with non-dimensional wavelength $\lambda/\lambda_\text{c}^{(0)}=1.5543$ in Fig.2(a) with $\mathrm{Sc}=20$; where $\lambda_\text{c}^{(0)}$ is the critical wavelength in absence of a surfactant solution; we observe that the addition of the Marangoni effect increases the damping of the capillary wave and the wave transitions from the underdamped to the overdamped as a result. For increasing Marangoni number, Fig.2(b) shows the evolution of the Marangoni correction given by $a_\text{M}(\tau)=a(\tau)-a_\nu(\tau)$, where $a_\nu(\tau)$ is the viscous solution in Eq.(\[eq:VISCOUS-SOL\]). We note that the maximum of $a_\text{M}(\tau)$ is obtained near $\tau_c=\tau_c(\epsilon,\zeta)$ for all values of $\text{Ma}$ before decaying exponentially to zero.
Furthermore, we increase the viscosity from $\mu_0=10^{-3}\text{Pa\,s}$ in Fig.2(a-b) to $1.3\mu_0$ in Fig.2(c-d) where the capillary wave is in the overdamped region where $\lambda/\lambda_\text{c}^{(0)}=0.5718$. From Fig.2(c), the increase in viscosity has three direct consequences; firstly the critical wavelength $\lambda_\text{c}^{(0)}$ increases, secondly, the Marangoni correction $a_\text{M}(\tau)$ becomes itself more damped for $\tau>\tau_c$ and finally, the time $\tau_c$ for which $a_\text{M}(\tau)$ obtains its maximum is now a weakly increasing function in $\text{Ma}$.
It remains to show how the critical wavelength evolves for increasing concentrations of surfactant under different $\mathrm{Sc}.$ Consider firstly the case with no Marangoni effect, for which, based on a simple damped harmonic oscillator with spring constant $c$ and mass $m$ in a viscous fluid, the displacement $s$ is given by $$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2s}{\mathrm{d}\tau^2}+2d\omega_{0}\frac{\mathrm{d}s}{\mathrm{d}\tau}+\omega_{0}^{2}s=\mathrm{f}(\tau)\label{eq:lineareqn}$$ where $d=b/(2\sqrt{mc})$ is the damping ratio for viscous damping coefficient $b$, $\omega_{0}=\sqrt{c/m}$ is the undamped frequency and $\mathrm{f}(\tau)=0$. Equating the spring constant $c$ with the surface tension $\sigma$, let $m=\rho/k^{3}$ and consider the viscous damping coefficient be defined as $b=\mu L_\mu$ where $L_\mu=\sqrt{2\mu/\rho\omega_{0}}$ is the viscous damping length, Denner [@Denner2016b] proposed the critical wavelength in absence of the Marangoni effect $\lambda_\mathrm{c}^{(0)}$ as $$\lambda_\mathrm{c}^{(0)}=\frac{2^{1/3}\pi}{\Theta}l_\text{vc}, \label{eq:CRIT-THEORY}$$ for a single fluid with a free surface, where $\Theta=1.0625$ is a constant and $l_\text{vc}=\mu^{2}/\rho\sigma$ is the viscocapillary length scale. It has been shown [@Denner2016c] recently that this definition of the critical wavelength $\lambda_\text{c}^{(0)}$ also holds for capillary waves (under constant surface tension) with a finite amplitude.
Switching on the Marangoni effect, we have the linearised external forcing term $\mathrm{f}(\tau)=-2\epsilon\beta\mathrm{e}^{-\zeta\tau}$ in Eq.(\[eq:lineareqn\]) which solves to give $$s=A_{0}\mathrm{e}^{-2\epsilon\tau}\cos(B\tau+\phi_{0})-C\mathrm{e}^{-\zeta\tau}\label{eq:linearsol}$$ where $B=(1-d^{2})^{1/2}$, $C=2\epsilon\beta\omega_{0}/(\zeta^{2}-2\zeta d\omega_{0}+\omega_{0}^{2})$ and $A_{0}=a_{0}/\cos\phi_{0}$ for phase angle $\phi_{0}$ satisfying $-B\omega_{0}\tan\phi_{0}=(u_{0}/a_{0})+2\epsilon$. Note that the ratio $2\epsilon/\zeta=2\mathrm{Sc}$ of the exponentials in the linearised solution Eq.$\,$(\[eq:linearsol\]) determines whether the motion favours the sinusoidal viscous term or the second term which arises from the Marangoni correction. Moreover, the viscous damping factor $d$ deviates from the viscous case due to the presence of the surfactant solution. We investigate this damping factor below.
Firstly, consider a range of $\mathrm{Sc}$ from orders $10^{1}$ to $10^{4}$ which is typical for chemical compounds in liquids under room temperature [@Edwards1991], we plot in Fig.$\,$3 the ratio of the surface tension difference and the initial surface tension $\sigma_0$ given by $$\Sigma=\frac{\Delta\sigma}{\sigma_0}=\frac{\alpha\Delta\Gamma}{\sigma_0},$$ against the ratio $\lambda_\mathrm{c}^{(\mathrm{Sc})}/\lambda_\mathrm{c}^{(0)}$, where $\lambda_\mathrm{c}^{(\mathrm{Sc})}$ is the critical wavelength calculated at $\mathrm{Sc}$.
![Dimensionless critical wavelength $\lambda_\text{c}^{\text{Sc}}/\lambda_\text{c}^{(0)}$ (where $\lambda_\text{c}^{(0)}$ is the critical wavelength in absence of a surfactant solution) as a function of $\Sigma=\Delta\sigma/\sigma_0\in[0,\frac{1}{10}]$, the ratio of surfactant concentration difference and the initial surfactant concentration $\sigma_0$, for $\text{Sc}=10^1$ to $\text{Sc}=10^4$.](Fig3.eps){width="7cm"}
To derive an analytical scaling for the critical wavelength $\lambda_\mathrm{c}^{(\mathrm{Sc})}$ for different values of $\mathrm{Sc},$ we consider that the viscous damping length $L_{\mu}$, which is the depth of penetration of the vorticity generated by a capillary wave [@Landau1966; @Denner2016b], must be augmented by a suitable diffusion damping length $L_{D}\sim\sqrt{D/\omega_{0}}$. Dimensional analysis then gives $$L_{\mu,D}=\left(\frac{2\mu}{\rho\omega_{0}}\right)^{1/2}+\theta\left(\frac{2D\Sigma}{\omega_{0}}\right)^{1/2},$$ where $\theta=\theta(\mathrm{Sc})$.
Consider the leading-order expansion $$L_{\mu,D}^{2}=\frac{2\mu}{\rho \omega_0}\left[1+2\theta\sqrt{\frac{\Sigma}{\mathrm{Sc}}}+O\left(\frac{\Sigma}{\mathrm{Sc}}\right)\right],$$ the critical damping relation $$d=\frac{b}{2\sqrt{mc}}=\frac{\mu L_{\mu,D}}{2\sqrt{\rho\sigma/k^{3}}}=1$$ yields the first-order expression for the critical wavelength with Marangoni effect $$\lambda_\mathrm{c}^{(\mathrm{Sc})}(\Sigma) \sim 2^{1/3}\pi\, l_\text{vc}\left[1+\frac{4\theta}{3}\left(\frac{\Sigma}{\mathrm{Sc}}\right)^{1/3}\right].$$
As $\mathrm{Sc}$ increases, it follows that $\theta$ decreases. Using a power-law form expression $\theta\sim\mathrm{Sc}^{\eta}$, we find numerically that $\eta$ increases monotonically in the range $\mathrm{Sc}\in[10,10^{4}]$ with approximate upper bound for $\mathrm{Sc}=10$ and lower bound for $\mathrm{Sc}=10^4$ shown in Fig.$\,$4(a) and (b), respectively. Taking an average value of the upper and lower bounds, we have the scaling $$\theta\sim\mathrm{Sc}^{1/9}.$$ Under this scaling, the leading-order critical wavelength $\lambda_\mathrm{c}^{(\mathrm{Sc})}$ with diffusion-dominant Marangoni effect reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\lambda_\mathrm{c}^{(\mathrm{Sc})}(\Sigma) & \simeq\frac{2^{1/3}\pi}{\Theta}l_\text{vc}\left[1+\frac{4}{3}\left(\frac{\Sigma}{\mathrm{Sc}^{2/3}}\right)^{1/3}\right],\end{aligned}$$ which provides a first-order Marangoni correction term to the critical wavelength $\lambda_\text{c}^{(0)}=2^{1/3}\pi l_\text{vc}/\Theta$ obtained by Denner [@Denner2016b].
Conclusions
===========
To conclude, we derived a generalised integrodifferential initial value problem for the wave amplitude of surface capillary waves in the presence of the Marangoni effect which is solved exactly for a surfactant solution with concentration much less than the critical micelle concentration (cmc) [[ under convective-diffusive surface transport. In particular, we investigated the diffusively-dominated region near the critical wavelength $\lambda_\text{c}^{(0)}$]{}]{} and identified a first-order correction of $\lambda_\mathrm{c}^{(\text{Sc})}$ from $\lambda_\text{c}^{(0)}$ as a function of the Schmidt number $\mathrm{Sc}$ and $\Sigma=\Delta\sigma/\sigma_0$ the ratio of surface tension difference and the initial surface tension $\sigma_0$. This first-order correction provides an initial glimpse into the change of fundamental properties due to the Marangoni effect [[ near the critical wavelength $\lambda_\text{c}^{(0)}$.]{}]{}
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the anonymous reviewers for the insightful comments and the constructive suggestions provided, which have lead to a more substantial discussion about the convective effects in the manuscript and a significant improvement of the quality of the final version of the manuscript. The authors would also like to acknowledge the financial support of the Shell University Technology Centre for fuels and lubricants and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) through grants EP/M021556/1 and EP/N025954/1.
$\deg\mathrm{Q}-\deg \mathrm{P}\geqslant2 \,\Rightarrow\, \mathrm{Z}(n,0)=0$
============================================================================
Consider the rational expression $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\hat{\mathrm{f}}(s) & \equiv\frac{\mathrm{P}(s,m)}{\mathrm{Q}(s,n)}\label{eq:RATEXP}\\
& =\frac{s^{m}+\varpi_{1}s^{m-1}+\cdots+\varpi_{m-1}s+\varpi_{m}}{s^{n}+\varsigma{}_{1}s^{n-1}+\cdots+\varsigma_{n-1}s+\varsigma_{n}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathrm{P}(s,m)$ is a polynomial of order $m$ in $s$, $$\mathrm{Q}(s,n)=\prod_{i=1}^{n}(s-q_{i})$$ is a polynomial of order $n>m$ in $s$ with distinct roots $q_{i}$ and $$\sum_{1\leqslant i_{1}<i_{2}<\cdots<i_{k}\leqslant n}q_{i_{1}}q_{i_{2}}\cdots q_{i_{k}}=(-1)^{k}\varsigma_{n-k}.$$
Rewriting $\hat{\mathrm{f}}(s)$ using a partial fraction decomposition, we have $$\hat{\mathrm{f}}(s)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{\mathrm{P}(q_{i})}{\mathrm{Q}'(q_{i})}\frac{1}{s-q_{i}}$$ and taking an inverse Laplace transform gives $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\mathrm{f}(t) & =\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{\mathrm{P}(q_{i})}{\sigma_{i}^{(n)}(q_{i})}\mathrm{e}^{-q_{i}t}\\
& =\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{j}\mathrm{Z}(n,j)\frac{t^{j}}{j!},\end{aligned}$$ where $q_{i}$ are roots of the polynomial $\mathrm{Q}(s,n)$ and $$\mathrm{Z}(n,j)=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{\mathrm{P}(q_{j})}{\sigma_{j}^{(n)}(q_{j})}q_{k}^{j}.\label{eq:Z(NJ)}$$ Expansion of Eq.$\,$(\[eq:RATEXP\]) for large $s$ and inversion term-wise gives $$\mathrm{f}(t)\sim\frac{t^{n-m-1}}{(n-m-1)!}+\frac{(\varpi_{1}-\varsigma_{1}\varpi_{m})t^{n-m}}{(n-m)!}+O(t^{n-m+1}).$$ Comparing with Eq.$\,$(\[eq:Z(NJ)\]) shows that $\mathrm{Z}(n,j)=0$ if $0\leqslant j\leqslant n-m-2$, i.e. we need $$\deg\mathrm{Q}-\deg\mathrm{P}\geqslant2.$$
$Z(\epsilon-\zeta;k)$
=====================
In the exact solution in section V, we have simplified the solution using Eq.(\[eq:Z1\]) and (\[eq:Z2\]), modifying a similar approach to [@Prosperetti1976]. We consider distinct $c_{1},\ldots,c_{n}\in\mathbb{C}$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
p_{n,j} & =\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}\left(c_{j+i\,\mathrm{mod}(n)}-c_{j}\right)\\
S_{n}(k) & =\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{c_{j}^{k}}{p_{n,j}},\quad k\in\mathbb{N},\end{aligned}$$ then Prosperetti [@Prosperetti1976] showed that $$S_{n}(k)=\begin{cases}
0 & k=0,1,2,\ldots,n-2\\
(-1)^{n-1} & k=n-1\\
(-1)^{n-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}c_{i} & k=n.
\end{cases}$$ Let $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
Z(\epsilon-\zeta;k) & =\sum_{i=1}^{4}\frac{z_{i}^{k}}{\sigma_{i}(z_{i}^{2}-\epsilon+\zeta)},\end{aligned}$$ $c_{i}=z_{i}$ for $1\leqslant i\leqslant4$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
c_5 & =(\epsilon-\zeta)^{1/2},\ \\
c_6 & =-(\epsilon-\zeta)^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ then we have $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
p_{6,5} & =-2(\epsilon-\zeta)^{1/2}P[-(\epsilon-\zeta)^{1/2}],\ \\
p_{6,6} & =2(\epsilon-\zeta)^{1/2}P[(\epsilon-\zeta)^{1/2}]\end{aligned}$$ where $P(z)$ is the polynomial given by $$P(z)=z^{4}+2\epsilon z^{2}+4\epsilon^{3/2}z+1+\epsilon^{2}.$$ Let $p_\pm=P(\pm(\epsilon-\zeta)^{1/2})$, then $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
p_{6,5} & =-2(\epsilon-\zeta)^{1/2}/p_{-},\\
p_{6,6} & =2(\epsilon-\zeta)^{1/2}/p_{+}.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$S_{6}(k)=Z(\epsilon-\zeta;k)+\frac{c_{5}^{k}}{p_{6,5}}+\frac{c_{6}^{k}}{p_{6,6}}=0,$$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
Z(\epsilon-\zeta;1) & =-\left(\frac{c_{5}}{p_{6,5}}+\frac{c_{6}}{p_{6,6}}\right)\nonumber \\
& =\frac{p_{-}+p_{+}}{2},\label{eq:Z1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
Z(\epsilon-\zeta;2) & =-\left(\frac{c_{5}^{2}}{p_{6,5}}+\frac{c_{6}^{2}}{p_{6,6}}\right)\nonumber \\
& =(\epsilon-\zeta)^{1/2}\left(\frac{p_{-}-p_{+}}{2}\right).\label{eq:Z2}\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: Corresponding Author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
We present improved bounds on the $CP$-violating phase $\beta_s^{{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi}$ and on the decay-width difference $\Delta\Gamma$ of the neutral $B_s^0$ meson system obtained by the CDF experiment at the Tevatron collider . We use 6500 $B_s^0 \rightarrow J/\psi
\phi$ decays collected by the dimuon trigger and reconstructed in a sample corresponding to integrated luminosity of 5.2 fb$^{-1}$. Besides exploiting a two-fold increase in statistics with respect to the previous measurement, several improvements have been introduced in the analysis including a fully data-driven flavour-tagging calibration and proper treatment of possible S-wave contributions.
6th International Workshop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle\
University of Warwick, United Kingdom, September 6-10, 2010
Introduction
============
Since the discovery of $CP$ in 1964 in neutral kaon system [@Christenson:1964fg], $CP$ violation plays crucial role in the development of standard model (SM) and probing a new physics (NP). In 1973 Kobayashi and Maskawa proposed, as one of the possible explanations for $CP$ violation in kaon system, extension to six quarks model [@Kobayashi:1973fv] in which the $CP$ violation is explained through the quark mixing parametrised by the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. A single complex phase in the CKM matrix is responsible for all $CP$ violation in the SM. The observation of large $CP$ violation in $B^0$ mesons by and Belle experiments [@BelleBabar] confirmed the SM and paved way to Nobel Prize award to Kobayashi and Maskawa in 2008.
After confirmation of the SM focus shifted to search for a NP. One of the most promising processes is $B_s$ mixing governed by the CKM matrix element $V_{ts}$. The indirect information defines $V_{ts}$ to be almost real, which translates to the fact that the $CP$ violation due to the $B_s$ mixing is expected to be tiny in the SM. First measurements performed by the CDF and DØ experiments [@CDFD0] showed about 1.5-2.0 $\sigma$ discrepancy with the SM, which caused large excitement in the community. In this proceedings we review most important aspects and results of the updated CDF analysis, using dataset corresponding to integrated luminosity of $5.2$ $\mathrm{fb^{-1}}$ [@cdf:betas].
Candidate selection
===================
To select candidates we use an artificial neural network (ANN) trained on a signal sample from simulation and data events from a $B_s$ mass sidebands as background. Inputs to the ANN are transverse momenta of $B_s$ and $\phi$ mesons, particle identification for kaons and muons and quality of the kinematical fits to the candidates. For the result presented here we choose requirement on the ANN output which minimises uncertainties on the $CP$ violating phase $\beta_s^{{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi}$. The best point is found by performing simulated experiments with three different true values of $\beta_s^{{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi}$ (0.02, 0.3 and 0.5) and single value for $\Delta\Gamma$ and amplitudes with amount of signal and background corresponding to different requirements on the ANN output and selecting the value which provides smallest parabolic uncertainty on the $\beta_s^{{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi}$.
![An example of the dependence of parabolic uncertainty of $\beta_s^{{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi}$ on ANN output requirement (left). The invariant mass distribution of the selected candidates used in the analysis (right).[]{data-label="fig:selection"}](figs/sensitivity_betas_0 "fig:"){width="5.5cm"} ![An example of the dependence of parabolic uncertainty of $\beta_s^{{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi}$ on ANN output requirement (left). The invariant mass distribution of the selected candidates used in the analysis (right).[]{data-label="fig:selection"}](figs/Bs_mass "fig:"){width="7cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:selection\] we show an example of such simulation for true $\beta_s^{{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi}$ value at the SM expectation. As result we select candidates with the ANN output larger than 0.2, which is less stringent requirement than one used in previously. The resulting invariant mass distribution contains about 6500 signal events and is shown in Fig. \[fig:selection\].
Flavour tagging
===============
The flavour tagging is one of the important tools in the analysis. Its task is to determine whether reconstructed candidate was produced as $B_s$ or $\overline{B}_s$. Two algorithms are used at hadron colliders. The first one, called opposite side tagging, explores the fact that $b$-quarks are dominantly produced in $b\overline{b}$ pairs, so determination of the flavour of other $b$-hadron determines also the flavour of signal one. The second algorithm, called same side tagging, explores properties of hadrons produced in hadronization of $b$ quark into $B_s$ mesons.
The opposite side algorithm explores several sources of information from the non-signal $b$-hadron in an event. The most clean explores the fact that about 10% of $b$-hadrons decay to a final state containing lepton. At CDF we use electrons and muons and given that most of them arise from the $b$-hadron decays in events with reconstructed $B_s$, they provide clean information, but at expanse of small efficiency. The second source uses fact the most abundant $b\rightarrow c\rightarrow s$ quark level transition yielding a final state which often contains charged kaon, which determines the flavour of the $b$-hadron. The most efficient source identifies jet containing $b$ quark and calculates weighted charge of the tracks in jet to determine, whether original quark had positive or negative charge and thus determine flavour. While this algorithm is efficient, its purity is rather small. We combine all three sources into single decision using neural network. The quality of decision is predicted for each event and checked on the fully reconstructed $B^+$ events. The overall performance of the algorithm is about 1.2%, which can be understood as having 1.2% of the overall statistics with perfectly known production flavour.
The same side algorithm exploits fragmentation process. To form a $B_s$ out of $\overline{b}$ quark we need to attach $s$ quark to it. The $s$ quark comes from a pair generated out of the vacuum and after forming $B_s$ an $\overline{s}$ quark remains to form other hadron. If it ends up in the charged kaon it can be used to determine the production flavour.
![The invariant mass distribution of $B_s\rightarrow
D_s\pi$ with $D_s\rightarrow \phi\pi$ (left) and the amplitude scan in the full dataset (right).[]{data-label="fig:SSKT"}](figs//BsDsPiPhiPiKK_nMass "fig:"){width="5.2cm"} ![The invariant mass distribution of $B_s\rightarrow
D_s\pi$ with $D_s\rightarrow \phi\pi$ (left) and the amplitude scan in the full dataset (right).[]{data-label="fig:SSKT"}](figs/All_AMP_SSKT "fig:"){width="5.8cm"}
The challenge is to identify right kaon in an event with many tracks. Another challenging part is to calibrate quality of the decisions on a data as only process available is $B_s$ mixing. Despite all challenges, CDF uses this algorithm with good success. In calibration we use data spanning same period as our dimuon dataset. For calibration we reconstruct about 12900 $B_s\rightarrow D_s(3)\pi$ signal events. The predicted quality of decision for each event is scaled by a global scaling factor which is determined in the fit for $B_s$ oscillations. We show the invariant mass distribution of channel contributing about half of the statistics together with the amplitude scan on full sample in Fig. \[fig:SSKT\]. The resulting tagging performance is about 3.2%. The obtained $B_s$ mixing frequency is $\Delta
m_s=17.79\pm0.07$ ps$^{-1}$ with uncertainty being statistical only. Full details of this calibration can be found in Ref. [@cdf:betas].
Fit description
===============
On the limited space available we cannot describe all details of the fit, so we will touch only main features with some emphasis on changes compared to the previous versions of the analysis. The full details are spelled out in Ref. [@Azfar:2010nz]. As spin zero $B_s$ decays into two spin one particles ([$J\!/\!\psi$]{}and $\phi$) three different amplitudes corresponding to different angular momentum are involved. In CDF we use a basis in which three amplitudes are written in terms of polarisation amplitudes. The three amplitudes give six angular terms, three terms corresponding to the squares of amplitudes and three corresponding to the interference between amplitudes. Each of the six terms has its own angular and decay time dependence. Some of the terms exhibit usual $\sin(\Delta m_s t)$ behaviour and some are proportional to $\cos(\Delta m_s t)$. Thanks to the non-zero decay width difference ($\Delta\Gamma$) in the $B_s$ system, depending on the size of the $\Delta\Gamma$ and polarisation amplitudes one can gain considerable information on the $CP$ violating phase also without resolving the oscillation pattern.
Since the first analysis there is an ongoing discussion whether there can be contribution from non-resonant ${\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}K^+K^-$ or ${\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}f_0(980)$ with $f_0(980)\rightarrow K^+K^-$ decays, collectively named s-wave. Those were neglected in previously and there is an open question about the size of possible contribution and whether it can bias result. In the presented result we introduce an s-wave component which is allowed to float during the analysis. This additional component introduces four new terms, one corresponding to the square of the s-wave amplitude and three for the interference between s-wave contribution and decay to ${\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi$.
Results
=======
![The contours in $\beta_s^{{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi}$-$\Delta\Gamma$ plane after full coverage adjustment (left). The likelihood profile for the fraction of s-wave contribution (right).[]{data-label="fig:result"}](figs/tag_contour_systadjust "fig:"){width="5cm"} ![The contours in $\beta_s^{{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi}$-$\Delta\Gamma$ plane after full coverage adjustment (left). The likelihood profile for the fraction of s-wave contribution (right).[]{data-label="fig:result"}](figs/swavefrac-lp "fig:"){width="5cm"}
Similar to the previous iterations, the likelihood in case of all parameters floating still show non-Gaussian behaviour. In order to deal with the likelihood behaviour and ensure well defined statistical meaning of the result we construct confidence regions in the $\beta_s^{{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi}$-$\Delta\Gamma$ plane, which are shown in Fig. \[fig:result\]. For the standard model value of $\beta_s^{{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi}$ and $\Delta\Gamma$ we obtain the p-value of 44% which corresponds to about 0.8 standard deviations. Minimising also over $\Delta\Gamma$ we obtain the p-value for standard model of 31% with $\beta_s^{{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi} \in [0.02,0.52]\cup[1.08,1.55]$ at 68% confidence level and $\beta_s^{{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi} \in
[-\pi/2,-1.44]\cup[-0.13,0.68]\cup[0.89,\pi/2]$ at 95% confidence level. The amount of s-wave is consistent with zero and the likelihood profile over parameter describing its amount is shown in Fig. \[fig:result\].
In addition we also perform a fit in which we fix $\beta_s^{{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi}=0$. Such configuration provides well behaving likelihood allowing to provide point estimates of several interesting quantities even if the result should be interpreted in the context of standard model. From this fit we measure $$\begin{aligned}
c\tau &=& 458.6 \pm 7.6 (\mathrm{stat}) \pm 3.6 (\mathrm{syst})\, \mu \mathrm{m}, \nonumber \\
\Delta\Gamma &=& 0.075 \pm 0.035 (\mathrm{stat}) \pm 0.01 (\mathrm{syst})\, \mathrm{ps}^{-1}, \nonumber\\
|A_{||}|^2 &=& 0.231 \pm 0.014 (\mathrm{stat}) \pm 0.015 (\mathrm{syst}), \nonumber \\
|A_{0}|^2 &=& 0.524 \pm 0.013 (\mathrm{stat}) \pm 0.015 (\mathrm{syst}), \nonumber \\
\phi_\perp &=& 2.95 \pm 0.64 (\mathrm{stat}) \pm 0.07 (\mathrm{syst}). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In all cases, those are the most precise measurements of those quantities up to date. The strong phase $\delta_{||}$ is close to the symmetry point at $\pi$ which makes estimate of its value and uncertainty unreliable and therefore we do not provide result for it.
Conclusions
===========
We presented the updated measurement of the $CP$ violating phase $\beta_s^{{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi}$ in [${\ensuremath{B_s}\xspace}\rightarrow{\ensuremath{J\!/\!\psi}\xspace}\phi$]{}decays from CDF experiment. Using 5.2 [$\mathrm{fb^{-1}}$]{}of data we obtain bounds which are significantly stronger than our previous results. The data itself are consistent with the standard model at 0.8 standard deviation level. The improvement compared to the previous result is better than just simple scaling by the amount of collected data. Few possible improvements are still available in addition to collecting more data. On the data size itself, we expect to double our dataset by the end of 2011 with ongoing discussion for another 3 years extension to Tevatron running.
The author would like to thank the organisers of the CKM workshop and working group conveners for kind invitation and for providing forum for discussions. Also my CDF colleagues actively pursuing this analysis deserve acknowledgement for their hard work needed to push forward this non-trivial but exciting analysis.
[99]{}
J. H. Christenson [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**13**]{} (1964) 138. M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**49**]{} (1973) 652. B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[ Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} (2001) 2515; K. Abe [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{} (2001) 091802. T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{} (2008) 161802; V. M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[ D0 Collaboration \], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101** ]{} (2008) 241801. The CDF Collaboration, CDF Public Notes 10206 and 10108. F. Azfar [*et al.*]{}, \[arXiv:1008.4283 \[hep-ph\]\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K.\
E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- 'S. M. Bradbury'
title: 'Imaging Atmospheric Čerenkov Telescopes: Techniques and Results'
---
Introduction
============
$\gamma$-ray astronomy has traditionally been thought of as an extension of X-ray satellite experiments into the $\gamma$-ray regime. An all-sky survey by the most recent satellite experiment, EGRET (1991 - 2000), increased the catalogue of discrete astronomical sources of 20MeV - 20GeV $\gamma$-rays from 4 to 271. As a result, the question of what happens at energies beyond 20GeV has gained momentum. Since the $\gamma$-ray count rate from these sources is a steeply falling function of photon energy, a sensitive area four orders of magnitude greater than EGRET’s is needed for reasonable counting statistics in the Very High Energy (200GeV - 50TeV) $\gamma$-ray regime. To attain this we must make the absorbing atmosphere work for us as our calorimeter.
In the early 1960s, it was suggested that cosmic photons at energies of $\sim$1TeV from point sources could be detected via Čerenkov radiation, produced by the e$^-$ e$^+$ particle airshowers which they initiated in the atmosphere. The main drawback of this method for the study of $\gamma$-rays was the huge background of airshowers produced by charged cosmic rays. It was essential to be able to discriminate between the two classes of primary particles. Success came in 1989 with the introduction of the Čerenkov imaging technique, by which the Crab Nebula, the remnant of the supernova of AD1054, was firmly established as a source of TeV $\gamma$-rays.[@weekes89] Current atmospheric Čerenkov detectors operate either by imaging, as described here, or by wavefront sampling.[@ong98]
Almost a century after their discovery, the origin of hadronic cosmic rays remains a mystery. Their arrival directions at Earth provide no clue as to their source since their paths are contorted by galactic magnetic fields; they form an apparently isotropic background for Čerenkov telescopes. The hadronic cosmic ray distribution throughout the galaxy should be traceable through their interactions with matter and subsequent $\gamma$-ray emission, for example via $\pi^\circ$ decay. The remnants of supernova explosions are generally believed to supply the cosmic ray particles of energies up to $Z \times 10^{14}$eV in our galaxy, since little else could provide sufficient energy. Such objects are therefore prime targets for VHE $\gamma$-ray astronomers seeking the cosmic ray accelerators.
Less than 1% of the VHE $\gamma$-ray sky has been mapped by the most sensitive means and there are about a dozen recognised VHE $\gamma$-ray sources. Some are active galaxies, which emit dramatic flares during which the count rate of VHE $\gamma$-rays doubles on a timescale of hours. [@gaidos] [@quinn99] The $\gamma$-ray luminosity and flare timescale, together with near simultaneous X-ray and optical emission episodes, allow us to estimate the magnetic field strength and Doppler factor at the source, indicating emission from highly relativistic plasma jets.
The Imaging Atmospheric Čerenkov Technique
==========================================
Typically about 0.01% of the energy of an incoming cosmic $\gamma$-ray is expected to be dissipated as Čerenkov light. This illuminates a disc of radius $\sim$125m on the ground for the $\sim$10ns equivalent to the lifetime of the particle shower. In essence, an atmospheric Čerenkov telescope acts as a “light bucket”, a single mirrored dish which reflects a fraction of the Čerenkov light pool onto a camera in the focal plane.
Telescope Construction
----------------------
The largest single dish now in operation is the 10m diameter telescope at the Whipple Observatory in Arizona, shown in figure \[fig:whipplet\]. This will be surpassed by the 17m diameter MAGIC Telescope in the latter half of 2001. Atmospheric ozone absorbs much of the UV component of the Čerenkov flash so that the light intensity peaks at around 300nm, for which a high reflectivity can be achieved with an anodized aluminium coating on a glass or lightweight aluminium substrate. Current telescopes use cameras of several hundred close-packed photomultiplier tubes to record images of the Čerenkov light flashes. These are digitized and subsequently parameterized in terms of brightness, shape, orientation and angular position. The ability to derive an arrival direction, primary energy and primary particle type ($\gamma$-ray, cosmic ray nucleon or local muon) from these images is dependent upon both the accuracy of our models of high energy particle cascade development, and our knowledge of the variable state of the calorimetric volume of atmosphere above the telescope.
Nature’s Challenges
-------------------
Čerenkov telescopes are pointed instruments viewing a few square degrees of sky. $\gamma$-rays from an astronomical object are expected to produce compact Čerenkov images pointing towards the position of that object in the field of view. Cosmic ray induced airshowers develop sub-showers as a result of the relatively high transverse momentum of hadronic daughter particles and should therefore produce identifiably irregular Čerenkov images. When attempting to lower a telescope’s energy threshold, by reducing the threshold light level for an event to be recorded, individual muons created in hadronic showers which reach the level of the detector (as seen in figure \[fig:showers\]) can mimic $\gamma$-ray events. Whilst the Čerenkov light ring from a muon striking the centre of the mirror is clearly recognisable (in figure \[fig:events\]), a small “muon arc” image will be recorded if the impact point is several metres from the telescope. One way to eradicate this background is to require that a $\gamma$-ray like image has been simultaneously observed by multiple telescopes tracking the same astronomical object. [@daum] A further source of background noise events is quite simply the fluctuating brightness of the night sky. This can instantaneously result in two or three random photomultiplier signals above the fixed discrimination threshold, triggering the recording of a false event. A programmable hardware trigger has been developed for the Whipple Telescope which can identify candidate Čerenkov events with [*adjacent*]{} pixel signals within 65ns. [@bradbury2001]
Dealing with background light is further complicated by bright stars in the field of view. As objects are tracked across the sky the movement of the telescope places a variable strain on cables and connectors. These must also withstand diurnal and seasonal temperature changes, humidity, wind and an occasional loading of snow at high altitudes. Where necessary control connections are made over optical fibre to reduce the likelihood of lightning damage. Prototype, low cost, analogue fibre optic links have been developed to transmit photomultiplier signals to data acquisition electronics on the ground. [@rose] These introduce far less signal dispersion than co-axial cable. Keeping the pulse width narrow allows one to reduce the integration time and hence the amount of night sky background noise included with the Čerenkov signal. [@fibres] The use of FADCs for charge digitization can provide not only a better estimate of instantaneous background light levels, but also some information on the time structure of each pulse, a characteristic of the airshower’s development and hence a potential clue to the primary particle type.
Cosmic Particle Accelerators
============================
Galactic VHE $\gamma$-ray Sources
---------------------------------
The non-thermal radiation from the Crab Nebula supernova remnant is well documented from radio wavelengths through to VHE $\gamma$-rays. It is supposed that the central neutron star spinning at 30Hz is generating a pulsar wind of relativistic electrons. The spectrum, shown in figure \[fig:crab\] is dominated by the interactions of these electrons with the magnetic fields in the gaseous nebula and ambient photon fields. Synchrotron emission can account for the curve from the radio through to satellite $\gamma$-ray observations by COMPTEL and EGRET at up to 1GeV. The corresponding electron energies required are from 10GeV to 100TeV as indicated. The VHE $\gamma$-ray emission is fitted by a second component (dashed curve in figure \[fig:crab\]), due to the inverse Compton scattering of soft photons up to energies above 10TeV by relativistic electrons. [@crab] Effective acceleration of particles to beyond 10$^{14}$eV is implicit. Given the electron spectrum required to generate the VHE $\gamma$-ray flux, a local magnetic field strength of $\sim$16nT was deduced from the observed level of X-ray synchrotron emission presumed to be due to these same electrons. [@hillas98]
There have been three tentative detections of VHE $\gamma$-rays from shell-type supernova remnants which lack a central neutron star dynamo. X-ray observations of one of these objects, SN1006, indicate synchrotron emission from electrons with energies of $\sim$100TeV. The $\gamma$-ray flux can therefore be accounted for without invoking $\gamma$-ray production as a result of collisions between relativistic protons and the interstellar medium (principally atomic hydrogen) e.g. according to $p + ISM \rightarrow \pi^\circ
+ X \rightarrow \gamma + \gamma + X $. There is still no firm evidence for hadronic cosmic ray production at supernova shock fronts.
$\gamma$-ray Sources at Cosmological Distances
----------------------------------------------
There are two well-established sources of VHE $\gamma$-rays outside our own galaxy, objects known as Markarian421 and Markarian501. These are both blazar type active galaxies, at a distance of some 500 million light years, in which gravitational accretion of matter onto a central supermassive black hole is assumed to be powering an outflow of material in relativistic plasma jets. [@agnpic] The rapid variability and high luminosity of the VHE $\gamma$-ray flux from these objects seems to indicate that the $ \gamma$-rays are relativistically beamed. Our line of sight to each must therefore be such that we happen to be looking straight down one of the jets. For the 15 minute timescale VHE $\gamma$-ray variability observed from Markarian421, causality implies an emission region as small as our solar system. [@gaidos]
The multi-wavelength spectra of Markarian421 and Markarian501 conform quite well to the two component synchrotron plus electron inverse Compton scattering mechanism proposed for the Crab Nebula. Correlated episodes of enhanced emission of $\gamma$-ray and optical/UV photons imply that these photons are produced in the same region of the jet. In this case, jet Doppler factors in the range of 2 $< \delta >$ 40 are required to avoid a significant loss of VHE $\gamma$-rays to pair production with the low energy photons. If the VHE $\gamma$-rays in fact result from hadronic cascades produced by high energy protons in the jet, as proposed by Mannheim [@mannheim] and others, then $\delta \approx 10$.
The cosmic infrared background (CIB) traces the history of star formation and galaxy evolution in the early universe. VHE $\gamma$-rays from active galaxies can provide a means of probing the CIB. The $\gamma$-ray signal will be attenuated by pair production: Since the attenuation becomes more significant as the $\gamma$-ray energy increases, we expect to see a distance dependent, high energy cut-off in the VHE spectra of active galaxies. Upper limits on the CIB which are more restrictive than direct measurements in the 0.025 to 0.3eV range have already been obtained. [@irb] To establish whether spectral cut-offs are due to this effect or are in fact intrinsic to these objects more sensitive instruments are required to extend the source catalogue.
Next Generation Telescopes
==========================
Several “next generation” atmospheric Čerenkov observatories are under construction. VERITAS [@weekes] in Arizona, HESS in Namibia and CANGAROO III in Australia will be arrays of 10m diameter class imaging Čerenkov telescopes. By viewing each airshower with several telescopes separated by about 100m, greatly improved angular and energy resolution and an increased collection area will be achieved between 100GeV and 10TeV. As a single 17m diameter dish, the MAGIC Telescope, on the Canary Island La Palma, will have the lowest energy threshold of 30GeV using a standard photomultiplier camera, or 15GeV if equipped with hybrid GaAsP photocathode photodetectors. [@barrio]
Fundamental Physics
-------------------
The greater sensitivity of the planned instruments will improve the chances of new detections of active galaxies, the pulsed signatures of objects such as the Crab pulsar and $\gamma$-ray bursts. Their angular resolution should enable us to identify some of the 170 sources detected with large position errors by the EGRET satellite instrument. In addition, VHE $\gamma$-ray observations may improve our view of some fundamental physics phenomena.
Our current understanding requires the presence of cold dark matter in the universe to explain certain astrophysical data. The neutralino is a favoured dark matter candidate. A concentration of neutralinos towards the centre of our galaxy may produce a detectable monoenergetic annihilation line in the neutralino mass range of 30GeV to 3TeV. [@bergstrom]
$\gamma$-ray observations of distant objects can be searched for the effects of quantum gravity. The velocity of light may exhibit an energy dependence due to quantum fluctuations in a gravitational medium, resulting in a time dispersion within VHE $\gamma$-ray flares. A 15 minute flare from Markarian 421 has already been used to place a limit on this effect, [@biller99] which could be vastly improved by instruments sensitive to minute by minute variability.
Low mass black holes, remnants of inhomogeneities in the early universe, should emit a burst of radiation peaked at around 1TeV in the final stages of their evaporation, according to Halzen et al. [@halzen] In fact, the predicted time profile and energy spectrum depend on whether one follows the standard or bootstrap models for the particle spectrum at high energies.
These are just a few of the topics in particle physics and astrophysics which the next generation of imaging Čerenkov telescopes may address. I would like to thank all involved in this Symposium for their encouragement!
[99]{} F.A. Aharonian and A.M. Atoyan in [*Neutron Stars and Pulsars*]{}, ed. and M. Sato, Tokyo Universal Academy Press (1998).
J.A. Barrio [*et al*]{} .
L. Bergström, P. Ullio and J.H. Buckley, .
S.D. Biller [*et al*]{}, .
S.D. Biller [*et al*]{}, .
I.H. Bond [*et al*]{}, submitted to .
S.M. Bradbury and H.J. Rose, .
J.H. Buckley, .
A. Daum [*et al*]{}, .
J.A. Gaidos [*et al*]{}, .
F. Halzen [*et al*]{}, .
A.M. Hillas [*et al*]{}, .
K. Mannheim .
R.A. Ong, .
J. Quinn [*et al*]{}, .
H.J. Rose [*et al*]{}, .
T.C. Weekes [*et al*]{}, .
T.C. Weekes [*et al*]{}, [*VERITAS*]{}, proposal to SAGENAP (1999) (http://veritas.sao.arizona.edu).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a bi-directional communication system in which nodes are capable of performing - digital precoding/combining and multi-tap analog cancellation, and have individual requirements. We present an iterative algorithm for the TX powers minimization that includes closed-form expressions for the TX/RX digital beamformers at each algorithmic iteration step. Our representative simulation results demonstrate that the proposed algorithm can reduce residual due to FD operation to below $-110$dB, which is the typical noise floor level for wireless communications. In addition, our design outperforms relevant recent solutions proposed for 2-user MIMO systems (the so called MIMO X channel) in terms of both power efficiency and computational complexity.'
author:
- |
$^\ddagger$ Dep. of CS. & EE., Jacobs University Bremen\
Campus Ring 1, 28759, Bremen, Germany\
[[email protected]]{}
-
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- '\\myreferences.bib'
- 'MyListOfPapers.bib'
title: 'Full-Duplex Transmission Optimization for Bi-directional MIMO links with QoS Guarantees\'
---
Full-duplex MIMO, , self-interference cancellation, power minimization, optimization.
Introduction {#sect:intro}
============
Motivated by the exponentially increasing demand for higher information rate under limited wireless resources, and propelled by recent advances in hardware, in-band radio has emerged as a key technology for future wireless applications from mobile communication systems to [@bharadia2013fullduplex; @Kim2015; @Sabharwal2014SAiC].
Practical communication in mode requires dedicated solutions to mitigate the caused by leakage of signals into the chain, due to the close proximity between and antennas [@Zhang2015CM; @Choi2010MobiCom]. Ironing out this fundamental issue of technology is one of the main research topics in this field, motivating various authors to contribute with several cancellation techniques for systems [@bharadia2013fullduplex; @Everett2011Asilomar; @Wang2015WCSP; @Altieri2014SAiC].
Thanks to the added afforded by multiple antennas, bi-directional radio systems with high spectral efficiency can be designed exploiting technology [@vehkapera2013asymptotic; @DaySP2012; @jia2017signaling; @Riihonen2013CISS]. In particular, hybrid suppressing techniques combining analog and digital cancellers have been proposed for radios [@GowdaTWC2018; @MyListOfPapers:KorpiGlobecom2014; @Sim2017CM; @Cirik2013Asilomar] which proved very effective from a theoretical standpoint. From a practical implementation standpoint, however, it has been recently demonstrated in real-world experiments that such approaches are not devoid of its own technical challenges [@Jain2011MobiCom; @korpi2016fullduplex; @bharadia2013fullduplex], one of which is the excessive cost incurred by the use of large numbers of antennas.
One approach to keep the hardware cost of hybrid suppressing techniques for radios under control is to reduce the number of antennas while introducing temporal by means of processing in order to maintain the required to achieve the desired performance [@Alexandropoulos2017]. In [@Alexandropoulos2017], for instance, a joint hybrid - design with limited hardware costs was proposed, in which the sum rate of a system with one radio communicating with two nodes was optimized.
In this paper, we contribute to the area of effective and feasible canceller designs for radios as follows. First, we combine the joint hybrid - approach of [@Alexandropoulos2017] with the analog cancellation technique referred to as *multi-tap analog canceller* previously presented in [@Kolodziej2016TWC]. The result is a new multi-tap *hybrid* (analog and digital) - cancellation scheme, in which the number of hardware components for analog cancellation becomes independent of the number of antennas. Secondly, instead of maximizing the sum rate (which is of less practical interest), we formulate our problem to minimize the TX power while guaranteeing (when possible) prescribed targets defined in terms of maximum . Thirdly and finally, we present a low-complexity solution to the latter problem in which the employs with powers optimized in closed-form via a method, while the maximizes the SINR by computing corresponding closed-form vectors from a , iteratively. Our results show that our algorithm can outperform the similar methods previously proposed for 2-user MIMO systems in terms of both power efficiency and computational complexity.
System Model {#System_Model}
============
Consider the two-way communication system illustrated in Figure \[fig:System\_model\]. This system consists of two node in which each equipped with $M$ and $N$ receive antennas. Both nodes are assumed to and receive simultaneously to/from one another in the same resource unit.
![System model of two-way full duplex MIMO with reduced hardware multi-tap analog cancellation.[]{data-label="fig:System_model"}](System_Model.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
A generic $k$-th node, with $k\in\{1,2\}$, is assumed to employ the digital precoding vector $\bm{v}_{k}\in\mathbb{C}^{M\times 1}$ and the digital vector $\bm{u}_{k}\in\mathbb{C}^{1\times N}$, as well as the multi-tap analog cancellation matrix $\bm{C}_{k}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times M}$ [@Alexandropoulos2017; @Kolodziej2016TWC]. It is capable of performing TX-RX digital and analog cancellation with the aim at suppressing and maximizing rate simultaneously. Finally, in order to model practical limitations, it is assumed that the ted signal at the $k$-th node has a power upper bound, such that ${{\rm Tr}\left({\bm{v}_{k}\bm{v}^{\rm H}_{k}}\right)}= P_{k}\leq P_{\rm max}$.
Referring to Figure \[fig:System\_model\], let $\bm{H}_{k\ell}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times M}$ and $\bm{H}_{kk}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times M}$ be the intended channel matrix between the two nodes and the channel matrix at the $k$-th node, respectively, with $k\neq\ell\in\{1,2\}$. It is also assumed throughout this paper that each node has full knowledge of the of both the communication links and their own link. Extension to imperfect knowledge is left for future work. From all the above, the received signal at the $k$-th node after applying analog cancellation can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:received_k}
\bm{y}_{k} &=& \bm{H}_{\ell k}\bm{v}_{\ell}s_{\ell} + \left(\bm{H}_{kk} - \bm{C}_{k}\right)\bm{v}_{k}s_{k} + \bm{n}_{k}\\
&=& \underbrace{\bm{H}_{\ell k}\bm{v}_{\ell}s_{\ell}}_{\rm Intended} + \underbrace{\tilde{\bm{H}}_{kk}\bm{v}_{k}s_{k}}_{\rm SI} + \underbrace{\bm{n}_{k}}_{\rm Noise}\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ where the multi-tap analog cancellation matrix $\bm{C}_{k}$ consists of $N_{\rm tap}$ non-zero components and $MN - N_{\rm tap}$ zeros, $\bm{n}_{k}\sim \mathcal{CN}\left(0,\sigma^2\bm{I}_{N}\right)$ denotes the complex vector under the assumption that $\bm{n}_{k}$ is independent from the ted signal $s_{\ell}$, and $\tilde{\bm{H}}_{kk}\triangleq\bm{H}_{kk} - \bm{C}_{k}$ is the channel matrix after performing the considered analog cancellation.
After digital down conversion and combining by the vector $\bm{u}_{k}$, the estimated signal $\tilde{s}_{\ell}$ corresponding to the intended signal $s_{\ell}$ at the $k$-th node can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:estimated_k}
\tilde{s}_{\ell} &=& \bm{u}_{k}\bm{y}_{k}\\
&=&\bm{u}_{k}\bm{H}_{\ell k}\bm{v}_{\ell}s_{\ell} + \bm{u}_{k}\tilde{\bm{H}}_{kk}\bm{v}_{k}s_{k} + \bm{u}_{k}\bm{n}_{k}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, the received signal and symbol estimate at node $\ell\neq k$ after analog cancellation and are given, respectively, by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:received_l}
\bm{y}_{\ell} &=& \bm{H}_{k\ell}\bm{v}_{k}s_{k} + \tilde{\bm{H}}_{\ell\ell}\bm{v}_{\ell}s_{\ell} + \bm{n}_{\ell},\\
\label{eq:estimated_l}
\tilde{s}_{k} &=& \bm{u}_{\ell}\bm{y}_{\ell}\nonumber\\
&=&\bm{u}_{\ell}\bm{H}_{k\ell}\bm{v}_{k}s_{k} + \bm{u}_{\ell}\tilde{\bm{H}}_{\ell\ell}\bm{v}_{\ell}s_{\ell} + \bm{u}_{\ell}\bm{n}_{\ell},\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{n}_{\ell}\sim \mathcal{CN}\left(0,\sigma^2\bm{I}_{N}\right)$ is the AWGN vector that is assumed independent from the ted symbol $s_{k}$.
Assuming that unit power information signals $s_{k}$ and $s_{\ell}$ are used, the average SINR estimates at the two nodes in Figure \[fig:System\_model\] can be, respectively, written as $$\label{eq:SINR}
\gamma_{k} = \frac{{\big|{\bm{u}_{k}\bm{H}_{\ell k}\bm{v}_{\ell}}\big|}^2}{{\big|{\bm{u}_{k}\tilde{\bm{H}}_{kk}\bm{v}_{k}}\big|}^2 + \sigma^2} \quad \text{and}\quad
\gamma_{\ell} = \frac{{\big|{\bm{u}_{\ell}\bm{H}_{k\ell}\bm{v}_{k}}\big|}^2}{{\big|{\bm{u}_{\ell}\tilde{\bm{H}}_{\ell\ell}\bm{v}_{\ell}}\big|}^2 + \sigma^2},$$ where we assume that the channel matrices in equation are constant for a number of signal transmissions and the combining vector $\bm{u}_{k},\forall k$ has a unit norm, i.e., ${||{\bm{u}_{k}}||}^2=1$.
QoS-Guaranteed Transmissions {#sect:OptimalTS}
============================
Signal processing techniques for the joint TX-RX linear precoding/combining and adaptive power allocation with the aim of maximizing data rate while suppressing the residual power level have been proposed in the past [@Zheng2015TSP; @IimoriSPAWC2018] demonstrating the feasibility of two-way systems.
Maximizing data rate is, however, not typically required by actual users, which instead tend to perceive the quality of a communication system by comparing it to a given level of expectation dictated by the intended application. We therefore consider instead the TX-RX beamformer optimization problem aiming at minimizing the individual powers while satisfying individual target SINR requirements:
\[MMES\_OP\_Problem\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{OP1}
\min_{\bm{v}_{k},\bm{v}_{\ell}}&& \sum^{2}_{k=1}{||{\bm{v}_{k}}||}^2\\
\label{ConstraintP}
{\rm s.t.}&& \gamma_{k} \geq \Gamma_{k}\:\: \forall k,\end{aligned}$$
where $\Gamma_{k}$ is the target SINR for the $k$-th node.
Power Minimization with SINR Constraints {#sect:minpower}
-----------------------------------------
Let us define the normalized precoding vector $\bar{\bm{v}}_{k}\triangleq\frac{\bm{v}_{k}}{{||{\bm{v}_{k}}||}}$ and the power $P_{k}={||{\bm{v}_{k}}||}^2$ such that the optimization problem in can be rewritten as
\[OP2\] $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{P_{1},P_{2}}&& \sum^{2}_{k=1}P_{k}\\
\label{ConstraintP}
{\rm s.t.}&& \gamma_{k} \geq \Gamma_{k} \:\: \forall k.\end{aligned}$$
The optimization problem described by equation is well-known to be non convex due to the SINR constraints [@Malla2015CSIT], although approximate solutions can be obtained for it with basis on convex optimization algorithms, such as interior point methods if the constraint can be convexified [@Boyd2004]. In addition to the losses due to convex relaxation, such solutions tend also to be computationally demanding. Therefore, we propose instead a low complexity alternating minimization method based on closed-form expressions of the optimal powers $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$.
In order to obtain the desired closed-form expressions for $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$, notice that from equation and we readily obtain
\[eqn:ineqPopt\] $$\begin{aligned}
&P_{2}{\big|{\bm{u}_{1}\bm{H}_{21}\bar{\bm{v}}_{2}}\big|}^2 \geq \Gamma_{1}\Big({P_{1}{\big|{\bm{u}_{1}\tilde{\bm{H}}_{11}\bar{\bm{v}}_{1}}\big|}^2 + \sigma^2}\Big),\\
&P_{1}{\big|{\bm{u}_{2}\bm{H}_{12}\bar{\bm{v}}_{1}}\big|}^2 \geq \Gamma_{2}\left({P_{2}{\big|{\bm{u}_{2}\tilde{\bm{H}}_{22}\bar{\bm{v}}_{2}}\big|}^2 + \sigma^2}\right).\end{aligned}$$
The latter inequalities can be re-expressed in matrix form as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ineqPoptMat}
\left({\bf{I}}- \bm{\Gamma}\bm{M}\right)\bm{p}\geq\sigma^2 \bm{\Gamma} \bm{m},\end{aligned}$$ where we define the power vector $\bm{p} \triangleq \left[P_{1},P_{2}\right]^{\rm T}$ and the auxiliary matrices $\bm{\Gamma}$, $\bm{M}$ and $\bm{m}$ respectively by
$$\begin{aligned}
\bm{\Gamma} &=&
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & \Gamma_{2} \\
\Gamma_{1} & 0
\end{bmatrix},\\
\bm{M} &=&
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{|\bm{u}_{1}\tilde{\bm{H}}_{11}\bar{\bm{v}}_{1}|^2}{|\bm{u}_{1}\bm{H}_{21}\bar{\bm{v}}_{2}|^2} & 0\\
0 & \frac{|\bm{u}_{2}\tilde{\bm{H}}_{22}\bar{\bm{v}}_{2}|^2}{|\bm{u}_{2}\bm{H}_{12}\bar{\bm{v}}_{1}|^2}
\end{bmatrix},\\
\bm{m} &=&
\begin{bmatrix}
{\big|{\bm{u}_{1}\bm{H}_{21}\bar{\bm{v}}_{2}}\big|}^{-2} &
{\big|{\bm{u}_{2}\bm{H}_{12}\bar{\bm{v}}_{1}}\big|}^{-2}
\end{bmatrix}^\text{T}.\end{aligned}$$
Taking advantage of the theorem [@S-U-Pillai2005SPM] and the fact that $\bm{\Gamma}\bm{M}$ is a non negative matrix, the optimal power vector can be computed in closed form as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:popt}
\bm{p}^{*}=\sigma^2\left({\bf{I}}- \bm{\Gamma}\bm{M}\right)^{-1} \bm{\Gamma} \bm{m}.\end{aligned}$$
Optimal Design for SINR Maximization {#sect:beamdesign}
------------------------------------
With possession of a closed-form optimal solution to the power vector $\bm{p}$ as per equation , as well as a given analog cancellation matrix $\bm{C}_{k}$ obtained for example as discussed in [@Alexandropoulos2017; @IimoriSPAWC2018], we seek optimal designs for $\bm{v}_{k}$ and $\bm{u}_{k}\: \forall k$, such that the average SINR at each node is maximized, while minimizing the effect of the . Taking into account the fact that the role of TX-RX beamformers is to minimize the effect of while maximizing the downlink rate, we consider the TX beamformer with perfect known at the nodes, such that the instantaneous at each node is maximized under the assumption that the power level can be significantly reduced after processing by the proposed optimal combiner.
### Design of Combiner $\bm{u}_{k}\forall k$
\
The role of the combining vector $\bm{u}_{k}$ at the $k$-th node is to maximize the power of the signal from the $\ell$-th node, while supressing the interference-plus-noise signal. In other words, the vector $\bm{u}_{k}$ must be designed so as to maximize the ratio between the power of the intended signal and that of interference-plus-noise term of equation , which can be mathematically expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gk_OP}
\max_{\bm{u}_{k} \atop {||{\bm{u}_{k}}||}^2=1} \frac{\bm{u}_{k}\overbrace{\bm{H}_{\ell k}\bm{v}_{\ell}\bm{v}^{\rm H}_{\ell}\bm{H}^{\rm H}_{\ell k}}^{\triangleq \bm{Q}_{\bm{u}_{k}}}\bm{u}^{\rm H}_{k}}{\bm{u}_{k}\underbrace{\left(\tilde{\bm{H}}_{k k}\bm{v}_{k}\bm{v}^{\rm H}_{k}\tilde{\bm{H}}^{\rm H}_{k k} + \sigma^2{\bf{I}}\right)}_{^{\triangleq \bm{W}_{\bm{u}_{k}}}}\bm{u}^{\rm H}_{k}},\end{aligned}$$ which holds a generalized structure, such that the optimal solution to $\bm{u}_{k}$ is obtained by [@Prieto2003ICASSP] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ukopt}
\bm{u}^{*}_{k} = {\rm eigv}_{\rm max}\left(\bm{W}^{-1}_{\bm{u}_{k}}\bm{Q}_{\bm{u}_{k}}\right)^{\rm H}.\end{aligned}$$
![Proposed and conventional preceding methods TX power comparison for different target rates.[]{data-label="fig:TransPower"}](TransPowervsTargetRate.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
**Input**:$P_{k},\bm{H}_{kk},\bm{H}_{\ell k}$, $\bm{C}_{k} \forall k$ given by [@Alexandropoulos2017]. Set $P_{k}=P_{\rm max} \forall k\in\{1,2\}$ and make arbitrary unit-norm vectors as initial vectors $\bm{u}_{k} \forall k$. Compute $\bar{\bm{v}}_{k}\forall k$ from equation . Compute $\bm{u}^{*}_{k}\forall k$ from equation . Compute $\bm{p}^{*}$ from equation .
### Design of TX Precoder $\bm{v}_{k}\forall k$
\
Assuming that the strong caused by the leakage of own signals due to the close proximity of and antennas can be sufficiently suppressed by the combining vector $\bm{u}_{k}$, the role of the TX precoder $\bm{v}_{k}$ is only to direct the beams so as to maximize the downlink rate. For this purpose, it suffices to apply a simple TX precoder, namely $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:MRTTX}
\vspace{-1ex}
\bar{\bm{v}}_{k} = \frac{\bm{H}^{\rm H}_{kl}\bm{u}^{\rm H}_{\ell}}{\left|\left|\bm{H}_{kl}\bm{u}_{\ell}\right|\right|}.
\vspace{-1ex}\end{aligned}$$
Taking into account all the steps described in this section, the proposed algorithm for the optimization of powers, as well as and vectors can be compactly described by the pseudo-code offered in Algorithm \[alg:main\].
Simulation results {#SimulationResults}
==================
In this section, we evaluate the proposed iterative algorithm in terms of consumed power for different required SINR constraints via software simulation. The downlink communication channels $\bm{H}_{12}$ and $\bm{H}_{21}$ are assumed to be block Rayleigh fading with $110$dB path loss, while the channels $\bm{H}_{11},\bm{H}_{22}$ are assumed to be block Ricean with path loss of $40$dB and $K$-factor $35$dB [@Alexandropoulos2017; @duarte2012experiment].
Each node is assumed to be equipped with $4$ and receive antennas, i$.$e$.$, $M=N=4$, with a noise floor of $-110$dBm, and the number of analog cancellation taps $N_{\rm tap}$ is set to $8$, which corresponds to $50$% reduction in the number of elements in the analog cancellation matrix $\bm{C}_{k}$ compared to [@bharadia2013fullduplex; @Everett2011Asilomar].
![ power outage probability for different available powers with the fixed target rate $R_{k}=R_{\ell}=8$ \[bps/Hz\].[]{data-label="fig:OutPower"}](SIPowervsTargetRate.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![ power outage probability for different available powers with the fixed target rate $R_{k}=R_{\ell}=8$ \[bps/Hz\].[]{data-label="fig:OutPower"}](OutTransPowervsAvailPower.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
For the modeling practical situations, the multi-tap analog canceller is assumed to be subjected to amplitude imperfection uniformly distributed between $-0.01$dB and $0.01$dB and phase noise uniformly distributed between $-0.065^{\circ}$ and $0.065^{\circ}$ [@Alexandropoulos2017; @Kolodziej2016TWC].
In all figures that follow, we compare the proposed power minimization method in Algorithm \[alg:main\] with $100$ maximum iterations against the conventional TX precoder, in which the proposed power optimization is applied. In addition, by noticing that the considered bi-directional FD MIMO corresponds to a special form of the MIMO X channel, we deploy relevant algorithms [@GeorgeSP2013; @Alexandropoulos2016_CB; @OmidTWC2018] targeting at TX-RX design yielding sum rate maximization. Particularly, our considered system is a MIMO X channel having $\bm{H}_{21}$ and $\bm{H}_{12}$ as the intended channels and $\tilde{\bm{H}}_{11}$ and $\tilde{\bm{H}}_{22}$ as the interference channels, having possibly larger powers than the intended ones.
Methods ZF RQ-RQ Rec Proposed
------------------------ -------- -------- -------- ----------
Average run time \[s\] 0.0025 0.0028 0.1309 0.0022
: Run time comparisons for different methods.
\[Tab:Runtime\]
First, average power comparisons of the proposed algorithm for different target rates $\log_{2}(1+{\Gamma_{k}}) \forall k$ is shown in Figure \[fig:TransPower\], where -, - [@OmidTWC2018] and the Reconfigurable sum rate maximization algorithm [@GeorgeSP2013] are employed as a benchmark. In order to fairly compare those algorithms, we adopt an alternating recalculation between - for each algorithms until convergence or maximum number of iterations reached. It is shown in Figure \[fig:TransPower\] that the proposed method can decrease the power by about $-4.5$dB compared to the conventional -, - methods and about $-0.8$dB compared against the Reconfigurable method.
Secondly, Figure \[fig:ResidualSI\] outlines that the interference cancellation performance in terms of residual power levels after processing by the are compared for the different - schemes. From Figure \[fig:TransPower\] and \[fig:ResidualSI\], one can notice that although the method can perfectly suppress the effect of at the baseband, the proposed method can outperform the other schemes due to the fact that not only the residual level of the proposed method is suppressed below the noise floor level but also it aims at maximizing the data rate performance. In other words, the other methods devote too much available s to suppressing power level at the baseband.
Thirdly, the power outage probability of the proposed method for different available powers $P_{\rm max}$ with target data rate fixed at $R_{k}=R_{\ell}=8$ \[bps/Hz\] is compared with the outage performance of the other conventional methods in Figure \[fig:OutPower\], where we define the power outage probability as ${\rm Pr}\left({\rm min}\left(P_{k}, P_{\ell}\right)>P_\mathrm{max}\right)$. Lastly, the average run time comparisons until the convergence for each different algorithms are depicted in TABLE \[Tab:Runtime\], where we take an average from $500$ channel realizations. From Figure \[fig:TransPower\], \[fig:ResidualSI\] and \[fig:OutPower\] and Table \[Tab:Runtime\], it can be observed that the proposed method can has much fast convergence rate compared with the Reconfigurable method and outperform the conventional and methods in terms of the power outage probability performance.
Conclusion {#Conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we considered bi-directional communications systems with limited number of analog canceller taps and designed TX-RX vectors with the goal to minimize power under constraints.
The proposed power minimization design was investigated in terms of system performance and complexity, and the power minimization approach was jointly offered with the proposed beamformers. Simulation results demonstrate the capability of our proposed algorithm to suppress the level to below $-110$dB which is the typical noise floor for wireless communications, while maximizing the downlink rate, and consequently, it minimizes the average power for different target data rate.
Acknowledgement
===============
Parts of this work were supported by JSPS KAKENHI, Grant Number JP17K06448, Denkitsushin Hukyu Foundation, and EU Project HIGHTS with grant number 636537.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We developed a method for measuring the similarity between materials, focusing on specific physical properties. The obtained information can be utilized to understand the underlying mechanisms and to support the prediction of the physical properties of materials. The method consists of three steps: variable evaluation based on non-linear regression, regression-based clustering, and similarity measurement with a committee machine constructed from the clustering results. Three datasets of well-characterized crystalline materials represented by critical atomic predicting variables are used as test beds. Herein, we focus on the formation energy, lattice parameter, and Curie temperature of the examined materials. Based on the information obtained on the similarities between the materials, a hierarchical clustering technique is applied to learn the cluster structures of the materials that facilitate interpreting the mechanism, and an improvement of regression models is introduced for predicting the physical properties of the materials. Our experiments show that rational and meaningful group structures can be obtained and that the prediction accuracy of the materials’ physical properties can be significantly increased, confirming the rationality of the proposed similarity measure.'
author:
- 'Duong-Nguyen Nguyen$^{1}$, Tien-Lam Pham$^{1,2}$, Viet-Cuong Nguyen$^3$, Tuan-Dung Ho$^{1}$, Truyen Tran$^{4}$, Keisuke Takahashi$^{5}$, Hieu-Chi Dam$^{1,5,6, *}$\'
bibliography:
- 'main\_IUCrJ.bib'
title: Committee machine that votes for similarity between materials
---
Introduction \[introduction\]
=============================
Computational materials science encompasses a range of methods that are used to model materials and simulate their responses on different length and time scales [@BGSumpter2015]. The majority of problems addressed by computational materials science are related to methods that focus on two central tasks. The first aims to predict the physical properties of materials, and the second aims to describe and interpret the underlying mechanism [@Liu2017; @Lu2017; @Zachary2017]. In the first task of predicting physical properties, computer-based quantum mechanics techniques [@Jain2016; @KohnSham65; @JonesGunnarsson89; @Jones2015] in the form of well-established first-principles calculations are generally performed with high accuracy and are applicable to any material, but with high computational cost. Recently, the increase in advanced machine learning techniques [@ML; @Tib2009; @TuLe2012] and volume of computational material databases [@Jain2013; @OQMD2013] has provided new opportunities for researchers to automatically construct prediction models (from a huge amount of precomputed data) that predict specific physical properties with the same level of high accuracy, while dramatically reducing the computational costs [@Behler07; @Rupp12; @Pilania2013; @Fernandez2014; @Smith17].
By contrast, the second task, [*i*.*e*. ]{}describing and interpreting the mechanisms underlying the physical properties of materials, relies mostly on the experience, insight, and even luck of the experts involved. In fact, comprehension of multivariate data with nonlinear correlations is typically extremely challenging, even for experts. Thus, the utilization of data mining and machine learning techniques to discover hidden structures and latent semantics in multidimensional data [@Lum2013; @LSA1998; @Blei2012] of materials is promising, but only limited works have been reported so far [@Kusne15; @Srikant2015; @Scheffler117].
To apply well-established machine-learning methods to solve problems in materials science, the primitive representation of materials must usually be converted into vectors, such that the comparison and calculations using the new representation reflect the nature of the materials and the underlying mechanisms of the chemical and physical phenomena. However, real-world applications, especially for solving the second task, often focus on physical properties of which the mechanism is not fully understood [@Krishna2015; @Scheffler2015]. In these cases, it is almost impossible to appropriately represent the materials as vectors of features so that comparisons using well-established mathematical calculations can reflect the similarity/dissimilarity between them. Therefore, a true data-driven approach for solving materials science problems still requires much further fundamental development.
In this study, we focus on establishing a data-driven protocol for solving the second task of computational materials science. Focusing on a specific physical property, we aim to develop a method for measuring the similarity between materials from the viewpoint of the underlying mechanisms that work in these materials. The method for measuring this similarity consists of three steps: (1) variable evaluation based on non-linear regression, (2) regression-based clustering, and (3) similarity measurement with a committee machine [@Tresp2000; @Opitz1999] constructed based on the clustering results. The variable evaluation [@Liu05; @Blum97] aims to identify and remove unneeded, irrelevant, and redundant variables from the data [@Rakkrit09; @Almuallim91; @Biesiada07]. We carried out this analysis in an exhaustive manner by testing all combinations of predicting variables to find the variables with the potential to yield good prediction accuracy $(PA)$ for the target variable. The regression-based clustering method is developed from the well-known K-means clustering method [@LLOYD82; @macqueen1967; @Kanungo02] with major modifications for breaking down a large dataset into a set of separated smaller datasets, in each of which the target variables can be predicted by a different linear model. Regression-based clustering models are then constructed for all the selected potential combinations of predicting variables, so as to construct a committee machine that votes for the similarity between the materials.
Three datasets of well-characterized crystalline materials represented by appropriate predicting variables, together with their physical properties as determined through first-principles calculations or measured experimentally, are used as test beds. Our experiments show that the proposed similarity measure can derive rational and meaningful material groupings and can significantly improve the $PA$ of the physical properties of the examined materials.
Methods {#AlgorithmOuline}
=======
We consider a dataset $\mathcal{D}$ of $p$ materials. Assume that a material with index $i$ is described by an $m$-dimensional predicting variable vector ${\bm{x}}_{i} = {\left( {x_i^1}, {x_i^2}, \dots , {x_i^m} \right)} \in {\mathbb{R}}^m$. The dataset $\mathcal{D}$ is then represented using a $(p \times m)$ matrix. The target physical property values of the materials are stored as a $p$-dimensional target vector $ \bm{y} = \left( y_1, y_2 \dots y_p \right) \in \mathbb{R}^p$. The entire data analysis flow is shown in Figure \[FlowChart\].
Kernel regression-based variable evaluation {#NLFS}
-------------------------------------------
To develop a better understanding of the processes that generated the data, we first utilize an exhaustive search to evaluate all variable combinations [@Kohavi1997; @Liu05; @Blum97] to identify and remove unneeded, irrelevant, and redundant variables [@Rakkrit09; @Almuallim91; @Biesiada07]. We begin by learning non-linear functions for predicting the values of a specific physical property (target quantity) of the materials. We apply the Gaussian kernel ridge regression (GKR) technique [@ML], which has recently been applied successfully to several challenges in materials science [@Rupp_tutorial; @Botu; @Pilania]. For GKR, the predicted property $y=f(\bm{x})$ at a point $\bm{x}$ is expressed as the weighted sum of Gaussians:
$$f(\bm{x}) = \sum_{i=1}^{p} c_{i} \exp \left( \frac{ {-{||{\bm{x}}_{i} - \bm{x}||}_{2}^{2}} }{2 \sigma^{2}} \right)$$
where $p$ is the number of training data points, $\sigma^2$ is a parameter corresponding to the variance of the Gaussian kernel function, and ${{||{\bm{x}}_i - \bm{x}||}_2^2} = \sum_{\alpha = 0}^{m} {\left( x_i^{\alpha} - x^{\alpha} \right)}^2 $ is the squared $L^2$ norm of the difference between the two $m$-dimensional vectors $\bm{x}_i$ and $\bm{x}$. The coefficients $c_i$ are determined by minimizing
$$\sum_{i=1}^{p} {\left[ f(\bm{x_{i}}) - y_{i} \right] }^{2} +\lambda \sum_{i=1}^{p} {||c_{i}||}_{2}^{2}$$
where $y_{i}$ is the observed data value for data instance $i$. The regularization parameters $\lambda$ and $\sigma$ are selected with the help of cross-validation, [*i*.*e*. ]{}by excluding some of the materials as a validation set during the training process and measuring the coefficient of determination $R^2$, which is defined [@Kvalseth85] as follows:
$$R^2 = 1 - \frac {\sum_{j=1}^{p_{vld}} {\left[ f(\bm{x}_j) - y_j \right]}^2} {\sum_{j=1}^{p_{vld}} {\left[ \bar{y} - y_{j} \right]}^2}$$
Here, $p_{vld}$ is the number of data points and $\bar{y}$ is the average of the validation set used to compare the values predicted for the excluded materials with the known observed values. In this study, we use $R^2$ as a measure of $PA$.
To accurately estimate $PA$, we cross-validate the GKR [@Stone74; @Picard84; @Kohavi95astudy] using the collected data repeatedly. To obtain a set of proper variable combinations that can accurately predict the target variable, we train the GKR models for all possible combinations of numerical predicting variables. It should be noted that, since we do not know yet the effect of each predicting variable on the target quantity, all the numerical predicting variables are normalized in the same manner in this analysis. With each combination, we search for the regularization parameters to maximize $PA$ of the corresponding GKR model. Note that each of the selected combinations contributes a perspective on the correlation between the target and the predicting variables. Thus, an ensemble averaging [@Tresp2000; @Dietterich2000; @Zhang2012] technique can be applied to combine all the pre-screened regression models to improve the $PA$. Further, the similarity between materials regarding the mechanism of the chemical and physical phenomena associated with the target quantity can be investigated more comprehensively if we consider all the perspectives. Consequently, we need to construct regression-based clustering models for each obtained potential combination to build the committee machine.
Regression-based clustering {#RBC}
---------------------------
In practice, a single linear model is often severely limited for modeling real data, because the data set can be non-linear or the data itself can be heterogeneous and contain multiple subsets, each of which fits best with a different linear model. However, in traditional data analysis, linear models are often preferred because of their highly advantageous interpretability. Within a linear model, one can intuitively understand how the predicting variables contribute to the target variable. Therefore, several efforts have been devoted to developing subspace segmentation techniques to decompose a high-dimensional dataset into a set of separate small datasets, each of which can be approximated well by different linear subspaces by employing principal component analysis [@Fukunaga1971; @Vidal2005; @Einbeck2008].
In this study, our primary interest is the local linearity between the predicting variables and the target variable, which may reflect the nature of the underlying physics around the point of observation. Therefore, we employ a simple strategy, in which the subspace segmentation is an integration of a conventional clustering method and linear regression analysis. It should be noted that the subspaces may have fewer dimensions than the whole space. Hence, we apply the sparse linear regression analysis using $L1$ regularization [@Tibshirani1996] instead of the original one.
Our proposed regression-based clustering method is based on the well-known K-means clustering method with two modifications. (1) The sparse linear regression model derived from data associated with materials in a particular cluster (group) is considered to be its common characteristic (center). The dissimilarities in the characteristics of each material in a group relative to the shared (common) nature of that group (the distance to the center) are measured according to its deviation from the corresponding linear regression model. (2) The sum of the differences of all materials in a group from the corresponding linear regression model of another group is used to measure the dissimilarity in the characteristics of that group with regard to the other group. The sum of the dissimilarities between one group and another and that determined in the reverse direction are used to assess the divergence between the two groups.
After performing the variable evaluation, we assume we have selected combinations of predicting variables that yield non-linear regression models of high $PA$. With one of the selected combinations, $m'$ numerical variables are selected from the original $m$ numerical variables. A material in the dataset is then described by an $m'$-dimensional predicting variable vector $\bm{x}'_{i} = {( {x_i^1}, {x_i^2}, \dots , {x_i^{m'}} )} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m'}$, and the data are represented using a $(p \times m')$ matrix.
Given the set $\mathcal{D}$ of $p$ data points represented by $m'$-dimensional numerical vectors, a natural number $k \leq p$ represents the number of clusters for a given experiment. We assume that there are $k$ linear regression models and that each data point in $\mathcal{D}$ follows one of them. The aim is to determine those $k$ linear regression models, accordingly, to divide $\mathcal{D}$ into $k$ non-empty disjoint clusters. Our algorithm searches for a partition of $\mathcal{D}$ into $k$ non-empty disjoint clusters $({\mathcal{D}}_{1}, { \mathcal{D}}_{2}, \dots , {\mathcal{D}}_{k})$ that minimize the overall sum of the residuals between the observed and predicted values (using the corresponding models) of the target variable. The problem can be formulated in terms of an optimization problem as follows.
For a given experiment with cluster number $k$, minimize $$\label{equation1}
P(W, M) = \sum_{i=1}^{k} \sum_{j=1}^{p} w_{ij} \parallel y_{j} - y_{j}^{M_{i}}\parallel$$ subject to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equation2}
& \forall j: \sum_{i=1}^{k} w_{ij} = 1, w_{ij} \in \{0, 1\} \\
&1 \leq k \leq p, 1 \leq i \leq k, 1 \leq j \leq p\end{aligned}$$ where $y_{j}$ and $y_{j}^{M_{i}}$ are the observed value and the value predicted by model $M_{i}$ (of $k$ models) for the target property of the material with index $j$; $W = {\left[ w_{ij} \right]}_{p \times k}$ is a partition matrix ($ w_{ij}$ takes a value of 1 if object $x_{j}$ belongs to cluster $\mathcal{D}_{i}$ and $0$ otherwise), and $M = \left( M_{1}, M_{2}, \dots , M_{k} \right)$ is the set of regression models corresponding to clusters $({\mathcal{D}}_{1}, { \mathcal{D}}_{2}, \dots , {\mathcal{D}}_{k})$.
$P$ can be optimized by iteratively solving two smaller problems:
- fix $M = \hat{M}$ and solve the reduced problem $P(W, M)$ to find $\hat{W}$ (re-assign data points to the cluster of the closest center);
- fix $W = \hat{W}$ and solve the reduced problem $P(W, M)$ to find $\hat{M}$ (reconstruct the linear model for each cluster).
Our regression-based clustering algorithm comprises three steps and iterates until $P(W, M)$ converges to some local minimum values:
1. The dataset is appropriately partitioned into $k$ subsets, $1\leq k \leq p$. Multiple linear regression analyses are independently performed with the $L1$ regularization method [@Tibshirani1996] on each subset to learn the set of potential candidates for the sparse linear regression models $M^{(0)} = \left\{ M_{1}^{(0)}, M_{2}^{(0)}, \dots , M_{k}^{(0)} \right\}$. This represents the initial step $t = 0$;
2. $M^{(t)}$ is retained and problem $P(W, M^{(t)})$ is solved to obtain $W^{(t)}$, by assigning data points in $\mathcal{D}$ to clusters based upon models ${M_{1}^{(t)}, M_{2}^{(t)}, \dots , M_{k}^{(t)}}$;
3. $W^{(t)}$ is fixed and $M^{(t)}$ is generated such that $P(W, M^{(t+1)})$ is minimized. That is, new regression models are learned according to the current partition in step 2. If the convergence condition or a given termination condition is fulfilled, the result is output, and the iterations are stopped. Otherwise, $t$ is set to $t+1$ and the algorithm returns to step 2.
The group number $k$ is chosen considering two criteria: high linearity between the predicting and target variables for all members of the group, and no model representing two different groups. The first criterion has higher priority and can be quantitatively evaluated by using the Pearson correlation scores between the predicted and observed values for the target variable of the data instances in each group, by applying the corresponding linear model. The second criterion is implemented to avoid the case in which one group with high linearity is further divided into two subgroups that can be represented by the same linear model. The determination of $k$, therefore, can be formulated in terms of an optimization problem, as follows:
$$k = \operatorname*{arg\min}_{k \leq p} \left[\log\frac{1-\min_{1 \leq i \leq k} R^2_{i,i} }{\min_{1 \leq i \leq k} R^2_{i,i}}+ \max_{1 \leq i\neq j\leq k } R^2_{i,j} \right]
\label{clustering_criteria}$$
where $R^2_{i,i}$ and $R^2_{i,j}$ are the Pearson correlation scores between the predicted and observed values for the target variable when we apply the linear model $M_i$ to data instances in clusters $i$ and $j$, respectively.
The first term in this optimization function monotonically decreases with respect to the range of $\min_{1 \leq i \leq k} R^2_{i,i}$ varying from 0 to 1. When $\min_{1 \leq i \leq k} R^2_{i,i}$ approaches 1 (the entire cluster exhibits almost perfect linearity between the target and predicting variables), the optimization function drops on a $\log$ scale to emphasize the expected region. In contrast, the optimization function exponentially increases when $\min_{1 \leq i \leq k} R^2_{i,i}$ approaches 0 (one of the clusters shows no linearity between the target and predicting variables). The second term in this optimization function is introduced to avoid overestimation of $k$, in which a group with high linearity further divides into two subgroups that can be represented by the same linear model. It should be noted that the criterion for determining $k$ is also the criterion for evaluating a regression-based clustering model. Further, cluster labels can be assigned for a material without knowing the value of the target physical property, by using the estimated value obtained from a prediction model, [*e*.*g*. ]{}a non-linear regression model.
Similarity measure with committee machine {#SimilarityMap}
-----------------------------------------
A clustering model, obtained through regression-based clustering for a particular combination of predicting variables, represents a specific partitioning of the dataset into groups in which the linear correlations between the predicting and target variables can be observed. The materials belonging to the same group potentially have the same actuating mechanisms for the target physical property. However, materials that actually have the same actuating mechanisms for a specific physical property should be observed similarly in many circumstances. Therefore, the similarity between materials, focusing on a specific physical property, should be measured in a multilateral manner. For this purpose, for each pre-screening of the sets of predicting variables that yield non-linear regression models of high $PA$ (section \[NLFS\]), we construct a regression-based clustering model. A committee machine that votes for the similarity between materials is then constructed from all obtained clustering models. The similarity between two materials can be measured naively using the committee algorithm [@Seung1992; @Settles2010], by counting the number of clustering models that partition these two materials into the same cluster. The affinity matrix $A$ of all pairs of materials in the dataset is then constructed as follows:
$$\label{AffinityMatrix}
A_{a,b} = \frac{1}{|S_h|} \sum_{\forall{S} \in S_h} \sum_{i=1}^{k_{S}} w^{S}_{ia} w^{S}_{ib}$$
where $S_h$ is the set of all pre-screened combinations of predicting variables that yield non-linear regression models of high $PA$ and $k_s$ is the cluster number. Further, $W^{S} = {\left[ w^{S}_{ij} \right]}_{p \times k_S}$ is the partition matrix of the clustering models obtained through the regression-based clustering analysis using the combination of predicting variables $S$ ($ w^{S}_{ia}$ takes a value of 1 if material $a$ belongs to cluster $i$ and $0$ otherwise). By using this affinity matrix, one can easily implement a hierarchical clustering technique [@HAC] to obtain a hierarchical structure of groups of materials that have similar correlations between the predicting and target variables.
Results and discussion {#ResultAndDiscussion}
======================
We applied the methods described above to a sequential analysis for automatic extraction of physicochemical information relating to considered materials from three available datasets. For each dataset, a brute force examination of all combinations of numerical predicting variables was conducted using a non-linear regression technique, to identify combinations of predicting variables that yielded regression models of high $PA$ for the later analysis process. For each of the pre-screened combinations, physically meaningful patterns in the form of material groups, as well as the linear relationships between the selected predicting and target variables, could be detected automatically for the materials in each group utilizing the regression-based clustering technique. The committee machine was then constructed from the obtained clustering models. Subsequently, a hierarchical structure of material groups similar to each other could be extracted using the hierarchical clustering technique. We evaluated the obtained results from both qualitative and quantitative perspectives. The qualitative evaluations were based on the rationality and interpretability of the obtained hierarchy with reference to the domain knowledge; the quantitative evaluations were performed based on the $PA$ of the predictive models constructed with reference to the obtained similarity between materials.
Experiment 1: Mining quantum calculated formation energy data of $\textit{Fm}{\bar{3}}\textit{m}$ AB materials {#secABcompound .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this experiment, we collected computational data for 239 binary AB materials from the Materials Project database [@Jain2013]. The A atoms were virtually all metallic forms: alkali, alkaline earth, transition, and post-transition metals, as well as lanthanides. The B elements, by contrast, were mostly all metalloids and non-metallic atoms. We set the computed formation energy $E_{form}$ of each AB material as the physical property of interest. To simplify the demonstration of our method, we limited the collected compounds to those possessing the same cubic structure as the $\textit{Fm}{\bar{3}}\textit{m}$ symmetry group ([*i*.*e*. ]{}the NaCl structure).
To represent each material, we used a set of 17 predicting variables divided into three categories, as summarized in Table \[ABVarTable\]. The first and second categories pertained to the predicting variables of the atomic properties of the element A and element B constituents; these included eight numerical predicting variables: (1) atomic number ($Z_A$, $Z_B$); (2) atomic radius ($r_A$, $r_B$); (3) average ionic radius ($r_{ionA}$, $r_{ionB}$), (4) ionization potential ($IP_A$, $IP_B$); (5) electronegativity ($\chi_A$, $\chi_B$); (6) number of electrons in outer shell ($n_{eA}$, $n_{eB}$); (7) boiling temperature ($T_{bA}$, $T_{bB}$); and (8) melting temperature ($T_{mA}$, $T_{mB}$) of the corresponding single substances. The boiling and melting temperatures were as measured under standard conditions ($0^{\circ}$C, $10^5$ Pa).
Information related to crystal structure is very valuable for understanding the physical properties of materials. Therefore, we designed the third category with structural predicting variables whose values were calculated from the crystal structures of the materials. In this experiment, owing to the similarities in the crystal structures of the collected materials, we utilized only the unit cell volume ($V_{cell}$) as the structural predicting variable. The computed $E_{form}$ of each material was set as the target variable.
Category Predicting variables
-------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atomic properties of A element $Z_A$, $r_{ionA}$, $r_A$, $IP_A$, $\chi_A$, $n_{eA}$, $T_{bA}$, $T_{mA}$
Atomic properties of B element $Z_B$, $r_{ionB}$, $r_B$, $IP_B$, $\chi_B$, $n_{eB}$, $T_{bB}$, $T_{mB}$
Structural information $V_{cell}$
: Designed predicting variables describe intrinsic properties of constituent elements and structure-properties of materials in $E_{form}$ prediction problem. The A and B elements comprise the AB materials with binary cubic structure identical to that of the $\textit{Fm}{\bar{3}}\textit{m}$ symmetry group. []{data-label="ABVarTable"}
A kernel regression-based variable evaluation was performed for these data with 3-times 10-fold cross-validations. We first examined how $E_{form}$ can be predicted from the designed predicting variables for all collected materials. We performed a screening for all possible ($2^{17}$ - 1 = 131,071) variable combinations. Hence, we found a total of 34,468 variable combinations deriving GKR models with $R^2$ scores exceeding 0.90 (Fig$.$\[NLFS\_scores\]). Among them, there were 139 variable combinations deriving GKR models with $R^2$ scores exceeding $0.96$. These predicting variable combinations were then considered as candidates for the next step of the analysis. The highest prediction accuracy $PA$ in this experiment is 0.967 (mean of absolute error, abbreviated as MAE: 0.122 eV), obtained using the combination $\left\{V_{cell}, {\chi}_{A}, n_{eA}, n_{eB}, {IP}_{A}, T_{bA}, T_{mA}, r_{B}\right\}$. Moreover, we could obtain superior $PA$ with an $R^{2}$ score of 0.972 (MAE: 0.117 eV) by taking ensemble averages [@Tresp2000; @Dietterich2000; @Zhang2012] of GKR models, which were constructed using the 139 selected variable combinations.
We performed regression-based clustering analyses for all 139 selected variable combinations with 1000 initial randomized states. By using evaluation criteria similar to those for determining the number of clusters (formula \[clustering\_criteria\]), the 200 best clustering results among these trials were selected to construct a committee machine that voted for the similarity between materials. The obtained affinity matrix for all the $\textit{Fm}{\bar{3}}\textit{m}$ AB materials is shown in Fig$.$\[ABmap\]a. The similarity between each material pair varies from 0 to 1. A cell of the affinity matrix takes a 0 value when the corresponding two materials are never included in the same cluster by a regression-based clustering model. In contrast, a cell of the affinity matrix takes a value of 1 when the corresponding two materials always appear in the same cluster according to every regression-based clustering model. By using this similarity, we could roughly divide all the materials into two groups, as represented by the upper left and bottom right of Fig$.$\[ABmap\]a.
Figure \[ABmap\]b shows an enlarged view of the affinity matrix for two groups of typical materials denoted by G1 and G2. We can clearly see that the affinities between materials within each of the two groups, G1 and G2, exceed 0.7, showing high intra-group similarities. In contrast, the affinities between materials in different groups are smaller than 0.2, showing significant dissimilarity between G1 and G2. Further detailed investigation reveals that the materials in G1 are oxide, nitride, and carbide. The maximum common positive oxidation number of the A elements is greater than or equal to the maximum common negative oxidation number of the B elements for the compounds in this group. On the other hand, the materials in G2 are halides of alkaline metal, oxide, nitride, and carbide, for which the maximum common positive oxidation number of the A elements is less than or equal to the maximum common negative oxidation number of the B elements. Further investigation shows that only seven among 24 compounds in G1 have computed electronic structures with a band gap. In contrast, half of the compounds in G2 have computed electronic structures with a band gap. The obtained results suggest that the bonding nature of compounds in G1 is different from that of compounds in G2.
The linearities between the target variable and the predicting variables for the two groups are summarized in Fig$.$\[ABmap\]c. The diagonal plots show the correlations between the observed and predicted values for the target variables obtained using linear models of the predicting variables for the materials in the two groups. The off-diagonal plots show the correlations between the observed values and predicted values for the target variables obtained using the linear models of the other groups. We could again confirm the intra-group similarity and the dissimilarity between different groups in terms of the linearity between the target and predicting variables for the compounds in the two groups. To quantitatively evaluate the validity of the analysis process, we embedded the similarity measured by the committee machine into the regression of $E_{form}$ of the $\textit{Fm}{\bar{3}}\textit{m}$ AB materials. To predict the value of the target variable for a new material, instead of using the entire available dataset, we used only one-third of the available materials having the highest similarity to the new material. It should again be noted that the similarity between the materials in the dataset and the new material can be determined without knowing the value of the target physical property, using the value predicted by ensemble averaging of the non-linear regression models.
-- ------- ------------ --------- ------------ --------- ------------ ---------
without SM with SM without SM with SM without SM with SM
$R^2$ 0.929 0.954 0.982 0.986 0.893 0.929
MAE 0.189 0.154 0.022 0.018 78.80 58.09
$R^2$ 0.967 0.978 0.989 0.992 0.968 0.988
MAE 0.122 0.110 0.014 0.013 42.74 25.76
$R^2$ 0.972 0.982 0.991 0.992 0.974 0.991
MAE 0.117 0.101 0.013 0.011 37.87 24.16
-- ------- ------------ --------- ------------ --------- ------------ ---------
\[ConclusionTable\]
Table \[ConclusionTable\] summarizes the $PA$ in predicting $E_{form}$ values of the $\textit{Fm}{\bar{3}}\textit{m}$ materials obtained using several regression models with the designed predicting variables. The non-linear model obtained using ensemble averaging of the best non-linear regression models, having an $R^{2}$ score of 0.972 (MAE: 0.117 eV), could be improved significantly to an $R^{2}$ score of 0.982 (MAE: 0.101 eV) regarding the information from the similarity measurement (Fig$.$\[NlfsBestAB\]). Therefore, the obtained results provide significant evidence to support our hypothesis that the similarity voted by the committee machine reflects the similarity in the actuating mechanisms of the target material physical property.
Experiment 2: Mining quantum calculated lattice parameter for body-centered cubic structure data {#secLattConst .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this experiment, a dataset of 1541 binary AB body-centered cubic ($BCC$) crystals with a 1:1 element ratio was collected from Ref.[@Takahashi2017]. We focused on the computed lattice constant value $L_{const}$ of the crystals. The A elements corresponded to almost all transition metals {Ag, Al, As, Au, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ga, Li, Mg, Na, Ni, Os, Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru, Si, Ti, V, W, and Zn} and the B elements corresponded to those with atomic numbers in the ranges of $1$–$42$, $44$–$57$, and $72$–$83$. This dataset included unrealistic materials such as the binary material AgHe, which incorporates He, an element that is known to possess a closed shell structure and is, therefore, unlikely to form a solid.
To describe each material, we used a combination of 17 variables that related to basic physical properties of the A and B constituent elements, as summarized in Table \[LatTable\]. These chosen properties were as follows: the (1) atomic radius ($r_A, r_B$); (2) mass ($m_{A}, m_{B}$); (3) atomic number ($Z_{A}, Z_{B}$); (4) number of electrons in outermost shell ($n_{eA}, n_{eB}$); (5) atomic orbital (${\ell}_A, {\ell}_B$); and (6) electronegativity (${\chi}_{A}, {\chi}_{B}$). The atomic orbital values were converted from categorical symbols $s$, $p$, $d$, $f$ to numerical values representing the orbitals, [*i*.*e*. ]{}0, 1, 2, 3, respectively. To embed the structure information, four more properties were included: (7) the density of atoms per unit volume ($ {\rho}_{A}, {\rho}_{B}$); (8) the unit cell density $\rho$; (9) the difference in electronegativity $d_{\chi}$; and (10) the sum of the atomic orbital B and difference in electronegativity ${sum}_{AD}$ (see Ref.[@Takahashi2017]).
A kernel regression-based variable selection with 3-times 10-fold cross-validation was performed to examine all combinations of the 17 variables. From the total number of screening variable combinations ($2^{17}$ - 1 = 131,071), we found 60,568 variable combinations for deriving regression models with $R^2$ scores exceeding 0.90 (Fig$.$\[NLFS\_scores\]). Among them, there were 57 variable combinations yielding regression models with $R^2$ scores exceeding 0.9895. The highest $PA$ for this experiment is 0.989 (MAE: 0.014 Å), which was obtained using the combination $\left\{\rho, {\ell}_{A}, r_{covB}, m_{A}, m_{B}, {\rho}_{B}, n_{eB} \right\}$. We could obtain a better $PA$ with an $R^2$ score of 0.991 (MAE: 0.013 Å) by taking ensemble averaging of GKR models which derived from the 57 selected variable combinations. This result is a considerable improvement in comparison with the maximum $PA$ ($R^2$ score: 0.90) of the support vector regression technique with the feature selection strategy mentioned in [@Takahashi2017].
 \[LattConstConfMt\]
Category Predicting variables
------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atomic properties of metals A $r_{covA}$, $m_{A}$, $Z_{A}$, $n_{eA}$, ${\ell}_A$, ${\chi}_{A}$, ${\rho}_{A}$
Atomic properties of metals B $r_{covB}$, $m_{B}$, $Z_{B}$, $n_{eB}$, ${\ell}_B$, ${\chi}_{B}$, ${\rho}_{B}$
Structural & additional information $\rho$, $d_{\chi}$, ${sum}_{AD}$
: Designed predicting variables describing intrinsic properties of constituent elements and structural properties of materials in the lattice parameter prediction problem. A and B are elements of the binary AB $BCC$ materials. []{data-label="LatTable"}
In the regression-based clustering analysis, the 57 selected variable combinations accompanied by 1000 initial randomized states for each combination were used to search for the most probable clustering results to construct the committee machine. The affinity matrix obtained for all materials is shown in Fig$.$\[LattConstmap\]a, after rearrangement by a hierarchical clustering algorithm [@HAC]. By utilizing this similarity, we could roughly divide all materials in the dataset into three groups: G1, G2, and G3. Further investigation revealed that most materials in G1 are constructed from two heavy transition metals. In contrast, the materials in G2 and G3 are constructed from a metal and a non-metal element, [*e*.*g*. ]{}oxide and nitride. For a given A element, the $L_{const}$ of the materials in G1 increases with the atomic number of the B element. On the other hand, the $L_{const}$ of the materials in G2 remains constant for the materials sharing the same A element. Further, the $L_{const}$ for the materials in group G3 mainly depends on the electronegativity difference between the constituent elements A and B. Note that the materials in these three groups are visualized in detail in the Supplemental Materials. The linearities between the observed and predicting variables for these groups are shown in Fig$.$\[LattConstmap\]b.
To predict the $L_{const}$ of a new material, we applied the same strategy as that explained in the previous experiment. Table \[ConclusionTable\] summarizes the $PA$ values obtained in our experiments. The non-linear model obtained using ensemble averaging of the best 57 non-linear regression models and having an $R^2$ score of 0.991 (MAE: 0.013 Å) could be marginally improved to an $R^2$ score of 0.992 (MAE: 0.011 Å) by including information from the similarity measurement (Fig$.$\[NlfsBestLatt\]).
Category Predicting variables
---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atomic properties of transition metals $Z_{T}$, ${r_{cov}}_{A}$, ${IP}_{T}$, ${\chi}_{T}$, $S_{3d}$, $L_{3d}$, $J_{3d}$
Atomic properties of rare-earth metals $Z_{R}$, ${r_{cov}}_{R}$, ${IP}_{R}$, ${\chi}_{R}$, $ S_{4f}$, $ L_{4f}$, $J_{4f}$, $J_{4f}g_{j}$, $J_{4f}\left(1-g_{j}\right)$
Structural information $C_{T}$, $C_{R}$, $r_{TT}$, $r_{TR}$, $r_{RR}$
: Designed predicting variables describing intrinsic properties of constituent elements and structural properties in $T_{c}$ value prediction for the rare-earth–transition metal alloys problem.[]{data-label="TcTable"}
Experiment 3: Mining experimentally observed Curie temperature data of rare-earth–transition metal alloys {#Tc .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this experiment, we collected experimental data related to 101 binary alloys consisting of transition and rare-earth metals from the NIMS AtomWork database [@paulingfile; @atomwork], which included the crystal structures of the alloys and their observed Curie temperatures $T_c$.
To represent the structural and physical properties of each binary alloy, we used a combination of 21 variables divided into three categories, as summarized in Table \[TcTable\]. The first and second categories contained predicting variables describing the atomic properties of the transition metal elements and rare-earth elements, respectively. The properties were as follows: (1) atomic number ($Z_R$, $Z_T$); (2) covalent radius ($r_{covR}$, $r_{covT}$); (3) first ionization (${IP}_R$, ${IP}_T$); and (4) electronegativity (${\chi}_R$, ${\chi}_T$). In addition, predicting variables related to the magnetic properties were included: the (5) total spin quantum number ($S_{3d}$, $S_{4f}$); (6) total orbital angular momentum quantum number ($L_{3d}$, $L_{4f}$); and (7) total angular momentum ($J_{3d}$, $J_{4f}$). For $R$ metallic elements, additional variables $J_{4f}g_{j}$ and $J_{4f}\left(1-g_{j}\right) $ were added, because of the strong spin-orbit coupling effect.
As in the two previous experiments, a third category variable was chosen which contained values calculated from the crystal structures of the alloys reported in the AtomWork database [@paulingfile; @atomwork]. The designed predicting variables included the transition $(C_T)$ and rare-earth $(C_R)$ metal concentrations. Note that, if we use the atomic percentage for the concentration, the two quantities are not independent. Therefore, in this work, we measured the concentrations in units of atoms/Å$^3$; this unit is more informative than the atomic percentage as it contains information on the constituent atomic size. As a consequence, $(C_T)$ and $(C_R)$ were not completely dependent. Other additional structure variables were also added: the mean radius of the unit cell between two rare-earth elements $r_{RR}$, between two transition metal elements $r_{TT}$, and between transition and rare-earth elements $r_{TR}$. We set the experimentally observed $T_c$ as the target variable.
A kernel regression-based variable selection analysis was performed for these data using leave-one-out cross-validation. Among all the examined variable combinations, ($2^{21}-1 = 2,097,151$), we found 84,870 combinations for which the corresponding GKR models exhibited $R^2$ scores exceeding 0.90 (Fig$.$\[NLFS\_scores\]). Among them, there were 59 variable combinations yielding GKR models associated with $R^2$ scores exceeding 0.95. These predicting variable combinations were selected for the next analysis step. The highest $PA$ in this experiment was 0.968 (MAE: 42.74 K), obtained using the combination $\left\{C_{R}, Z_{R}, Z_{T}, \chi_{T}, r_{covT}, L_{3d}, J_{3d}\right\}$. We could obtain a better $PA$ with an $R^2$ score of 0.974 (MAE: 37.87 K), by applying ensemble averaging to the GKR models, which were derived from the selected 59 variable combinations. We considered these variable combinations as candidates for the next step of the analysis.
In the regression-based clustering analysis, 59 variable combinations with 1000 initial randomized states were used to search for the most probable clustering results to construct the committee machine to vote for the similarity between the alloys. The obtained affinity matrix for all the alloys is shown in Fig$.$\[Tcmap\]a. An enlarged view of the three groups of alloys having high similarity (denoted G1, G2, and G3) is shown in Fig$.$\[Tcmap\]b. Further investigation revealed that G1 includes Mn- and Co-based alloys with high $T_c$, [*e*.*g*. ]{}Mn$_{23}$Pr$_6$ (448 K), Mn$_{23}$Sm$_6$ (450 K), Co$_5$Pr (931 K), and Co$_5$Nd (910 K). Other low-$T_c$ Co-based alloys, [*e*.*g*. ]{}Co$_2$Pr (45 K) and Co$_2$Nd (108 K), are counted as having higher similarity with Ni-based alloys in G3, [*e*.*g*. ]{}Ni$_5$Nd (7 K) and Ni$_2$Ho (16 K). In contrast, G2 includes all the Fe-based $Fe_{17}RE_2$ alloys, where $RE$ represents different rare-earth metals. To confirm the value of our similarity measure, Fig$.$\[Tcmap\]c shows the linearities between the observed and predicting variables for these groups, as well as the dissimilarities among these groups.
In the next analysis step, we utilized the obtained similarity measure to predict $T_c$ for a new material by using the same strategy used in the two previous experiments. The non-linear model obtained using ensemble averaging of the best non-linear regression models and having an $R^2$ score of 0.974 (MAE: 37.87 K) could be improved significantly to attain an $R^2$ score of 0.991 (MAE: 24.16 K) by utilizing the information from the similarity measurement (Fig$.$\[NlfsBestTc\] and Table \[ConclusionTable\]). The obtained results provide significant evidence to support our hypothesis that the similarity voted for by the committee machine indicates the similarity in the actuating mechanisms of the $T_c$ of the binary alloys.
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we proposed a method to measure the similarities between materials, focusing on specific physical properties, to describe and interpret the actual mechanism underlying a physical phenomenon in a given problem. The proposed method consists of three steps: variable evaluation based on non-linear regression, regression-based clustering, and similarity measurement with a committee machine constructed from the clustering result. Three datasets of well-characterized crystalline materials represented by key atomic predicting variables were used as test beds. The formation energy, lattice parameter, and Curie temperature were considered as target physical properties of the examined materials. Our experiments show that rational and meaningful group structures can be obtained with the help of the proposed approach. The similarity measure information helped significantly increase the prediction accuracy for the material physical properties. Through use of ensemble top kernel ridge prediction models, the $R^2$ score increased from 0.972 to 0.982 for the formation energy prediction problem; 0.991 to 0.992 for the lattice constant prediction problem, and 0.974 to 0.991 for the Curie temperature prediction problem after utilizing the similarity information. Thus, our results indicate that our proposed data analysis flow can systematically facilitate further understanding of a given phenomenon by identifying similarities among materials in the problem dataset.
This work was partly supported by PRESTO and by the “Materials Research by Information Integration Initiative” (MI$^2$I) project of the Support Program for Start-Up Innovation Hub, from the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), and by JSPS KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) (Grant JP17K14803), Japan.
Author contributions statement {#author-contributions-statement .unnumbered}
==============================
Duong -Nguyen Nguyen and Hieu-Chi Dam conceived the experiments; Duong-Nguyen Nguyen, Viet-Cuong Nguyen, and Tuan-Dung Ho conducted the experiments; and Duong-Nguyen Nguyen, Tien-Lam Pham, Truyen Tran, Keisuke Takahashi, and Hieu-Chi Dam analyzed the results. Duong-Nguyen Nguyen and Hieu-Chi Dam wrote the paper, and all authors reviewed the manuscript.
T$ $he authors declare no competing interests.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It has recently been suggested that the presence of multiple populations showing various amounts of helium enhancement is the rule, rather than the exception, among globular star clusters. An important prediction of this helium enhancement scenario is that the helium-enhanced blue horizontal branch (HB) stars should be brighter than the red HB stars which are not helium-enhanced. In this [*Letter*]{}, we test this prediction in the case of the Galactic globular cluster M3 (NGC 5272), for which the helium-enhancement scenario predicts helium enhancements of $\gtrsim 0.02$ in virtually all blue HB stars. Using high-precision @bs63 photometry and spectroscopic gravities for blue HB stars, we find that any helium enhancement among most of the cluster’s blue HB stars is very likely less than 0.01, thus ruling out the much higher helium enhancements that have been proposed in the literature.'
author:
- 'M. Catelan'
- 'F. Grundahl'
- 'A. V. Sweigart'
- 'A. A. R. Valcarce'
- 'C. Cortés'
title: |
Constraints on Helium Enhancement in the Globular Cluster M3 (NGC 5272):\
The Horizontal Branch Test
---
Introduction
============
Globular star clusters (GC’s) have traditionally been assumed to be excellent approximations to so-called “simple stellar populations,” which are idealized systems in which all stars were formed at precisely the same time, from a chemically homogeneous cloud. However, recent observations, both photometric and spectroscopic, have cast serious doubts on this long-standing paradigm.
The presence of large abundance anomalies was first identified in the GC $\omega$ Centauri (NGC 5139). In this cluster, not only such light elements as C, N, O, F, Na, Mg, and Al, but also the Fe-peak, s-process, and r-process elements, are seen to vary by large amounts from one star to the next [e.g., @cjea08 and the extensive list of references provided therein]. Many of these abundance patterns seem to extend all the way down to the main sequence [e.g., @lsea08]. This strongly suggests that such abundance anomalies owe their origin to multiple star formation episodes within the cluster, each accompanied by a corresponding enrichment of the intracluster medium by the ejecta of the massive and intermediate-mass stars which were formed in the prior stellar generations. While a large spread in Fe-peak abundances has only been detected in $\omega$ Cen, many of $\omega$ Cen’s abundance anomalies have also been found in other clusters, albeit often at a (much) less dramatic level (e.g., @csea04 [-@csea04]; @cjea05 [-@cjea05]; @dyea09 [-@dyea09]; see also @rgea04 [-@rgea04], for a recent review).
Analyses of the multiple main sequences found in the deep color-magnitude diagrams (CMD’s) of $\omega$ Cen strongly suggest that the [*helium abundance*]{} $Y$ in the cluster may also have changed dramatically from one star formation episode to the next [e.g., @jn04; @fdea05; @gpea05]. Recent evidence suggests that other clusters may also show sizeable $Y$ variations. According to the deep CMD analysis of NGC 2808 by @gpea07, multiple populations with different helium abundances are also present in this cluster. Strong arguments have also been raised in favor of helium enhancements among at least some of the stars in NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 [see, e.g., @mcea06; @cd07 and references therein]. Interestingly, these four GC’s figure among the most massive of all Galactic GC’s.
Very recently, it has been suggested that multiple star formation episodes in GC’s, accompanied by widely different amounts of helium enrichment, are in fact not the exception, but instead the rule [@dac08]. In the particular case of M3 (NGC 5272), such a claim had previously been made also by @cd08, on the basis of an analysis of the period distribution of M3’s RR Lyrae variables and the color extension of the HB blueward of the instability strip. Due to the recognized need to assume a very sharply peaked mass distribution to account for the sharply peaked shape of the RR Lyrae period distribution in M3 [@rc89; @mc04; @mcea05], @dac08 suggested that the mass distribution of HB stars is [*always*]{} sharply peaked, and that the color spread routinely observed in GC CMD’s is instead due to internal variations in the helium abundance $Y$. It is important to emphasize that such a spread in $Y$ is [*not*]{} required to explain the observed period distributions. Rather, the case for helium enhancement, at least in the case of M3-like clusters, rests almost entirely on the presence of color spreads among HB stars.
{width="6.825in"}
![Comparison between fiducial HB sequences (see text) and the empirical data for M3, in the $M_y$, $(b\!-\!y)_0$ plane (panel [*a*]{}), $M_b$, $(b\!-\!y)_0$ plane (panel [*b*]{}), and $M_v$, $(b\!-\!y)_0$ plane (panel [*c*]{}). The empirical data were shifted vertically so as to produce a satisfactory match to the theoretical red ZAHB, as given by the @vdbea06 models for ${\rm [Fe/H]} = -1.61$, $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}] = +0.3$, and $Y = 0.236$, in the $M_y$, $(b\!-\!y)_0$ plane. The @vdbea06 RGB sequence is also displayed. []{data-label="fig:singley"}](fig2.eps){width="2.84in"}
{width="6.5in"}
If confirmed, this scenario would not only have major implications for our understanding of how GC’s form, but would also represent a major shift from the canonical paradigm, dominant since the late-1960’s/early-1970’s [@vcea69; @ir70; @jf72; @rtr73], which ascribes the color spread seen among HB stars to the stochastic nature of mass loss on the red giant branch (RGB). In the canonical scenario, blue HB stars lose significantly more mass as they climb up the RGB than do their red HB counterparts. In contrast, in the @dac08 scenario blue HB stars, even at the “horizontal” level of the HB, owe their blue colors to a higher initial $Y$. In the specific case of M3, the predicted He enhancement, even in the “horizontal” blue HB stars, should fall in the range between 0.02 and 0.025, according to Fig. 4 of @cd08.
Fortunately, the $Y$ enhancement scenario can be tested, using a variety of photometric and spectroscopic tools, especially for these moderately cool blue HB stars at the “horizontal” level. In particular, it is well known that HB stars with higher $Y$ are brighter, at a given $T_{\rm eff}$, due to their stronger H-burning shells [e.g., @sg76]. Therefore, in the @dac08 scenario bluer HB stars should be brighter than their redder counterparts. While this may help account for the sloping natures of the HB’s in the moderately metal-rich GC’s NGC 6388 and NGC 6441 [e.g., @gbea07 and references therein], such a CMD test has never being carried out for most of the GC’s that, according to @dac08, present multiple He-enhanced populations.
The purpose of this [*Letter*]{} is accordingly to present a first test of the helium enhancement scenario, in the specific case of M3, by comparing high-precision photometry for the cluster in the @bs63 system, as well as spectroscopically derived gravities, with theoretical HB models computed for a variety of $Y$ values.
Observational Data
==================
The CMD data used in this paper were taken from @fgea98 [@fgea99], to which the reader is referred for additional details regarding the calibration of our photometry. Briefly, our M3 photometry is based on a series of images obtained on the Nordic Optical Telescope, using the thinned AR-coated $2048\times 2048$ pixel HiRAC CCD camera, with $0.11\arcsec$ pixel size, thus covering approximately $3.75\arcmin$ on a side. Two overlapping fields were observed, with one field centered on the cluster center to ensure a large sample of HB and RGB stars.
In addition to the CMD data, we also used the gravities and temperatures derived by @bb03, on the basis of observations using the HIRES cross-dispersed echelle spectrograph on the Keck I telescope.
Theoretical Models {#sec:models}
==================
In the present paper, we use the evolutionary tracks computed by @mcea98 and @sc98 for scaled-solar, heavy-element abundances $Z$ of $0.0005$, $0.001$, and $0.002$. Evolutionary tracks for a He abundance $Y = 0.23$ by mass were computed for each of these $Z$ values. Additional He-enhanced tracks for $Y = 0.28$, 0.33 were also computed for $Z=0.002$.[^1] The theoretical models were transformed to the @bs63 $uvby$ system by using the color transformations and bolometric correction tables provided by @jcea04. The same procedures were also adopted in the recent work by @cac08 and @cc08, where the period-color and period-luminosity relations of RR Lyrae stars in the @bs63 system were presented. In addition, we also use a set of models computed by @vdbea06, for a chemical composition ${\rm [Fe/H]} = -1.614$, $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}] = +0.3$ (which translates, according to those authors, to a $Z = 8.45\times 10^{-4}$), and $Y = 0.236$.
M3 has a metallicity of ${\rm [Fe/H]} = -1.57$ in the @zw84 scale, and ${\rm [Fe/H]} = -1.34$ in the @cg97 scale. Taking into account an enhancement of the $\alpha$-capture elements by $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}] = +0.27$ [@bc96], and using the relation between $Z$, \[Fe/H\], and $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]$ from @msea93, we find an overall metallicity of $Z = 8.3 \times 10^{-3}$ and $Z = 1.4 \times 10^{-3}$, respectively, on these two metallicity scales. Therefore, our models comfortably bracket the range of possible metallicity values for the cluster.
Since we are primarily interested in constraining the [*change*]{} in $Y$ between the red and blue HB, the exact choice of $Z$ value is basically irrelevant for our purposes. This is shown in Figure \[fig:ztest\][*a*]{}, where our models for $Z = 0.0005$, $Z = 0.001$, and $Z = 0.002$ are compared in the $M_y$, $(b\!-\!y)_0$ diagram. To produce this plot, we first registered the low-metallicity zero-age HB (ZAHB) sequences to the $Z = 0.002$ ZAHB by shifting the $Z = 0.0005$ ZAHB by $+0.140$ mag and the $Z = 0.001$ ZAHB by $+0.075$ mag in $M_y$. We then applied the same shifts to the evolved HB sequences for each $Z$ value, and derived several fiducial loci representing evolved HB stars, as follows: i) MAHB, standing for the [*middle-age HB*]{}, or HB ridgeline, which gives the average position occupied by all HB stars, assuming a uniform mass distribution along the entire ZAHB; ii) 90AHB, or [*90%-age HB*]{}, which is approximately the locus below which one should find $\approx 90\%$ of all HB stars;[^2] iii) TAHB, or [*terminal-age HB*]{}, which is simply the He exhaustion locus.
This registration procedure clearly leads to an excellent match over the entire range of ZAHB colors and HB luminosities, except (as expected) at the extreme red end of the HB and close to the TAHB. Since M3 lacks unevolved HB stars at colors redder than about $(b\!-\!y)_0 \simeq 0.34$, and since the TAHB lies very far away from where most HB stars are found (see Fig. \[fig:singley\]), these differences are of no concern for our purposes. Similar results follow when using $M_b$ and $M_v$, but not $M_u$, which we have found to be affected by strong metallicity effects. Since the $v$- and (especially) the $u$- band bolometric corrections from @jcea04 may be quite uncertain (D. A. VandenBerg, priv. comm.), we have decided not to include our $u$-band photometry in this [*Letter*]{} [but see @mc09]. We will, however, include our $v$-band data, but caution that the comparison of these data with the models is less reliable than for the $y$ or $b$ data.
While the metallicity effects are clearly mild, both the ZAHB and the evolved HB loci depend strongly on $Y$, as can be easily inferred from Figure \[fig:ztest\][*b*]{}. This shows that a [*differential*]{} comparison between the luminosities of red and blue HB stars, around the metallicity of M3, should provide a strong indicator of any possible helium enhancement, with only a very mild dependence on metallicity.
Panels [*c*]{} and [*d*]{} in Figure \[fig:ztest\] reveal the effects of metallicity and $Y$, respectively, on the $\log g - \log T_{\rm eff}$ plane. This again shows that metallicity plays but a minor role in defining the position of a star on this plane, compared with $Y$.
![Comparison between predicted and observed loci in the $\log g$, $\log T_{\rm eff}$ plane, for a metallicity $Z = 0.002$ and three different helium abundance values: 0.23 (panel [*a*]{}), 0.28 (panel [*b*]{}), and 0.33 (panel [*c*]{}). Empirical data are provided for M3 ([*black circles*]{}) and M13 ([*gray circles*]{}), from @bb03. The blue line in panel [*a*]{} shows the ZAHB locus of @vdbea06 models for a $Y = 0.236$, ${\rm [Fe/H]} = -1.61$, $[\alpha/{\rm Fe}] = +0.3$. []{data-label="fig:loggtest"}](fig4.eps){width="3.375in"}
Results {#sec:results}
=======
We compare the model predictions for fixed (low) $Y$ with the empirical CMD data in Figure \[fig:singley\]. To produce these plots, we have first corrected the empirical data for reddening using a $E(\bv) = 0.01$, taken from @wh96, and the extinction coefficients for the @bs63 system summarized in @cac08. We then shifted the data vertically, as required to match the theoretical red ZAHB computed by @vdbea06 to the lower envelope of the observed distribution in the $M_y$, $(b\!-\!y)_0$ plane. Note that these @vdbea06 evolutionary tracks also provide an excellent fit to the RGB of the cluster. This results in a distance modulus of $(m\!-\!M)_0 = 14.984$ for M3. We then applied a shift of $\Delta {\rm mag} = -0.16$ to our $Z = 0.002$ models, in order that they would match the @vdbea06 ones. As can be seen, such a procedure leads to an excellent morphological match between the @vdbea06 ZAHB for $Z = 8.45 \times 10^{-4}$ and our own for $Z = 0.002$, especially in the $M_y$, $(b\!-\!y)_0$ and $M_b$, $(b\!-\!y)_0$ planes, except again at the very end of the red HB distribution, where no unevolved HB stars are found in M3.
Except perhaps for a small deviation of the lower envelope of the blue HB stars in the immediate vicinity of the “knee” from the theoretical (single-$Y$) ZAHB, this figure shows a remarkable overall agreement between the model predictions and the observations, without an immediately obvious need to invoke an increase in $Y$ for the blue HB stars. In addition, all the other HB fiducials for a fixed $Y$, including the MAHB, 90AHB, and TAHB, appear to describe the empirical data fairly well, without significant evidence for an excessive number of overluminous blue HB stars, as would be expected in the helium-enhancement scenario (see Fig. \[fig:ztest\][*b*]{}). To be sure, the evolutionary lifetimes along the canonical tracks do not provide a perfect match to the CMD distribution [@vc08]; however, it appears extremely unlikely that any such disagreements may somehow be due to internal variations in $Y$, since they seem to affect blue [*and red*]{} HB stars alike, as also noted by @vc08.
In Figure \[fig:manyy\] we compare our CMD data to ZAHB sequences for different $Y$ values in order to obtain a more quantitative limit on any increase in $Y$ between the red and blue HB populations. These ZAHB sequences are all for a fixed $Z = 0.002$ and have been shifted by $\Delta {\rm mag} = -0.16$ to match the @vdbea06 ZAHB for $Z = 8.45 \times 10^{-4}$, as noted previously.
Clearly, an enhancement in $Y$ by more than 0.01 in the blue HB stars would hardly be compatible with the data. In particular, we find many more stars below the blue ZAHB for $Y = 0.24$ than below the red ZAHB for $Y = 0.23$, again with the possible exception of the (more uncertain) $M_v$, $(b\!-\!y)_0$ plane. This strongly suggests that the level of He enhancement is most likely less than 0.01 among the cool blue HB stars in M3.
Recall, from Figure 4 in @cd08 and Table 1 in @dac08, that the bulk of the blue HB stars in M3 are predicted, in the helium-enhancement scenario, to be enriched in the range between 0.02 to 0.025. Such a level of helium enhancement is clearly ruled out by our data. Note also that, in the helium enhancement scenario, one should expect to see an increase in $Y$ towards bluer colors, but this is not supported by our data.
Finally, Figure \[fig:loggtest\] compares the empirical and predicted positions of blue HB stars in M3 in the $\log g$, $\log T_{\rm eff}$ plane, for three different helium abundances, ranging from 0.23 (panel [*a*]{}) to 0.33 (panel [*c*]{}). To produce this plot, we restrict ourselves to temperatures cooler than 11,500 K, to avoid the well-known complications due to radiative levitation for hotter HB stars [@fgea99; @gmea08]. Our CMD’s indicate that less than 5% of all of the HB stars in M3 are hotter than this limit, which corresponds to a color $(b\!-\!y)_0 \approx -0.025$.
Similarly to what was found in our CMD analysis, the empirical gravities also seem entirely consistent with a uniform value of $Y$ among the blue HB stars in M3. In addition, there is no indication of an increase in $Y$ beyond the canonical value, a conclusion which becomes even stronger when the data are compared with the $\alpha$-enhanced ZAHB by @vdbea06 for a $Y = 0.236$, $Z = 8.45 \times 10^{-4}$. Interestingly, the available data also suggest that at least the redder blue HB stars in M13 (NGC 6205) have a similar helium abundance as in M3. The sample size remains relatively small though, and therefore data for more stars in both clusters would certainly prove of interest to derive more conclusive results.
Conclusions
===========
In this [*Letter*]{}, we have shown that high-precision, well-populated empirical CMD’s, along with spectroscopic gravities, can be used to pose strong constraints on the presence of helium-enriched populations in GC’s. Our results strongly suggest that any populations that may have formed after a main initial burst in M3 likely preserved closely the same helium content as in the cluster’s primordial gas, with a level of helium enhancement most likely not higher than 0.01. In future papers, we plan to apply similar tests to several other GC’s.
We thank an anonymous referee for some helpful comments, and D. A. VandenBerg for some enlightening discussions. Support for M.C. is provided by Proyecto Basal PFB-06/2007, by FONDAP Centro de Astrofísica 15010003, by Proyecto FONDECYT Regular \#1071002, and by a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship.
Behr, B. B. 2003, , 149, 67
Busso, G., et al. 2007, , 474, 105
Caloi, V., & D’Antona, F. 2005, , 463, 949
Caloi, V., & D’Antona, F. 2008, , 673, 847
Carney, B. W. 1996, , 108, 900
Carretta, E., & Gratton, R. 1997, , 121, 95
Castellani, M., Castellani, V., & Cassisi, S. 2005, , 437, 1017
Castellani, V., Giannone, P., & Renzini, A. 1969, , 3, 518
Catelan, M. 2004, , 600, 409
Catelan, M. 2009a, , in press (astro-ph/0507464)
Catelan, M. 2009b, in IAU Symp. 258, in press (astro-ph/0811.2947)
Catelan, M., Borissova, J., Sweigart, A. V., & Spassova, N. 1998, , 494, 265
Catelan, M., & Cortés, C. 2008, , 676, L135
Catelan, M., Stetson, P. B., Pritzl, B. J., Smith, H. A., Kinemuchi, K., Layden, A. C., Sweigart, A. V., & Rich, R. M. 2006, , 651, L133
Clem, J. L., VandenBerg, D. A., Grundahl, F., & Bell, R. A. 2004, , 127, 1227
Cortés, C., & Catelan, M. 2008, , 177, 362
Crocker, D. A., Rood, R. T., & O’Connell, R. W. 1988, , 332, 236
D’Antona, F., Bellazzini, M., Caloi, V., Fusi Pecci, F., Galleti, S., & Rood, R. T. 2005, , 631, 868
D’Antona, F., & Caloi, V. 2008, , 390, 693
Faulkner, J. 1972, , 173, 401
Gratton, R., Sneden, C., & Carretta, E. 2004, , 42, 385
Grundahl, F., Catelan, M., Landsman, W. B., Stetson, P. B., & Andersen, M. I. 1999, , 524, 242
Grundahl, F., VandenBerg, D. A., & Andersen, M. I. 1998, , 500, L179
Harris, W. E. 1996, , 112, 1487
Iben, I., Jr., & Rood, R. T. 1970, , 161, 587
Johnson, C. I., Kraft, R. P., Pilachowski, C. A., Sneden, C., Ivans, I. I., & Benman, G. 2005, , 117, 838
Johnson, C. I., Pilachowski, C. A., Simmerer, J., & Schwenk, D. 2008, , 681, 1505
Michaud, G., Richer, J., & Richard, O. 2008, , 675, 1223
Norris, J. E. 2004, , 612, L25
Piotto, G., et al. 2005, , 621, 777
Piotto, G., et al. 2007, , 661, L53
Rood, R. T. 1973, , 184, 815
Rood, R. T., & Crocker, D. A. 1989, in IAU Colloq. 111, The Use of Pulsating Stars in Fundamental Problems of Astronomy, ed. E. G. Schmidt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 218
Salaris, M., Chieffi, A., & Straniero, O. 1993, , 414, 580
Sneden, C., Kraft, R. P., Guhathakurta, P., Peterson, R. C., & Fulbright, J. P. 2004, , 127, 2162
Stanford, L. M., Da Costa, G. S., Norris, J. E., & Cannon, R. D. 2008, , 667, 911
Str[ö]{}mgren, B. 1963, , 4, 8
Sweigart, A. V., & Catelan, M. 1998, , 501, L63
Sweigart, A. V., & Gross, P. G. 1976, , 32, 367
Valcarce, A. A. R., & Catelan, M. 2008, , 487, 185
VandenBerg, D. A., Bergbusch, P. A., & Dowler, P. D. 2006, , 162, 375
Yong, D., Grundahl, F., D’Antona, F., Karakas, A. I., Lattanzio, J. C., & Norris, J. E. 2009, , in press (arXiv:0902.1773)
Zinn, R., & West, M. J. 1984, , 55, 45
[^1]: Note that these helium abundances refer to the initial main sequence values, and thus do not include the small increase that occurs during the dredge-up phase on the RGB.
[^2]: In like vein, one may define the “50%-age HB” locus, or 50AHB, as the locus occupied by HB stars of different masses which have completed 50% of their HB evolution. Note, however, that this is not exactly coincident with the MAHB; since the distribution of HB luminosities is not Gaussian, the MAHB is in fact slightly more luminous than the corresponding 50AHB.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper is concerned with a compositional approach for the construction of finite abstractions (a.k.a. finite Markov decision processes) for networks of discrete-time stochastic control systems that are not necessarily stabilizable. The proposed approach leverages the interconnection topology and *finite-step stochastic storage functions*, that describe joint dissipativity-type properties of subsystems and their abstractions, in order to establish a *finite-step stochastic simulation function* between the network and its abstraction. In comparison with the existing notions of simulation functions, a finite-step stochastic simulation function needs to decay only after some finite numbers of steps instead of at each time step. In the first part of the paper, we develop a new type of compositional conditions, which is *less* conservative than the existing ones, for quantifying the probabilistic error between the interconnection of stochastic control subsystems and that of their abstractions. In particular, using this relaxation via a finite-step stochastic simulation function, it is possible to construct finite abstractions such that stabilizability of each subsystem is not required. In the second part of the paper, we propose an approach to construct finite Markov decision processes (MDPs) together with their corresponding finite-step storage functions for general discrete-time stochastic control systems satisfying an *incremental passivablity* property. We show that for a particular class of stochastic control systems, the aforementioned property can be readily checked by matrix inequalities. We also construct finite MDPs together with their storage functions for a particular class of *nonlinear* stochastic control systems. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed results, we first apply our approach to an interconnected system composed of $4$ subsystems such that $2$ of them are not stabilizable. We then consider a *road traffic network* in a circular cascade ring composed of $50$ cells, each of which has the length of $500$ meters with $1$ entry and $1$ way out, and construct compositionally a finite MDP of the network. We employ the constructed finite abstractions as substitutes to compositionally synthesize policies keeping the density of traffic lower than $20$ vehicles per cell. Finally, we apply our proposed technique to a *fully connected* network of $500$ *nonlinear* subsystems and construct their finite MDPs with guaranteed error bounds on their probabilistic output trajectories.'
address:
- '$^1$Hybrid Control Systems Group, Technical University of Munich, Germany.'
- '$^2$School of Computing, Newcastle University, UK.'
- '$^3$Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder, USA.'
- '$^4$Department of Computer Science, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany.'
author:
- Abolfazl Lavaei$^1$
- Sadegh Soudjani$^2$
- 'Majid Zamani$^{3,4}$'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Compositional Synthesis of Large-Scale Stochastic Systems: A Relaxed Dissipativity Approach'
---
Introduction
============
[**Motivations.**]{} Abstraction-based synthesis has recently received significant attentions as a promising methodology to design controllers enforcing complex specifications in a reliable and cost-effective way. Since large-scale complex systems are inherently difficult to analyze and control, one can develop compositional schemes to synthesize a controller over the abstraction of each subsystem, and refine it back (via an *interface* map) to the original subsystem, while providing guaranteed error bounds for the overall interconnected system in this controller synthesis detour scheme.
Finite abstractions are abstract descriptions of the continuous-space control systems such that each discrete state corresponds to a collection of continuous states of the original (concrete) system. In recent years, construction of finite abstractions was introduced as a promising approach to reduce the complexity of controller synthesis problems satisfying complex specifications. In other words, by leveraging constructed finite abstractions, one can synthesize controllers in an automated as well as formal fashion enforcing complex logic properties including those expressed as linear temporal logic formulae [@baier2008principles] over concrete systems.
[**Related Literature.**]{} In the past few years, there have been several results on compositional verification of stochastic models in the computer science community. Similarity relations over finite-state stochastic systems have been studied either via exact notions of probabilistic (bi)simulation relations [@larsen1991bisimulation], [@segala1995probabilistic], or approximate versions [@desharnais2008approximate], [@d2012robust]. Compositional modelling and analysis for the safety verification of stochastic hybrid systems are investigated in [@hahn2013compositional] in which random behaviour occurs only over the discrete components. Compositional controller synthesis for stochastic games using assume-guarantee verification of probabilistic automata is proposed in [@basset2014compositional]. In addition, compositional probabilistic verification via an assume-guarantee framework based on multi-objective probabilistic model checking is discussed in [@kwiatkowska2013compositional], which supports compositional verification for a range of quantitative properties.
There have been also several results on the construction of (in)finite abstractions for stochastic systems in the realm of control theory. Existing results include finite bisimilar abstractions for randomly switched stochastic systems [@zamani2014approximately], incrementally stable stochastic switched systems [@zamani2015symbolic], and stochastic control systems without discrete dynamics [@zamani2014symbolic]. Infinite approximation techniques for jump-diffusion systems are also presented in [@julius2009approximations]. In addition, compositional construction of infinite abstractions for jump-diffusion systems using small-gain type conditions is discussed in [@zamani2016approximations]. Construction of finite abstractions for formal verification and synthesis for a class of discrete-time stochastic hybrid systems is initially proposed in [@APLS08].
The improvement of the construction algorithms in terms of scalability is proposed in [@SA13]. Formal abstraction-based policy synthesis is discussed in [@tmka2013], and extension of such techniques to infinite horizon properties is proposed in [@tkachev2011infinite]. Recently, compositional construction of finite abstractions is presented in [@SAM15; @lavaei2018ADHS] using dynamic Bayesian networks and small-gain type conditions, respectively. Compositional construction of infinite abstractions (reduced-order models) is presented in [@lavaei2017compositional; @lavaei2018CDCJ] using small-gain type conditions and dissipativity-type properties of subsystems and their abstractions, respectively, both for discrete-time stochastic control systems. Although [@lavaei2017compositional; @lavaei2018CDCJ] deal only with infinite abstractions (reduced-order models), our proposed approach here considers finite Markov decision processes as abstractions which are the main tools for automated synthesis of controllers for complex logical properties.
There have been also some results on the context of stability verification for non-stochastic systems. Nonconservative small-gain conditions based on finite-step Lyapunov functions were originally introduced in [@aeyels1998new]. Moreover, nonconservative small-gain conditions for closed sets using finite-step ISS Lyapunov functions are presented in [@noroozi2018nonconservative]. Recently, compositional construction of finite abstractions via relaxed small-gain conditions for discrete-time systems is discussed in [@noroozi2018compositional1]. Although the proposed results in [@noroozi2018compositional1] employ finite-step ISS Lyapunov functions, their compositionality framework is based on relaxed small-gain conditions and their setting is non-stochastic.
[**Our Contributions.**]{} In particular, we develop a compositional approach for the construction of finite Markov decision processes (MDPs) for networks of not necessarily stabilizable discrete-time stochastic control systems. The proposed compositional technique leverages the interconnection structure and joint dissipativity-type properties of subsystems and their abstractions characterized via a notion of *finite-step stochastic storage functions*. The provided compositionality conditions can enjoy the structure of interconnection topology and be potentially satisfied *regardless* of the number or gains of the subsystems. The finite-step stochastic storage functions of subsystems are utilized to establish a *finite-step stochastic simulation function* between the interconnection of concrete stochastic subsystems and that of their finite MDPs, and to quantify the mismatch in probability between their output trajectories. In comparison with the existing notions of simulation functions in which stability or stabilizability of each subsystem is required, a finite-step simulation function needs to decay only after some finite numbers of steps instead of at each time step. This relaxation results in a less conservative version of dissipativity-type conditions, using which one can compositionally construct finite MDPs such that stabilizability of each subsystem is not necessarily required.
We also propose an approach to construct finite Markov decision processes together with their corresponding *finite-step* storage functions for general discrete-time stochastic control systems satisfying an incremental passivablity property. We show that for linear stochastic control systems, the aforementioned property can be readily checked by matrix inequalities. We also construct finite MDPs with their *classic* (i.e. one-step) storage functions for a particular class of discrete-time nonlinear stochastic control systems. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed results, we first apply our approach to an interconnected system composed of $4$ subsystems such that $2$ of them are not stabilizable. We then consider a road traffic network in a circular cascade ring composed of $50$ cells, each of which has the length of $500$ meters with $1$ entry and $1$ way out, and construct compositionally a finite MDP of the network. We employ the constructed finite abstractions as substitutes to compositionally synthesize policies keeping the density of traffic lower than $20$ vehicles per cell. Finally, to show applicability of our results to nonlinear systems having strongly connected networks, we apply our proposed technique to a fully connected network of $500$ nonlinear subsystems and construct their finite MDPs with guaranteed error bounds on their probabilistic output trajectories.
[**Recent Works.**]{} Compositional construction of finite MDPs for networks of discrete-time stochastic control systems is recently studied in [@lavaei2017HSCC], but by using a *classic* (i.e. one-step) simulation function and requiring that each subsystem is stabilizable. Our proposed approach differs from the one proposed in [@lavaei2017HSCC] in three main directions. First and foremost, the proposed compositional approach here is *less* conservative than the one presented in [@lavaei2017HSCC], in the sense that the stabilizability of individual subsystems is not necessarily required. Second, we provide a scheme for the construction of finite MDPs for a class of discrete-time *nonlinear* stochastic control systems whereas the construction scheme in [@lavaei2017HSCC] only handles the class of linear systems. We also apply our results to a *fully connected* network of nonlinear systems. As our third contribution, we relax one of the compositionality conditions required in [@lavaei2017HSCC condition (15)]. In particular, [@lavaei2017HSCC] imposes a compositionality condition that is implicit, without providing a direct method for satisfying it. We relax this condition (cf. ) at the cost of incurring an additional error term, but benefiting from choosing quantization parameters of internal input sets freely.
Compositional construction of finite MDPs for interconnected stochastic control systems is also proposed in [@lavaei2018ADHS], but using a different compositionality scheme based on small-gain reasoning. Our proposed compositionality approach here is potentially *less* conservative than the one presented in [@lavaei2018ADHS], in two different ways. First and mainly, we employ here the dissipativity-type compositional reasoning that may not require any constraint on the number or gains of the subsystems for some interconnection topologies (cf. the second and third case studies). Second, in our proposed scheme the stabilizability of individual subsystems is not necessarily required (cf. the first case study).
Discrete-Time Stochastic Control Systems {#Section 2}
========================================
Preliminaries
-------------
We consider a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal F_{\Omega},\mathbb{P}_{\Omega})$, where $\Omega$ is the sample space, $\mathcal F_{\Omega}$ is a sigma-algebra on $\Omega$ comprising subsets of $\Omega$ as events, and $\mathbb{P}_{\Omega}$ is a probability measure that assigns probabilities to events. We assume that random variables introduced in this article are measurable functions of the form $X:(\Omega,\mathcal F_{\Omega})\rightarrow (S_X,\mathcal F_X)$. Any random variable $X$ induces a probability measure on its space $(S_X,\mathcal F_X)$ as $Prob\{A\} = \mathbb{P}_{\Omega}\{X^{-1}(A)\}$ for any $A\in \mathcal F_X$. We often directly discuss the probability measure on $(S_X,\mathcal F_X)$ without explicitly mentioning the underlying probability space and the function $X$ itself.
A topological space $S$ is called a Borel space if it is homeomorphic to a Borel subset of a Polish space (i.e., a separable and completely metrizable space). Examples of a Borel space are the Euclidean spaces $\mathbb R^n$, its Borel subsets endowed with a subspace topology, as well as hybrid spaces. Any Borel space $S$ is assumed to be endowed with a Borel sigma-algebra, which is denoted by $\mathcal B(S)$. We say that a map $f : S\rightarrow Y$ is measurable whenever it is Borel measurable.
Notation
--------
The following notation is used throughout the paper. We denote the set of nonnegative integers by $\mathbb N := \{0,1,2,\ldots\}$ and the set of positive integers by $\mathbb N_{\ge 1} := \{1,2,3,\ldots\}$. The symbols ${{\mathbb{R}}}$, ${{\mathbb{R}}}_{>0}$, and ${{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge 0}$ denote the set of real, positive and nonnegative real numbers, respectively. For any set $X$ we denote by $2^X$ the power set of $X$ that is the set of all subsets of $X$. Given $N$ vectors $x_i \in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{n_i}$, $n_i\in \mathbb N_{\ge 1}$, and $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, we use $x = [x_1;\ldots;x_N]$ to denote the corresponding vector of dimension $\sum_i n_i$. Given a vector $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $\Vert x\Vert$ denotes the *Euclidean* norm of $x$. The identity matrix in $\mathbb R^{n\times{n}}$ and the column vectors in $\mathbb R^{n\times{1}}$ with all elements equal to zero and one are denoted by $\mathds{I}_n$, $\mathbf{0}_n$ and $\mathds{1}_n$, respectively. We denote by $\mathsf{diag}(a_1,\ldots,a_N)$ a diagonal matrix in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{N\times{N}}$ with diagonal matrix entries $a_1,\ldots,a_N$ starting from the upper left corner. Given functions $f_i:X_i\rightarrow Y_i$, for any $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, their Cartesian product $\prod_{i=1}^{N}f_i:\prod_{i=1}^{N}X_i\rightarrow\prod_{i=1}^{N}Y_i$ is defined as $(\prod_{i=1}^{N}f_i)(x_1,\ldots,x_N)=[f_1(x_1);\ldots;f_N(x_N)]$. Given a measurable function $f:\mathbb N\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$, the (essential) supremum of $f$ is denoted by $\Vert f\Vert_{\infty} {:=}\text{(ess)sup}\{\Vert f(k)\Vert,k\geq 0\}$. A function $\gamma:\mathbb{{\mathbb{R}}}_{0}^{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{{\mathbb{R}}}_{0}^{+}$, is said to be a class $\mathcal{K}$ function if it is continuous, strictly increasing, and $\gamma(0)=0$. A class $\mathcal{K}$ function $\gamma(\cdot)$ is said to be a class $\mathcal{K}_{\infty}$ if $\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}\gamma(r) = \infty$.
Discrete-Time Stochastic Control Systems {#discrete-time-stochastic-control-systems}
----------------------------------------
We consider stochastic control systems (SCS) in discrete time defined over a general state space and characterized by the tuple $$\label{eq:dt-SCS}
\Sigma=(X,U,W,\varsigma,f),$$ where $X$ is a Borel space as the state space of the system. We denote by $(X, \mathcal B (X))$ the measurable space with $\mathcal B (X)$ being the Borel sigma-algebra on the state space. Sets $U$ and $W$ are Borel spaces as the *external* and *internal* input spaces of the system. Notation $\varsigma$ denotes a sequence of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables on a set $V_\varsigma$ $$\varsigma:=\{\varsigma(k):\Omega\rightarrow V_{\varsigma},\,\,k\in{{\mathbb{N}}}\}.$$ The map $f:X\times U\times W\times V_{\varsigma} \rightarrow X$ is a measurable function characterizing the state evolution of the system.
For given initial state $x(0)\in X$ and input sequences $\nu(\cdot):\mathbb N\rightarrow U$ and $\mathsf w(\cdot):\mathbb N\rightarrow W$, state trajectory of SCS $\Sigma$, $x(\cdot):\mathbb N\rightarrow X$, satisfies $$\label{Eq_1a}
x(k+1)=f(x(k),\nu(k),\mathsf w(k),\varsigma(k)),\quad k\in\mathbb N.$$
Given the SCS in , we are interested in *Markov policies* to control the system.
\[Marcov policy\] A Markov policy for the SCS $\Sigma$ in is a sequence $\bar \rho = (\bar\rho_0,\bar\rho_1,\bar\rho_2,\ldots)$ of universally measurable stochastic kernels $\bar\rho_n$ [@BS96], each defined on the input space $U$ given $X\times W$. The class of all such Markov policies is denoted by $\Pi_M$.
We associate respectively to $U$ and $W$ the sets $\mathcal U$ and $\mathcal W$ to be collections of sequences $\{\nu(k):\Omega\rightarrow U,\,\,k\in{{\mathbb{N}}}\}$ and $\{\mathsf w(k):\Omega\rightarrow W,\,\,k\in{{\mathbb{N}}}\}$, in which $\nu(k)$ and $\mathsf w(k)$ are independent of $\varsigma(t)$ for any $k,t\in\mathbb N$ and $t\ge k$. For any initial state $a\in X$, $\nu(\cdot)\in\mathcal{U}$, and $\mathsf w(\cdot)\in\mathcal{W}$, the random sequence $x_{a\nu \mathsf w}:\Omega \times{{\mathbb{N}}}\rightarrow X$ that satisfies is called the *solution process* of $\Sigma$ under external input $\nu$, internal input $\mathsf w$ and initial state $a$. In this sequel we assume that the state space $X$ of $\Sigma$ is a subset of $\mathbb R^n$. System $\Sigma$ is called finite if $ X, U, W$ are finite sets and infinite otherwise.
In this paper, we are interested in studying interconnected stochastic control systems without internal inputs that result from the interconnection of SCS having both internal and external inputs. In this case, the interconnected SCS without internal input is indicated by the tuple $\Sigma=(X,U,\varsigma,f)$, where $f:X\times U\times V_\varsigma\rightarrow X$.
In the following subsection, we define the $M$-sampled systems, based on which one can employ *finite-step stochastic simulation functions* to quantify the probabilistic mismatch between the interconnected SCS and that of their abstractions.
$M$-Sampled Systems
-------------------
The existing methodologies for compositional (in)finite abstractions of interconnected stochastic control systems [@lavaei2018ADHS; @lavaei2017compositional; @lavaei2018CDCJ; @lavaei2017HSCC] rely on the assumption that each subsystem is individually stabilizable. This assumption does not hold in general even if the interconnected system is stabilizable. The main idea behind the *relaxed* dissipativity-type conditions proposed in this paper is as follows. We show that the individual stabilizability requirement can be relaxed by incorporating the stabilizing effect of the neighboring subsystems in a locally unstabilizable subsystem. Once the stabilizing effect is appeared, we construct finite abstractions of subsystems and employ dissipativity theory to provide compositionality results. Our approach relies on looking at the solution process of the system in future time instances while incorporating the interconnection of subsystems. The following motivating example illustrates this idea.
\[Motivation Example\] Consider two linear SCS $\Sigma_1,\Sigma_2$ with dynamics $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Example1}
\begin{array}{l}x_1(k+1)=1.01x_1(k)+0.4\mathsf w_{1}(k)+\varsigma_1(k),\\
x_2(k+1)=0.55x_2(k)-0.2\mathsf w_{2}(k)+\varsigma_2(k),\\
\end{array}
\end{aligned}$$ that are connected with the constraint $[{\mathsf w_1;\mathsf w_2}] = \begin{bmatrix}
-1 && 1\\
1 && 1\\
\end{bmatrix}[{x_1;x_2}]$. For simplicity, these two SCS do not have external inputs, $\nu_i \equiv0$ for $i = \{1,2\}$. Note that the first subsystem is not stable thus not stabilizable as well. Therefore the proposed results of [@lavaei2018ADHS; @lavaei2017compositional; @lavaei2018CDCJ; @lavaei2017HSCC] are not applicable to this network. By looking at the solution process two steps ahead and considering the interconnection, one can write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Example2}
\begin{array}{l}x_1(k+2)= 0.29x_1(k)+0.38w_1(k)+0.4\varsigma_2(k)+0.61\varsigma_1(k)+\varsigma_1(k+1),\\
x_2(k+2)=0.04x_2(k)-0.19w_2(k)-0.2\varsigma_1(k)+0.35\varsigma_2(k)+\varsigma_2(k+1),\\
\end{array}
\end{aligned}$$ where $[{w_1;w_2}] = [{x_2;x_1}]$. The two subsystems in , denoted by $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}1},\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}2}$, are now stable. This motivates us to construct abstractions of original subsystems based on auxiliary subsystems .
\[Coupling Matrix\] Note that after interconnecting the subsystems with each other and propagating the dynamics in the next $M$-steps, the interconnection topology will change (cf. constraint in the sequel). Then the *internal input* of the auxiliary system (i.e. $w$) is different from that of the original one (i.e. $\mathsf w$).
The main contribution of this paper is to provide a general methodology for compositional abstraction-based synthesis of interconnected SCS with not necessarily stabilizable subsystems, by looking at the solution process *$M$-step* ahead. To do so, we require the following assumption on the external input signal.
\[Asm: 1\] The external input is nonzero only at time instances $\{(k\!+\!M\!-\!1),\,\,k=jM,j\in {{\mathbb{N}}}\}$.
This assumption helps us in decomposing the network after $M$ transitions such that each subsystem after $M$ steps depends only on its own external input. This is essential for *fully decentralized* controller synthesis. On the other hand, this assumption restricts the external input to take values only at particular time instances making the controller synthesis problem more conservative.
Next lemma shows how dynamics of the $M$-sampled systems, called auxiliary system $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$, can be obtained.
\[Lemma1\] Suppose we are given $N$ SCS $\Sigma_i$ defined by $$\label{small: 1}
\Sigma_i:\left\{\hspace{-1.5mm}\begin{array}{l}x_i(k+1)=f_i(x_i(k),\nu_i(k),\mathsf w_i(k),\varsigma_i(k)),\\
x_i(\cdot)\in X_i, \nu_i(\cdot)\in U_i, \mathsf w_i(\cdot)\in W_i, k\in\mathbb N,\\
\end{array}\right.$$ which are connected in a network with constraints $\mathsf w_{i} = [G_{i1};\dots;G_{iN}]^T[x_1;\dots;x_N], \forall i
\in\{1,\cdots,N\}$, for some matrices $\{G_{i1}, \dots, G_{iN}\}$ of appropriate dimensions. Under Assumption \[Asm: 1\], the $M$-sampled systems $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}i}$, which are the solutions of $\Sigma_i$ at time instances $k=jM,j\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, have the form $$\label{Eq_11a}
\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}i}:\left\{\hspace{-1.5mm}\begin{array}{l}x_i(k+M)=\tilde f_i(x_i(k),\nu_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1),w_i(k),\tilde \varsigma_i(k)),\\
x_i(\cdot)\in X_i, \nu_i(\cdot)\in U_i, w_i(\cdot)\in W_i, k=jM,j\in {{\mathbb{N}}},\\
\end{array}\right.$$ where $w_i(k)$ is the new internal input depending on the interconnection network, and $\tilde \varsigma_i(k)$ is a vector containing noise terms as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\tilde \varsigma_i(k)=[\bar \varsigma_1(k);\ldots;\bar \varsigma_i^\ast(k);\ldots; \bar \varsigma_N(k)],\\
&\bar \varsigma_j(k)=[\varsigma_j(k);\ldots;\varsigma_j(k\!+\!M\!-\!2)], \quad\forall j\in\{1,\dots N\},j\neq i,\notag\\
&\bar \varsigma_i^\ast(k) = [\varsigma_i(k);\ldots;\varsigma_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1)].\label{Noises}
\end{aligned}$$
Note that some of the noise terms in $\tilde \varsigma_i(k)$ may be eliminated depending on the interconnection graph, but all the terms are present for a fully interconnected network. Proof of Lemma \[Lemma1\] is based on recursive application of vector field $f_i$ and utilizing Assumption \[Asm: 1\]. Computation of vector field $\tilde f_i$ is illustrated in the next example on a network consisting of two linear SCS.
Consider linear SCS $\Sigma_i$, $i\in\{1,2\}$, with dynamics $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq_5a}
\Sigma_i:x_i(k+1)=A_ix_i(k)+B_i\nu_i(k)+D_i\mathsf w_{i}(k)+R_i\varsigma_i(k),
\end{aligned}$$ connected with constraints $[{\mathsf w_1;\mathsf w_2}] = \begin{bmatrix}
G_{11} & G_{12}\\
G_{21} & G_{22}\\
\end{bmatrix}[{x_1;x_2}]$. Matrices $A_i,B_i,D_i,R_i$, $i\in\{1,2\}$, have appropriate dimensions. We can rewrite the given dynamics as $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
{x}(k+1)=\bar Ax(k)+\bar B\nu(k)+\bar D\mathsf w(k)+\bar R\varsigma(k),
\end{aligned}$$ with $x=[{x_1;x_2}], \nu=[{\nu_1;\nu_2}], \mathsf w=[{\mathsf w_1;\mathsf w_2}], \varsigma=[{\varsigma_1;\varsigma_2}]$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\bar A= \mathsf{diag}(A_1,A_2), \quad\bar B= \mathsf{diag}(B_1,B_2),\quad\bar D= \mathsf{diag}(D_1,D_2),\quad\bar R= \mathsf{diag}(R_1,R_2).
\end{aligned}$$ By applying the interconnection constraints $\mathsf w=[{\mathsf w_1;\mathsf w_2}] = G[{x_1;x_2}]$ with $G = \begin{bmatrix}
G_{11} & G_{12}\\
G_{21} & G_{22}\\
\end{bmatrix}\!$, we have $$x(k+1) = (\bar A+\bar DG)x(k)+\bar B\nu(k)+\bar R\varsigma(k).$$ Now by looking at the solutions $M$ steps ahead, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
x(k+M)=&(\bar A+\bar DG)^Mx(k)+\sum_{n=0}^{M-1}(\bar A+\bar DG)^n\bar B\nu(k\!+\!M\!-\!n\!-\!1)+\sum_{n=0}^{M-1}(\bar A+\bar DG)^n\bar R \varsigma(k\!+\!M\!-\!n\!-\!1).
\end{aligned}$$ After applying Assumption \[Asm: 1\] and by partitioning $(\bar A+\bar DG)^M$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
(\bar A+\bar DG)^M=
\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
\tilde A_1 & \tilde D_1 \\
\hline
\tilde A_2 & \tilde D_2
\end{array}
\right]\!\!,
\end{aligned}$$ one can decompose the network and obtain the auxiliary subsystems proposed in as follows, $i\in\{1,2\}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq_588a}
\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}i}:x_i(k+M)=\tilde A_ix_i(k)+ B_i\nu_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1)+\tilde D_iw_{i}(k)+\tilde R_i\tilde \varsigma_i(k),
\end{aligned}$$ where $w_1(k), w_2(k)$ are the new internal inputs, $\tilde \varsigma_1(k), \tilde \varsigma_2(k)$ are defined as in with $N=2$, and $\tilde R_i$ is a matrix of appropriate dimension which can be computed based on the matrices in . As seen, $\tilde A_1$ and $\tilde A_2$ are now depend also on $D_1,D_2$ and interconnection matrix $G$, which may result in the pairs $(\tilde A_1,B_1)$ and $(\tilde A_2,B_2)$ being stabilizable.
The main idea behind the proposed approach is that we first look at the solutions of the unstabilizable subsystems, during which we interconnect the subsystems with each other based on their interconnection networks. We go ahead until all subsystems are stabilizable (if possible). Once the stabilizing effect is evident, we decompose the network such that each subsystem is only in terms of its own state, and external input. In contrast to the given original systems, the interconnection topology will change, meaning that the internal input of auxiliary system is different from the original one. Moreover, the external input of the auxiliary system after doing the $M$-step analysis is given only at instants $k\!+\!M\!-\!1$, $k=jM$, $j\in\mathbb{N}$. Finally, the noise term in the auxiliary system is now a sequence of noises of other subsystems in different time steps depending on the type of interconnection.
Markov Decision Processes {#subsec:MDP}
-------------------------
An SCS $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$ can be *equivalently* represented as a Markov decision process (MDP) [@SIAM17] $$\notag
\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}=(X,U,W,T_{\mathsf x}),$$ where the map $T_{\mathsf x}:\mathcal B(X)\times X\times U\times W\rightarrow[0,1]$, is a conditional stochastic kernel that assigns to any $x:=x(k)\in X$, $w:=w(k)\in W$ and $\nu:=\nu(k\!+\!M\!-\!1)\in U$ a probability measure $T_{\mathsf x}(\cdot | x,\nu, w)$ on the measurable space $(X,\mathcal B(X))$ so that for any set $\mathcal{A} \in \mathcal B(X)$, $$\mathbb P(x(k+M)\in \mathcal{A}| x,\nu,w) = \int_\mathcal{A} T_{\mathsf x} (d\bar x|x,\nu,w).$$
For given inputs $\nu(\cdot), w(\cdot),$ the stochastic kernel $T_{\mathsf x}$ captures the evolution of the state of $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$ and can be uniquely determined by the pair $(\tilde \varsigma,\tilde f)$.
The alternative representation as MDP is utilized in [@SAM15] to approximate an SCS $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$ with a finite $\widehat\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$. Algorithm \[algo:MC\_app\] adapted from [@SAM15] presents this approximation. The algorithm first constructs finite partitions of state set $X$ and input sets $U$, $W$. Then representative points $\bar x_i\in \mathsf X_i$, $\bar \nu_i\in \mathsf U_i$ and $\bar w_i\in \mathsf W_i$ are selected as abstract states and inputs. Transition probabilities in the finite MDP $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$ are also computed according to .
input SCS $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$ Select finite partitions of sets $X,U,W$ as $X = \cup_{i=1}^{n_x} \mathsf X_i$, $U = \cup_{i=1}^{n_\nu} \mathsf U_i$, $W = \cup_{i=1}^{n_w} \mathsf W_i$ For each $\mathsf X_i,\mathsf U_i$, and $\mathsf W_i$, select single representative points $x_i \in \mathsf X_i$, $\nu_i \in \mathsf U_i$, $w_i \in \mathsf W_i$ Define $\hat X := \{x_i, i=1,...,n_x\}$ as the finite state set of MDP $\widehat\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$ with external and internal input sets $\hat U := \{\nu_i, i=1,...,n_\nu\}$ $\hat W := \{w_i, i=1,...,n_w\}$ \[step:refined\] Define the map $\Xi:X\rightarrow 2^X$ that assigns to any $x\in X$, the corresponding partition set it belongs to, i.e., $\Xi(x) = \mathsf X_i$ if $x\in \mathsf X_i$ for some $i=1,2,\ldots,n_x$ Compute the discrete transition probability matrix $\hat T_{\mathsf x}$ for $\widehat\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:trans_prob}
\hat T_{\mathsf x} (x'|x,\nu,w)
= T_{\mathsf x} (\Xi(x')|x,\nu,w),
\end{aligned}$$ for all $x:=x(k),x':=x(k+M)\in \hat X, \nu:=\nu(k\!+\!M\!-\!1)\in \hat U, w :=w(k)\in\hat W$, $k=jM,j\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, output finite MDP $\widehat\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$
In the following theorem, we give a dynamical representation of the finite MDP, which is more suitable for the study of this paper. The proof of this theorem is provided in the Appendix.
\[Def154\] Given an SCS $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$, a finite MDP $\widehat\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$ can be constructed based on Algorithm \[algo:MC\_app\], where $\hat f:\hat X\times\hat U\times\hat W\times V_\varsigma\rightarrow\hat X$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:abs_dyn}
\hat f(\hat x(k), \hat \nu(k\!+\!M\!-\!1),\hat w(k), \tilde \varsigma(k)) = \Pi_x(\tilde f(\hat x(k),\hat \nu(k\!+\!M\!-\!1), \hat w(k),\tilde \varsigma(k))),
\end{aligned}$$ and $\Pi_x:X\rightarrow \hat X$ is the map that assigns to any $x\in X$, the representative point $\hat x\in\hat X$ of the corresponding partition set containing $x$. The initial state of $\widehat\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$ is also selected according to $\hat x_0 := \Pi_x(x_0)$ with $x_0$ being the initial state of $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$.
Dynamical representation provided by Theorem \[Def154\] uses the map $\Pi_x:X\rightarrow \hat X$ that satisfies the inequality $$\label{eq:Pi_delta}
\Vert \Pi_x(x)-x\Vert \leq \delta,\quad \forall x\in X,$$ where $\delta:=\sup\{\|x-x'\|,\,\, x,x'\in \mathsf X_i,\,i=1,2,\ldots,n_x\}$ is the *state* discretization parameter. Let us similarly define the abstraction map $\Pi_w:W\rightarrow \hat W$ on $W$ that assigns to any $w\in W$ representative point $\hat w\in\hat W$ of the corresponding partition set containing $w$. This map also satisfies $$\label{eq:Pi_mu}
\Vert \Pi_w(w)-w\Vert \leq \beta,\,\quad \forall w\in W,$$ where $\beta$ is the *internal input* discretization parameter defined similar to $\delta$. We use inequality in Section \[sec:compositionality\] for the compositional construction of abstractions for interconnected systems.
In the next section, we first define the notions of *finite-step* stochastic storage and simulation functions to quantify the mismatch in probability between two SCS (with both internal and external signals) and two interconnected SCS (without internal signals), respectively. Then we employ dynamical representation of $\widehat\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$ to compare interconnections of SCS and those of their abstract counterparts based on finite-step stochastic simulation functions.
Finite-Step Stochastic Storage and Simulation Functions {#sec:SPSF}
=======================================================
In this section, we first introduce the notion of finite-step stochastic storage functions (FStF) for SCS with both internal and external inputs, which is adapted from the notion of storage functions from dissipativity theory. We then define the notion of finite-step stochastic simulation functions (FSF) for systems with only external inputs. We use these definitions to quantify probabilistic closeness of two interconnected SCS.
We employ here a notion of finite-step simulation functions inspired by the notion of finite-step Lyapunov functions [@geiselhart2014alternative].
\[Def\_1a\] Consider SCS $\Sigma_i$ and $\widehat\Sigma_i$ where $\hat X_i\subseteq X_i$. A function $V_i:X_i\times\hat X_i\to{{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge0}$ is called a *finite-step* stochastic storage function (FStF) from $\widehat\Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$ if there exist $M \in\mathbb N_{\ge 1}$, $\alpha_i\in\mathcal{K}_\infty$, $\kappa_i\in \mathcal{K}$, $\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}\in\mathcal{K}_\infty\cup\{0\}$, constant $\psi_i \in{{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge 0}$, and symmetric matrix $\bar X_i$ with conformal block partitions $\bar X_i^{l\bar l}$, $l, \bar l\in\{1,2\}$, such that for all $k=jM,j\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, $x_i:=x_i(k)\in X_i, \hat x_i:=\hat x_i(k)\in\hat X_i,$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq_2a}
\alpha_i(\Vert x_i-\hat x_i\Vert)\le V_i(x_i, \hat x_i),
\end{aligned}$$ and for any $\hat\nu_i:=\hat\nu_i(k+M-1)\in\hat U_i$, there exists $ \nu_i:=\nu_i(k+M-1)\in U_i$ such that for any $w_i:=w_i(k)\in W_i$ and $\hat w_i:=\hat w_i(k)\in\hat W_i$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\mathbb{E} &\Big[{V_i(x_i(k+M), \hat x_i(k+M))}\big|x_i,\hat x_i, \nu_i ,\hat \nu_i, w_i,\hat w_i \Big]-V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)\\\label{Eq_3a}
&\leq-\kappa_i(V_i(x_i,\hat x_i))+
\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}(\Vert\hat\nu_i\Vert)+\psi_i+\begin{bmatrix}
w_i-\hat w_i\\
x_i- \hat x_i
\end{bmatrix}^T
\underbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
\bar X_i^{11}&\bar X_i^{12}\\
\bar X_i^{21}&\bar X_i^{22}
\end{bmatrix}}_{\bar X_i:=}\begin{bmatrix}
w_i-\hat w_i\\
x_i- \hat x_i
\end{bmatrix}\!\!.
\end{aligned}$$
If there exists an FStF $V_i$ from $\widehat\Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$, denoted by $\widehat\Sigma_i\preceq_{\mathcal{FS}}\Sigma_i$, the control system $\widehat\Sigma_i$ is called an abstraction of concrete (original) system $\Sigma_i$. Note that $\widehat \Sigma_i$ may be finite or infinite depending on cardinalities of sets $\hat X_i,\hat U_i,\hat W_i$. We drop the term *finite-step* for the case $M = 1$, and instead call it a *classic* storage function, which is identical to the ones defined in [@lavaei2017HSCC].
Note that $\kappa_i$ defined in depends on $M$ meaning that FStF $V_i$ here is *less* conservative than the *classic* storage function defined in [@lavaei2017HSCC]. In other words, condition may not hold for $M=1$ but may be satisfied for some $M \in\mathbb N_{>1}$. Such a dependency on $M$ increases the class of systems for which the condition is satisfiable. This relaxation allows some of the individual subsystems to be even unstabilizable initially.
Second condition of Definition \[Def\_1a\] implicitly implies existence of an *interface function* $$\nu_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1)=\nu_{{\hat \nu}_ i}(x_i(k),\hat x_i(k),\hat \nu_i(k\!+\!\!M\!-\!1)),$$ for all $k=jM,j\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, satisfying inequality . This function is employed to refine a synthesized policy $\hat\nu_i$ for $\widehat\Sigma_i$ to a policy $\nu_i$ for $\Sigma_i$.
Note that for the sake of readability, we assume that $\Sigma_i$ and $\widehat \Sigma_i$ both have the same dimension (without performing any model order reductions). But if this is not the case and they have different dimensionality, one can employ the techniques proposed in [@lavaei2018CDCJ] to first reduce the dimension of concrete system, and then apply the proposed results of this paper.
Definition \[Def\_1a\] can also be stated for systems without internal inputs by eliminating all the terms related to $w,\hat w$. Such systems are obtained by interconnecting subsystems. We modify the above notion for the interconnected SCS without internal inputs as the following definition.
Consider two SCS $\Sigma$ and $\widehat\Sigma $ without internal input, where $\hat X\subseteq X$. A function $V:X\times\hat X\to{{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge0}$ is called a *finite-step* stochastic simulation function (FSF) from $\widehat\Sigma$ to $\Sigma$ if there exist $M \in\mathbb N_{\ge 1}$, and $\alpha\in \mathcal{K}_{\infty}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lowerbound2}
\forall x:=x(k)\in X,\forall\hat x:=\hat x(k)\in\hat X, \quad\alpha(\Vert x-\hat x\Vert)\le V(x,\hat x),
\end{aligned}$$ and $\forall x:=x(k)\in X,\,\forall \hat x:=\hat x(k)\in\hat X,\,\forall \hat\nu:=\hat \nu(k\!+\!M\!-\!1)\in\hat U$, $\exists \nu:=\nu(k\!+\!M\!-\!1)\in U$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq6666}
\mathbb{E} &\Big[V(x(k+M), \hat x(k+M))\,\big|\,x,\hat{x},\nu,\hat{\nu}\Big]-V(x,\hat{x})\leq-\kappa(V(x,\hat{x}))
+\rho_{\mathrm{ext}}(\Vert\hat\nu\Vert)+\psi,
\end{aligned}$$ for some $\kappa\in \mathcal{K}$, $\rho_{\mathrm{ext}} \in \mathcal{K}_{\infty}\cup \{0\}$, $\psi \in\mathbb R_{\ge 0}$, and $k=jM,j\in {{\mathbb{N}}}$.
If there exists an FSF $V$ from $\widehat\Sigma$ to $\Sigma$, denoted by $\widehat\Sigma\preceq\Sigma$, $\widehat\Sigma$ is called an abstraction of $\Sigma$.
Next theorem is borrowed from [@lavaei2017compositional Theorem 3.3], and shows how FSF can be used to compare state trajectories of two SCS without internal inputs in a probabilistic setting.
\[Thm\_1a\] Let $\Sigma$ and $\widehat\Sigma$ be two SCS without internal input, where $\hat X\subseteq X$. Suppose $V$ is an FSF from $\widehat\Sigma$ to $\Sigma$ and there exists a constant $0<\hat\kappa<1$ such that the function $\kappa \in \mathcal{K}$ in satisfies $\kappa(r)\geq\hat\kappa r$, $\forall r\in\mathbb R_{\geq0}$. For any random variables $a$ and $\hat a$ as the initial states of the two SCS, and for any external input trajectory $\hat\nu(\cdot)\in\mathcal{\hat U}$ that preserves Markov property (cf. Definition \[Marcov policy\]) for the closed-loop $\widehat\Sigma$, there exists an input trajectory $\nu(\cdot)\in\mathcal{U}$ of $\Sigma$ through the interface function associated with $V$ such that the following inequality holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq_25}
\mathbb{P}\left\{\sup_{k=jM, \,0\leq j\leq T_d}\Vert x_{a\nu}(k)-\hat x_{\hat a \hat\nu}(k)\Vert\geq\varepsilon\,|\,[a;\hat a]\right\}\!\leq
\begin{cases}
1\!-\!(1\!-\!\frac{V(a,\hat a)}{\alpha\left(\varepsilon\right)})(1\!-\!\frac{\widehat\psi}{\alpha\left(\varepsilon\right)})^{T_d} & \!\text{if}~\alpha\left(\varepsilon\right)\!\geq\!\frac{\widehat\psi}{\hat\kappa},\\
(\!\frac{V(a,\hat a)}{\alpha\left(\varepsilon\right)}\!)(1\!-\!\hat\kappa)^{T_d}\!+\!(\!\frac{\widehat\psi}{\hat\kappa\alpha\left(\varepsilon\right)}\!)(1\!-\!(1\!-\!\hat\kappa)^{T_d}) & \!\text{if}~\alpha\left(\varepsilon\right)\!<\!\frac{\widehat\psi}{\hat\kappa},
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $\widehat\psi\geq0$ satisfies $\widehat\psi\geq \rho_{\mathrm{ext}}(\Vert\hat \nu\Vert_{\infty})+\psi$.
Note that the results shown in Theorem \[Thm\_1a\] provide closeness of state trajectories of two interconnected SCS only at the times $k = jM$, $0\leq j\leq T_d$, for some $M \in\mathbb N_{\ge 1}$.
Compositional Abstractions for Interconnected Systems {#sec:compositionality}
=====================================================
In this section, we analyze networks of stochastic control subsystems and show how to compositionally construct their abstractions together with the corresponding finite-step simulation functions by using abstractions and finite-step storage functions of the subsystems.
Concrete Interconnected Stochastic Control Systems
--------------------------------------------------
We first provide a formal definition of *concrete* interconnected stochastic control subsystems.
Consider $N\in{{\mathbb{N}}}_{\geq1}$ *concrete* stochastic control subsystems $\Sigma_i$, $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, and a matrix $G$ defining the coupling between these subsystems. The interconnection of $\Sigma_i$, $\forall i\in \{1,\ldots,N\}$, is the *concrete* SCS $\Sigma$, denoted by $\mathcal{I}(\Sigma_1,\ldots,\Sigma_N)$, such that $X:=\prod_{i=1}^{N}X_i$, $U:=\prod_{i=1}^{N}U_i$, and function $f:=\prod_{i=1}^{N}f_{i}$, with the internal inputs constrained according to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{interconnection constraint original}
{\ensuremath{{\left[\mathsf w_{1};\ldots;\mathsf w_{N}\right]}}}=G{\ensuremath{{\left[x_1;\ldots;x_N\right]}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ We require the condition $G\prod_{i=1}^N X_i \subseteq \prod_{i=1}^N W_{i}$ to have a well-posed interconnection.
As mentioned in Remark \[Coupling Matrix\], after interconnecting the subsystems with each other and doing the $M$-step analysis, the interconnection coupling matrix $G$ will change. Then the interconnection constraint for the auxiliary systems is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{interconnection constraint}
{\ensuremath{{\left[w_{1};\ldots;w_{N}\right]}}}=G_a{\ensuremath{{\left[x_1;\ldots;x_N\right]}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $G_a$ is an *auxiliary* coupling matrix.
Compositional Abstractions of Interconnected Systems
----------------------------------------------------
We assume that we are given $N$ concrete stochastic control subsystems $\Sigma_i$ together with their corresponding abstractions $\widehat\Sigma_i$ with FStF $V_i$ from $\widehat\Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$. We indicate by $\alpha_{i}$, $\kappa_i$, $\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}$, $\bar X_i$, $\bar X_i^{11}$, $\bar X_i^{12}$, $\bar X_i^{21}$, and $\bar X_i^{22}$, the corresponding functions and the conformal block partitions appearing in Definition \[Def\_1a\]. In order to provide one of the main results of the paper, we define a notion of interconnection for *abstract* stochastic control subsystems.
\[Def: Abstract\] Consider $N\in{{\mathbb{N}}}_{\geq1}$ *abstract* stochastic control subsystems $\widehat\Sigma_i$, $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, and a matrix $\hat G$ defining the coupling between these subsystems. The interconnection of $\widehat\Sigma_i$, $\forall i\in \{1,\ldots,N\}$, is the *abstract* SCS $\widehat\Sigma$, denoted by $\widehat {\mathcal{I}}(\widehat\Sigma_1,\ldots,\widehat\Sigma_N)$, such that $\hat X:=\prod_{i=1}^{N}\hat X_i$, $\hat U:=\prod_{i=1}^{N}\hat U_i$, and function $\hat f:=\prod_{i=1}^{N}\hat f_{i}$, with the internal inputs constrained according to $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
{\ensuremath{{\left[\hat{\mathsf w}_{1};\ldots;\hat{\mathsf w}_{N}\right]}}}=\Pi_{\mathsf w}(\hat G{\ensuremath{{\left[\hat x_1;\ldots;\hat x_N\right]}}}),
\end{aligned}$$
where $\Pi_{\mathsf w}$ is the abstraction map defined similarly to the one in . Accordingly, the interconnection constraint for the abstractions of auxiliary subsystems is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{interconnection constraint2}
{\ensuremath{{\left[\hat w_{1};\ldots;\hat w_{N}\right]}}}=\Pi_{w}(\hat G_a{\ensuremath{{\left[\hat x_1;\ldots;\hat x_N\right]}}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat G_a$ is an *auxiliary* coupling matrix for the abstractions.
Note that Definition \[Def: Abstract\] implicitly assumes that the following constraints are satisfied to have well-posed interconnections: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{interconnection constraint1}
\Pi_{\mathsf w}(\hat G\prod_{i=1}^N \hat X_i) \subseteq \prod_{i=1}^N \hat W_{i},
\quad \Pi_{w}(\hat G_a\prod_{i=1}^N \hat X_i) \subseteq \prod_{i=1}^N \hat W_{i}.
\end{aligned}$$
Note that the proposed condition is more efficient than the compositionality condition $(15)$ presented in [@lavaei2017HSCC]. In particular, the proposed condition in [@lavaei2017HSCC] is an implicit one meaning that there is no direct way to satisfy it. Moreover, our compositionality framework here allows to choose quantization parameters of internal input sets such that one can reduce the cardinality of the internal input sets of finite abstractions. Although the compositionality condition $(15)$ presented in [@lavaei2017HSCC] is relaxed here ([cf. ]{}), our proposed compositionality approach suffers from an additional error in a way that the proposed guaranteed error bounds are more conservative than that of [@lavaei2017HSCC].
In the next theorem, as one of the main results of the paper, we provide sufficient conditions to have an FSF from the interconnection of abstractions $\widehat \Sigma=\widehat {\mathcal{I}}(\widehat\Sigma_1,\ldots,\widehat\Sigma_N)$ to that of concrete ones $\Sigma=\mathcal{I}(\Sigma_1,\ldots,\Sigma_N)$. This theorem enables us to quantify in probability the error between the interconnection of stochastic control subsystems and that of their abstractions in a compositional manner by leveraging Theorem \[Thm\_1a\].
\[Thm\_2a\] Consider the interconnected stochastic auxiliary system $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}=\mathcal{I}(\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}1},\ldots,\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}N})$ induced by $N\in{{{\mathbb{N}}}_{\geq1}}$ stochastic auxiliary subsystems $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}i}$ and the *auxiliary* coupling matrix $G_a$. Suppose that each stochastic control subsystem $\Sigma_i$ admits an abstraction $\widehat \Sigma_i$ with the corresponding FStF $V_i$. Then the weighted sum $$\label{eq:V_comp}
V(x,\hat x){:=}\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_iV_i(x_i,\hat x_i)$$ is a *finite-step* stochastic simulation function from the interconnected control system $\widehat \Sigma=\widehat {\mathcal{I}}(\widehat \Sigma_1,\ldots,\widehat\Sigma_N)$ to $\Sigma=\mathcal{I}(\Sigma_1,\ldots,\Sigma_N)$ provided that $\mu_{i}>0$, $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}\label{Con_1a}
G_a\\\mathds{I}_n
\end{bmatrix}^T &\bar X_{cmp}\begin{bmatrix}
G_a\\\mathds{I}_n
\end{bmatrix}\preceq0,
\\\label{Con_2a}
&G_a=\hat G_a,
\end{aligned}$$ and if there exists $0<\bar \mu <1$ such that for all $x_i \in X_i$, $\hat x_i \in \hat X_i$, $i\in \{1,\dots,N\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert x_i-\hat x_i\Vert^2\leq& \frac{\mu_i\kappa_i}{\bar \mu}(V_i(x_i, \hat x_i)) ,\label{Con111}
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\bar X_{cmp}\!:=\begin{bmatrix}
\mu_1\bar X_1^{11}&&&\mu_1\bar X_1^{12}&&\\
&\ddots&&&\ddots&\\
&&\mu_N\bar X_N^{11}&&&\mu_N\bar X_N^{12}\\
\mu_1\bar X_1^{21}&&&\mu_1\bar X_1^{22}&&\\
&\ddots&&&\ddots&\\
&&\mu_N\bar X_N^{21}&&&\mu_N\bar X_N^{22}
\end{bmatrix}\!\!.\\\label{Def_3a}$$
Proof of Theorem \[Thm\_2a\] is provided in the Appendix. The result of Theorem \[Thm\_2a\] has been schematically illustrated in Figure \[Fig1\].
![Compositionality results for the *auxiliary* systems provided that conditions , , and are satisfied.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](Fig1){width="10.5cm"}
Construction of Finite Markov Decision Processes {#sec:constrcution_finite}
================================================
In the previous sections, we considered $\Sigma_i$ and $\widehat \Sigma_i$ as general stochastic control systems without discussing the cardinality of their state spaces. In this section, we consider $\Sigma_i$ as an infinite SCS and $\widehat \Sigma_i$ as its finite abstraction. We impose conditions on the infinite SCS $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}i}$ enabling us to find an FStF from $\widehat \Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$. The required conditions are first presented for general stochastic control systems in Subsection \[subsec:nonlinear\] and then represented via matrix inequalities for two classes of nonlinear and linear stochastic control systems in Subsections \[Subsec: Nonlinear Control\], and \[Subsec: linear Control\], respectively.
Discrete-Time Nonlinear Stochastic Control Systems {#subsec:nonlinear}
--------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we focus on general setting of discrete-time stochastic control systems. The finite-step stochastic storage function from $\widehat \Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$ is established here under the assumption that the auxiliary system $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}i}$ is *incrementally passivable* as the following.
\[Def111\] A SCS $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}i}$ is called *incrementally passivable* if there exist functions $ H_i: X_i \to U_i$ and $ V_i: X_i \times X_i \to \mathbb{R}_{\geq0} $ such that $\forall x:= x(k),x':=x'(k)\in X$, $\forall \nu := \nu(k\!+\!M\!-\!1)\in U$, $\forall w_i:=w_i(k),w_i':=w_i'(k) \in W_i$, the inequalities
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Con555}
\underline{\alpha}_i (\Vert x_i-x_i'\Vert ) \leq V_i(x_i,x_i'),
\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\mathbb{E}\Big[& V_i(\tilde f_i(x_i,H_i(x_i)+\nu_i,w_i,\tilde\varsigma_i),\tilde f_i(x_i',H_i(x_i')+\nu_i,w_i',\tilde\varsigma_i))\big|x_i, x_i',\nu_i, w_i, w_i'\Big]-V_i(x_i,x_i')\\\label{Con854}
&\leq-\hat{\kappa}_i(V_i(x_i,x_i'))+\begin{bmatrix}w_i-w_i'\\
x_i-x_i'
\end{bmatrix}^T\overbrace{\begin{bmatrix}
\bar X_i^{11}&\bar X_i^{12}\\
\bar X_i^{21}&\bar X_i^{22}
\end{bmatrix}}^{\bar X_i:=}\begin{bmatrix}
w_i-w_i'\\
x_i-x_i'
\end{bmatrix}\!\!,
\end{aligned}$$ hold for some $\underline{\alpha}_i\in \mathcal{K}_{\infty}$, $\hat{\kappa}_i\in \mathcal{K}$, and matrix $\bar X_i$ of appropriate dimension.
Definition \[Def111\] implies that $V_i$ is a stochastic storage function from system $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}i}$ equipped with the state feedback controller $H_i$ to itself. This type of property is closely related to the notion of incremental stabilizability [@angeli; @pham2009contraction].
In Subsections \[Subsec: Nonlinear Control\] and \[Subsec: linear Control\], we show that inequalities - for a candidate quadratic function $V_i$ and two classes of nonlinear and linear stochastic control systems boil down to some matrix inequalities.
Under Definition \[Def111\], the next theorem shows a relation between $\Sigma_i$ and $\widehat \Sigma_i$ via establishing an FStF between them.
\[Thm\_5a\] Let $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}i}$ be an *incrementally passivable* SCS via a function $V_i$ as in Definition \[Def111\] and $\widehat{\Sigma}_{\textsf{aux}i}$ be a finite MDP as in Algorithm \[algo:MC\_app\]. Assume that there exists a function $\gamma_i\in\mathcal{K}_{\infty}$ such that $$\label{Eq65}
V_i(x_i,x_i')-V_i(x_i,x_i'')\leq \gamma_i(\Vert x_i'-x_i''\Vert),~~ \forall x_i,x_i',x_i'' \in X_i.$$ Then $V_i$ is an FStF from $\widehat{\Sigma}_i$ to $\Sigma_i$.
The proof of Theorem \[Thm\_5a\] is provided in the Appendix.
In the next subsections, we first focus on a specific class of discrete-time *nonlinear* stochastic control systems $\Sigma_i$ and *quadratic* stochastic storage functions $V_i$ by providing an approach on the construction of their *classic* storage functions (with $M=1$). We then propose a technique to construct an FStF for a class of linear stochastic control systems.
Discrete-Time Stochastic Control Systems with Slope Restrictions on Nonlinearity {#Subsec: Nonlinear Control}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The class of discrete-time nonlinear stochastic control systems, considered here, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq_58a}
x_i(k+1)&=A_ix(k)+E_i\varphi_i(F_ix_i(k))+B_i\nu_i(k)+D_i\mathsf w_i(k)+R_i\varsigma_i(k),\end{aligned}$$ where the additive noise $\varsigma_i(k)$ is a sequence of independent random vectors with multivariate standard normal distributions, and $\varphi_i:{{\mathbb{R}}}\rightarrow{{\mathbb{R}}}$ satisfies $$\label{Eq_6a}
\tilde a_i\leq\frac{\varphi_i(c_i)-\varphi_i(d_i)}{c_i-d_i}\leq \tilde b_i,~~~\forall c_i,d_i\in{{\mathbb{R}}},c_i\neq d_i,$$ for some $\tilde a_i\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $\tilde b_i\in{{\mathbb{R}}}_{>0}\cup\{\infty\}$, $\tilde a_i\leq \tilde b_i$.
We use the tuple $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\Sigma_i=(A_i,B_i,D_i,E_i,F_i,R_i,\varphi_i),\end{aligned}$$ to refer to the class of nonlinear stochastic control systems of the form .
If $\varphi_i$ in is linear including the zero function (i.e. $\varphi_i\equiv0$) or $E_i$ is a zero matrix, one can remove or push the term $E_i\varphi_i(F_ix_i)$ to $A_ix_i$ and, hence, the tuple representing the class of nonlinear stochastic control systems reduces to the linear one $\Sigma_i=(A_i,B_i,D_i,R_i)$. Therefore, every time we use the tuple $\Sigma_i=(A_i,B_i,D_i,E_i,F_i,R_i,\varphi_i)$, it implicitly implies that $\varphi_i$ is nonlinear and $E_i$ is nonzero.
Similar to what is shown in [@arcak2001observer], without loss of generality, we can assume $\tilde a_i=0$ in for the class of nonlinear control systems in . If $\tilde a_i\neq0$, one can define a new function $\bar\varphi_i(r):=\varphi_i(r)-\tilde a_ir$ which satisfies with $\bar a_i=0$ and $\bar b_i=\tilde b_i-\tilde a_i$, and rewrite as $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
x_i(k\!+\!1)=\bar A_ix_i(k)\!+\!E_i\bar \varphi_i(F_ix_i(k))\!+\!B_i\nu_i(k)\!+\!D_i\mathsf w_i(k)+R_i\varsigma_i(k),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar A_i=A_i+\tilde a_iE_iF_i$.
Now we provide conditions under which a candidate $V_i$ is a *classic* storage function facilitating the construction of an abstraction $\widehat \Sigma_i$. To do so, take the following simulation function candidate from $\widehat \Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$ $$\label{Eq_7a}
V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)=(x_i-\hat x_i)^T\tilde M_i(x_i-\hat x_i),$$ where $\tilde M_i$ is a positive-definite matrix of appropriate dimension. In order to show that $V_i$ in is a *classic* storage function from $\widehat\Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$, we require the following assumption on $\Sigma_i$.
\[As\_11a\] Assume that for some constants $0<\hat\kappa_i<1$, and $\pi_i >0$, there exist matrices $K_i$, $\bar X_i^{11}$, $\bar X_i^{12}$, $\bar X_i^{21}$, and $\bar X_i^{22}$ of appropriate dimensions such that inequality holds.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq_88a}
\begin{bmatrix}
(1\!+\!\pi_i)(A_i\!\!+\!\!B_iK_i)^T\tilde M_i(A_i\!\!+\!\!B_iK_i) & (A_i\!\!+\!\!B_iK_i)^T\tilde M_iD_i & (A_i\!\!+\!\!B_iK_i)^T\tilde M_iE_i\\
*& (1\!+\!\pi_i)D_i^T \tilde M_iD_i & D_i^T \tilde M_iE_i\\
*&*&(1\!+\!\pi_i) E_i^T\tilde M_iE_i\\
\end{bmatrix}&\!\preceq\begin{bmatrix}
\hat\kappa_i\tilde M_i\!+\!\bar X_i^{22}& \bar X_i^{21} & -F_i^T\\
\bar X_i^{12} & \bar X_i^{11} & 0\\
-F_i & 0 & 2/\tilde b_i\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, we propose the main result of this subsection.
\[Thm\_3a\] Assume system $\Sigma_i=(A_i,B_i,D_i,E_i,F_i,R_i,\varphi_i)$ satisfies Assumption \[As\_11a\]. Let $\widehat \Sigma_i$ be its finite abstraction as described in Subsection \[subsec:MDP\] but for the original system with state discretization parameter $\delta_i$, and $\hat X_i\subseteq X_i$. Then function $V_i$ defined in is a *classic* storage function (with $M=1$) from $\widehat \Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$.
The proof of Theorem \[Thm\_3a\] is provided in the Appendix. Note that the functions $\alpha_i\in\mathcal{K}_\infty$, $\kappa_i\in\mathcal{K}$, $\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}\in\mathcal{K}_\infty\cup\{0\}$, and the matrix $\bar X_i$ in Definition \[Def\_1a\] associated with $V_i$ in are $\alpha_i(s)=\lambda_{\min}(\tilde M_i)s^2$, $\kappa_i(s):=(1-\hat\kappa_i) s$, $\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}(s):=0$, $\forall s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge0}$, and $\bar X_i=\begin{bmatrix}
\bar X_i^{11}&\bar X_i^{12}\\
\bar X_i^{21}&\bar X_i^{22}
\end{bmatrix}$. Moreover, positive constant $\psi_i$ in is $\psi_i=(1+3/\pi_i)\lambda_{\max}{(\tilde M_i)}\delta_i^2$.
Note that for any linear system $\Sigma_i=(A_i,B_i,D_i, R_i)$, stabilizability of the pair $(A_i, B_i)$ is sufficient to satisfy Assumption \[As\_11a\] in where matrices $E_i$, and $F_i$ are identically zero.
Discrete-Time linear Stochastic Control Systems {#Subsec: linear Control}
-----------------------------------------------
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq_888a}
\begin{bmatrix}
(1\!+\!\pi_i)(\tilde A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)^T\tilde M_i(\tilde A_i\!+\!B_iK_i) && (\tilde A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)^T\tilde M_i\tilde D_i\\
*&& (1\!+\!\pi_i)\tilde D_i^T \tilde M_i\tilde D_i\\
\end{bmatrix}&
\preceq\begin{bmatrix}
\hat\kappa_i\tilde M_i\!+\!\bar X_i^{22}& \bar X_i^{21}\\
\bar X_i^{12} & \bar X_i^{11}\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we focus on the class of linear and propose a technique to construct an FStF from $\widehat\Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$. Suppose we are given a network composed of $N$ linear stochastic control subsystems $\Sigma_i=(A_i,B_i,D_i, R_i)$, $i \in\{1,\dots,N\}$. Let $M \in\mathbb N_{\ge 1}$ be given. By employing the interconnection constraint and Assumption \[Asm: 1\], the dynamics of the auxiliary system $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}i}$, $i \in\{1,\dots,N\}$, at *$M$-step* forward can be obtained similar to but for the $N$ subsystems. Although the pairs $(A_i,B_i)$ may not be necessarily stabilizable, we assume that the pairs $( \tilde A_i,B_i)$ after *$M$-step* are stabilizable as discussed in Example \[Motivation Example\]. Therefore, we can construct finite MDPs as presented in Subsection \[subsec:MDP\] from the new auxiliary system. To do so, we nominate the same quadratic function as in . In order to show that this $V_i$ is an FStF from $\widehat\Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$, we require the following assumption on $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}i}$.
\[As\_1a\] Assume that for some constant $0<\hat\kappa_i<1$ and $\pi_i >0$, there exist matrices $K_i$, $\bar X_i^{11}$, $\bar X_i^{12}$, $\bar X_i^{21}$, and $\bar X_i^{22}$ of appropriate dimensions such that inequality holds.
Now, we propose the main result of this subsection.
\[Thm\_33a\] Assume system $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}i}$ satisfies Assumption \[As\_1a\]. Let $\widehat \Sigma_{\textsf{aux}i}$ be its finite abstraction as described in Subsection \[subsec:MDP\] with state discretization parameter $\delta_i$. Then function $V_i$ proposed in is an FStF from $\widehat \Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$.
The proof of Theorem \[Thm\_33a\] is provided in the Appendix.
Case Study
==========
In this section, to demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed results, we first apply our approaches to an interconnected system composed of $4$ subsystems such that $2$ of them are not stabilizable. We then consider a road traffic network in a circular cascade ring composed of $50$ cells, each of which has the length of $500$ meters with $1$ entry and $1$ way out, and construct compositionally a finite MDP of the network. We employ the constructed finite abstractions as substitutes to compositionally synthesize policies keeping the density of traffic lower than $20$ vehicles per cell. Finally, to show the applicability of our results to *nonlinear* systems having strongly connected networks, we apply our proposed techniques to a *fully connected* network of $500$ nonlinear subsystems and construct their finite MDPs with guaranteed error bounds on their probabilistic output trajectories.
Network with Unstabilizable Subsystems
--------------------------------------
In this subsection, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed results by considering an interconnected system composed of four linear stochastic control subsystems, i.e. $\Sigma=\mathcal{I}(\Sigma_1,\Sigma_2,\Sigma_3,\Sigma_4)$, with interconnection matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
G = \begin{bmatrix}
1 ~&&& 0 ~&&& 1 ~&&& 0\\
0 ~&&& 1 ~&&& 0 ~&&& 1\\
1 ~&&& 1 ~&&& 0 ~&&& 0\\
1 ~&&& 1 ~&&& 0 ~&&& 0\\
\end{bmatrix}\!\!.\end{aligned}$$ The linear stochastic control subsystems are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\Sigma:\left\{\hspace{-1.5mm}\begin{array}{l}x_1(k+1)=1.02x_1(k)-0.07\mathsf w_1(k)+\varsigma_1(k),\\
x_2(k+1)=1.04x_2(k)-0.06\mathsf w_2(k)+\varsigma_2(k),\\
x_3(k+1)=0.5x_3(k)+0.04\mathsf w_3(k)+\nu_{3}(k)+\varsigma_3(k),\\
x_4(k+1)=0.6x_4(k)+0.05\mathsf w_4(k)+\nu_{4}(k)+\varsigma_4(k).\\
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$
As seen, the first two subsystems are not stabilizable. Then we proceed with looking at the solution of $\Sigma_i$ two steps ahead, i.e. $M = 2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{case: Aux}
\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}:\left\{\hspace{-1.5mm}\begin{array}{l}x_1(k+2)=0.89x_1(k)+w_1(k)+\tilde R_1 \tilde \varsigma_1(k),\\
x_2(k+2)= 0.95x_2(k)+w_2(k)+\tilde R_2 \tilde \varsigma_2(k),\\
x_3(k+2)=0.24x_3(k)+w_3(k)+\nu_{3}(k+1)+\tilde R_3 \tilde \varsigma_3(k),\\
x_4(k+2)=0.35x_4(k)+w_4(k)+\nu_{4}(k+1)+\tilde R_4 \tilde \varsigma_4(k),\\
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\tilde \varsigma_1(k)=[\varsigma_3(k);\varsigma_1(k);\varsigma_1(k+1)], \quad \tilde \varsigma_3(k)=[\varsigma_1(k);\varsigma_2(k);\varsigma_3(k);\varsigma_3(k+1)],\\\notag
&\tilde \varsigma_2(k)=[\varsigma_4(k);\varsigma_2(k);\varsigma_2(k+1)],\quad
\tilde\varsigma_4(k)=[\varsigma_1(k);\varsigma_2(k);\varsigma_4(k);\varsigma_4(k+1)].\notag\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $\tilde R_i=[\tilde R_{i1};\tilde R_{i2}; \tilde R_{i3}]^T,~\forall i \in \{1,2\}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\tilde R_{11}= 0.95,\quad
\tilde R_{12}= -0.07,\quad
\tilde R_{13}= 1,\quad\tilde R_{21}=0.98,\quad\tilde R_{22}=-0.06, \quad\tilde R_{23}= 1,\end{aligned}$$ and $\tilde R_i=[\tilde R_{i1};\tilde R_{i2}; \tilde R_{i3};\tilde R_{i4}]^T,~\forall i \in \{3,4\}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\tilde R_{31}=0.04, \quad
\tilde R_{32}=0.04,\quad\tilde R_{33}=0.5,\quad\tilde R_{34}=1,\quad\tilde R_{41}=0.05,\quad\tilde R_{42}=0.05,\quad\tilde R_{43}=0.6,\quad\tilde R_{44}=1. \end{aligned}$$ In addition, the new interconnection matrix for the *auxiliary* system is $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&G_a = \begin{bmatrix}
0 &&& -0.002 &&& -0.1 &&& 0\\
-0.003 &&& 0 &&& 0 &&& -0.09\\
0.05 &&& 0.05 &&& 0 &&& -0.002\\
0.07 &&& 0.07 &&& -0.003 &&& 0\\
\end{bmatrix}\!\!.\end{aligned}$$ One can readily see that the first two subsystems are now stable. Then, we proceed with constructing the finite MDPs from the auxiliary systems as obtained in . One can readily verify that condition is satisfied with $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\hat \kappa_1 \!=\! 0.96, \hat \kappa_2 \!=\! 0.99, \hat \kappa_3 \!=\! 0.64, \hat \kappa_4 \!=\! 0.63, K_3\!=\!K_4\!=\! 0,\pi_1 \!=\! 0.1, \pi_2 \!=\! 0.05, \pi_3\!=\!\pi_4 \!=\! 0.99,\tilde M_i \!=\! 1, \forall i \!\in\! \{1,\!2,\!3,\!4\},\\\notag
&\bar X_1^{11} \!=\! 1.1, \bar X_1^{12} \!=\! \bar X_1^{21} \!=\! 0.89, \bar X_1^{22} \!=\! -0.05, \bar X_2^{11} \!=\!1.05, \bar X_2^{12} \!=\! \bar X_2^{21} \!=\! 0.95, \bar X_2^{22} \!=\! -0.03, \bar X_3^{11} \!=\! 1.99, \bar X_3^{12} \!=\! \bar X_3^{21}\!=\! 0.24,\\\notag
&\bar X_3^{22} \!=\! -0.2,\bar X_4^{11} \!=\! 1.99, \bar X_4^{12} \!=\! \bar X_4^{21} \!=\! 0.35,\bar X_4^{22} \!=\! -0.03.\end{aligned}$$ Then, function $V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)=(x_i-\hat x_i)^2$ is an FStF from $\widehat\Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$ satisfying condition with $\alpha_{i}(s)=s^2, \forall i \in \{1,2,3,4\}$, and condition with $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\kappa_1(s)&=0.03s, \kappa_2(s)=0.005s, \kappa_3(s)=0.35s, \kappa_4(s)=0.36s,\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}(s)=0, \forall i \in \{1,2,3,4\},\\\notag
\psi_1&=21\,\delta^2, \psi_2=41\,\delta^2,\psi_3=3.02\,\delta^2, \psi_4=3.02\,\delta^2\!,\end{aligned}$$ where the input $\nu_i$ is given via the interface function in as $\nu_i=\hat \nu_i$. Now, we look at $\widehat\Sigma=\widehat {\mathcal{I}}(\widehat\Sigma_1,\ldots,\widehat\Sigma_N)$ with a coupling matrix $\hat G_a$ satisfying condition as $\hat G_a = G_a$. Choosing $\mu_1=\cdots=\mu_4=1$, condition is satisfied as $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\begin{bmatrix} G_a \\ \mathds{I}_4 \end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\bar X_{cmp}\begin{bmatrix} G_a \\ \mathds{I}_4 \end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}
-0.03 & 0.01 & -0.07 & 0.02\\
0.01 & -0.01 & 0.01 & -0.06\\
-0.07 & 0.01 & -0.18 & -0.001\\
0.15 &0.06 & -0.007 & -0.02\\
\end{bmatrix}\preceq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Now, one can verify that $V(x,\hat x)=\sum_{i=1}^4(x_i-\hat x_i)^2$ is an FSF from $\widehat\Sigma$ to $\Sigma$ satisfying conditions and with $\alpha(s)=s^2$, $\kappa(s):=0.005s$, $\rho_{\mathrm{ext}}(s)=0$, $\forall s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge0}$, and $\psi=68.04\delta^2$.
By taking the state set discretization parameter $\delta = 0.004$, and starting the initial states of the interconnected systems $\Sigma$ and $ \widehat \Sigma$ from $\mathds{1}_{4}$ and employing Theorem \[Thm\_1a\], we guarantee that the distance between states of $\Sigma$ and of $\widehat \Sigma$ will not exceed $\varepsilon = 0.5$ at the times $k = 2j, j=\{0,\dots, 50\}$ with probability at least $90\%$, i.e. $$\mathbb P(\Vert x_{a\nu}(k)-\hat x_{\hat a \hat\nu}(k)\Vert\le 0.5, \forall k = 2j, j=\{0,\dots, 50\})\ge 0.9.$$ Note that for the construction of finite abstractions, we have selected the center of partition sets as representative points. Moreover, we assume that $\beta=0$ by assuming a well-defined interconnection of abstractions.
Road Traffic Network
--------------------
In this subsection, we apply our results to a road traffic network in a circular cascade ring composed of $50$ cells, each of which has the length of $500$ meters with $1$ entry and $1$ way out, as depicted schematically in Figure \[Fig2\], left. The model of this case study is borrowed from [@le2013mode] by including stochasticity in the model as additive noise.
![Left: Model of a road traffic network in a circular cascade ring composed of $50$ cells, each of which has the length of $500$ meters with $1$ entry and $1$ way out. Right: A *fully interconnected* network of $500$ *nonlinear* subsystems.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](Fig2 "fig:"){width="4.8cm"} ![Left: Model of a road traffic network in a circular cascade ring composed of $50$ cells, each of which has the length of $500$ meters with $1$ entry and $1$ way out. Right: A *fully interconnected* network of $500$ *nonlinear* subsystems.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](Fig4 "fig:"){width="5.2cm"}
The entry of each cell is controlled by traffic light, denoted by $\nu_i = [0,1], \forall i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, that enables (green light) or not (red light) the vehicles to pass. In this model the length of a cell is in kilometers ($0.5 ~km$), and the flow speed of the vehicles is $100$ kilometers per hour ($km/h$). Moreover, during the sampling time interval $\tau$, it is assumed that $6$ vehicles pass the entry controlled by the traffic light, and one quarter of vehicles goes out on the exit of each cell (ratio denoted $q$). We want to observe the density of traffic $x_i$, given in vehicles per cell, for each cell $i$ of the road.
The model of the interconnected system $\Sigma$ is described by: $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
x(k+1) = Ax(k) + B\nu(k)+ R\varsigma(k),\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ is a matrix with diagonal elements $a_{ii} = 1-\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i}-q, i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, off-diagonal elements $a_{i+1,i} = \frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i}, i\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}$, $a_{1,n} = \frac{\tau \nu_{n}}{l_{n}}$, and all other elements are identically zero. Moreover, $B$ and $R$ are diagonal matrices with elements $b_{ii} = 6$, and $r_{ii} = 0.83, i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, respectively. Furthermore, $ x(k)=[x_1(k);\ldots;x_{n}(k)]$, $\nu(k)=[\nu_1(k);\ldots;\nu_{n}(k)]$, and $ \varsigma(k)=[\varsigma_1(k);\ldots;\varsigma_{n}(k)]$.
Now, by introducing the individual cells $\Sigma_i$ described as $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
x_i(k+1) &= (1-\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i}-q)x_i(k) + \frac{\tau \nu_{i-1}}{l_{i-1}}\mathsf w_i(k)+6\nu_i(k)+0.83\varsigma_i(k),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathsf w_i(k) = x_{i-1}(k)$ (with $x_0 = x_n$), one can readily verify that $\Sigma=\mathcal{I}(\Sigma_1,\ldots,\Sigma_{n})$ where the coupling matrix $G$ is given by elements $G_{i+1,i} = 1, i\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}$, $G_{1,n} = 1$, and all other elements are identically zero. We fix here $n =50$ and $ \tau = 6.48$ seconds. Then, one can readily verify that condition (applied to original subsystems $\Sigma_i$, $\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$) is satisfied with $\tilde M_i=1$, $K_i=0$, $\hat \kappa_i = 0.99$, $\bar X^{11}_i=(\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i})^2(1+\pi_i)$, $\bar X^{12}_i=\bar X^{21}_i=(1-\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i}-q)\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i}$, $\bar X^{22}_i=-1.9(\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i})^2(1+\pi_i)$, $\forall i\in \{1,\dots,n\}$, where $ \pi_i = 1.47$. Hence, function $V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)=(x_i-\hat x_i)^2$ is a *classic* storage function from $\widehat\Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$ satisfying condition with $\alpha_{i}(s)=s^2$ and condition with $\kappa_i(s):=(1-\hat\kappa_i) s$, $\rho_{\mathrm{iext}}(s)=0$, $\forall s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge0}$, $\psi_i=2.35\delta_i^2$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq_22}
\bar X_i=\begin{bmatrix} (\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i})^2(1+\pi_i) ~&~ (1-\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i}-q)\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i} \\ (1-\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i}-q)\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i} ~&~ -1.9(\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i})^2(1+\pi_i) \end{bmatrix}\!\!,~~ i\in \{1,\dots,n\}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, we look at $\widehat\Sigma=\widehat {\mathcal{I}}(\widehat\Sigma_1,\ldots,\widehat\Sigma_N)$ with a coupling matrix $\hat G$ satisfying condition as $\hat G = G$. Choosing $\mu_1=\cdots=\mu_N=1$ and using $\bar X_i$ in , condition is satisfied as $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\begin{bmatrix} G \\ \mathds{I}_{n} \end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\bar X_{cmp}\begin{bmatrix} G \\ \mathds{I}_{n} \end{bmatrix} =& (\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i})^2(1+\pi_i)G^TG+(1-\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i}-q)\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i}(G^T+G)-1.9(\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i})^2(1+\pi_i)\mathds{I}_{n}\\\notag
=& (1-\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i}-q)\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i}(G^T+G)-0.9(\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i})^2(1+\pi_i)\mathds{I}_{n}\leq 0,\end{aligned}$$ without requiring any restrictions on the number or gains of the subsystems. Note that $G^TG$ is an identity matrix, and $G^T+G$ is a matrix with elements $\bar g_{i,i+1}=\bar g_{i+1,i}=\bar g_{1,n}=\bar g_{n,1}=1$, $i\in \{1,\ldots,n-1\}$, and all other elements are identically zero. In order to show the above inequality, we used, $i\in \{1,\dots,n\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
2(1-\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i}-q)\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i}-0.9(\frac{\tau \nu_i}{l_i})^2(1+\pi_i)\preceq 0,\end{aligned}$$ employing Gershgorin circle theorem [@bell1965gershgorin]. Now, one can readily verify that $V(x,\hat x)=\sum_{i=1}^{50}(x_i-\hat x_i)^2$ is a *classic* simulation function from $\widehat\Sigma$ to $\Sigma$ satisfying conditions and with $\alpha(s)=s^2$, $\kappa(s):=(1-\hat\kappa) s$, $\rho_{\mathrm{ext}}(s)=0$, $\forall s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge0}$, and $\psi=117.78\delta^2$.
By taking the state set discretization parameter $\delta_i = 0.02$, and taking the initial states of the interconnected systems $\Sigma$ and $ \widehat \Sigma$ as $10\mathds{1}_{50}$, we guarantee that the distance between states of $\Sigma$ and of $\widehat \Sigma$ will not exceed $\varepsilon = 1$ during the time horizon $T_d=10$ with probability at least $90\%$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:guarantee}
\mathbb P(\Vert x_{a\nu}(k)-\hat x_{\hat a \hat\nu}(k)\Vert\le 1,\,\, \forall k\in[0,10])\ge 0.9.\end{aligned}$$
Let us now synthesize a *safety* controller for $\Sigma$ via the abstraction $\widehat \Sigma$ such that the controller maintains the density of traffic lower than $20$ vehicles per cell. The idea here is to first design a local controller for abstraction $\widehat \Sigma_i$, and then refine it back to system $\Sigma_i$ using interface function.
We employ here software tool [$^{\mathsf 2}$]{}[@FAUST15] by doing some slight modification to accept internal inputs as disturbance, and synthesize a controller for $\Sigma$ by taking the standard deviation of the noise $\sigma_i = 0.83$, $\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$. Optimal policy for a representative cell in a network of $50$ cells is plotted in Figure \[Optimal\_Policy\], left. Optimal policy here is sub-optimal for each subsystem and is obtained by assuming that other subsystems do not violate their safety specifications. Closed-loop state trajectories of the representative cell with different noise realizations are illustrated in Figure \[Optimal\_Policy\] right, with only $10$ trajectories.
![Left: Optimal policy for a representative cell in a network of $50$ cells. Right: Closed-loop state trajectories of a representative cell with $10$ different noise realizations in a network of $50$ cells.[]{data-label="Optimal_Policy"}](Optimal_Policy "fig:"){width="7.1cm"} ![Left: Optimal policy for a representative cell in a network of $50$ cells. Right: Closed-loop state trajectories of a representative cell with $10$ different noise realizations in a network of $50$ cells.[]{data-label="Optimal_Policy"}](Synthesis "fig:"){width="6.45cm"}
Nonlinear Fully Interconnected Network
--------------------------------------
In order to show applicability of our approach to *strongly connected* networks with *nonlinear* dynamics (cf. Figure \[Fig2\], right), we consider nonlinear SCS $$\Sigma:x(k+1)= \bar Gx(k)+\varphi(x(k))+\nu(k)+\varsigma(k),$$ for some matrix $ \bar G=(\mathds{I}_n-\bar \tau L)\in \mathbb R^{n\times n}$ where $\bar\tau L$ is the Laplacian matrix of an undirected graph with $0<\bar\tau <1/\Delta$, and $\Delta$ is the maximum degree of the graph [@godsil2001]. We assume $L$ is the Laplacian matrix of a *complete graph* as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq_90}
L=\begin{bmatrix}n-1 & -1 & \cdots & \cdots & -1 \\ -1 & n-1 & -1 & \cdots & -1 \\ -1 & -1 & n-1 & \cdots & -1 \\ \vdots & & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\ -1 & \cdots & \cdots & -1 & n-1\end{bmatrix}_{n\times n}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $\varsigma(k)=[\varsigma_1(k);\ldots;\varsigma_N(k)]$, $\varphi(x(k))=[E_1\varphi_1(F_1 x_1(k));\ldots;E_N\varphi_N(F_Nx_N(k))]$ where $\varphi_i(x) = sin(x)$, $\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$. We partition $x(k)$ as $x(k)=[x_1(k);\ldots;x_N(k)]$ and $\nu(k)$ as $\nu(k)=[\nu_1(k);\ldots;\nu_N(k)]$. Now, by introducing $\Sigma_i$ described as $$\Sigma_i:x_i(k+1)=x_i(k)+E_i\varphi_i(F_ix_i(k))+\nu_i(k)+\mathsf w_i(k)+\varsigma_i(k),$$ one can verify that $\Sigma=\mathcal{I}(\Sigma_1,\ldots,\Sigma_N)$ where the coupling matrix $G$ is given by $G = -\bar \tau L$. Then, one can readily verify that, $\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, condition is satisfied with $\tilde M_i=1$, $K_i=-0.5$, $E_i = 0.1$, $F_i = 0.1$, $\tilde b_i= 1$, $\bar X^{11}=(1+\pi_i)$, $\bar X^{22}=0$, $\bar X^{12}=\bar X^{21}=\lambda_i $, where $ \lambda_i = 1+K_i$, $\hat\kappa_i = 0.99$, and $\pi_i = 1$, $\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$. Hence, function $V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)=(x_i-\hat x_i)^2$ is a *classic* storage function from $\widehat\Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$ satisfying condition with $\alpha_{i}(s)=s^2$ and condition with $\kappa_i(s):=(1-\hat\kappa_i) s$, $\rho_{\mathrm{iext}}(s)=0$, $\forall s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge0}$, and $\psi_i=4\delta_i^2$, where the input $\nu_i$ is given via the interface function in as $\nu_i=\hat \nu_i$. Now, we look at $\widehat\Sigma=\widehat {\mathcal{I}}(\widehat\Sigma_1,\ldots,\widehat\Sigma_N)$ with a coupling matrix $\hat G$ satisfying condition by $\hat G = G$. Choosing $\mu_1=\cdots=\mu_N=1$, matrix $\bar X_{cmp}$ in reduces to $$\bar X_{cmp}=\begin{bmatrix} (1+\pi)\mathds{I}_{n} & \lambda \mathds{I}_{n} \\ \lambda \mathds{I}_{n} & 0 \end{bmatrix}\!,$$ where $\lambda=\lambda_1=\cdots=\lambda_n$, $\pi=\pi_1=\cdots=\pi_n$, and condition reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\begin{bmatrix} -\bar \tau L\\ \mathds{I}_n \end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\bar X_{cmp}\begin{bmatrix} -\bar \tau L \\ \mathds{I}_n \end{bmatrix}= (1+\pi)\bar \tau^2 L^T L-\lambda \bar \tau L\notag-\lambda \bar \tau L^T=\bar \tau L((1+\pi)\bar \tau L-2\lambda \mathds{I}_n)\preceq 0,\end{aligned}$$ which is always satisfied without requiring any restrictions on the number or gains of the subsystems with $\bar\tau = 0.4/(n-1)$. In order to show the above inequality, we used $\bar \tau L=\bar \tau L^T\succeq0$ which is always true for Laplacian matrices of undirected graphs. We fix here $n=500$. Now, one can verify that $V(x,\hat x)=\sum_{i=1}^{500}(x_i-\hat x_i)^2$ is a *classic* simulation function from $\widehat\Sigma$ to $\Sigma$ satisfying conditions and with $\alpha(s)=s^2$, $\kappa(s):=(1-\hat\kappa) s$, $\rho_{\mathrm{ext}}(s)=0$, $\forall s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge0}$, and $\psi=2000\delta^2$.
By taking the state discretization parameter $\delta = 0.005$, using the stochastic simulation function $V$, inequality , and selecting the initial states of the interconnected systems $\Sigma$ and $ \widehat \Sigma$ as $\mathds{1}_{500}$, we guarantee that the distance between states of $\Sigma$ and of $\widehat \Sigma$ will not exceed $\varepsilon = 1$ during the time horizon $T_d=10$ with probability at least $88\%$.
Discussion
==========
In this paper, we provided a compositional approach for the construction of finite MDPs for networks of not necessarily stabilizable stochastic systems. We first introduced new notions of finite-step stochastic storage and simulation functions to quantify the probabilistic mismatch between the systems. We then developed a compositional framework on the construction of finite MDPs for networks of stochastic systems using a new type of dissipativity-type conditions. By employing this relaxation via *finite-step* stochastic simulation function, it is possible to construct finite abstractions such that stabilizability of each subsystem is not necessarily required. Afterwards, we proposed an approach to construct finite MDPs together with their corresponding finite-step stochastic storage functions for general stochastic control systems satisfying some *incremental passivablity* property. We showed that for two classes of *nonlinear* and *linear* stochastic control systems, the aforementioned property can be readily checked by some matrix inequalities. We then constructed finite MDPs with their *classic* storage functions for a particular class of *nonlinear* stochastic control systems. Finally, we demonstrated the effectiveness of our proposed approaches by applying our results on three different case studies.
Appendix
========
**(Theorem \[Def154\])** It is sufficient to show that holds for dynamical representation of $\widehat\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$ and that of $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}}$. For any $x := x(k), x' := x'(k+M)\in\hat X$, $\nu := \nu (k\!+\!M\!-\!1)\in \hat U$ and $w := w(k)\in \hat W$, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat T_{\mathsf x} (x'|x,\nu,w) & = \mathbb P(x' = \hat f(x,\nu,w,\varsigma))= \mathbb P(x' = \Pi_x(\tilde f(x,\nu,w,\varsigma)))=\mathbb P(\tilde f(x,\nu,w,\varsigma)\in\Xi(x')),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Xi(x')$ is the partition set with $x'$ as its representative point as defined in Step \[step:refined\] of Algorithm \[algo:MC\_app\]. Using the probability measure $\vartheta(\cdot)$ of random variable $\varsigma$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\hat T_{\mathsf x} (x'|x,\nu,w) = \int_{\Xi(x')}\!\!\tilde f(x,\nu,w,\varsigma)d\vartheta(\varsigma) = T_{\mathsf x} (\Xi(x')|x,\nu,w),
\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.
**(Theorem \[Thm\_2a\])** We first show that FSF $V$ in satisfies the inequality for some $\mathcal{K}_\infty$ function $\alpha$. For any $x={\ensuremath{{\left[x_1;\ldots;x_N\right]}}}\in X$ and $\hat x={\ensuremath{{\left[\hat x_1;\ldots;\hat x_N\right]}}}\in \hat X$, one gets: $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\Vert &x-\hat x \Vert\le\sum_{i=1}^N \Vert x_i-\hat x_i \Vert
\le\sum_{i=1}^N \alpha_{i}^{-1}(V_i( x_i, \hat x_i))\le \bar\alpha(V(x,\hat x)),
\end{aligned}$$ with function $\bar\alpha:\mathbb R_{\ge 0}\rightarrow\mathbb R_{\ge 0}$ defined for all $r\in\mathbb R_{\ge 0}$ as
$\bar\alpha(r) {:=}\max\left\{\sum_{i=1}^N\alpha_{i}^{-1}(s_i)\,\,\big|\, s_i {\ge 0},\,\,\sum_{i=1}^N \mu_i s_i=r\right\}\!. $
It is not hard to verify that function $\bar\alpha(\cdot)$ defined above is a $\mathcal{K}_\infty$ function. By taking the $\mathcal{K}_\infty$ function $\alpha(r):=\bar\alpha^{-1}(r)$, $\forall r\in{{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge0}$, one obtains $$\alpha(\Vert x-\hat x\Vert)\le V( x, \hat x),$$ satisfying inequality . Now we prove that FSF $V$ in satisfies inequality , as well. Consider any $x={\ensuremath{{\left[x_1;\ldots;x_N\right]}}}\in X$, $\hat x={\ensuremath{{\left[\hat x_1;\ldots;\hat x_N\right]}}}\in \hat X$, and $\hat \nu={\ensuremath{{\left[\hat \nu_{1};\ldots;\hat \nu_{N}\right]}}}\in\hat U$. For any $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, there exists $\nu_i\in U_i$, consequently, a vector $\nu={\ensuremath{{\left[\nu_{1};\ldots;\nu_{N}\right]}}}\in U$, satisfying for each pair of subsystems $\Sigma_i$ and $\widehat\Sigma_i$ with the internal inputs given by ${\ensuremath{{\left[w_1;\ldots;w_N\right]}}}=G_a[x_1;\ldots;x_N]$ and ${\ensuremath{{\left[\hat w_1;\ldots;\hat w_N\right]}}}=\Pi_{w}(\hat G_a[\hat x_1;\ldots;\hat x_N])$. By defining ${\ensuremath{{\left[\bar w_1;\ldots;\bar w_N\right]}}}=\hat G_a[\hat x_1;\ldots;\hat x_N]$, we have the chain of inequalities in using conditions , , and by defining $\kappa(\cdot),\rho_{\mathrm{ext}}(\cdot),\psi$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa(r)&{:=}(1-\bar \mu)\min\Big\{\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\kappa_i(s_i)\,\,\big|\, s_i {\ge 0},\sum_{i=1}^N \mu_i s_i=r\Big\}\\
\rho_{\mathrm{ext}}(r) &{:=}\max\Big\{\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}(s_i)\,\big|\, s_i {\ge 0},\|{\ensuremath{{\left[s_1;\ldots;s_N\right]}}}\| = r\Big\},\\
\psi &{:=}\begin{cases}
\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\psi_i+\frac{\Vert \pmb{\beta}\Vert^2}{\bar \mu^2}\lambda_{\max}(P)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\text{if}~\bar X_{cmp}\leq0,\\
\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\psi_i+\Vert \pmb{\beta}\Vert^2(\frac{1}{\bar \mu^2}\lambda_{\max}(P)
+\rho(\bar X_{cmp})) ~~~~~~~\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $ P = \bar X_{cmp}^T\begin{bmatrix}
G_a\\
\mathds{I}_n
\end{bmatrix}\!\begin{bmatrix}
G_a\\
\mathds{I}_n
\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\bar X_{cmp}$, $\pmb{\beta} = [\beta_1;\dots;\beta_N]$, and $\rho$ is the *spectral radius*. Note that $\kappa$ and $\rho_{\mathrm{ext}}$ in belong to $\mathcal{K}$ and $\mathcal{K}_\infty\cup\{0\}$, respectively, due to their definition provided above. Hence, we conclude that $V$ is an FSF from $\widehat \Sigma$ to $\Sigma$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\mathbb{E}\Big[V(x(k+M), \hat x(k+M))\,|\,x(k),\hat x(k),\nu(k\!+\!\!M\!\!-\!\!1) ,\hat \nu(k\!+\!\!M\!\!-\!\!1)\Big] - V(x,\hat x)\\\notag
&=\mathbb{E}\Big[\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\Big[V_i(x_i(k+M), \hat x_i(k+M))\,|\,x(k),\hat x(k),\nu(k\!+\!\!M\!\!-\!\!1) ,\hat \nu(k\!+\!\!M\!\!-\!\!1)\Big]\!\Big]-\sum_{i=1}^N\!\mu_iV_i(x_i,\hat x_i)\\\notag
&=\mathbb{E}\Big[\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\Big[\!V_i(x_i(k\!+\!M), \hat x_i(k\!+\!M))\,|\,x_i \!=\! x_i(k),\hat x_i \!=\! \hat x_i(k),\nu_i=\nu_i(k\!+\!M\!\!-\!\!1) ,\hat \nu_i \!=\! \hat \nu_i(k\!+\!\!M\!\!-\!\!1)\Big]\!\Big]\!\!-\!\!\sum_{i=1}^N\!\mu_iV_i(x_i,\hat x_i) \\\notag
&\leq\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\bigg(\!\!\!-\!\kappa_i(V_i( x_i,\hat x_i))\!+\!\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}(\Vert \hat \nu_i\Vert)\!+\!\psi_i\!+\!\begin{bmatrix}
w_i-\hat w_i\\
x_i-\hat x_i
\end{bmatrix}^T
\begin{bmatrix}
\bar X_i^{11}&\bar X_i^{12}\\
\bar X_i^{21}&\bar X_i^{22}
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
w_i-\hat w_i\\
x_i-\hat x_i
\end{bmatrix}\!\!\bigg)\\\notag
&=\!\sum_{i=1}^N\!-\mu_i\kappa_i(V_i( x_i,\hat x_i))\!+\!\!\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}(\Vert \hat \nu_i\Vert)\!\!+\!\!\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\psi_i\!+\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\!w_1\!-\!\hat w_1\!\\
\vdots\\
w_N\!-\!\hat w_N\\
x_1\!-\!\hat x_1\\
\vdots\\
\!\!\!x_N\!-\!\hat x_N\!\!\!
\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\!\mu_1\bar X_1^{11}\hspace{-0.1cm}&&&\!\!\mu_1\bar X_1^{12}\hspace{-0.1cm}&&\\
&\ddots\hspace{-0.1cm}&&&\ddots\hspace{-0.1cm}&\\
&&\!\!\mu_N\bar X_N^{11}&&&\!\!\mu_N\bar X_N^{12}\\
\!\mu_1\bar X_1^{21}\hspace{-0.1cm}&&&\!\!\mu_1\bar X_1^{22}\hspace{-0.1cm}&&\\
&\ddots\hspace{-0.1cm}&&&\ddots\hspace{-0.1cm}&\\
&&\!\!\mu_N\bar X_N^{21}\hspace{-0.03cm}&&&\!\!\mu_N\bar X_N^{22}\hspace{-0.03cm}
\end{bmatrix}\!\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\!w_1\!-\!\hat w_1\!\\
\vdots\\
w_N\!-\!\hat w_N\\
x_1\!-\!\hat x_1\\
\vdots\\
\!\!\!x_N\!-\!\hat x_N\!\!\!
\end{bmatrix}\\\notag
&=\sum_{i=1}^N\!-\mu_i\kappa_i(V_i( x_i,\hat x_i))+\!\!\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}(\Vert \hat \nu_i\Vert)\!+\!\!\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\psi_i+\begin{bmatrix}
w_1-\bar w_1+\bar w_1-\hat w_1\\
\vdots\\
w_N-\bar w_N+\bar w_N-\hat w_N\\
x_1-\hat x_1\\
\vdots\\
x_N-\hat x_N
\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\!\!\!\bar X_{cmp}\begin{bmatrix}
w_1-\bar w_1+\bar w_1-\hat w_1\\
\vdots\\
w_N-\bar w_N+\bar w_N-\hat w_N\\
x_1-\hat x_1\\
\vdots\\
x_N-\hat x_N
\end{bmatrix}\\\notag
&= \sum_{i=1}^N \! -\mu_i\kappa_i(V_i( x_i,\hat x_i))\!+ \!\!\sum_{i=1}^N \!\mu_i\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}(\Vert \hat \nu_i\Vert)\!+ \!\!\sum_{i=1}^N \!\mu_i\psi_i+\begin{bmatrix}
\!G_a \!\!\begin{bmatrix}
x_1\\
\vdots\\
x_N
\end{bmatrix}\!\! \!-\!\hat G_a \!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\hat x_1\\
\vdots\\
\hat x_N
\end{bmatrix}\!\\
x_1-\hat x_1\\
\vdots\\
x_N-\hat x_N
\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\!\!\!\bar X_{cmp}\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\!G_a \!\!\begin{bmatrix}
x_1\\
\vdots\\
x_N
\end{bmatrix}\!\! \!-\!\hat G_a \!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\hat x_1\\
\vdots\\
\hat x_N
\end{bmatrix}\!\\
x_1-\hat x_1\\
\vdots\\
x_N-\hat x_N
\end{bmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\!+ \begin{bmatrix}
\! \!\bar w_1\!-\!\hat w_1 \! \!\\
\vdots\\
\bar w_N\!-\!\hat w_N\\
\\
\mathbf{0}_N \\
\\
\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\!\!\!\bar X_{cmp}\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\! \!\bar w_1\!-\!\hat w_1 \! \!\\
\vdots\\
\bar w_N\!-\!\hat w_N\\
\\
\mathbf{0}_N \\
\\
\end{bmatrix}+\!2\begin{bmatrix}
\!G_a \!\begin{bmatrix}
x_1\\
\vdots\\
x_N
\end{bmatrix}\!\! \!-\!\hat G_a \!\begin{bmatrix}
\hat x_1\\
\vdots\\
\hat x_N
\end{bmatrix}\\
x_1-\hat x_1\\
\vdots\\
x_N-\hat x_N
\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\!\!\!\bar X_{cmp}\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\!\!\!\! \! \!\bar w_1-\hat w_1 \! \!\!\!\!\\
\vdots\\
\bar w_N-\hat w_N\\
\\
\mathbf{0}_N \\
\\
\end{bmatrix}
\!\!= \!\!\sum_{i=1}^N\!\!-\mu_i\kappa_i(V_i( x_i,\hat x_i))\!+\!\!\sum_{i=1}^N\!\mu_i\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}(\Vert \hat \nu_i\Vert)\\\notag
&\!+\!\sum_{i=1}^N\!\mu_i\psi_i
\!+\!\!
\begin{bmatrix}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!x_1-\hat x_1\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\\
\vdots\\
x_N-\hat x_N
\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\begin{bmatrix}
\!G_a\!\\
\mathds{I}_n
\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\!\!\!\bar X_{cmp}\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\!G_a\!\\
\mathds{I}_n
\end{bmatrix}\!\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!x_1-\hat x_1\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\\
\vdots\\
x_N-\hat x_N
\end{bmatrix}
\!+\!\begin{bmatrix}
\!\bar w_1-\hat w_1\!\\
\vdots\\
\bar w_N-\hat w_N\\
\\
\mathbf{0}_N \\
\\
\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\!\!\bar X_{cmp}\!\begin{bmatrix}
\!\bar w_1-\hat w_1\!\\
\vdots\\
\bar w_N-\hat w_N\\
\\
\mathbf{0}_N \\
\\
\end{bmatrix}\!+\!2\begin{bmatrix}
x_1-\hat x_1\\
\vdots\\
x_N-\hat x_N
\end{bmatrix}^T
\!\!\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
G_a\\
\mathds{I}_n
\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\!\!\bar X_{cmp}\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\bar w_1-\hat w_1\\
\vdots\\
\bar w_N-\hat w_N\\
\\
\mathbf{0}_N \\
\\
\end{bmatrix}\\\notag
&\!\leq \!\sum_{i=1}^N\!-\mu_i\kappa_i(V_i( x_i,\hat x_i))\!+\!\!\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}(\Vert \hat \nu_i\Vert)\!+\!\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\psi_i+\begin{bmatrix}
\bar w_1-\hat w_1\\
\vdots\\
\bar w_N-\hat w_N\\
\\
\mathbf{0}_N \\
\\
\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\!\!\bar X_{cmp}\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\bar w_1-\hat w_1\\
\vdots\\
\bar w_N-\hat w_N\\
\\
\mathbf{0}_N \\
\\
\end{bmatrix}
\!+\!\bar \mu^2\begin{bmatrix}
x_1-\hat x_1\\
\vdots\\
x_N-\hat x_N
\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!
\begin{bmatrix}
x_1-\hat x_1\\
\vdots\\
x_N-\hat x_N
\end{bmatrix}\\\notag
&\!+\!\frac{1}{\bar \mu^2}\begin{bmatrix}
\bar w_1-\hat w_1\\
\vdots\\
\bar w_N-\hat w_N\\
\\
\mathbf{0}_N \\
\\
\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\!\!\bar X_{cmp}^T\begin{bmatrix}
G_a\\
\mathds{I}_n
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
G_a\\
\mathds{I}_n
\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\bar X_{cmp}\begin{bmatrix}
\bar w_1-\hat w_1\\
\vdots\\
\bar w_N-\hat w_N\\
\\
\mathbf{0}_N \\
\\
\end{bmatrix}\\\notag
&\leq \!\sum_{i=1}^N\!-\mu_i\kappa_i(V_i( x_i,\hat x_i))\!+\!\!\!\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}(\Vert \hat \nu_i\Vert)\!+\!\!\sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\psi_i\!+\!\bar \mu \sum_{i=1}^N\mu_i\kappa_i(V_i( x_i,\hat x_i))\!+\!\frac{1}{\bar \mu^2}\Vert\pmb{\beta}\Vert^2\lambda_{\max}\Big(\bar X_{cmp}^T\begin{bmatrix}
G_a\\
\mathds{I}_n
\end{bmatrix}\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
G_a\\
\mathds{I}_n
\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\!\bar X_{cmp}\Big)\\\label{Eq_4a}
&+\Vert\pmb{\beta}\Vert^2\sigma_{\max}\Big(\bar X_{cmp}\Big)\leq\!-\kappa\left(V\left( x,\hat{x}\right)\right)\!+\!\rho_{\mathrm{ext}}(\left\Vert \hat \nu\right\Vert)\!+\!\psi.
\end{aligned}$$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**(Theorem \[Thm\_5a\])** Since system $\Sigma_{\textsf{aux}i}$ is *incrementally passivable*, $\forall x_i\in X_i$ and $ \forall \hat x_i \in \hat X_i
$ from we have $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\underline{\alpha}_i (\Vert x_i-\hat x_i \Vert)\leq V_i(x_i,\hat{x}_i),
\end{aligned}$$ satisfying with $\alpha_i(s) {:=}\underline{\alpha}_i(s) $ $\forall s\in {{\mathbb{R}}}_{\geq0}$. Now by taking the conditional expectation from , $\forall x_i := x_i(k)\in X_i, \forall \hat x_i :=\hat x_i(k) \in \hat X_i, \forall \hat \nu_i :=\hat \nu_i (k\!+\!M\!-\!1) \in \hat U_i,\forall w_i := w_i(k) \in W_i,\forall \hat w_i := \hat w_i(k)\in \hat W_i$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\mathbb{E}\Big[V_i(\tilde f_i(x_i,H_i(x_i)+\hat{\nu}_i,w_i,\tilde\varsigma_i),\hat f_i(\hat{x}_i,\hat{\nu}_i,\hat{w}_i,\tilde\varsigma_i))\big|x_i,\hat x_i,\hat \nu_i, w_i,\hat w_i\Big]-\mathbb{E}\Big[V_i(\tilde f_i(x_i,H_i(x_i)+\hat{\nu}_i,w_i,\tilde\varsigma_i),\\\notag
&,\tilde f_i(\hat{x}_i,H_i(\hat{x}_i)\!+\!\hat{\nu}_i,\hat{w}_i, \tilde\varsigma_i))\big|x_i,\hat x_i,\hat \nu_i, w_i, \!\hat w_i\Big]\!\leq\!\mathbb{E}\Big[\gamma_i(\Vert\hat f_i(\hat{x}_i,\!\hat{\nu}_i,\hat{w}_i,\tilde\varsigma_i)\!-\!\tilde f_i(\hat{x}_i,H_i(\hat{x}_i)+\hat{\nu}_i,\hat{w}_i,\tilde\varsigma_i)\Vert)\big|\hat x_i,\hat x_i,\hat \nu_i, w_i, \hat w_i\Big]\!,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat f_i(\hat{x}_i,\hat{\nu}_i,\hat{w}_i,\tilde\varsigma_i) = \Pi_{x_i}(\tilde f_i(\hat{x}_i,H_i(\hat{x}_i)+\hat{\nu}_i,\hat{w}_i,\tilde\varsigma_i))$. Using Theorem \[Def154\] and inequality , the above inequality reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\mathbb{E}\Big[V_i(\tilde f_i(x_i,H_i(x_i)+\hat{\nu}_i,w_i,\tilde\varsigma_i),\hat f_i(\hat{x}_i,\hat{\nu}_i,\hat{w}_i,\tilde\varsigma_i))\big|x_i,\hat x_i,\hat \nu_i, w_i,\hat w_i\Big]-\mathbb{E}\Big[V_i(\tilde f_i(x_i,H_i(x_i)+\hat{\nu}_i,w_i,\tilde\varsigma_i),\\\notag
&,\tilde f_i(\hat{x}_i,H_i(\hat{x}_i)+\hat{\nu}_i,\hat{w}_i,\tilde\varsigma_i))\big|x_i,\hat x_i,\hat \nu_i, w_i, \hat w_i\Big]\leq\gamma_i(\delta_i).
\end{aligned}$$
Employing , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\mathbb{E}\Big[V_i(\tilde f_i(x_i,H_i(x_i)+\hat{\nu}_i,w_i,\tilde\varsigma_i),\tilde f_i(\hat{x}_i,H_i(\hat{x}_i)+\hat{\nu}_i,\hat{w}_i,\tilde\varsigma_i))\big|x_i,\hat x_i,\hat \nu_i,w_i,\hat w_i\Big]-V_i(x_i,\hat{x}_i)\\\notag
&\leq-\hat{\kappa}_i(V_i(x_i,\hat{x}_i))+\begin{bmatrix}w_i-\hat w_i\\
x_i-\hat x_i
\end{bmatrix}^T\begin{bmatrix}
\bar X_i^{11}&\bar X_i^{12}\\
\bar X_i^{21}&\bar X_i^{22}
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
w_i-\hat w_i\\
x_i-\hat x_i
\end{bmatrix}\!\!.
\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $\forall x_i\!:=\!x_i(k) \in X_i, \forall \hat x_i\!:=\!\hat x_i(k) \in \hat X_i, \forall \hat \nu_i \!:=\! \hat \nu_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1) \in U_i,$ and $\forall w_i\!:=\!w_i(k) \in W_i,\forall \hat w_i\!:=\! \hat w_i(k)\in \hat W_i $, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\mathbb{E}&\Big[V_i(\tilde f_i(x_i,H_i(x_i)+\hat{\nu}_i,w_i,\tilde\varsigma_i),\hat f_i(\hat{x}_i,\hat{\nu}_i,\hat{w}_i,\tilde\varsigma_i))\big|x_i,\hat x_i,\hat \nu_i, w_i,\hat w_i\Big]-V_i(x_i,\hat{x}_i)\\\notag
&\leq-\hat{\kappa}_i(V_i(x,\hat{x}_i))+\gamma_i(\delta_i)+\begin{bmatrix}w_i-\hat w_i\\
x_i-\hat x_i
\end{bmatrix}^T\begin{bmatrix}
\bar X_i^{11}&\bar X_i^{12}\\
\bar X_i^{21}&\bar X_i^{22}
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}
w_i-\hat w_i\\
x_i-\hat x_i
\end{bmatrix}\!\!,
\end{aligned}$$ satisfying with $\psi_i=\gamma_i(\delta_i)$, $\nu_i=H_i(x_i)+\hat{\nu}_i$, $\kappa_i=\hat{\kappa}_i$, and $\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}\equiv 0$. Hence, $V_i$ is an FStF from $\widehat \Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$, which completes the proof.
**(Theorem \[Thm\_3a\])** Since $\lambda_{\min}(\tilde M_i)\Vert x_i- \hat x_i\Vert^2\leq(x_i-\hat x_i)^T\tilde M_i(x_i-\hat x_i)$, it can be readily verified that $\lambda_{\min}(\tilde M_i)\Vert x_i-\hat x_i\Vert^2\le V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)$ holds $\forall x_i$, $\forall \hat x_i$, implying that inequality holds with $\alpha_i(s)=\lambda_{\min}(\tilde M_i)s^2$ for any $s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}_{\geq0}$. We proceed with showing that the inequality holds, as well. Given any $x_i :=x_i(k)$, $\hat x_i := \hat x_i(k)$, and $\hat \nu_i := \hat \nu_i(k)$, we choose $\nu_i := \nu_i(k)$ via the following *interface* function: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq_255}
\nu_i=\nu_{\hat \nu_i}(x_i,\hat x_i,\hat \nu_i):=K_i(x_i-\hat x_i)+\hat \nu_i.
\end{aligned}$$ By employing the definition of the interface function, we simplify $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
A_ix_i &+ B_i\nu_{\hat \nu_i}(x_i,\hat x_i, \hat \nu_i) + D_i\mathsf w_i + E_i\varphi_i(F_ix_i)+ R_i\varsigma_i -\Pi_{x_i}(A_i\hat x_i + B_i\hat \nu_i + D_i\hat {\mathsf w}_i + E_i\varphi_i(F_i\hat x_i)+R_i\varsigma_i)
\end{aligned}$$ to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq: 11}
(A_i&+B_iK_i)(x_i-\hat x_i)+ D_i(\mathsf w_i-\hat {\mathsf w}_i)+E_i(\varphi_i(F_ix_i)-\varphi_i(F_i\hat x_i))+\bar N_i,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar N_i = A_i\hat x_i +B_i\hat \nu_i+ D_i\hat {\mathsf w}_i + E_i\varphi_i(F_i\hat x_i) + R_i\varsigma_i -\Pi_{x_i}(A_i\hat x_i+ B_i\hat \nu_i + D_i\hat {\mathsf w}_i + E_i\varphi_i(F_i\hat x_i) + R_i\varsigma_i)$. From the slope restriction , one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq_19a}
\varphi_i(F_ix_i)-\varphi_i(F_i\hat x_i)=\bar \delta_iF_i (x_i-\hat x_i),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar\delta_i$ is a constant and depending on $x_i$ and $\hat x_i$ takes values in the interval $[0,\tilde b_i]$. Using , the expression in reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
(A_i+B_iK_i)(x_i-\hat x_i)+\bar \delta_iE_iF_i (x_i-\hat x_i)+D_i(\mathsf w_i-\hat {\mathsf w}_i)+\bar N_i.
\end{aligned}$$ Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, Young’s inequality [@young1912classes] as $c_id_i\leq \frac{\pi_i}{2}c_i^2+\frac{1}{2\pi_i}d_i^2,$ for any $c_i,d_i\geq0$ and any $\pi_i>0$, Assumption \[As\_11a\], and since $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\left\{\begin{array}{l}\Vert \bar N_i\Vert~\leq~ \delta_i,\\
\bar N_i^T \tilde M_i \bar N_i \leq \lambda_{\max}(\tilde M_i)\delta_i^2,\end{array}\right.
\end{aligned}$$ one can obtain the chain of inequalities in . Hence, the proposed $V_i$ in is a *classic* storage function from $\widehat \Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$, which completes the proof. Note that functions $\alpha_i\in\mathcal{K}_\infty$, $\kappa_i\in\mathcal{K}$, $\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}\in\mathcal{K}_\infty\cup\{0\}$, and matrix $\bar X_i$ in Definition \[Def\_1a\] associated with $V_i$ in are defined as $\alpha_i(s)=\lambda_{\min}(\tilde M_i)s^2$, $\kappa_i(s):=(1-\hat\kappa_i) s$, $\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}(s):=0$, $\forall s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge0}$, and $\bar X_i=\begin{bmatrix}
\bar X_i^{11}&\bar X_i^{12}\\
\bar X_i^{21}&\bar X_i^{22}
\end{bmatrix}$. Moreover, positive constant $\psi_i$ is $\psi_i=(1+3/\pi)\lambda_{\max}{(\tilde M_i)}\delta_i^2$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\notag\mathbb{E} \Big[V_i(x_i(k+1), \hat x_i(k+1))\,|\,x_i = x_i(k),\hat x_i = \hat x_i(k),\nu_i = \nu_i(k) ,\hat \nu_i = \hat \nu_i(k), \mathsf w_i = \mathsf w_i(k), \hat {\mathsf w}_i = \hat {\mathsf w}_i(k)\Big]\!-\!V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)\\\notag
&~=(x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)^T\Big[(A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)^T\tilde M_i(A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)\Big](x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)\!+\!\bar \delta_i (x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)^TF_i^TE_i^T\tilde M_iE_i F_i (x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)\bar \delta_i+2 \Big[(x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)^T(A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)^T\Big]\\\notag
&~\tilde M_i\Big[\bar \delta_i E_i F_i(x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)\Big]\!+\!2 \Big[(x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)^T(A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)^T\Big]\tilde M_i\Big[D_i(\mathsf w_i\!-\!\hat {\mathsf w}_i)\Big]\!+\!2 \Big[\bar \delta_i (x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)^T F_i^TE_i^T\Big]\tilde M_i\Big[D_i(\mathsf w_i\!-\!\hat {\mathsf w}_i)\Big]\!+\!(\mathsf w_i\!-\!\hat {\mathsf w}_i)^T \!D_i^T\\\notag
&~\tilde M_i D_i(\mathsf w_i\!-\!\hat {\mathsf w}_i)\!+\!2 \Big[(x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)^T(A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)^T\Big]\tilde M_i\mathbb{E} \Big[\bar N_i\,|\,x_i,\hat x_i , \hat \nu_i, \mathsf w_i,\hat {\mathsf w}_i \Big]\!+\!2 \Big[\bar \delta_i (x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)^TF_i^TE_i^T\Big]\tilde M_i\mathbb{E} \Big[\bar N_i\,|\,x_i,\hat x_i , \hat \nu_i, \mathsf w_i,\hat {\mathsf w}_i \Big]\\\notag
&+2 (\mathsf w_i-\hat {\mathsf w}_i)^T D_i^T\tilde M_i\mathbb{E} \Big[\bar N_i\,|\,x_i,\hat x_i, \hat \nu_i, \mathsf w_i,\hat {\mathsf w}_i\Big]+\mathbb{E} \Big[\bar N_i^T \tilde M_i \bar N_i \,|\,x,\hat x_i, \hat \nu_i, \mathsf w_i,\hat {\mathsf w}_i\Big]\!-\!V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)\\\notag
&\le
\begin{bmatrix}x_i-\hat x_i\\\mathsf w_i-\hat {\mathsf w}_i\\\bar\delta_i F_i (x_i-\hat x_i)\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
(1\!+\!\pi_i)(A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)^T\tilde M_i(A_i\!+\!B_iK_i) & (A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)^T\tilde M_iD_i & (A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)^T\tilde M_iE_i\\
*& (1\!+\!\pi_i)D_i^T \tilde M_iD_i & D_i^T \tilde M_iE_i\\
*&*&(1\!+\!\pi_i) E_i^T\tilde M_iE_i\\
\end{bmatrix}\!\!\begin{bmatrix}x_i-\hat x_i\\\mathsf w_i-\hat {\mathsf w}_i\\\bar\delta_i F_i (x_i-\hat x_i)\end{bmatrix}\\\notag
&+ (1+3/\pi_i)\lambda_{\max}{(\tilde M_i)}\delta_i^2-V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)\\\notag
&\le
\begin{bmatrix}x_i-\hat x_i\\\mathsf w_i-\hat {\mathsf w}_i\\\bar\delta_i F_i (x_i-\hat x_i)\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\hat\kappa_i\tilde M_i+\bar X_i^{22}& \bar X_i^{21} & - F_i^T\\
\bar X_i^{12} & \bar X_i^{11} & 0\\
- F_i & 0 & 2/\tilde b_i\\
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}x_i-\hat x_i\\\mathsf w_i-\hat {\mathsf w}_i\\\bar\delta_i F_i (x_i-\hat x_i)\end{bmatrix}+ (1+3/\pi_i)\lambda_{\max}{(\tilde M_i)}\delta_i^2-V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)\\\notag
&=\notag
-(1\!-\!\hat\kappa_i) (V_i(x_i,\hat x_i))\!-\!2\bar\delta_i(1\!-\!\frac{\bar\delta_i}{\tilde b_i})(x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)^T F_i^T F_i(x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)\!+\!\begin{bmatrix}x_i\!-\!\hat x_i\\\mathsf w_i\!-\!\hat {\mathsf w}_i\\\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\bar X_i^{22} & \bar X_i^{21}\\
\bar X_i^{12} & \bar X_i^{11}\\
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}x_i\!-\!\hat x_i\\\mathsf w_i\!-\!\hat {\mathsf w}_i\\\end{bmatrix}\!+\! (1+3/\pi_i)\lambda_{\max}{(\tilde M_i)}\delta_i^2\\\label{Eq_55a}
&\le
\!-(1\!-\hat\kappa_i) (V_i(x_i,\hat x_i))\!+\!\begin{bmatrix}\mathsf w_i-\hat {\mathsf w}_i\\x_i-\hat x_i\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\bar X_i^{11}&\bar X_i^{12}\\
\bar X_i^{21}&\bar X_i^{22}
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}\mathsf w_i-\hat {\mathsf w}_i\\x_i-\hat x_i\end{bmatrix}+ (1+3/\pi_i)\lambda_{\max}{(\tilde M_i)}\delta_i^2.
\end{aligned}$$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\notag\mathbb{E} \Big[\!V_i(x_i(k+M), \hat x_i(k+M)\!)|x_i \!=\! x_i(k),\hat x_i \!=\! \hat x_i(k),\nu_i \!=\! \nu_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1) ,\hat \nu_i \!=\! \hat \nu_i(k+M\!-\!1), w_i \!=\! w_i(k), \hat w_i \!=\! \hat w_i(k)\Big]\!\!-\!V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)\\\notag
&=(x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)^T(\tilde A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)^T\tilde M_i(\tilde A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)(x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)\!+\!2(x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)^T(\tilde A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)^T\tilde M_i\tilde D_i(w_i\!-\!\hat w_i)\!+\!(w_i-\hat w_i)^T \tilde D_i^T\tilde M_i \tilde D_i(w_i\!-\!\hat w_i)\\\notag
&+\!2_i(x_i\!-\!\hat x_i)^T(\tilde A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)^T\tilde M\mathbb{E} \Big[\tilde N_i\,|\,x_i,\hat x_i , \hat \nu_i, w_i,\hat w_i \Big]\!+\!2(w_i\!-\!\hat w_i)^T \tilde D_i^T\tilde M_i\mathbb{E} \Big[\tilde N_i\,|\,x_i,\hat x_i,\hat \nu_i, w_i,\hat w_i\Big]\!+\!\mathbb{E} \Big[\tilde N_i^T \tilde M \tilde N_i \,|\,x_i,\hat x_i, \hat \nu_i, \\\notag
&~,w_i,\hat w_i\Big]-V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)\\\notag
&\le\notag
\begin{bmatrix}x_i\!-\!\hat x_i\\w_i\!-\!\hat w_i\\\end{bmatrix}^T\!\begin{bmatrix}
(1\!+\!\pi_i)(\tilde A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)^T\tilde M_i(\tilde A_i\!+\!B_iK_i) \!&&\! (\tilde A_i\!+\!B_iK_i)^T\tilde M_i\tilde D_i\\
*\!&&\! (1\!+\!\pi_i)\tilde D_i^T \tilde M_i\tilde D_i\\
\end{bmatrix}\!\begin{bmatrix}x_i\!-\!\hat x_i\\w_i\!-\!\hat w_i\\\end{bmatrix}\!\!+\! (1\!+\!2/\pi_i)\lambda_{\max}{(\tilde M_i)}\delta_i^2\!-\!V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)\\\notag
&\le\notag
\begin{bmatrix}x_i-\hat x_i\\w_i-\hat w_i\\\end{bmatrix}^T\begin{bmatrix}
\hat\kappa_i\tilde M_i+\bar X_i^{22}& \bar X_i^{21}\\
\bar X_i^{12} & \bar X_i^{11}\\
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}x_i-\hat x_i\\w_i-\hat w_i\\\end{bmatrix}+ (1+2/\pi_i)\lambda_{\max}{(\tilde M_i)}\delta^2-V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)\\\label{Eq_555a}
&=
-(1\!-\hat\kappa_i) (V_i(x_i,\hat x_i))\!+\!\begin{bmatrix} w_i-\hat {w}_i\\x_i-\hat x_i\end{bmatrix}^T\!\!\begin{bmatrix}
\bar X_i^{11}&\bar X_i^{12}\\
\bar X_i^{21}&\bar X_i^{22}
\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} w_i-\hat {w}_i\\x_i-\hat x_i\end{bmatrix}\!+\! (1+2/\pi_i)\lambda_{\max}{(\tilde M_i)}\delta_i^2.
\end{aligned}$$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**(Theorem \[Thm\_33a\])** We first show that $\forall x_i := x_i(k)$, $\forall \hat x_i :=\hat x_i(k)$, $\forall \hat \nu_i :=\hat \nu_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1\!)$, $\exists\nu_i :=\nu_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1\!)$, $\forall w_i := w_i(k)$, $\forall \hat w_i:=\hat w_i(k)$, such that $V_i$ satisfies $\lambda_{\min}(\tilde M_i)\Vert x_i- \hat x_i\Vert^2\le V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)$ and then $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\mathbb{E}\Big[V_i(x_i(k+M), \hat x_i(k+M))\,\big|x_i,\hat x_i, w_i,\hat w_i, \nu_i,\hat \nu_i\Big]\\\notag
&\leq-(1-\hat\kappa_i) (V_i(x_i,\hat x_i))+(1+2/\pi_i)\lambda_{\max}{(\tilde M_i)}\delta_i^2+\begin{bmatrix}
w_i-\hat w_i\\
x_i-\hat x_i
\end{bmatrix}^T{\begin{bmatrix}
\bar X_i^{11}&\bar X_i^{12}\\
\bar X_i^{21}&\bar X_i^{22}
\end{bmatrix}}\begin{bmatrix}
w_i-\hat w_i\\
x_i-\hat x_i
\end{bmatrix}\!\!.
\end{aligned}$$
Since ${\lambda_{\min}(\tilde M_i)}\Vert x_i- \hat x_i\Vert^2\leq(x_i-\hat x_i)^T\tilde M_i(x_i-\hat x_i)$, one can readily verify that $\lambda_{\min}(\tilde M_i)\Vert x_i-\hat x_i\Vert^2\le V_i(x_i,\hat x_i)$ $\forall x_i$, $\forall \hat x_i$. Then inequality holds with $\alpha_i(s)=\lambda_{\min}(\tilde M_i)\,s^2$ for any $s\in\mathbb R_{\geq0}$. We proceed with showing the inequality . Given any $x_i(k)$, $\hat x_i(k)$, and $\hat \nu_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1)$, we choose $\nu_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1)$ via the following *interface* function: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq_2555}
\nu_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1)=K_i(x_i(k)-\hat x_i(k))+\hat \nu_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1),
\end{aligned}$$ and simplify $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\tilde A_ix_i(k) &+ B_i\nu_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1)+\tilde D_iw_i(k) + \tilde R_i\tilde \varsigma_i(k) -\Pi_{x_i}(\tilde A_i\hat x_i(k) + B_i\hat \nu_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1) + \tilde D_i\hat w_i(k) + \tilde R_i\tilde \varsigma_i(k))
\end{aligned}$$ to $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
(\tilde A_i+ B_iK_i)(x_i(k)-\hat x_i(k))+ \tilde D_i(w_i(k)-\hat w_i(k)) + \tilde N_i,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde N_i = \tilde A_i\hat x_i(k) + B_i\hat \nu_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1)+ \tilde D_i\hat w_i(k) + \tilde R_i\tilde \varsigma_i(k)-\Pi_{x_i}(\tilde A_i\hat x_i(k) + B_i\hat \nu_i(k\!+\!M\!-\!1) + \tilde D_i\hat w_i(k) + \tilde R_i\tilde \varsigma_i(k))$. By employing Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, Young’s inequality, and Assumption \[As\_1a\], one can obtain the chain of inequalities in . Hence, the proposed $V_i$ in is an FStF from $\widehat \Sigma_i$ to $\Sigma_i$, which completes the proof. Note that functions $\alpha_i\in\mathcal{K}_\infty$, $\kappa_i\in\mathcal{K}$, $\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}\in\mathcal{K}_\infty\cup\{0\}$, and matrix $\bar X_i$ in Definition \[Def\_1a\] associated with $V_i$ in are defined as $\alpha_i(s)=\lambda_{\min}(\tilde M_i)s^2$, $\kappa_i(s):=(1-\hat\kappa_i) s$, $\rho_{\mathrm{ext}i}(s):=0$, $\forall s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}_{\ge0}$, and $\bar X_i=\begin{bmatrix}
\bar X_i^{11}&\bar X_i^{12}\\
\bar X_i^{21}&\bar X_i^{22}
\end{bmatrix}$. Moreover, positive constant $\psi_i$ in is $\psi_i=(1+2/\pi)\lambda_{\max}{(\tilde M_i)}\delta_i^2$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'I present the first analytical study of gravitational collapse in a compact CMC foliation with $S^3$ spatial topology. The solutions I find, in this context, will be both solutions of Shape Dynamics and General Relativity. The aim is to describe a system undergoing gravitational collapse in Shape Dynamics, so a well-justified and useful simplification is to assume spherical symmetry. This kills all the local gravitational degrees of freedom, but some nontrivial degrees of freedom are recovered by introducing matter. The simplest form of matter is infinitely thin spherical shells of dust, of which I need at least two in order to have a nontrivial dynamics. With a single shell the system is dynamically trivial, but it nevertheless admits a solution which represents a ‘frozen’ shell at equilibrium in a globally de Sitter universe. Such a solution is, to my knowledge, new. I am able to solve analytically also the case with two shells, which has a nontrivial dynamics. When the rest mass of one shell is much smaller than the other, the system is suitable to model a compact universe in which one subsystem (the ‘light’ shell) undergoes gravitational collapse while the rest of the matter (the ‘heavy’ shell) plays the role of spectator. It turns out that, if the cosmological constant is zero or positive but small, and the rest mass of the two shells are sufficiently different, when the ‘light’ shells collapses the ADM equations become ill-defined and cease to admit a solution. The shape-dynamical description, however, seems still well defined and can be continued past this point, possibly signalling a departure of Shape Dynamics from exact equivalence with General Relativity.'
author:
- |
Flavio Mercati[^1]\
*Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”.\
*P.le A. Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy;\
*Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,\
*31 Caroline Street North, Waterloo, ON, N2L 2Y5 Canada****
title: '**Thin shells of dust in a compact universe**'
---
Introduction
============
Shape Dynamics (SD) describes gravity as the dynamics of 3D conformal geometry. Fundamentally, the theory does not involve the concept of spacetime, and has no inkling of relativity of simultaneity. Such concepts should emerge effectively, on-shell [@gryb:shape_dyn; @Gomes:linking_paper; @FlaviosSDtutorial], while conformal invariance is implemented off-shell as well. In other words, the fact that there is no preferred hypersurface of simultaneity (if true) can at most be a property of the solutions of the theory;[^2] it is a dynamical property, as opposed to conformal invariance, which is a kinematical property.
Abdicating the spacetime view, Shape Dynamics requires different tools to define the dynamics. In principle, any conformally-invariant global Hamiltonian would suffice, but in general such Hamiltonians won’t be phenomenologically viable. Among the possible choices, one has the special property that it generates a dynamics which, in a certain conformal gauge (determined by the ‘Lichnerowicz–York equation’), is equivalent to that of General Relativity (GR), and therefore inherits an extensive endowment of experimental support from Einstein’s theory. This Hamiltonian is the by-product of York’s conformal method for solving the initial value problem of GR [@York1971; @FlaviosSDtutorial]. Ideally, we would like to keep agnostic about the Hamiltonian and study the whole space of conformally- and diffeomorphism-invariant Hamiltonians. If the existence of universality classes and finite-dimensional critical surfaces with finite fixed points could be proven, then one would have a consistent quantum theory of conformal geometrodynamics. The hope is that, if such a program is successful, the point in theory space that corresponds to York’s Hamiltonian lies on such a critical surface, and therefore belongs to an asymptotically-safe orbit of the RG flow. Then our quantum theory of Shape Dynamics would also admit the correct classical limit.
Until we reach the level of technical development that is necessary to put to the test the above conjecture, it is important to study the classical theory of gravity that is defined by the York Hamiltonian. The solutions of this theory are equivalent to solutions of Einstein’s equations only when the latter describe a spacetime that can be foliated by constant-mean-extrinsic curvature (CMC) slices. This condition is pretty generic and is satisfied in most usual physical situations (and, in particular, in all situation we have direct experimental access to). However there are space-times which satisfy Einstein’s equations and admit no such complete foliation. In such situations the conformally-invariant dynamics defined by the York Hamiltonian may still be well-defined. For instance, by assuming continuity of the shape degrees of freedom, it was shown in [@ThroughTheBigBang] that Shape Dynamics resolves the Big Bang singularity, and allows to evolve smoothly through it. This comes at the cost of renouncing, already at the classical level, to the requirement of a smooth spacetime. Instead one has two spacetimes which are ‘soldered’ at a singular hypersurface.
It is natural to ask whether SD can similarly resolve other kinds of GR singularities. The first case we should study with this aim is that of the Schwarzschild singularity. This issue was investigated ia series of papers:
1. In [@Birkhoff_SD] H. Gomes studied the vacuum, asymptotically flat, spherically symmetric solutions of SD. The result was an odd-lapse maximal slicing of Schwarzschild spacetime, which covers the first and third quadrants of the Kruskal extension, and therefore avoids the two quadrants which contain singularities. The spatial slices look like a wormhole metric: they have two asymptotically flat ends, and in between a ‘throat’, that is, a minimal-area sphere. This initial result had the following shortcomings:
1. The spherically-symmetric ansatz implies that the spatial geometry is conformally flat. Therefore, by definition, there can be no local gravitational shape[^3] degrees of freedom. In absence of matter, and with the boundary conditions fixed by hand, this is not a genuine shape-dynamical system. Moreover, it is not clear that the result of [@Birkhoff_SD] should really represent a black hole in Shape Dynamics. The physically relevant question is whether such an object would form as the result of the gravitational collapse of ordinary matter.
2. The boundary conditions chosen at infinity are arbitrary. They require the following falloff conditions for the metric and its conjugate momenta: $g_{ij} = \delta_{ij} + \mathcal{O} (r^{-1}) $, $p^{ij} = \mathcal{O} (r^{-2}) $. These are standard in GR literature [@beig1987poincare], but they are not natural in SD; they amount to requirements on the asymptotic structure of spacetime (not of the conformal geometry). Only spatially compact solutions are truly relational,[^4] and asymptotic flatness can be at best an approximation of an empty region inside a compact universe [@Tim_Proceedings_TheoryCanada9].
3. In [@Birkhoff_SD] *maximal slicing,* $g_{ij} p^{ij} = 0$ was used, instead of the constant-mean-extrinsic curvature condition $g_{ij} p^{ij} = \langle p \rangle \sqrt g$ (where $ \langle p \rangle = \int d^3 x g_{ij} p^{ij} / \int d^3 x \sqrt g $ is a spatial constant). This is justified for asymptotic flatness, seen as an approximation to a small empty region in a much larger universe. In fact, in the relevant equations (see Eqs. (\[SphericalADMconsts\]) and (\[SolConstraints\]) below), the terms that depend on $ \langle p \rangle $ (as well as those that depend on the cosmological constant $\Lambda$) go like the sixth power of the areal radius of the metric, $\sqrt{g_{\theta\theta}}$. All the other terms depend on lower powers of $\sqrt{g_{\theta\theta}}$, and therefore dominate near the origin $\sqrt{g_{\theta\theta}} =0 $. From this point of view, discarding any dependence on $ \langle p \rangle $ seems justified. However, it also means that the asymptotically flat solution of [@Birkhoff_SD] corresponds to an infinitely thin slice of CMC time $ \langle p \rangle $ (also called York time).
2. The result of [@Birkhoff_SD] generated a number of spinoffs (*e.g.* [@Gabe_Kerr; @Gabe_Parity_Horizons; @ThinshellPaper]). In [@ThinshellPaper], together with H. Gomes, T. Koslowski and A. Napoletano, I partly addressed issue **(a)**, by studying the simplest form of spherically-symmetric matter: an infinitely thin spherical shell of dust, while keeping all the other assumptions of [@Birkhoff_SD] (standard GR asymptotically flat fall-off conditions, maximal slicing, no cosmological constant). With this setup the system has one pair of Hamiltonian degrees of freedom (the radius of the shell and its radial momentum). The system with a single shell still has no relational matter degrees of freedom, as there isnt a second matter subsystem to stand for comparison. It is therefore not a genuine shape-dynamical system. Nonetheless, one could interpret this system as a background over which weak perturbations can propagate [@Tim_Proceedings_TheoryCanada9]. These perturbations can give rise to an arbitrary number of genuine degrees of freedom, ‘probing’ the background without influencing it too much. The solution we found, where it exists in phase space, can therefore be a good approximation to *bona fide* shape-dynamical solutions, and it thus makes sense to draw (limited) physical conclusions from it. In particular, in [@ThinshellPaper] we showed that the ‘wormhole’ geometry described in [@Birkhoff_SD] is generated outside of the shell as a result of its collapse. The dynamical orbits of the shell in its reduced phase space were found, and could be classified as closed or open (depending on whether the shell has enough kinetic energy to reach escape velocity), as expected. In the same paper it was also found that the radius of the shell reaches the throat only at the boundary of phase space - when the momentum diverges - requiring an infinitely long phase-space curve to do so. This implies that, in the no-backreaction approximation, the matter outside the shell goes through an infinite amount of change before the shell crosses the throat.
3. In view of problem **(b)**, in [@BirkhoffFlavio] I critically reassessed the boundary conditions assumed in [@Birkhoff_SD]. Their use in GR is justified by the requirement of Poincaré invariance of the falloff conditions [@beig1987poincare], but in SD one is only authorized to assume symmetries of the spatial slices at infinity, not of the spacetime metric. A closer look at the problem revealed the presence of an integration constant of the spherically-symmetric equations of SD. This parameter, called $A$ (sometimes called *Estabrook–Wahlquist time* [@Alcubierre]), is a spatial constant but can be time dependent, and it is set to zero by the boundary conditions assumed in [@Birkhoff_SD]. It turns out that, if $A\neq 0$, the falloff conditions lose their invariance under asymptotic Lorentz transformations, but they are still invariant under spatial rotations and translations, and under time translations. Lorentz invariance of the boundary is not a legitimate request for an asymptotically flat solution of Shape Dynamics: it is only the spatial slices which have to develop the isometries of Euclidean space at the boundary. So the parameter $A$ cannot be put to zero in the same way as in GR, and has to be kept as an arbitrary function of time. However, the condition $A=0$ seems to be required in order to associate finite charges to spatial asymptotic rotations when strict spherical symmetry is relaxed.
This was pointed out in [@Henrique_Poincare_invariance], where it was shown that the standard asymptotically flat falloff conditions of GR (which imply $A=0$) are necessary in order to ensure the well-posedness of the variational problem. In other words, if we relax the assumption of spherical symmetry, falloff conditions that allow $A \neq 0$ will attribute infinite values to some of the boundary charges (like angular momentum), which means that one cannot define counterterms that make the action differentiable. As soon as we depart from perfect spherical symmetry, asymptotically flat SD with $A\neq 0$ is not a well-defined dynamical system. This seems to be a powerful argument in favour of fixing $A=0$, however, as is shown in the present paper, in a closed universe this argument doesn’t hold (there are no boundary charges and the variational problem is always well-posed), and the integration constant $A$ may admit values other than zero (it is determined by the state of motion of matter and setting it to zero ‘by hand’ is inconsistent). Therefore, if asymptotically flat SD with $A\neq 0$ turns out to be inconsistent, it cannot be a good approximate description of a nearly-empty region in a larger closed universe. The issue of what is the right noncompact model of such a situation will be discussed in future works.
Although the boundary charges of non-spherically symmetric configurations can be infinite, in the perfectly spherically-symmetric case all the charges related to Euclidean symmetries (translations and rotations) are zero [@BirkhoffFlavio]. Moreover, the charge associated to dilatations turns out to be proportional to the integration constant $A$. This suggests a physical meaning for $A$: if our asymptotically flat region is an approximation to an empty bubble in a larger universe, then the state of motion of the matter outside the bubble determines the boundary conditions. If the matter outside is expanding or contracting, this breaks the Lorentz invariance of the falloff conditions because it introduces a preferred frame. It does not, however, break the translation- or rotation-invariance of the fall-off conditions. An asymptotically flat model cannot predict the value of $A$ at each instant, as it is the consequence of the dynamics of the rest of the matter in the universe (whether the bubble is expanding or collapsing), so we have to go beyond this approximation if we want to deal with a dynamically closed system.
In this paper I will finally face all of the shortcomings of the previous attempts, and attack a problem which is truly relational. This means that the spatial manifold will be compact, which addresses shortcoming **(b)**. The simplest topology we can choose is $S^3$, whose symmetry group $SO(4)$ can be broken into $SO(3)$ by the introduction of two antipodal poles, around which we assume rotational symmetry. This assumption of course deprives us of all local propagating degrees of freedom of the metric, exposing us to criticism **(a)**, which, due to constraints on mathematical tractability at the moment, we can only address by introducing some form of matter. As in [@ThinshellPaper], the simplest choice is thin shells of dust. Considering only a single shell leads to a trivial solution, in which the shell has no dynamics (although it leads to a consistent solution of Einstein’s equations which, to my knowledge, has not been found before - see Sec. \[SubsecSingleShellUniverse\]), so the minimum number of shells is two. Finally, by considering a compact universe, we have implicitly introduced a finite volume for it, which is now itself a dynamical degree of freedom (at least in the ADM-in-CMC-gauge description of the problem), and for consistency we need to include its canonically conjugate degree of freedom: the York time $\langle p \rangle$. This addresses criticism **(c)**. As it turns out (see Sec. \[SecDescriptionOfTheSolution\]), in order to have a compact spatial manifold, we need to introduce also a cosmological constant, which however does not complicate the equations any further. In Sec. \[SecDescriptionOfTheSolution\] and \[ThinShellSection\] I study this problem. I can solve the system exactly, and describe analytically the on-shell surface representing reduced phase space for any possible value of the free parameters in the system. My analysis reveals a feature which will be the focus of the final Section \[SecTheProblem\]. This feature appears precisely in the cases which are the central focus of the present investigation: when the system is a good model of gravitational collapse, *i.e.* when the two shells have very different rest masses, and the lightest one collapses to a small region in a universe with a small positive cosmological constant. In other words, when we expect to approach the formation of a black hole. In these cases I explicitly see a departure of the dynamics of SD from that of GR: as the collapse proceeds, at some point the description of the system in terms of ADM-in-CMC variables fails (there is no real solution of the Lichnerowicz–York equation, and consequently no CMC-foliated spacetime). This result is highly significant, as it indicates that Shape Dynamics might have more to say about black holes than GR, just like it did in the case of the big-bang singularity in the recent [@ThroughTheBigBang].
Vacuum constraints and equations of motion {#SecDescriptionOfTheSolution}
==========================================
Spherically symmetric vacuum ADM constraints
--------------------------------------------
Assuming a spherically-symmetric ansatz [@ThinshellPaper; @FlaviosSDtutorial] on the coordinate patch[^5] $r \in [0 , \pi]$, $\theta \in [0,\pi]$, $\phi \in [0,2\pi)$, the spatial metric $g_{ij}$ and its conjugate momentum $p^{ij}$ depend each on two functions of the radial coordinate $r$ only, respectively $\mu$, $\sigma$ and $f$, $s$: $$g_{ij} = \text{diag} \, \left\{ \mu^2 , \sigma , \sigma \, \sin^2 \theta \right\} \,,
\qquad
p^{ij} = \text{diag} \, \left\{ \frac{f}{\mu} , {\frac s 2} , {\frac s 2} \, \sin^{-2} \theta \right\} \, \sin \theta \,.$$ The vacuum ADM Hamiltonian constraint $\mathcal H$ and diffeomorphism constraint $\mathcal H_i$, and the volume-preserving conformal constraint $\mathcal C$ are [@FlaviosSDtutorial; @ADM]: $$\label{ADMconsts}
\mathcal H = \frac{1}{\sqrt g} \left( p^{ij} p_{ij} - {\frac 1 2} p^2 \right)
+ \sqrt g (2\Lambda - R) \,,
\qquad
\mathcal H_i = -2 \, \nabla_j p^j{}_i \,,
\qquad
\mathcal C = p - \langle p \rangle \, \sqrt g \,,$$ after replacing the spherically-symmetric ansatz, they turn into $$\label{SphericalADMconsts}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal H &= - \frac{1}{6 \sigma \mu ^2} \left[ \sigma ^2 \mu s^2 + 4 f^2 \mu ^3 -4 f \sigma \mu ^2 s + 12 \sigma \mu \sigma '' - 12 \sigma \sigma ' \mu ' - 3 \mu (\sigma')^2
\right.
\\
& \left. \qquad \qquad ~~ - 12 \sigma \mu ^3 -( \langle p \rangle^2 - 12 \Lambda) \sigma ^2 \mu ^3 \right] \approx 0\,,
\\
\mathcal H_i &= \delta^r{}_i \left( \mu f' - {{\textstyle \frac}1 2} s \sigma' \right) \approx 0 \,,
\qquad \mathcal C = \mu f + s \sigma - \langle p \rangle \, \mu \, \sigma \approx 0 \,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $'$ denotes the $r$-derivative. These equations can be solved basically in the same way as we did in [@BirkhoffFlavio] and [@ThinshellPaper]. The explicit solution is: $$\label{SolConstraints}
\begin{gathered}
s = \langle p \rangle \, \mu - \frac{\mu}{\sigma} \, f \,,
\qquad \qquad
f = {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \langle p \rangle \, \sigma + \frac{A}{\sqrt \sigma}\,,\\
\mu^2 = \frac{(\sigma')^2}{\frac{A^2}{\sigma } + \left( {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} \langle p \rangle A - 8 \, m \right) \sqrt{\sigma} + 4 \, \sigma - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \sigma^2 } \,.
\end{gathered}$$ The solution introduces two integration constants:[^6] $m$, which is the Misner–Sharp mass [@BirkhoffFlavio; @MisnerSharpMass], and $A$, which is associated to the dilatational momentum of the boundaries of the empty region under consideration [@BirkhoffFlavio]. The last of the three solutions relates $\mu$ to $\sigma$ and $\sigma'$. Solving it requires choosing a radial diffeomorphism gauge. For example, in ‘isotropic’ gauge $\sigma = \mu^2 \sin^2 r$ the relation coincides with the Lichnerowicz–York equation [@FlaviosSDtutorial], whose solution would introduce a further integration constant, which from now on we will call $k$. However this equation cannot be solved analytically, as it involves the inversion of the solution of an elliptic integral. Other radial gauge-fixings lead to a solvable equation, for example one can explicitly specify the form of the function $\sigma (r)$ (which is the square of the areal radius of the metric), which fixes automatically also the form of $\mu$. However it turns out that not every function $\sigma (r)$ is acceptable (one says that not all gauges are *attainable*). This is because the last of Eq. (\[SolConstraints\]) is not compatible with every value of $\sigma$: the image of the function $\sigma(r)$ has to belong to the domain of positivity of the quantity $\left[\frac{A^2}{\sigma } + \left( {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} \langle p \rangle A - 8 \, m \right) \sqrt{\sigma} + 4 \, \sigma - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \sigma^2\right]$, otherwise $\mu$ is imaginary and the metric ends up being Lorentzian. The quantity above is $\frac {4 m^4}{\sigma}$ times the following dimensionless polynomial: $$\label{MordorPoly}
\mathscr P [z] = {{\textstyle \frac}{1}{36}} \left(6 C+\tau z^3\right)^2 - (\pm 2\, z^3) - {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \lambda \, z^6 + z^4\,,$$ where the sign $+$ corresponds to $m > 0$ and $-$ corresponds to $m < 0$. The quantities $$z = \frac{\sqrt \sigma}{|m|} \,, ~~~ C = \frac{A}{2 \, m^2} \,, ~~~ \tau = |m| \, \langle p \rangle \,, ~~~ \lambda = m^2 \Lambda\,.$$ are dimensionless. So $\sigma$ has to be such that $\mathscr P [ \sqrt{\sigma/m^2}] >0$. Moreover, $\sigma$ can reach the border of this domain, where $\mathscr P [ \sqrt{\sigma/m^2}] =0$, but only in such a way that the quantity $\sigma (\sigma')^2 / \mathscr P [ \sqrt{\sigma/m^2}] $ (which is proportional to $\mu^2$) is positive, which means that $\sigma'$ has to be zero at the border. $\sigma'$ cannot be zero anywhere else, because that would make $\mu$ zero too and the metric would be degenerate, so we conclude that $\sigma$ has to be monotonic in the bulk of the domain of positivity of $\mathscr P$, and can have extrema only at the boundary of that region. If we were able to analytically solve the isotropic LY equation, the same conditions would be satisfied automatically. In Fig. \[DomainOfSigmaFig\] we show what the form of an acceptable choice of $\sigma$ must be.
\[\]
[![On the right-hand side we plot a possible shape for the polynomial $\mathscr P$ versus $\sqrt{\sigma}/|m|$ on the vertical axis. In parallel, on the left, we plotted two possible choices of $\sigma$ as a function of $r$. The intervals in which $\mathscr P>0$ from the left-hand side plot are projected onto the vertical axis of this last diagram, so that one can see that $\sigma$ is confined within these intervals, and approaches their boundaries with zero derivative. Notice how in the upper interval, which is bounded from above and below, one can fit an arbitrary number of extrema of $\sigma(r)$, while the lower interval, which is only bounded from above, $\sigma$ can have only one extremum (a maximum) and otherwise has to go to zero.[]{data-label="DomainOfSigmaFig"}](DomainOfSigma.pdf "fig:"){width="54.00000%"}]{}
The $\mathscr P$ polynomial depends on several parameters: the areal radius $\sqrt{\sigma}$, the integration constants $A$ and $m$, the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ and York time $\langle p \rangle$. In Appendix \[MordorAppendix\] we study the region of positivity of the polynomial $\mathscr P$ in full generality, for any value of these parameters. The parameter $|m|$ can be used as a scale to make all the other parameters dimensionless. The only two parameters that are suitable for that role are $|m|$ and $|\Lambda|$ because, as we show below, they are both conserved. Choosing $|m|$ as the scale means that one has one time-independent dimensionless parameter $\lambda = m^2 \Lambda$ that should be fixed and gives different profiles for the ‘forbidden’ region of $\mathscr P <0$. The other three dimensionless parameters, $z = \frac{\sqrt \sigma}{|m|}$, $C = \frac{A}{2 \, m^2}$ and $ \tau = |m| \, \langle p \rangle$ are dynamical and take all possible values. In Appendix \[MordorAppendix\] below we study the region $\mathscr P <0$ in the 3D space $ \left( z , C ,\tau\right)$, for any possible choice of value of $\lambda = m^2 \Lambda$. Here is a particular example:
![The ‘forbidden’ region $\mathscr P (z) < 0$ for **positive Misner–Sharp mass** and **negative** (left) or **positive** (right) **cosmological constant.** The part of the surface where $\tau^2 < 12 \Lambda$ is in yellow, while $\tau^2 > 12 \Lambda$ is in red. []{data-label="MordorFig2_example"}](Mordor2.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"} ![The ‘forbidden’ region $\mathscr P (z) < 0$ for **positive Misner–Sharp mass** and **negative** (left) or **positive** (right) **cosmological constant.** The part of the surface where $\tau^2 < 12 \Lambda$ is in yellow, while $\tau^2 > 12 \Lambda$ is in red. []{data-label="MordorFig2_example"}](Mordor4.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}
Equations of Motion
-------------------
The ADM equations of motion require previous calculation of the CMC lapse, which is given by the Poisson bracket between $\mathcal H$ and $\mathcal C$, $$\label{GeneralLFE}
\left( 8 \Delta -2 R +12 \Lambda - \langle p\rangle ^2 \right) N
- {{\textstyle \frac}6 g} \left(p^{ij} -{ {\textstyle \frac}1 3} g^{ij} \, p \right)\left(p_{ij} -{ {\textstyle \frac}1 3} g_{ij} \, p \right) N
= \left\langle \sqrt g ~ \text{\it lhs} \right\rangle \,,$$ where $ \left\langle \sqrt g ~ h \right\rangle = \frac{\int \sqrt g \, h(x) \,d^3x}{\int \sqrt g \, d^3x} $ is the spatial average and lhs stands in for the content of the left hand side of the equality, repeated under the mean sign. Under the assumption of spherical symmetry \[which for a scalar function like the lapse is just $N=N(r)$\], Eq. (\[GeneralLFE\]) reduces to $$\label{SphSymmLFE1}
\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{4 f s }{\mu \sigma } -\frac{4 f ^2 }{\sigma ^2} -\frac{4 \mu' \sigma' }{\mu^3 \sigma }+\frac{4 \sigma'' }{\mu ^2 \sigma }-\frac{ (\sigma')^2}{\mu^2 \sigma^2}-\frac{4 }{\sigma}-\frac{ s^2}{\mu^2} \right) N +
\\
\left(12 \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) N - \left( \frac{8 \mu'}{\mu ^3}+\frac{8 \sigma' }{\mu^2 \sigma }\right) N' + \frac{8 N'' }{\mu^2}
=\left\langle \sqrt g ~ \text{\it lhs} \right\rangle \,.
\end{aligned}$$ The above equation can be formally solved by $$\label{SolutionLFEtwinshell}
N = \frac{\sigma'}{2 \mu \sqrt{\sigma}} \left( c_1 + c_2 \dashint \frac{\mu^3}{(\sigma')^2} {{\rm d}}r + \frac w 6 \dashint \frac{\sigma^{3/2} \mu^3}{(\sigma')^2} {{\rm d}}r \right) \,,$$ where $\dashint$ is the principal-value integral (see [@ThinshellPaper; @FlaviosSDtutorial] for the reason behind the use of the principal-value), and $c_1$, $c_2$ and $w$ are integration constants.
Once we have the lapse we can calculate the equations of motion for the metric $$\label{gdotEq}
\dot g_{ij} = \frac{2 N}{\sqrt g} \left( p_{ij}- {{\textstyle \frac}1 2} g_{ij} p \right) + \nabla_i \xi_j + \nabla_j \xi_i \,,$$ using the spherical symmetry ansatz we get that the $\dot g_{\theta\theta}$ and $\dot g_{\phi\phi}$ equations completely fix the shift vector: $$\label{SolEquation_gdotrr}
\xi_i = \delta^r{}_i \left( f \, N + \dot \sigma \right) /\sigma' \,.$$ Replacing the above solution of $\xi_i$ in the $\dot g_{rr}$ equation (as well as the solutions of the ADM constraints), we find that the equation reduces to (with $\dot{\langle p \rangle}$ I mean $\partial_t \langle p \rangle$, *i.e.* the time derivative of the spatial average, and not the other way around) $$\label{pdotEqs}
\begin{aligned}
\left(\langle p \rangle (4\dot A + 2 c_2) +A (4 \dot{\langle p \rangle} + w) - 48 \,\dot m \right) \sigma^{3/2} + \frac{\langle p \rangle}{3} \left(4 \dot{\langle p \rangle}+ w\right) \sigma^{3} + 6 A \left(2 \dot A + c_2\right)= 0\,.
\end{aligned}$$ In order for the above equation to hold for any choice of $\sigma(r)$ the only possibility is that $$\label{SolutionEqOfMotionThinShell}
\begin{aligned}
&c_2 = -2\,\dot A \,,
&&
w = - 4 \, \dot{\langle p \rangle} \,,
&&
\dot m = 0 \,.
\end{aligned}$$ We got that the Misner–Sharp mass is conserved, and that two of the three integration constants of the lapse are fixed. The third integration constant is arbitrary because it only amounts to a global rescaling of the unit of time.
The equations of motion for the momenta are $$\begin{aligned}\label{pdotEq}
\dot p^{ij} =& \frac{N}{2\sqrt g} g^{ij} \left( p^{k\ell} p_{k\ell} - {{\textstyle \frac}1 2} p^2\right)- \frac{2 N}{\sqrt g} \left( p^{ik} p_k{}^j - {{\textstyle \frac}1 2} p \, p^{ij} \right) - N \sqrt g \left( R^{ij} - {{\textstyle \frac}1 2} g^{ij} R + \Lambda g^{ij} \right)
\\
&+ \nabla_k (p^{ij} \xi^k) - p^{ik} \nabla_k \xi^j - p^{kj} \nabla_k \xi^i + \sqrt g \left( \nabla^i \nabla^j N - g^{ij} \Delta N \right) \,,
\end{aligned}$$ these equations are identically satisfied if one imposes the conditions (\[SolutionEqOfMotionThinShell\]), and therefore add no further information. We have been able to solve exactly the spherically symmetric ADM-CMC equations in vacuum (with a cosmological constant).
Introduction of matter: thin shells of dust {#ThinShellSection}
===========================================
Jump Conditions and Symplectic Potential
----------------------------------------
We are now ready to introduce matter. Following [@ThinshellPaper], we use the simplest form of spherically-symmetric matter: a thin shell of dust. A shell of dust has only two Hamiltonian degrees of freedom: its coordinate radius $R$ and its radial momentum $P$. Moreover it is characterized by one constant: its rest mass $M$. The constraints (\[ADMconsts\]) are modified in the following way by the addition of a thin shell of dust (see [@ThinshellPaper]):[^7] $$\label{ADMconsWIthShell}
\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!& \int \mathcal H \, d\theta d\phi + 4 \pi \, \delta(r-R) \sqrt{g^{rr} \, P^2 +M^2 } \approx 0 \,, \\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!& \int \mathcal H_i \, d\theta d \phi + 4 \pi \, \delta^r{}_i \delta (r-R) \, P \approx 0 \,,
\end{aligned}$$ while the $\mathcal C \approx 0$ constraint is unchanged.
This modification is localized at the location of the shell, $r=R$, and the equations (\[SphericalADMconsts\]), (\[SphSymmLFE1\]), (\[pdotEq\]), (\[gdotEq\]), as well as their solutions (\[SolConstraints\]), (\[SolutionLFEtwinshell\]), (\[SolutionEqOfMotionThinShell\]) continue to hold away from the sphere $r=R$. However, the delta-function introduces a discontinuity in the derivative of the function with the highest derivative in each equation [@ThinshellPaper], and therefore the integration constants $A$, $m$, $k$, $c_1$, $c_2$ and $w$ will take different values on each side of the shell. Denoting by a subscript ‘$\cdot_-$’ the constants in the region $r<R$, and ‘$\cdot_+$’ those in the region $r>R$, we get that Eqs. (\[ADMconsWIthShell\]) imply the following jump conditions (see [@ThinshellPaper]): $$\label{AllJumpconditionsForOneShell}
A_+ - A_- = - \frac{\sigma^{\frac 1 2}(R ) }{2\mu(R )} P \,,
\qquad
\lim_{r\to R ^+} \sigma'(r) - \lim_{r\to R ^-} \sigma'(r) = - {{\textstyle \frac}1 2} \sqrt{P ^2 + M ^2 \mu^2(R )} \,.$$ Each equation of motion, when extended with the source terms from Eq. (\[ADMconsWIthShell\]), leads to a jump condition of its own. These jump conditions however are not independent, and are automatically satisfied once Eqs. (\[AllJumpconditionsForOneShell\]) are [@ThinshellPaper].
Altogether, the jump conditions make the metric, the lapse and the shift continuous but with discontinuous radial derivative. The momentum is instead discontinuous (but bounded). These discontinuities depend on the integration constants $A$, $m$ and $k$ taking different values on the two sides of each shell, and they coincide with Israel’s junction conditions [@IsraelJunctionConditions].
In order to discuss the dynamics of the system, we need to know which of the reduced-phase-space variables are canonically conjugate to each other. In other words, we need to calculate the symplectic form. By definition, the conjugate variables of the extended phase space are $g_{ij}$ and $p^{ij}$, as well as $R$ and $P$. Therefore the pre-symplectic potential is $$\theta = \int_{S^3} p^{ij} \, \delta g_{ij} \, {{\rm d}}r {{\rm d}}\theta {{\rm d}}\phi + 4 \pi \, P \delta R \,,$$ restricting it through spherical symmetry and integrating in ${{\rm d}}\theta {{\rm d}}\phi$ we get $$\theta = 4 \pi \int_0^\pi {{\rm d}}r \left( 2 f \, \delta \mu + s \, \delta \sigma\right)+ 4 \pi \, P \delta R \,.$$ Now, imposing the CMC constraint $\mu \, f = \mu \, \langle p \rangle \, \sigma - s \, \sigma$, and the solution to the diffeo constraint (\[SolConstraints\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\theta =~& 4 \pi \int_0^\pi {{\rm d}}r \left( 2 f \, \delta \mu -\frac{ \mu \, f}{\sigma} \delta \sigma + \langle p \rangle \, \mu \, \delta \sigma \right) + 4 \pi \, P \delta R \\
&= - 4 \pi \int_0^\pi {{\rm d}}r \frac{2 \mu}{\sqrt{\sigma}} \delta (f \sqrt \sigma)+ \langle p \rangle 4 \pi \int_0^\pi {{\rm d}}r \mu \delta \sigma + 4 \pi \, P \delta R \\
&= - \frac{8 \pi}{3} \int_0^\pi {{\rm d}}r \,\sigma \, \mu \, \delta \langle p \rangle + 4 \pi \, P \delta R \\
&- 8 \pi \int_0^\pi \frac{\mu}{\sqrt \sigma} \delta \left[ A_- \, \Theta(R -r) + A_+ \, \Theta(r-R ) \right]\,,
\end{aligned}$$ using the first of the two jump conditions in Eq. (\[AllJumpconditionsForOneShell\]) the symplectic potential reduces to $$\label{IsotropicSymplectic0}
\begin{aligned}
\theta &= - \frac{2}{3} V \delta \langle p \rangle - 8 \pi \left[ \delta A_- \int_0^{R } {{\rm d}}r \frac{\mu}{\sqrt \sigma} + \delta A_+ \int_{R }^{\pi} {{\rm d}}r \frac{\mu}{\sqrt \sigma} \right] \,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $V = 4 \pi {\displaystyle \int_0^\pi \sigma \, \mu \, {{\rm d}}r}$ is the on-shell volume. Now, using the isotropic gauge condition $\mu = \sqrt \sigma/\sin r$, (\[IsotropicSymplectic0\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\theta &= - \frac{2}{3} V \delta \langle p \rangle + 8 \pi ( \delta A_+ - \delta A_-) \log \left(\tan \frac {R} 2 \right) \,,
\end{aligned}$$ and, recalling Eq. (\[AllJumpconditionsForOneShell\]), $ A_+ - A_- = - {\frac 1 2} P \sin R $, we get $$\theta = - \frac{2}{3} V \delta \langle p \rangle - 4 \pi \log \left(\tan \frac {R} 2 \right) \delta \left( P \sin R \right) \,,$$ which, modulo an exact form, is identical to $$\label{IsotropicSymplectic}
\theta = - \frac{2}{3} V \delta \langle p \rangle - 4 \pi R \delta P \,.$$ Everything we said so far applies identically to more than one shell. The symplectic potential, for example, with many shells turns into $\theta = - \frac{2}{3} V \delta \langle p \rangle - 4 \pi \sum_a R_a \delta P_a$.
Single Shell Universe {#SubsecSingleShellUniverse}
---------------------
\[\]
[![The ‘single shell’ universe: the spatial manifold has the topology of the sphere $S^3$ and contains one thin shell which divides the manifold into the N and S polar regions. Both regions have to have $A_+=A_-=m_+=m_-=0$ in order for the geometry to be regular at the poles. The shell is characterized by a coordinate-radius degree of freedom $R$ and a radial-momentum degree of freedom $P$, which are related to the jump in the integration constants $A$, $m$ and $k$. Since $A_+ = A_- = 0$, the momentum of the shell, $P$ is forced to vanish. []{data-label="SingleShell_SphereDiagram"}](SingleShell_SphereDiagram.pdf "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}]{}
If we include only one shell of dust, the manifold is divided into two regions (we will call them ‘$+$’ and ‘$-$’) which include a pole. Therefore the integration constants $A$ and $m$ are zero in both regions, $A_-=A_+ = m_- = m_+ =0$. Using this in the solution of the constraints, Eq. (\[SolConstraints\]), $$\mu^2(r) = \frac{(\sigma')}{4 \sigma - {\frac 1 9} (12 \Lambda - \langle p\rangle^2) \sigma^2} ~~~ \forall r < R\,, r > R \,.$$ Then the continuity of $\mu$ across the shell imposes that $\displaystyle |\lim_{r \to R^+}\sigma'(r)| = |\lim_{r \to R^-} \sigma'(r)|$. Now, the second of Eqs. (\[AllJumpconditionsForOneShell\]) imposes that $$\lim_{r\to R ^+} \sigma'(r) - \lim_{r\to R ^-} \sigma'(r) = - {{\textstyle \frac}1 2} \sqrt{P ^2 + M ^2 \mu^2(R )} \,,$$ while the first sets $P \approx 0$, because $A_+=A_-=0$. So, unless $M=0$, the left and right limits of $\sigma'$ must be equal in magnitude but opposite in sign: $$\label{SigmaDerivativeAtTheShell}
\lim_{r\to R ^+} \sigma'(r) = - \lim_{r\to R ^-} \sigma'(r) = - {{\textstyle \frac}1 4} \sqrt{P^2 + M ^2 \mu^2(R ) } \approx - {{\textstyle \frac}1 4} M \mu (R ) \,.$$ Assuming $A_-=A_+ = m_- = m_+ =0$ we can calculate explicitly the metric in isotropic coordinates, such that ${{\rm d}}s^2 = \mu^2(r) \left[ {{\rm d}}r^2 + \sin^2 r \left( {{\rm d}}\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta {{\rm d}}\phi^2 \right) \right] $, which implies $\sigma = \sin^2 r \, \mu^2$. This last condition can be considered as a differential equation for $\sigma$: $$\label{SingleShell_IsotropicEquation}
\frac{(\sigma')^2}{4 \sigma - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \sigma^2 } = \frac{\sigma}{\sin^2 r} \,,$$ which is solved by $$\label{SingleShellSigma}
\sigma = \frac{36}{12 \Lambda -\langle p \rangle^2} \left[ 1 - \left( \frac{1- k^2 \tan^2 \frac r 2 }{1 + k^2 \tan^2 \frac r 2} \right)^2 \right] \,.$$ In order for the solution above to be positive, we should assume $k$ real if $12 \Lambda -\langle p \rangle^2$, and imaginary otherwise. In other words, the quantity $k^2/(12 \Lambda -\langle p \rangle^2)$ is always positive.
![Plot of the solution of Eq. (\[SingleShellSigma2\]) for a particular choice of $R $ for various values of $k$.[]{data-label="SingleShellSigmaPlot2"}](SingleShellInEq_SigmaPlot2.pdf){height="40.00000%"}
As stated in Eq. (\[SigmaDerivativeAtTheShell\]) the function $\sigma(r)$ needs to flip sign of its derivative at $r = R $. If we call $k_-$$(k_+)$ the value of the integration constant $k$ at the left (right) of the shell, we can impose $$\lim_{r\to R ^-} \sigma'(k_-,r)
=
- \lim_{r\to R ^+}\sigma'(k_+,r) \,,$$ such an equation admits the following solution: $$k_+ = \frac{\cot^2 \frac {R } 2}{k_-} \,,$$ which implies that the full expression of $\sigma(r)$ at each side of the shell is $$\label{SingleShellSigma2}
\sigma = {{\textstyle \frac}{36}{12 \Lambda -\langle p \rangle^2}} \times \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 - \left( \frac{1- k^2 \tan^2 \frac r 2 }{1 + k^2 \tan^2 \frac r 2} \right)^2 & \text{\it for } r<R
\\
1 - \left( \frac{k^2- \cot^4 \frac {R } 2 \, \tan^2 \frac r 2 }{k^2 + \cot^4 \frac {R } 2 \, \tan^2 \frac r 2} \right)^2
& \text{\it for } r>R
\end{array}\right. \,,$$ in Fig. \[SingleShellSigmaPlot2\] I plot the function $\sigma$ of Eq. (\[SingleShellSigma2\]), divided by $\frac{12 \Lambda -\langle p \rangle^2}{36}$ for a range of values of $k$ and for a particular choice of $R$. We then have a 1-parameter family of metrics which are exact solutions of the local parts of the constraints. All that is left over to solve are the jump conditions. The diffeomorphism one simply reduces to the constraint $P \approx 0$, while the Hamiltonian one takes a more complicated functional form: $$\begin{aligned}
h(k,R ,\langle p \rangle ) &=
\lim_{r\to R ^+} \sigma'(r) - \lim_{r\to R ^-} \sigma'(r) + {{\textstyle \frac}1 2} \sqrt{P ^2 + M ^2 \sigma(R ) \sin^{-2} R }
\\
&=
\frac{8 \, k^2 \cos \left(\frac{R}{2}\right) \left[ k^2-\cot ^2\left(\frac{R}{2}\right) \right]}{\sin ^3\left(\frac{R}{2}\right) \left[ k^2+\cot ^2\left(\frac{R}{2}\right)\right]^3} + {{\textstyle \frac}1 2} \sqrt{P ^2 + M ^2 \sigma(R ) \sin^{-2} R } \approx 0 \,.
\end{aligned}$$ We are left with a 4-dimensional phase space, $(R,P,k,\langle p \rangle)$ and two constraints: $P\approx0$, $h \approx 0$. We need to perform a Dirac analysis and check whether the constraints are first- or second-class. To do so we need to calculate the symplectic form. Recall from the previous Section that the symplectic potential in isotropic gauge is $\theta = - \frac{2}{3} V \delta \langle p \rangle - 4 \pi R \delta P $. The volume $V$ is a function of $R $, $k$ and $\langle p \rangle$: $$\label{SingleShellExactVolume}
\begin{aligned}
&V= 4 \pi \int {{\rm d}}r \sigma \mu = 8 \pi \int_0^{\sigma(R )} \frac{\sigma {{\rm d}}\sigma}{\sqrt{4 \sigma - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \sigma^2}}\\
&=\textstyle
\frac{1728 \, \pi}{\left(12 \Lambda -\langle p \rangle^2\right)^{3/2}} \left\{ \tan^{-1} \left[ k \tan \left(\frac{R }{2}\right)\right] - \frac{k \tan \left(\frac{R}{2}\right) \left(1-k^2 \tan ^2\left(\frac{R}{2}\right)\right)}{\left(k^2 \tan ^2\left(\frac{R}{2}\right)+1\right)^2}\right\} \,.
\end{aligned}$$ The variation of the volume takes a simple form: $$\delta V = \frac{8 k^2 \sin ^2 R (\sin R \, \delta k +k \, \delta R)}{\left(1 +k^2+(1 -k^2) \cos R\right)^3} \,,$$ so the symplectic potential is simply $$\omega = \delta \theta = - \frac{2}{3} w(R,k) \left( \sin R \, \delta k \wedge \delta \langle p \rangle +k \, \delta R \wedge \delta \langle p \rangle \right) - 4 \pi \delta R \wedge \delta P \,,$$ where $w(R,k) = \frac{8 k^2 \sin ^2 R}{\left(1 +k^2+(1 -k^2) \cos R\right)^3}$. Now, the Poisson brackets between any two phase-space functions are given by the inverse of the symplectic form: $$\{ f , g \} = \partial_i f \, (\omega^{-1})^{ij} \, \partial_j g \,,$$ and since
$$\label{SingleShellSymplectic2-Form-Matrix}
\begin{aligned}
\omega_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -\frac{2}{3} w \, \sin R & 0 & 0 \\
\frac{2}{3} w \, \sin R & 0 & \frac{2}{3} w \, k & 0 \\
0 & - \frac{2}{3} w \, k & 0 & -4 \pi \\
0 & 0 & 4 \pi & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right) \,,
\end{aligned}$$
(where $i,j= \left( k , \langle p \rangle , R , P \right)$, the inverse can be shown to be $$\label{SingleShellSymplectic2-Form-InverseMatrix}
\begin{aligned}
(\omega^{-1})^{ij} = \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & \frac 3 {w \, \sin R } & 0 & - \frac 1 {2\pi} \frac{k}{\sin R} \\
- \frac 3 {w \, \sin R} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \frac 1 {2\pi} \\
\frac 1 {2\pi} \frac{k}{\sin R} & 0 & - \frac 1 {2\pi} & 0
\end{array}
\right) \,.
\end{aligned}$$ Then the Poisson brackets take the following explicit form: $$\{ f , g \} = \textstyle \frac 1 {w \, \sin R} \left[ 3 \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial k}\frac{\partial g}{\partial \langle p\rangle }-\frac{\partial f}{\partial \langle p\rangle }\frac{\partial g}{\partial k}\right)
-\frac{1}{2 \pi } w \, k
\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial k}\frac{\partial g}{\partial P }-\frac{\partial f}{\partial P }\frac{\partial g}{\partial k}\right) \\\right]+\frac{1}{2 \pi } \left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial R }\frac{\partial g}{\partial P }-\frac{\partial f}{\partial P }\frac{\partial g}{\partial R }\right) \,.$$ The Poisson brackets between $h(k,R ,\langle p \rangle ) $ and $P $ then is: $$\{ h , P \} =
-\frac{1}{2 \pi } \frac{k}{\sin R} \, \frac{\partial h}{\partial k} +\frac{1}{2 \pi } \, \frac{\partial h}{\partial R } \,,$$ and an explicit calculation reveals that $$\{ h , P \} \approx - \frac{\cot R }{2 \pi} h \approx 0 \,,$$ so the two constraints are first-class.
We have a four-dimensional phase space with two first-class constraints. One linear combination of the constraints can be interpreted as generating gauge transformations and indicating an unphysical degree of freedom, but the other linearly independent one cannot (see [@FlaviosSDtutorial], in particular ‘Barbour and Foster’s exception to Dirac’s theorem), because it plays the role of Hamiltonian constraint generating the dynamics. It is convenient to take $P \approx 0$ as the gauge constraint, which can be gauge-fixed with $$\chi = R - \bar R \approx 0 \,,$$ where $\bar R \in (0 , \pi)$ is any function of time (the simplest choice is a constant). $\chi$ is trivially first-class with respect to $h$ and second-class with respect to $P $. Replacing the gauge constraint $P \approx 0$ and the gauge fixing $\chi \approx 0 $ in the leftover Hamiltonian constraint $h\approx 0$ we get $$h \propto \frac{M}{\sqrt{2 \cos^4 {{\textstyle \frac}{\bar R}2} \left(k^2 \tan ^2{{\textstyle \frac}{\bar R}2}+1\right)^2}}
-
\sqrt{\frac{36 \, k^2}{12 \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2}} \frac{ 8 \, \cos {{\textstyle \frac}{\bar R}2} \left( k^2-\cot ^2{{\textstyle \frac}{\bar R}2}\right)}{\sin^3 {{\textstyle \frac}{\bar R}2} \left( k^2+\cot ^2{{\textstyle \frac}{\bar R}2}\right)^3}
\approx 0 \,,$$
Assuming that $12 \Lambda > \langle p \rangle^2$, we can take $k$ real and positive, and the above equation is equivalent to the following sixth-order polynomial in $k$: $$\label{k_polynomial}
\left(k^2+\cot ^2{{\textstyle \frac}{\bar R}2}\right) \left(k^4 m-96 k^3 \cot {{\textstyle \frac}{\bar R}2}+2 k^2 m \cot ^2{{\textstyle \frac}{\bar R}2}+96 k \cot ^3{{\textstyle \frac}{\bar R}2}+m \cot ^4{{\textstyle \frac}{\bar R}2}\right)= 0 \,,$$ where $m = M \sqrt{12 \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2}$.
We can assume that $k^2 \neq - \cot ^2{{\textstyle \frac}{\bar R}2}$ because $k \in \mathbbm{R}$ (otherwise $\sigma$ would be negative), so Eq. (\[k\_polynomial\]) is equivalent to a fourth-order equation. Its discriminant is proportional to $$m^2 \left(m^2-576\right)^2 \sin ^{20}(\bar R) \csc^8\left(\frac{\bar R}{2}\right) \,,$$ which is always positive. Therefore there are either four or zero real roots. The former case holds only if both $\left(m^2-1728\right) \sin ^4\left(\frac{\bar R}{2}\right) \sin ^2(\bar R) <0$ and $\left(m^2-576\right) \sin ^8\left(\frac{\bar R}{2}\right) \sin ^4(\bar R)<0$. So, in order for real roots to exist, we have to have $m^2 < 576$, that is, $$M^2 < \frac{24^2}{12 \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2} \,.$$ In summary, we found that the dynamics of the single-shell universe is completely trivial: the radial coordinate of the shell, $R$ is unphysical (even in isotropic gauge), because its conjugate momentum $P$ is a first-class constraint. All we can do is to impose $P\approx 0$ in $h(k,R,\langle p \rangle) \approx 0$ and we get a functional relation between $k$ and $\langle p \rangle$. For a given value of the rest mass $M$ this completely fixes the CMC metric as a function of the York time $\langle p \rangle$. In Fig. \[SingleShellplots\] I plot $\sigma(R)$ and the volume $V$ from Eq. (\[SingleShellExactVolume\]) as functions of York time $\langle p \rangle$, for a set of choices of $M$ between $0$ and the maximum $24/\sqrt{12 \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2}$.
![Plot of $\sigma(R)$ (left) and $V$ (right) as functions of York time $\langle p \rangle$ for a set of values of the rest mass. The vertical axis has been compactified by taking the $\arctan$. As we can see, for each choice of the dimentionless parameter $M \sqrt{12 \Lambda}$ there are two conjugate solutions: one which goes from infinite volume/areal radius at the shell (at $\langle p \rangle = - \sqrt{12\Lambda}$) to a finite minimum (at $\langle p \rangle = 0$) and back to infinity (at $\langle p \rangle = +\sqrt{12\Lambda}$). Another one that goes from a finite volume/areal radius (at $\langle p \rangle = \pm \sqrt{12\Lambda}$) to a finite maximim (at $\langle p \rangle = 0$). In the zero-rest-mass limit the first kind of solutions tend to an acceptable result: two compact patches of de Sitter universe glued at their border, which is delimited by a lightlike shell. The second kind stops making sense as $M \to 0$: both the areal radius $\sigma(R)$ and the volume are zero throughout the solution. In the opposite limit, $M \to \frac{24}{\sqrt{12 \Lambda}}$, the solution ceases to be smooth, because the first and second kind of solutions meet at a point at $\langle p \rangle =0$, and $d \sigma(R)/d\langle p\rangle$ has a discontinuity at that point. This is a signal that at that point the ‘cosmological horizon scale’ associated to the cosmological constant and the ‘Schwarzschild horizon scale’ associated to the mass-energy of the shell coincide. The physics of this family of solutions that I uncovered will be investigated in future works. []{data-label="SingleShellplots"}](SSsigmaplot.pdf "fig:"){height="0.28\textheight"} ![Plot of $\sigma(R)$ (left) and $V$ (right) as functions of York time $\langle p \rangle$ for a set of values of the rest mass. The vertical axis has been compactified by taking the $\arctan$. As we can see, for each choice of the dimentionless parameter $M \sqrt{12 \Lambda}$ there are two conjugate solutions: one which goes from infinite volume/areal radius at the shell (at $\langle p \rangle = - \sqrt{12\Lambda}$) to a finite minimum (at $\langle p \rangle = 0$) and back to infinity (at $\langle p \rangle = +\sqrt{12\Lambda}$). Another one that goes from a finite volume/areal radius (at $\langle p \rangle = \pm \sqrt{12\Lambda}$) to a finite maximim (at $\langle p \rangle = 0$). In the zero-rest-mass limit the first kind of solutions tend to an acceptable result: two compact patches of de Sitter universe glued at their border, which is delimited by a lightlike shell. The second kind stops making sense as $M \to 0$: both the areal radius $\sigma(R)$ and the volume are zero throughout the solution. In the opposite limit, $M \to \frac{24}{\sqrt{12 \Lambda}}$, the solution ceases to be smooth, because the first and second kind of solutions meet at a point at $\langle p \rangle =0$, and $d \sigma(R)/d\langle p\rangle$ has a discontinuity at that point. This is a signal that at that point the ‘cosmological horizon scale’ associated to the cosmological constant and the ‘Schwarzschild horizon scale’ associated to the mass-energy of the shell coincide. The physics of this family of solutions that I uncovered will be investigated in future works. []{data-label="SingleShellplots"}](SSvolumeplot.pdf "fig:"){height="0.28\textheight"}
We were able to solve analytically the single-shell universe, because in this case the isotropic gauge condition leads to an equation for $\sigma$, (\[SingleShell\_IsotropicEquation\]), that can be solved exactly. However this will be a luxury that we cannot afford in the following section, and we need to be prepared to study the dynamics even when an explicit solution of the Hamiltonian constraint in isotropic gauge is not available. For this reason, in preparation to the next section, I here calculate again the symplectic potential without assuming any particular radial gauge. I will instead try to exploit as much as I can all the gauge-independent information we have about the form of the solution of the constraints. To do so, I need to make only reference to the variables $\rho = \sqrt{\sigma (R)}$ (the areal radius of the shell), $A_+$ and $A_-$, which do not depend on the radial gauge (as opposed to $R$ and $P$, which, being related to a coordinate system, take a meaning only when a radial gauge is fixed).
Let’s begin with the form (\[IsotropicSymplectic0\]) for the pre-symplectic potential: $$\theta = - \frac{2}{3} V \delta \langle p \rangle - 8 \pi \left[ \delta A_- \int_0^{R } {{\rm d}}r \frac{\mu}{\sqrt \sigma} + \delta A_+ \int_{R }^{\pi} {{\rm d}}r \frac{\mu}{\sqrt \sigma} \right] \,,$$ introducing the theta functions $$\Theta_+ (r) = \Theta(r-R) \,, \qquad \Theta_- (r) = \Theta(R-r) \,,$$ we can write the potential as $$\begin{aligned}
\theta
=& - 8 \pi \sum_{\beta \in \{ +,-\}} \int_{\pi}^{0} \frac{\left(\frac 1 3 \sigma^{3/2}(r) \, \delta \langle p \rangle + \delta A_\beta \right) \Theta_\beta(r) \, |\sigma'| {{\rm d}}r}{\sqrt{ A^2_\beta + \left( {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} \langle p \rangle A_\beta - 8 \, m_\beta \right) \sigma^{3/2} + 4 \, \sigma^2 - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \sigma^3 }}
\\
=& - 8 \pi \int_0^{\sigma(R)} \left( \frac{\partial F_- [A_-,\langle p \rangle ,\sigma]}{\partial \langle p \rangle} \delta \langle p \rangle + \frac{\partial F_- [A_-,\langle p \rangle ,\sigma]}{\partial A_-} \delta A_- \right) d \sigma
\\
&- 8 \pi \int_0^{\sigma(R)} \left( \frac{\partial F_+ [A_+,\langle p \rangle ,\sigma]}{\partial \langle p \rangle} \delta \langle p \rangle + \frac{\partial F_+ [A_+,\langle p \rangle ,\sigma]}{\partial A_+} \delta A_+ \right) {{\rm d}}\sigma
\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$F_\beta = \log \left(A_\beta + {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \langle p \rangle \sigma^{3/2} \sqrt{ A^2_\beta + \left( {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} \langle p \rangle A_\beta - 8 \, m_\beta \right) \sigma^{3/2} + 4 \, \sigma^2 - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \sigma^3 } \right) \,.$$ Then the symplectic form is $$\begin{aligned}
\omega = \delta \theta = - 8 \pi \bigg{(}&
\frac{\partial F_- [A_-,\langle p \rangle ,\sigma(R)]}{\partial \langle p \rangle} \delta \langle p \rangle + \frac{\partial F_- [A_-,\langle p \rangle ,\sigma(R)]}{\partial A_-} \delta A_- \\
&+ \frac{\partial F_+ [A_+,\langle p \rangle ,\sigma(R)]}{\partial \langle p \rangle} \delta \langle p \rangle + \frac{\partial F_+ [A_+,\langle p \rangle ,\sigma(R)]}{\partial A_+} \delta A_+ \bigg{)} \wedge \delta \sigma(R)
\,.
\end{aligned}$$ applying $A_\pm = m_\pm =0$ $$\omega = - \frac{16 \pi}{3} \left( \frac{\sigma^{3/2}(R)}{\sqrt{ 4 \, \sigma^2(R) - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \sigma^3(R)} } \right) \delta \langle p \rangle \wedge \delta \sigma(R)
\,.$$ The above equation is essentially stating that the variables $\sigma(R)$ and $\langle p \rangle$ are canonically conjugate.
Let’s now discuss the constraints imposed by the jump conditions. The diffeomorphism jump condition \[the first of Eqs. (\[AllJumpconditionsForOneShell\])\] is now just a definition of $P$, which is not a dynamical variable anymore. The Hamiltonian jump condition \[the second of Eqs. (\[AllJumpconditionsForOneShell\])\] can be written in a way that depends only on $\rho$, $A_+$ and $A_-$. In fact, define $\kappa = \lim_{r\to R^-} \sigma'(r)$ and $\gamma = \lim_{r\to R^-} \sigma'(r)$. Using the first of Eqs. (\[AllJumpconditionsForOneShell\]) into the second one: $$\gamma - \kappa = - {{\textstyle \frac}1 2} \sqrt{4 \frac{(A_+-A_-)^2}{\rho^2} \mu^2(R) + M^2 \mu^2(R)} \,,$$ and dividing by $|\mu(R)|$ $$\frac{\gamma}{|\mu(R)|} - \frac{\kappa}{|\mu(R)|} = - {{\textstyle \frac}1 2} \sqrt{4 \frac{(A_+-A_-)^2}{\rho^2} + M^2} \,,$$ we can square the above equation and reorder $$\frac{\gamma^2}{\mu^2(R)} + \frac{\kappa^2}{\mu^2(R)} - \frac{(A_+-A_-)^2}{\rho^2} - {{\textstyle \frac}1 4} M^2 = 2 \frac{\gamma \, \kappa }{\mu^2(R)} \,,$$ and taking another square $$\left( \frac{\gamma^2}{\mu^2(R)} + \frac{\kappa^2}{\mu^2(R)} - \frac{(A_+-A_-)^2}{\rho^2} - {{\textstyle \frac}1 4} M^2 \right)^2 = 2 \frac{\gamma^2}{\mu^2(R)} \frac{\kappa^2}{\mu^2(R)} \,,$$ the equation only depends on $\frac{\gamma^2}{\mu^2(R)} =\frac{\left(\lim_{r\to R^-} \sigma'(r)\right)^2}{\mu^2(R)} $ and $\frac{\kappa^2}{\mu^2(R)} =\frac{\left(\lim_{r\to R^+} \sigma'(r)\right)^2}{\mu^2(R)} $. Now we can use the last of Eqs. (\[SolConstraints\]) to get rid of $\kappa/\mu^2(R)$ and $\gamma/\mu^2(R)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\gamma^2}{\mu^2(R)} =\frac{\left(\lim_{r\to R^-} \sigma'(r)\right)^2}{\mu^2(R)} = \frac{A_-^2}{\rho} + \left( {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} \langle p \rangle A_- - 8 m_- \right) \rho + 4 \rho^2 - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \rho^4 \,,
\\
\frac{\kappa^2}{\mu^2(R)} =\frac{\left(\lim_{r\to R^+} \sigma'(r)\right)^2}{\mu^2(R)} = \frac{A_+^2}{\rho} + \left( {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} \langle p \rangle A_+ - 8 m_+ \right) \rho + 4 \rho^2 - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \rho^4 \,,
\end{aligned}$$ and we have our contraint purely in terms of $\rho$, $A_+$ and $A_-$. Now we can use the boundary conditions at the poles, $A_\pm = m_\pm =0$, and the constraint simplifies to: $$\label{SingleShellOnshellConstraint}
\frac{M^2}{16} + {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \rho^4 - 4 \rho^2 =0 \,.$$ The above constraint admits a real positive $\rho$ only when $M^2 (12 \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2)<24^2$, which is the same upper bound on the mass that we found above. Moreover, if we plot the solutions of (\[SingleShellOnshellConstraint\]) w.r.t. $\rho^2$ as functions of $\langle p \rangle$ we obtain the same diagram as the left one in Fig. \[SingleShellplots\]. We were therefore able to extract the same amount of information as before, but without having to fix the radial gauge.
We were able to solve every aspect of the ‘single-shell universe’ analytically. The result is a system whose dynamics is completely trivial: the coordinate position of the shell $R$ is a gauge degree of freedom (the diffeomorphism constraint reduces to $P \approx 0$ which implies that the conjugate variable, $R$, is a gauge direction). The gauge-invariant degrees of freedom are all completely constrained: once we specify the rest mass of the shell $M$ in units of the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ the evolution is completely fixed and admits no integration constants: there are no adjustable parameters that we can choose to set initial data. The space of solutions is just a point. This system is, therefore, too trivial for our purposes. We need to add degrees of freedom in order to have a nontrivial solution space.
‘Twin Shell’ Universe {#SubsecTwinShellUniverse}
---------------------
The minimal number of shells we need in order to have a nontrivial dynamics in a compact universe is two. In fact, if we want the regions around the poles (which we will call ‘north’ and indicate with the subscript ‘$\cdot_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$’ and ‘south’, indicated with ‘$\cdot_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$’) to be compact and regular, we need the parameters $A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$, $A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$, $m_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$ and $m_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$ to be zero (see [@BirkhoffFlavio] and Appendix \[AppendixBoundaryConditions\] for a proof). Then, we can see that one single shell would be dynamically trivial, because in that case from Eq. (\[AllJumpconditionsForOneShell\]) $ A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} - A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} = - \sqrt{\sigma(R)} P /[2\mu(R)]=0$, and the single shell would always have zero momentum. So we introduce two shells, which we will call north and south according to which pole they surround, and indicate with the corresponding subscript. The region in between the shells will be called ‘belt’ and indicated with ‘$\cdot_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$’. See Fig. \[TwinShellPicture\] for a diagram of the regions in our manifold.
\[\]
[![The ‘twin shell’ universe: the spatial manifold has the topology of the sphere $S^3$ and contains two concentric thin shells, which divide the manifold into three regions: the N and S polar regions, and the B region in between (belt). The shell closer to the north (south) pole will be indicated as the N (S) shell. Each region will have different values of the integration constants $A$, $m$ and $k$, but regularity demands that $A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}=A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}=m_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}=m_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}=0$. Moreover the two shells will come equipped with a coordinate-radius degree of freedom $R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$, $R_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$ and a radial-momentum degree of freedom $P_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$, $P_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$, which will be related to the jump in the integration constants $A$, $m$ and $k$. []{data-label="TwinShellPicture"}](SphereDiagram5.pdf "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}]{}
With two shells, the first of the two jump conditions (\[AllJumpconditionsForOneShell\]) translates into $$\label{Twinshell_DeltaAjumpcondition}
A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} - A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} = - \frac{\sqrt{\sigma(R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}})}}{2\mu(R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}})} P_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} \,,
\qquad
A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} - A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} = - \frac{\sqrt{\sigma(R_{\text{\tiny \rm N}})}}{2\mu(R_{\text{\tiny \rm N}})} P_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \,.$$ Now, calling $\sigma(R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}) = \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$, $\sigma(R_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}) = \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$, and the left- and right- derivatives of $\sigma$ at the shells: $$\gamma_{\text{\tiny \rm S,N}} = \lim_{r\to R_{\text{\tiny \rm S,N}}^+} \sigma'(r) \,,
~~~~
\displaystyle \kappa_{\text{\tiny \rm S,N}} = \lim_{r\to R_{\text{\tiny \rm S,N}}^-} \sigma'(r) \,,$$ the second of the jump conditions (\[AllJumpconditionsForOneShell\]) reads $$\label{Twinshell_JumpGammaKappa}
\gamma_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} - \kappa_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} = - {{\textstyle \frac}1 2} \sqrt{P_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^2 + M_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^2 \mu^2(R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}) } \,,
~~~
\gamma_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} - \kappa_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} = - {{\textstyle \frac}1 2} \sqrt{P_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^2 + M_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^2 \mu^2(R_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}) } \,.$$ Using Eq. (\[Twinshell\_DeltaAjumpcondition\]) into Eqs. (\[Twinshell\_JumpGammaKappa\]): $$\label{Twinshell_JumpGammaKappa2}\textstyle
\frac{\kappa_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}}{| \mu(R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}) |} - \frac{\gamma_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}}{| \mu(R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}) |} = \sqrt{\frac{(A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} - A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}})^2}{\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^2} + {{\textstyle \frac}1 4} M_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^2 } \,, \qquad
\textstyle
\frac{\kappa_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}}{| \mu(R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}) |} - \frac{\gamma_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}}{| \mu(R_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}) |} = \sqrt{\frac{(A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} - A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}})^2}{\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^2} + {{\textstyle \frac}1 4} M_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^2 } \,.$$ by taking twice the square of the above equations, we can make them independent of the signs of $\kappa_{S,N}$ and $\gamma_{\text{\tiny \rm S,N}}$ (the following is a pair of identical equations, in which the subscript $a$ of the quantities $\kappa$, $\gamma$, $A$, $R$ and $M$ can either be $S$ or $N$), $$\label{Twinshell_JumpGammaKappa3}
\begin{aligned}\textstyle
\left(\frac{\kappa_{\text{\tiny \rm S,N}}^2}{\mu^2(R_a)} + \frac{\gamma_a^2}{\mu^2(R_a)} - \frac{(A_a - A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}})^2}{\rho_a^2} - {{\textstyle \frac}1 4} M_a^2 \right)^2 = 4 \frac{\kappa_a^2}{\mu^2(R_a)} \frac{\gamma_a^2}{\mu^2(R_a)}\,,
\end{aligned}$$ now, using the solution for $\mu(r)$ from Eq. (\[SolConstraints\]) at $r= R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$ and $r = R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$, [=0mu =0mu =0mu $$\begin{aligned}
&\textstyle
\frac{\gamma_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^2}{4 \mu^2(R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}})} = \left(\frac {A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} + \frac 1 3 \langle p \rangle \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^3 }{2 \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}}\right)^2 - 2 m_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} \, \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} + \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^2 - \frac{\Lambda \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^4}{3} \,,
&
&\textstyle\frac{\kappa_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^2}{4 \mu^2(R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}})} = \left(\frac {A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} + \frac 1 3 \langle p \rangle \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^3 } {2\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}}\right)^2 - 2 m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \, \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} + \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^2 - \frac{\Lambda \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^4}{3} \,,
\\
&\textstyle
\frac{\gamma_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^2}{4\mu^2(R_{\text{\tiny \rm N}})} = \left(\frac {A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} + \frac 1 3 \langle p \rangle \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^3 } {2\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}}\right)^2 - 2 m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \, \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} + \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^2 - \frac{\Lambda \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^4}{3} \,,
&
&\textstyle\frac{\kappa_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^2}{4\mu^2(R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}})} = \left(\frac {A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} + \frac 1 3 \langle p \rangle \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^3 } {2\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}}\right)^2 - 2 m_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \, \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} + \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^{2} - \frac{ \Lambda \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^4}{3} \,,
\end{aligned}\label{EqsForGammasAndKappas}$$]{} where $\rho_a = \sqrt{\sigma(R_s)}$ are the areal radii at the two shells, and recalling that, in order to keep the poles compact and smooth we need to have $A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} = A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}=0$ and $m_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}=m_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}=0$, we end up with the following two on-shell conditions: $$\label{Twinshell_OnshellCondition}
\frac{M_a^4}{16}+4 A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}^2 \left(T \rho _a^2-4\right)+M_a^2 \rho _a \left(T \rho _a^3 - 4 \rho _a-2 X\right)+16 X^2 \rho _a^2 = 0\,,$$ where $$T = {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right)\,,
\qquad
X = {{\textstyle \frac}1 6} \langle p \rangle A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} - 2 \, m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \,.$$ Conditions (\[Twinshell\_OnshellCondition\]) are two identical equations involving the same $A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ and two different areal radii $\rho_a=(\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}},\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}})$ and rest-masses $M_a=(M_{\text{\tiny \rm S}},M_{\text{\tiny \rm N}})$. By rescaling both equations with appropriate powers of $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ we can make them dimensionless. This requires introducing dimensionless variables analogue to those of Eq. (\[MordorPoly\]): $$C = \frac{A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}}{2 \, m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}^2} \,, ~~~ \tau = | m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} |\, \langle p \rangle \,, ~~~ \lambda = m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}^2 \,\Lambda \,, ~~~ z_a = \frac{\rho_a}{|m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}|} \,, ~~~ M_a = |m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}| \, \mu_a \,.$$ Then the two Equations (\[Twinshell\_OnshellCondition\]) can be written $$\label{Twinshell_OnshellCondition_dimensionless}
\frac{\mu_a^4}{16}+ \mu_a^2 z_a \left[ \pm 4 - {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} C \tau -{{\textstyle \frac}1 9} z_a^3 \left(\tau^2-12 \lambda \right)- 4 z_a\right] - \frac{64}{3} \left[\pm C \tau z_a^2 - C^2 \left(\lambda z_a^2-3\right)�- 3 z_a^2 \right] = 0 \,,$$ where the sign $+$ corresponds to $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} >0$ and $-$ corresponds to $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} <0$.
![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig2\_example\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}>0$, $\lambda = 0.1 >0$ (in yellow/red), together with the on-shell surface (in transparent green, with a few constant-$\tau$ lines in blue), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_2_example"}](MordorOnShell_5.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig2\_example\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}>0$, $\lambda = 0.1 >0$ (in yellow/red), together with the on-shell surface (in transparent green, with a few constant-$\tau$ lines in blue), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_2_example"}](MordorOnShell_6.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"}\
![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig2\_example\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}>0$, $\lambda = 0.1 >0$ (in yellow/red), together with the on-shell surface (in transparent green, with a few constant-$\tau$ lines in blue), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_2_example"}](MordorOnShell_7.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig2\_example\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}>0$, $\lambda = 0.1 >0$ (in yellow/red), together with the on-shell surface (in transparent green, with a few constant-$\tau$ lines in blue), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_2_example"}](MordorOnShell_8.pdf "fig:"){width="30.00000%"}
Equations (\[Twinshell\_OnshellCondition\_dimensionless\]) identify each a surface in the 3D space $\left( z_a , C, \tau\right)$. That same space has ‘forbidden regions’, coinciding with the regions where the polynomial $\mathscr P$, calculated with parameters $z=\frac{\rho_a}{|m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}|}$, $C=\frac{A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}}{2m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}^2}$ and $\tau= |m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}| \langle p \rangle$, is negative. If the on-shell surface intersected the forbidden region we would be in trouble: it would mean that the reduced phase space has regions where the values of the area of the shell and the other dynamical variables are not acceptable, as the constraint equations (\[ADMconsts\]) admit no solution with the boundary conditions set by such a shell.
In Appendix \[MordorAppendix\] we plot the on-shell surfaces (\[Twinshell\_OnshellCondition\_dimensionless\]) together with the ‘forbidden’ region $\mathscr P <0$ in the 3D space $\left( z_a , C, \tau\right)$, for all possible choices of dimensionless cosmological constant $\lambda = m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}^2 \Lambda$, sign of $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$, and value of the rest-mass of the shell $\mu_a = M_a/|m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}|$. It turns out that **the on-shell surface never intersects the forbidden region**. This is a very remarkable result, which encourages us to think that the dynamics of our system is well-defined. In Fig. \[Mordor\_Onshell\_Fig\_2\_example\] we show an example (the same as the right-hand-side of Fig. \[MordorFig2\_example\], with $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} >0$ and $\lambda = 0.1$) with four choices of rest-mass $M_a$.
What one would like to do now is to solve all equations and identify the minimal core of dynamical variables that are needed for a description of the system, *i.e.*, find the reduced phase space. This cannot be done in isotropic gauge as was done in Sec. \[SubsecSingleShellUniverse\] for a single shell. However we can repeat what was done at the end of that section, and concentrate on gauge-independent variables ($\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$, $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$, $A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$, $A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$, $A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$) and try to calculate the symplectic form in terms of those variables alone. This turns out to be possible also in the ‘twin-shell’ case.
Symplectic form
---------------
The generalization of the pre-symplectic potential (\[IsotropicSymplectic0\]) to the case of two shells is: $$\theta = - 8\pi \sum_{\beta \in \{ \rm{S},\rm{B},\rm{N}\}} \int_{0}^{\pi} \Theta_\beta(r) \left[ \frac 1 3 \mu \, \sigma \, \delta \langle p \rangle + \frac{\mu}{\sqrt \sigma} \, \delta A_\beta \right] {{\rm d}}r \,,$$ where $$\Theta_\beta(r) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\Theta(R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}-r) \, & \beta = \rm{S} \,,
\\
\Theta(r - R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}})\Theta(R_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}-r) \, & \beta = \rm{B} \,,
\\
\Theta(r - R_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}) \, & \beta = \rm{N} \,.
\end{array}
\right.$$ We can write $$\begin{aligned}
\theta
&= - 8 \pi \sum_{\beta \in \{ \rm{S},\rm{B},\rm{N}\}} \int_{\pi}^{0} \frac{\left(\frac 1 3 \sigma^{3/2}(r) \, \delta \langle p \rangle + \delta A_\beta \right) \Theta_\beta(r) \, |\sigma'| {{\rm d}}r}{\sqrt{ A^2_\beta + \left( {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} \langle p \rangle A_\beta - 8 \, m_\beta \right) \sigma^{3/2} + 4 \, \sigma^2 - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \sigma^3 }}
\\
&= - 8 \pi \sum_{\beta \in \{ \rm{S},\rm{B},\rm{N}\}} \int_0^\pi \left( \frac{\partial F_\beta [A_\beta,\langle p \rangle ,\sigma]}{\partial \langle p \rangle} \delta \langle p \rangle + \frac{\partial F_\beta [A_\beta,\langle p \rangle ,\sigma]}{\partial A_\beta} \delta A_\beta \right) | \sigma'| {{\rm d}}r \,,
\end{aligned}$$ where [=0mu =0mu =0mu $$F_\beta[A_\beta ,\langle p \rangle ,\sigma] ~=~ \log \left(\sqrt{ A_\beta^2 + \left( {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} \langle p \rangle A_\beta - 8 \, m_\beta \right) \sigma^{3/2} + 4 \, \sigma^2 - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \sigma^3 }+A_\beta + {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \langle p \rangle \sigma^{3/2}\right) \,.$$]{}
The boundary conditions force $\sigma$ to be zero at the poles, and rise monotonically away from the poles up to the location of the two shells, $R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$ and $R_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$. In the ‘belt’ region, $\sigma$ has to be piecewise monotonic except when its value reaches a zero of the polynomial $ A^2_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} + \left( {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} \langle p \rangle A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} - 8 \, m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \right) \sigma^{\frac 3 2} + 4 \, \sigma^2 - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \sigma^3$. A situation of particular interest is when $\Lambda >0$ and $\langle p \rangle^2 < 12 \,\Lambda$, so that there is a maximal positive root of the polynomial whose value is dominated by $\Lambda$ (a cosmological curvature scale). Then a consistent choice is to have $\sigma$ grow monotonically from $R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$ to $r_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}$, the location of its absolute maximum, and then decrease monotonically from $r_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}$ to $R_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$ (see Fig. \[TwinShell\_DeterminingIntervalSigma\]). This means that our pre-symplectic potential can be written $$\begin{aligned}
\theta = - 8 \pi \bigg[ & \int_0^{\rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}}\left( \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}}{\partial \langle p \rangle} \delta \langle p \rangle + \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}}{\partial A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}} \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} \right) \, d \sigma
+ \int_{\rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}}^{\rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}} \left( \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}}{\partial \langle p \rangle} \delta \langle p \rangle + \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}}{\partial A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}} \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \right) \, d \sigma +
\\
&
\int_{\rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}}^{\rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}} \left( \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}}{\partial \langle p \rangle} \delta \langle p \rangle + \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}}{\partial A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}} \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \right) d \sigma
+ \int_0^{\rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}} \left( \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}}{\partial \langle p \rangle} \delta \langle p \rangle + \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}}{\partial A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}} \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \right) d \sigma \bigg] \,,
\end{aligned}$$ and since $$\frac{\partial F_\beta [A_\beta,\langle p \rangle , \sigma]}{\partial \langle p \rangle} = \frac 1 3 \sigma^{3/2} \frac{\partial F_\beta [A_\beta,\langle p \rangle , \sigma]}{\partial A_\beta} \,,$$ we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\theta = - 8 \pi \bigg[ & \int_0^{\rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}} \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}}{\partial A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}} \left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \sigma^{\frac 3 2} \delta \langle p \rangle + \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} \right) \, d \sigma
+ \int_{\rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}}^{\rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}} \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}}{\partial A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}} \left({{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \sigma^{\frac 3 2} \delta \langle p \rangle + \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \right) \, d \sigma +
\\
&
\int_{\rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}}^{\rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}} \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}}{\partial A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}} \left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \sigma^{\frac 3 2} \delta \langle p \rangle + \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \right) d \sigma
+ \int_0^{\rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}} \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}}{\partial A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}} \left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \sigma^{\frac 3 2} \delta \langle p \rangle + \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \right) d \sigma \bigg] \,.
\end{aligned}$$ The symplectic form is then $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \theta =& - 8 \pi \left[ \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} [\sigma = \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}]}{A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}} \delta \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} \wedge \left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \rho^3_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} \delta \langle p \rangle + \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} \right) - \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} [\sigma = \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}]}{A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}} \delta \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} \wedge \left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \rho^3_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} \delta \langle p \rangle + \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \right) \right]
\\
& - 16 \pi \, \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} [\sigma = \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm max}} ]}
{A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}} \delta \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm max}} \wedge \left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}^3 \delta \langle p \rangle + \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \right)
\\
& - 8 \pi \left[ \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} [\sigma = \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}]}{A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}} \delta \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \wedge \left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \rho^3_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \delta \langle p \rangle + \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \right) - \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} [\sigma = \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}]}{A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}} \delta \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \wedge \left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \rho^3_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \delta \langle p \rangle + \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \right) \right] \,.
\end{aligned}$$ We can prove that $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}^2$ completely disappears from the symplectic form. In fact $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}^2$ is a solution of the equation $$A^2_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} + \left( {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} \langle p \rangle A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} - 8 \, m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \right) \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}^3 + 4 \, \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}^4- {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}^6 = 0 \,.$$ Varying the above equation w.r.t. $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}$, $A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ and $\langle p \rangle$ we get an identity for $\delta \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}$: $$\delta \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}^2 = f[\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}},A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}},\langle p \rangle] \left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}^3 \delta \langle p \rangle + \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \right) \,,$$ and therefore the only term containing $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}$ vanishes: $$\begin{aligned}
&- 16 \pi \, \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} [\sigma = \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm max}} ]}
{A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}} \delta \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm max}} \wedge \left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}^3 \delta \langle p \rangle + \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \right)
\\
&= - 16 \pi \, \frac{\partial F_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} [\sigma = \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm max}} ]}
{A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}} f[\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}},A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}},\langle p \rangle] \left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}^3 \delta \langle p \rangle + \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \right)\wedge \left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}^3 \delta \langle p \rangle + \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \right) =0 \,.
\end{aligned}$$ We can finally use the boundary conditions at the poles, $A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} = m_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} = A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} = m_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} =0$, and we get the following nondegenerate 2-form ($\omega = \delta \theta$): [=0mu =0mu =0mu $$\label{SymplecticFormTwinShell}
\begin{aligned}
\omega = - \frac{8 \pi}{3} \bigg[ & \frac{ \rho^3_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} \delta \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} \wedge \delta \langle p \rangle }{\sqrt{ 4 \, \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^4 - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^6 }} ~-~ \frac{ \rho^3_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} \delta \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} \wedge \delta \langle p \rangle + 3 \, \delta \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} \wedge \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}}{\sqrt{ A^2_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} + \left( {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} \langle p \rangle A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} - 8 \, m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \right) \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^3 + 4 \, \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^4 - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^6 }} +
\\
& \frac{ \rho^3_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \delta \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \wedge \delta \langle p \rangle }{\sqrt{ 4 \, \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^4 - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^6 }} ~-~ \frac{ \rho^3_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \delta \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \wedge \delta \langle p \rangle + 3 \, \delta \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \wedge \delta A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}}{\sqrt{ A^2_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} + \left( {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} \langle p \rangle A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} - 8 \, m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} \right) \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^3 + 4 \, \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^4 - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^6 }} \bigg] \,.
\end{aligned}$$]{} The above 2-form is nondegenerate in the 4-dimensional phase space coordinatized by $\langle p \rangle$, $A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$, $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$ and $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$. To reach the above expression we used every constraint that was at our disposal (the solution of the Hamiltonian, diffeomorphism and conformal constraint, and the two diffeomorphism jump conditions), except the two jump conditions associated to the Hamiltonian constraint. Notice that we didn’t need to use a diffeomorphism gauge fixing to get a nondegenerate symplectic form, because we were able to recast the pre-symplectic form in a reparametrization-invariant form. In other terms, we avoided having to completely gauge fix our constraints by expressing the symplectic form in terms of a maximal system of gauge-invariant quantities.
Breakdown of the ADM description {#SecTheProblem}
================================
![A plot of the on-shell curves at a fixed York time $\tau = 0.46$ for a set of values of the rest mass $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ (between 0 and 20), and for $\lambda = 0.1$, $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}>0$. The excluded region $\mathscr P <0$ is in red. Given the values of the rest masses of the two shells (in the figure $M_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} = 2.5 \, m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ and $M_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} = 20 \, m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$), specifying the value of the integration constant $A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ in the belt completely fixes $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$, $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$ and $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}$. Then the interval of values of the areal radius coordinate $\sigma(r)$ of the metric in the belt is fixed (light-blue strip). $\sigma$ will go from $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$ to a maximum given by the border of the excluded region (where $\sigma'$ is allowed to vanish), and then will go down until it reaches $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$. A choice of $\sqrt{\sigma(r)}$ compatible with the boundary conditions imposed by the values of $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$, $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$ and $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}$ is showed on the right. []{data-label="TwinShell_DeterminingIntervalSigma"}](PlayingWithShells_1b.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
In this section I will discuss the conditions under which the ADM description of the system breaks down. To do this, I need first to show how the on-shell relations (\[Twinshell\_OnshellCondition\_dimensionless\]) are to be used to provide boundary conditions for the metric in a context with two shells. Consider a constant-York-time slice $\tau = \text{\it const.}$. In Fig. \[TwinShell\_DeterminingIntervalSigma\] I plot the ‘forbidden’ region $\mathscr P <0$ in red in the plane $(C,z)$. In green I show a series of on-shell curves, solutions of (\[Twinshell\_OnshellCondition\_dimensionless\]) for different values of the rest-mass (normalized by $|m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}|$): $M/|m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}|$. Among these, two curves will correspond to the rest mass of the two shells, $M_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$ and $M_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$. I plot those in black. If we choose a value of $A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$, through Eq. (\[Twinshell\_OnshellCondition\_dimensionless\]) we are also fixing the value of the areal radii of the two shells, $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$ and $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$, which can be read in the diagram as the ordinates of the corresponding points on the two black on-shell curves. This is like fixing the total energy of a one-dimensional system; the relation between position (areal radius) and momentum (given by $A$) is thereafter completely determined. The constraints of the system do not allow for independent behaviour of the two shells: they are ‘interlocked’. Moreover, if $\lambda >0$, we also fix a *maximum* areal radius $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}$ that the metric can support, which is essentially determined by the cosmological constant (in Fig. \[TwinShell\_DeterminingIntervalSigma\] it is the border of the top disconnected component of the red forbidden region). Given all this data, we can determine an attainable form for the $\theta\theta$ component of the metric ($\sigma(r)$, the areal radius squared): it will monotonically interpolate $\sigma = 0$ with $\sigma = \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}^2$ (resp. $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}^2$) from $r =0$ (resp. $\pi$) to $r= R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$ (resp. $R_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$). Then its derivative will have, at $r= R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$ (resp. $r= R_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$) a certain jump determined by Eqs. (\[EqsForGammasAndKappas\]). In the region in between (the ‘belt’ region) $\sigma$ will go from $\sigma(R_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}) = \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$ to a maximum $\sigma(r_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}) = \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}$ and then down to $\sigma(R_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}) = \rho^2_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$. Away from $r=r_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}$, $\sigma$ will be monotonic. All of this is illustrated by the Cartesian diagram on the right of Fig. \[TwinShell\_DeterminingIntervalSigma\]. Notice that, while interpolating in the belt region from one shell to the other, we could have alternatively avoided having the areal radius reach the maximum value $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}^2$ and bounce back. This is an acceptable choice if $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \neq \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$, because the areal radius could monotonically interpolate between $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$ and $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$. But as we can see in the diagram above, the two black on-shell curves intersect at a point, which means that there exists a value of $A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ such that $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} = \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$ even though $M_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \neq M_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$. Then in this case we are forced to have the areal radius grow up to $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}^2$ and back, otherwise it could not possibly be interpolating between $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$ and $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$ while being monotonic. I conclude that the only consistent choice is that $\sigma$ *always* bounces off the value $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm max}}^2$, even when $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \neq \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$.
![Same plot as above, but with a value of $A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ such that the $C = \frac{A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}}{2 m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}}$ line crosses the bottom forbidden region (in red). The two points at which this crossing happens have $z = \frac{\rho_1}{m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}}$ and $z = \frac{\rho_2}{m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}}$.[]{data-label="ProblemFig2"}](PlayingWithShells_2b.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
I am now ready to present the issue. Consider the diagram of Fig. \[ProblemFig2\]. Now the chosen value of $A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ is such that the forbidden region crosses the line that connects $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}}$ with $\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}}$. In this situation there is no acceptable solution to the constraint equations! In fact, the areal radius of the metric $\sqrt{\sigma}$ cannot take all the values that are included in the interval $\left( \rho_{\text{\tiny \rm S}},\rho_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} \right)$, because a section of this interval is excluded. There exists no metric that solves the Lichnerowicz–York equation in this situation. In the shape-dynamical interpretation of this system the spatial metric is not itself physical, only its shape degrees of freedom are, and they live in a reduced shape-phase space, which is represented by the green on-shell surface, which never crosses the forbidden region and seems to be globally well-defined. On the other hand, in the ADM interpretation the spatial metric is the pull-back of the spacetime metric on a CMC hypersurface, and the fact that it is not well-defined implies that there is no spacetime metric, and the solution is not an acceptable solution of Einstein’s equation. We identified a new point of departure between Shape Dynamics and GR: when the dynamical solution enters this region where the areal radius should interpolate between values that surround the forbidden region, the SD description is well-defined, while the GR one is not.
Notice that, as can be seen from the diagrams in Appendix \[AppendixOnshellSurfaces\], the only case in which this departure is possible is that with positive Misner–Sharp mass $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} >0$ and positive but small cosmological constant $\lambda >0$, $\lambda \ll 1$. The other choices of $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ and $\lambda$ do not give rise to a ‘concave’ allowed region where the on-shell surfaces of the two shells are separated by the forbidden region. Interestingly, the $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}} >0$, $0<\lambda \ll 1$ case is particularly physically relevant, as it seems to match our universe more closely.
Outlook and conclusions
=======================
In this article I presented my most advanced understanding of gravitational collapse in a relational, compact universe. The simplest nontrivial compact spherically symmetric model has the topology of a 3-sphere, has a positive cosmological constant and contains one spherical thin shells of dust. The compact boundary conditions in this case are too restrictive, and the momentum of the shell is constrained to be zero, so that the system ends up deprived of dynamical degrees of freedom. Nevertheless, I find a family of dynamically trivial solutions which are parametrized by the rest mass of the shell, and I also find a bound on this rest mass that forces the associated length scale to be smaller than the cosmological horizon scale associated to $\Lambda$. To my knowledge, such a spatially compact solution of General Relativity with one spherical shell of dust has not been studied before.
I then move on to study a slightly less trivial system, which has enough dynamical degrees of freedom that it can model gravitational collapse. This model involves two thin spherical shells and, again, a positive cosmological constant. It turns out that such a model contains the bare minimum structure that is necessary to model gravitational collapse in a closed universe: if one of the shells has a rest mass that is much larger than that of the other, this shell will play the role of ‘spectator’ (*i.e.* ‘fixed stars’ or ‘rest of the universe’), while the ‘light’ shell will be able to undergo collapse. In such a situation it becomes meaningful to say that one shell collapsed, because the ‘heavy’ shell provides a reference scale.
I was able to study the reduced phase space of such a system, characterizing it in a geometric way as a couple of surfaces (one for each shell) in the 3D space $A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ (related to the momentum of both shells), $\rho_a$ (the areal radius of the shells) and $\langle p \rangle$ (the York time). The shape of the surface associated to each shell depends on the rest mass of that shell. The two shells share the same value of $A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$, but that value corresponds to different $\rho_a$’s, depending on their rest mass. The 3D ambient space has some ‘forbidden’ regions, whose shape depends on the sign of the cosmological constant and of the Misner–Sharp mass of the system. In those regions, there can be no metric which is a solution of the ADM constraints and has the prescribed value of the integration constant $A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ while reaching the corresponding value of areal radius $\sigma(R_a) =\rho_a$. Fortunately, the on-shell surfaces that describe reduced phase space never cross those regions. This is a consistency check for the system. There is, however, an issue with the ADM description. Even though no on-shell surface crosses the forbidden region, the values of the rest masses of the two shells can be such that the corresponding on-shell surfaces ‘surround’ the forbidden region. More precisely, the constant-$A$ line connecting the point on one surface with the point on the other surface intersects the forbidden region. This means that, even though the areal radius of the metric $\sigma$ can take the values $\sigma(R_a)=\rho_a$ demanded by the boundary conditions, in order to interpolate between these two values it would have to go through forbidden values. In other words, the combination of values of $A_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ and $\rho_a$ is such that there is no solution of the ADM constraints which is compatible with the boundary conditions imposed by the size and momenta of the shells. This should not be, in principle, a problem for Shape Dynamics, which does not rely on the ADM constraints holding at all times.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
A big thank to Henrique Gomes for support, discussion and active involvement in the development of this project during all its phases. Thanks to Tim Koslowski, Sean Gryb and David Sloan for discussions and their encouragement. This research was supported in part by Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science. Support was partially granted also from a Marie Curie fellowship of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica.
[10]{}
H. Gomes, S. Gryb, and T. Koslowski, “Einstein gravity as a 3D conformally invariant theory,” [[*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**28**]{} (2011) 045005](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/28/4/045005), [[arXiv:1010.2481 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.2481).
H. Gomes and T. Koslowski, “The Link between General Relativity and Shape Dynamics,” [[ *Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**29**]{} (2012) 075009](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/29/7/075009), [[arXiv:1101.5974 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5974).
F. Mercati, [*Shape Dynamics: Relativity and Relationalism*]{}. Oxford Univ. Press, 2016. [[arXiv:1409.0105 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0105). (preliminary version on the arXiv).
J. Lee and R. M. Wald, “Local symmetries and constraints,” [[*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**31**]{} (1990) 725–743](http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.528801). J. James W. York, “[Gravitational degrees of freedom and the initial-value problem]{},” [[*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**26**]{} (1971) 1656–1658](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.26.1656).
T. A. Koslowski, F. Mercati, and D. Sloan, “Relationalism Evolves the Universe Through the Big Bang,” [[ arXiv:1607.02460 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.02460).
H. Gomes, “A Birkhoff theorem for Shape Dynamics,” [[*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**31**]{} (2014) 085008](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/31/8/085008), [[arXiv:1305.0310 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0310).
R. Beig and N. [Ó]{} Murchadha, “The Poincar[é]{} group as the symmetry group of canonical general relativity,” [[*Annals of Physics*]{} [**174**]{} no. 2, (1987) 463–498](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(87)90037-6).
A. Einstein, [*Autobiographical Notes*]{}. Open Court, 1949.
T. Koslowski, “The shape dynamics description of gravity,” [[*Can. J. Phys.*]{} [ **93**]{} (2015) 956–962](http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjp-2015-0029), [[ arXiv:1501.03007 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03007).
H. Gomes and G. Herczeg, “A Rotating Black Hole Solution for Shape Dynamics,” [[*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**31**]{} (2014) 175014](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/31/17/175014), [[arXiv:1310.6095 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6095).
G. Herczeg, “Parity Horizons, Black Holes, and Chronology Protection in Shape Dynamics,” [[ *Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**33**]{} (2016) 225002](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/22/225002), [[arXiv:1508.06704 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06704).
F. Mercati, H. Gomes, T. Koslowski, and A. Napoletano, “Gravitational collapse of thin shells of dust in asymptotically flat Shape Dynamics,” [[*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D95**]{} (2017) 044013](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.044013), [[arXiv:1509.00833 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.00833).
F. Mercati, “On the fate of Birkhoff’s theorem in Shape Dynamics,” [[*Gen. Rel. Grav.*]{} [**48**]{} (2016) 139](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10714-016-2134-2), [[ arXiv:1603.08459 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.08459).
M. Alcubierre, [*Introduction to 3+ 1 numerical relativity*]{}. Oxford Univ. Press, 2008.
H. Gomes, “Poincar[é]{} invariance and asymptotic flatness in Shape Dynamics,” [[*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D88**]{} (12, 2012) 024047](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.024047), [[arXiv:1212.1755 \[gr-qc\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1755).
R. L. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, “The dynamics of general relativity,” [[ arXiv:gr-qc/0405109]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405109). In Gravitation: an introduction to current research, Louis Witten ed., chapter 7, pp 227–265.
C. W. Misner and D. H. Sharp, “Relativistic Equations for Adiabatic, Spherically Symmetric Gravitational Collapse,” [[*Phys. Rev.*]{} [ **136**]{} (1964) B571–B576](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.136.B571).
W. Israel, “Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in general relativity,” [[*Il Nuovo Cimento B*]{} [**44**]{} no. 1, (1966) 1–14](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02710419).
Appendix: boundary conditions at the poles {#AppendixBoundaryConditions}
==========================================
In this Appendix we will present all the evidence we collected so far in favour of the boundary conditions $A_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} = A_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} = m_{\text{\tiny \rm N}} = m_{\text{\tiny \rm S}} =0$, and provide a further argument which, we believe, closes the issue.
The general solution (\[SolConstraints\]) to the ADM constraints involves a metric that takes the form $$\label{MetricSolutionOfADMConstraints}
{{\rm d}}s^2 = \frac{\sigma (\sigma')^2 {{\rm d}}r^2}{A^2 + \left( {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} \langle p \rangle A - 8 \, m \right) \sigma^{\frac 3 2} + 4 \, \sigma^2 - {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \sigma^3 }
+ \sigma \left( {{\rm d}}\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta {{\rm d}}\phi^2 \right) \,.$$ The component $\sigma$ is allowed to go to zero at the poles $r=0,\pi$ only if the polynomial (\[MordorPoly\]), and with it the denominator of the ${{\rm d}}r^2$ term, is positive around $\sigma =0$. Looking at the regions of positivity of $\mathscr P(\sqrt{\sigma}/m)$ in Fig. \[MordorFig1\]–\[MordorFig4\] we see that on the plane $\sigma = 0$ the polynomial is always positive, unless $A=0$, in which case it is zero. It is easy to see that the on-shell curves which end at $A=\sigma=0$ will do so in such a way that the polynomial will stay positive all the time. If $m>0$, this means that the behaviour of $\sigma$ for small $A$’s will have to be $\sigma \xrightarrow[A\to 0]{} \left( \frac{\beta}{8m}\right)^{\frac 2 3} |A|^{\frac 4 3} + \mathcal O (|A|^{{\frac 2 3} +\epsilon})$, where $0 \leq \beta < 1$ (while if $m \leq 0$ there is no constraint on the asymptotics of $\sigma$).
For small values of the areal radius (near the poles), we can ignore the term $- {{\textstyle \frac}1 9} \left( 12 \, \Lambda - \langle p \rangle^2 \right) \sigma^3$ in (\[MetricSolutionOfADMConstraints\]), and the three independent curvature invariant *densities* take the form: $$\begin{aligned}
R_1 = \sqrt g \, R &= \frac{\sin \theta \, |\sigma'|}{2 \, \sigma^{3/2}} \frac{3 \, A^2 }{\sqrt{ A^2+ {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} B \sigma^{3/2}+4 \sigma^2}} \,,
\\
R_2 = \sqrt g \,R^i{}_j R^j{}_i &= \frac{\sin \theta \, |\sigma'|}{8 \, \sigma ^{9/2}} \frac{27 A^4+6 A^2 B \sigma ^{3/2} +B^2 \sigma ^3}{\sqrt{9 A^2+\sigma ^{3/2} (6 A \langle p\rangle -72 m)+36 \sigma ^2}} \,,
\\
R_3 = \sqrt g \, R^i{}_j R^j{}_k R^k{}_i &= \frac{\sin \theta \, |\sigma'|}{96 \, \sigma ^{15/2}} \frac{297 A^6+135 A^4 B \sigma ^{3/2}+27 A^2 B^2 \sigma ^3 + B^3 \sigma ^{9/2} }{\sqrt{9 A^2 + 6 B \sigma ^{3/2} +36 \sigma ^2}} \,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $B=\left( A \langle p \rangle - 12 m\right)$. If $A \neq 0$, all these quantities diverge as $\sigma \to 0$ and we have a curvature singularity at the the poles.[^8] If $A=0$ and $m <0$ the first curvature invariant is zero, but the other two are still divergent. If $m>0$ and $\sigma \sim \left( \beta/8m\right)^{\frac 2 3} |A|^{\frac 4 3}+ \mathcal O (|A|^{{\frac 4 3} +\epsilon})$ the three terms diverge like $$R_1 \sim \frac{12 m}{A \sqrt{1-\beta } \beta } \,, ~~
R_2 \sim \frac{48 \left(12 -4 \beta +\beta ^2\right) m^3}{A^3 \sqrt{1-\beta } \beta ^3} \,, ~~
R_3 \sim \frac{384 \left(
88 - 60 \beta - 18 \beta^2 + \beta^3
\right) m^5}{A^5 \sqrt{1-\beta } \beta ^5} \,.$$ So the metric (\[MetricSolutionOfADMConstraints\]) always has a curvature singularity at the poles, for any value of the parameters $A$ and $m$, unless $A=m=0$. This should be a sufficient reason to take $A=m=0$ as our boundary conditions around the poles, however Shape Dynamics is concerned with the conformal geometry of the metric, and this is regular (conformally flat) even in presence of a curvature singularity. From the perspective of conformal geometry, what the curvature singularity does is to make the theory lose predictivity: in fact the value of $A = A(t)$ at the poles is not fixed by any dynamical equation, and needs to be specified by hand.
To better understand this loss of predictivity, turn now to the vacuum diffeomorphism constraint, $\nabla_j p^j{}_i =0$. The solution (\[SolConstraints\]) of this constraint is: $$p^j{}_i = \mu \left[ \left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \langle p \rangle \, \sigma + \frac{A}{\sqrt \sigma} \right) \, \delta^j_r \delta^r_i + \left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \langle p \rangle \, \sigma - {{\textstyle \frac}1 2} \frac{A}{\sqrt \sigma} \right) \left( \delta^j_\theta \delta^\theta_i + \delta^j_\phi \delta^\phi_i \right) \right] \sin \theta \,.$$ There is one spherically-symmetric ($X^i = \delta^i{}_r X(r)$) conformal killing vector of the $S^3$ metric: $$\nabla^i X^j + \nabla^j X^i - {{\textstyle \frac}2 3} g^{ij} \nabla_k X^k =0 \qquad \Rightarrow \qquad
X^i = c \, \frac{\sqrt{\sigma}}{\mu} \, \delta^i{}_r \,,$$ (in isotropic gauge this is just $X^i = c \, \sin r \, \delta^i{}_r$). This vector field is well-behaved at the poles, where $\sigma \to 0$. Now take the vector field $Y^i = p^i_j X^j$. Its coordinate expression is $$Y^i = c \, \delta^i{}_r \left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \langle p \rangle \, \sigma^{\frac 3 2} + A \right) \sin \theta \,.$$ The divergence of $Y^i$ is $$\nabla_i Y^i = (\nabla_i p^i_j) X^j + p^{ij} \nabla_i X_j = (\nabla_i p^i_j) X^j + {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} p \nabla_k X^k
= (\nabla_i p^i_j) X^j + {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \langle p \rangle \nabla_k X^k \, \sqrt g \,,$$ integrating over a spherical region centred around the origin: [=0mu =0mu =0mu $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{r\leq R} \nabla_i Y^i {{\rm d}}^3 x ~ = \int_{r\leq R} \left[ (\nabla_i p^i_j) X^j + {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \langle p \rangle \nabla_k X^k \right] {{\rm d}}^3 x ~ = \int_{r\leq R} (\nabla_i p^i_j) X^j {{\rm d}}^3 x + c {{\textstyle \frac}{4\pi} 3} \langle p \rangle \, \sigma^{\frac 3 2} (R)
\\
& \qquad \qquad \shortparallel
\\
&\int_{r= R} Y^i {{\rm d}}\Sigma_i ~=~
4 \pi c \,\left( {{\textstyle \frac}1 3} \langle p \rangle \, \sigma^{\frac 3 2} (R) + A \right)
\end{aligned}$$]{} we conclude that $$\int_{r\leq R} (\nabla_i p^i_j) X^j {{\rm d}}^3 x = 4 \pi c \, A \,.$$ Now notice that, if the region of integration was the annular region $R_1 \leq r \leq R_2$, the result would have been $$\int_{R_1 \leq r \leq R_2} (\nabla_i p^i_j) X^j {{\rm d}}^3 x = 0\,.$$ The same holds for any region $\Omega$ which does not include the pole. We conclude that $$\label{DiffeoConstraintWithDiracDeltaSource}
(\nabla_i p^i_j) X^j = 4 \pi c \, A \, \delta^{(3)} (\vec r) \,.$$ This result is analogue to what one gets when considering the vacuum Poisson equation on $\mathbbm{R}^3$ in polar coordinates: $$\Delta V = \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial y^2} +\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial z^2} = {\frac {1}{r^{2}}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial r}}\left(r^{2}{\frac {\partial V}{\partial r}}\right)+{\frac {1}{r^{2}\sin \theta }}{\frac {\partial }{\partial \theta }}\left(\sin \theta {\frac {\partial V}{\partial \theta }}\right)+{\frac {1}{r^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta }}{\frac {\partial ^{2} V}{\partial \varphi ^{2}}} = 0 \,,$$ if $V$ is spherically symmetric, the equation reduces to ${\frac {1}{r^{2}}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial r}}\left(r^{2}{\frac {\partial V}{\partial r}}\right)=0$, which admits the general solution: $$V = \frac{c_1}{r} + c_2 \,.$$ This solution has two integration constants, but they can both be fixed by appropriate boundary conditions: $V \xrightarrow[r\to \infty]{} 0$ implies $c_2 =0$ and regularity at the origin implies $c_1 =0$. If we insist on having $c_1 \neq 0$, we find out that we are not solving the original equation (in vacuum), but an equation with some sources concentrated at the origin: $$\Delta V = -4 \pi \, c_1 \, \delta^{(3)} (\vec r) \,,$$ in fact, using cartesian coordinates: $$\Delta \left(\frac{c_1}{r} + c_2 \right) = - c_1 \, \vec \partial \cdot \left(\frac{x}{r^3},\frac{y}{r^3},\frac{z}{r^3} \right)$$ and integrating over a sphere of radius $R$: $$-c_1 \int_{r\leq R} \vec \partial \cdot \left(\frac{x}{r^3},\frac{y}{r^3},\frac{z}{r^3} \right) d^3 x = - \frac{c_1}{r^2} \int_{r=R} d\Sigma = - 4 \pi \, c_1 \,.$$ The reason for this is the fact that the spherical coordinate patch covers all of $\mathbbm R^3$ except the origin, which lies on the border of the coordinate chart. Then the elliptic equation $\nabla V =0$ turns into a boundary-value problem, depending on the boundary conditions we choose to impose at $r=0$ and $r=\infty$. If we choose $c_1 \neq 0$, we have effectively changed the vacuum equation into one with a Dirac-delta source concentrated at the origin. Such an equation still coincides with the vacuum Poisson equation in the spherical coordinate chart, which does not include the origin, but in Cartesian coordinates, which cover the origin too, it acquires a source term. Similarly, the solution of the diffeomorphism constraint in spherical coordinates depends on the integration constant $A$, which corresponds, in Cartesian coordinates, to a Dirac-delta source term for the constraint. It is clear now how this ruins the predictivity of the theory: one is free to specify a source term like (\[DiffeoConstraintWithDiracDeltaSource\]) as a function of time, and no dynamical equation can fix it for us. One may be interested in this exercise, to model for example some collapsed matter which has some expansion/contraction, but is concentrated in a small region that we want to approximate as pointlike. However, for the present problem of modelling the gravitational collapse of a distribution of matter, it is clear that we have to require that the effective value of the integration constants $A$ and $m$ at the poles is zero.
Appendix: Region of positivity of $\mathscr P$ and on-shell surfaces {#MordorAppendix}
====================================================================
$\mathscr P > 0$ region
-----------------------
$\bm \lambda < 0 \, , ~ \bm m>0$\
![The surface $\mathscr P (z) =0$ for **positive Misner–Sharp mass** and **negative cosmological constant.**[]{data-label="MordorFig1"}](Mordor1.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"} ![The surface $\mathscr P (z) =0$ for **positive Misner–Sharp mass** and **negative cosmological constant.**[]{data-label="MordorFig1"}](Mordor2.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}
$\bm \lambda \geq 0 \, , ~ \bm m>0$\
![The surface $\mathscr P (z) =0$ for **positive Misner–Sharp mass** and four choices of **zero or positive cosmological constant.** The part of the surface where $\tau^2 < 12 \Lambda$ is in yellow, while the part $\tau^2 > 12 \Lambda$ is in red.[]{data-label="MordorFig2"}](Mordor3.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"} ![The surface $\mathscr P (z) =0$ for **positive Misner–Sharp mass** and four choices of **zero or positive cosmological constant.** The part of the surface where $\tau^2 < 12 \Lambda$ is in yellow, while the part $\tau^2 > 12 \Lambda$ is in red.[]{data-label="MordorFig2"}](Mordor4.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}\
![The surface $\mathscr P (z) =0$ for **positive Misner–Sharp mass** and four choices of **zero or positive cosmological constant.** The part of the surface where $\tau^2 < 12 \Lambda$ is in yellow, while the part $\tau^2 > 12 \Lambda$ is in red.[]{data-label="MordorFig2"}](Mordor5.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"} ![The surface $\mathscr P (z) =0$ for **positive Misner–Sharp mass** and four choices of **zero or positive cosmological constant.** The part of the surface where $\tau^2 < 12 \Lambda$ is in yellow, while the part $\tau^2 > 12 \Lambda$ is in red.[]{data-label="MordorFig2"}](Mordor6.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}
$\bm \lambda > 0 \, , ~ \bm m<0$\
![The surface $\mathscr P (z) =0$ for **negative Misner–Sharp mass** and 4 choices of **positive cosmological constant.** The negative or zero cosmological constant cases are not included because the $\mathscr P >0$ identically in those cases.[]{data-label="MordorFig3"}](Mordor7.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"} ![The surface $\mathscr P (z) =0$ for **negative Misner–Sharp mass** and 4 choices of **positive cosmological constant.** The negative or zero cosmological constant cases are not included because the $\mathscr P >0$ identically in those cases.[]{data-label="MordorFig3"}](Mordor8.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}\
![The surface $\mathscr P (z) =0$ for **negative Misner–Sharp mass** and 4 choices of **positive cosmological constant.** The negative or zero cosmological constant cases are not included because the $\mathscr P >0$ identically in those cases.[]{data-label="MordorFig3"}](Mordor9.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"} ![The surface $\mathscr P (z) =0$ for **negative Misner–Sharp mass** and 4 choices of **positive cosmological constant.** The negative or zero cosmological constant cases are not included because the $\mathscr P >0$ identically in those cases.[]{data-label="MordorFig3"}](Mordor10.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}
![The surface $\mathscr P (z) =0$ for **zero Misner–Sharp mass** and **positive cosmological constant**. In this case we used $|\Lambda|$ to make all variables dimensionless: $z = \sqrt{|\Lambda|} \sqrt{\sigma}$, $C = |\Lambda| \, A /2$, $\tau = \langle p \rangle/\sqrt{|\Lambda|}$. Only the positive-$\lambda$ case is interesting, because if $\Lambda<0$ the polynomial is always positive. Similarly, the case $\Lambda = m = 0$ is trivial because in this case $\mathcal P$ is identically positive. []{data-label="MordorFig4"}](Mordor11.pdf){width="35.00000%"}
On-shell surfaces {#AppendixOnshellSurfaces}
-----------------
![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig1\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}>0$, $\lambda = -10$ (in yellow), together with the on-shell surface (transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_1"}](MordorOnShell_1.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"} ![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig1\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}>0$, $\lambda = -10$ (in yellow), together with the on-shell surface (transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_1"}](MordorOnShell_2.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"}\
![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig1\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}>0$, $\lambda = -10$ (in yellow), together with the on-shell surface (transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_1"}](MordorOnShell_3.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"} ![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig1\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}>0$, $\lambda = -10$ (in yellow), together with the on-shell surface (transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_1"}](MordorOnShell_4.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"}
![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig2\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}>0$, $\lambda = 0.1 >0$ (yellow/red) and the on-shell surface (in transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_2"}](MordorOnShell_5.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"} ![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig2\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}>0$, $\lambda = 0.1 >0$ (yellow/red) and the on-shell surface (in transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_2"}](MordorOnShell_6.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"}\
![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig2\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}>0$, $\lambda = 0.1 >0$ (yellow/red) and the on-shell surface (in transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_2"}](MordorOnShell_7.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"} ![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig2\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}>0$, $\lambda = 0.1 >0$ (yellow/red) and the on-shell surface (in transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_2"}](MordorOnShell_8.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"}
![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig3\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}<0$, $\lambda = 10 >0$ (in yellow/red), together with the on-shell surface (in transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_3"}](MordorOnShell_9.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"} ![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig3\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}<0$, $\lambda = 10 >0$ (in yellow/red), together with the on-shell surface (in transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_3"}](MordorOnShell_10.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"}\
![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig3\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}<0$, $\lambda = 10 >0$ (in yellow/red), together with the on-shell surface (in transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_3"}](MordorOnShell_11.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"} ![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig3\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}<0$, $\lambda = 10 >0$ (in yellow/red), together with the on-shell surface (in transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_3"}](MordorOnShell_12.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"}
![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig4\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}=0$ (in yellow/red), together with the on-shell surface (in transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/\lambda$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_4"}](MordorOnShell_13.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"} ![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig4\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}=0$ (in yellow/red), together with the on-shell surface (in transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/\lambda$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_4"}](MordorOnShell_14.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"}\
![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig4\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}=0$ (in yellow/red), together with the on-shell surface (in transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/\lambda$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_4"}](MordorOnShell_15.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"} ![The surface $\mathscr P (z_a) =0$ of Fig. \[MordorFig4\] for $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}=0$ (in yellow/red), together with the on-shell surface (in transparent green), for four choices of the ratio $M_a/\lambda$.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_4"}](MordorOnShell_16.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"}
![On-shell surface for negative $\lambda$ and $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$, for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$. In this case there is no excluded region because for this choice of signs of $\lambda$ and $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ all values of the parameters are admissible.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_5"}](MordorOnShell_17.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"} ![On-shell surface for negative $\lambda$ and $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$, for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$. In this case there is no excluded region because for this choice of signs of $\lambda$ and $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ all values of the parameters are admissible.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_5"}](MordorOnShell_18.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"}\
![On-shell surface for negative $\lambda$ and $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$, for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$. In this case there is no excluded region because for this choice of signs of $\lambda$ and $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ all values of the parameters are admissible.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_5"}](MordorOnShell_19.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"} ![On-shell surface for negative $\lambda$ and $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$, for four choices of the ratio $M_a/m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$. In this case there is no excluded region because for this choice of signs of $\lambda$ and $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}$ all values of the parameters are admissible.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_5"}](MordorOnShell_20.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"}
![On-shell surface for negative $\lambda$ and $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}=0$, for four choices of the ratio $M_a/|\lambda|$. In this case too there is no excluded region because with $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}=0$ and for this choice of signs of $\lambda$ all values of the parameters are admissible.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_6"}](MordorOnShell_21.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"} ![On-shell surface for negative $\lambda$ and $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}=0$, for four choices of the ratio $M_a/|\lambda|$. In this case too there is no excluded region because with $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}=0$ and for this choice of signs of $\lambda$ all values of the parameters are admissible.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_6"}](MordorOnShell_22.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"}\
![On-shell surface for negative $\lambda$ and $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}=0$, for four choices of the ratio $M_a/|\lambda|$. In this case too there is no excluded region because with $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}=0$ and for this choice of signs of $\lambda$ all values of the parameters are admissible.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_6"}](MordorOnShell_23.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"} ![On-shell surface for negative $\lambda$ and $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}=0$, for four choices of the ratio $M_a/|\lambda|$. In this case too there is no excluded region because with $m_{\text{\tiny \rm B}}=0$ and for this choice of signs of $\lambda$ all values of the parameters are admissible.[]{data-label="Mordor_Onshell_Fig_6"}](MordorOnShell_24.pdf "fig:"){width="\widfigs\textwidth"}
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: In fact, it is already the case that the ADM Hamiltonian, or scalar constraint, corresponds to re-definitions of surfaces of simultaneity only for space-times that satisfy the Einstein equations [@Lee_Wald_OffShell_refoliation].
[^3]: *I.e.* conformally-invariant.
[^4]: For Einstein [@EinsteinNote], in the spatially compact case “the series of causes of mechanical phenomena is closed”.
[^5]: In this paper $r \in [0,\pi]$, where $r=0$ and $r=\pi$ are the coordinates of, respectively, the south and north pole. It is customary to attribute $r$ an infinite range when modelling noncompact manifolds, and a finite range in the compact case. Of course, these are only unphysical coordinate choices as we may as well describe a compact manifold with a noncompact coordinate patch or vice-versa.
[^6]: The constraint $\mathcal C \approx 0$ is algebraic and gives rise to no integration constants. Moreover, the equation $\mathcal H \approx 0$ is second-order while $\mathcal H_i \approx 0$ is first-order, so we should have a total of 3 integration constants. However, by finding a first integral of $\mathcal H_i \approx 0$ and setting its value to $m$, we converted $\mathcal H \approx 0$ into a first-order equation (the last of Eqs. \[SolConstraints\]), which admits one further integration constant [@ThinshellPaper].
[^7]: The angular integral avoids introducing unnecessary complications such as the pull-back of the metric on a constant-$r$ surface.
[^8]: It is not hard to convince oneself that there is no way to have the $|\sigma'|$ term at the numerator cancel the divergence of the denominator while $\sigma \to 0$. In fact if $\sigma \sim r^n$, then $|\sigma'|/\sigma^{3/2}$ is finite if $n \leq -2$, but then $\sigma$ diverges as $r\to 0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper studies initial beam acquisition in a millimeter wave network consisting of multiple access points (APs) and mobile devices. A training protocol for joint estimation of transmit and receive beams is presented with a general frame structure consisting of an initial access sub-frame followed by data transmission sub-frames. During the initial subframe, APs and mobiles sweep through a set of beams and determine the best transmit and receive beams via a handshake. All pilot signals are narrowband (tones), and the mobiles are distinguished by their assigned pilot frequencies. Both non-coherent and coherent beam estimation methods based on, respectively, power detection and maximum likelihood (ML) are presented. To avoid exchanging information about beamforming vectors between APs and mobiles, a local maximum likelihood (LML) algorithm is also presented. An efficient fast Fourier transform implementation is proposed for ML and LML to achieve high-resolution. A system-level optimization is performed in which the frame length, training time, and training bandwidth are selected to maximize a rate objective taking into account blockage and mobility. Simulation results based on a realistic network topology are presented to compare the performance of different estimation methods and [training codebooks]{}, and demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed protocol.'
author:
- 'Hao Zhou, Dongning Guo, and Michael L. Honig, [^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'BeamAcquisition\_JSAC.bib'
title: Beam Acquisition and Training in Millimeter Wave Networks with Narrowband Pilots
---
Millimeter wave communication, initial access, narrowband signaling, training, channel estimation.
Introduction
============
Fifth generation (5G) wireless communication networks are expected to provide ubiquitous connectivity and increased throughput to support the increasing demand for mobile data services [@wong2017key]. As centimeter wave (especially sub-6 GHz) bands become crowded, millimeter wave (mmWave) bands are viewed as an important resource for satisfying projected service objectives. Recent channel measurement campaigns at mmWave frequencies have indicated that while the attenuation is relatively high, the channel typically consists of a small number of propagation paths [@rappaport2017overview]. Beamforming and combining with a large number of antennas, known as massive multi-input multi-output (MIMO), can therefore focus the signals along the strong paths to maintain a desired signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) at the receiver. Designing the transmit and receive beams requires channel state information (CSI), which is obtained through training.
In mmWave systems, channel estimation often takes the form of *beam training*, which, by sending training signals, estimates the key parameters of the channel including the number of paths, spatial directions of the paths, and the path gains. Depending on whether the CSI is available *a priori*, beam training can be classified into initial access [@desai2014initial; @barati2016initial; @giordani2016initial] and beam tracking [@zhang2016tracking; @zhang2016mobile; @zhu2017abp; @Palacios2017Tracking]. The initial access aims to establish a communication link without prior knowledge of the channel. Because of the high attenuation at mmWave frequency bands, broadcasting omni-directional training signals for discovery of access points (AP) and channel sensing is often inadequate. Due to mobility and blockage, old paths may fade and new paths may emerge, which requires repeated training. By contrast, beam tracking assumes the existence of a communication link, and the goal is to track the deviation of the paths and refine the transmit/receive beams.
Dense deployment of mmWave APs is expected to overcome blockage and improve coverage [@Simic2017coverage]. With many APs and mobiles in an area, interference coordination becomes important for both beam training and data transmission. Both protocols and algorithms have been considered for training and data transmission in [@gonzalez2018channel; @sun2019beam; @alkhateeb2015limited], with a single AP. In this paper, we focus on the initial access problem. Specifically, we consider the design of a training protocol for joint beam acquisition and tracking. We try to address the question of how much training overhead is needed for an mmWave system with multiple APs and mobiles. Our main contributions are summarized as follows:
1\) We propose a system-level protocol and a frame structure for establishing connections between multiple APs and mobiles. Because the directions of propagation paths are essentially identical across a typical mmWave band, we use narrowband signals (tones) for training. The estimated beamforming and combining filters are then used for wideband data transmission. This narrowband scheme effectively avoids mutual interference and provides a high SNR. Different [training codebooks]{} (exhaustive sweeping, compressive sensing, etc.) as well as channel estimation methods can be incorporated into the protocol.
2\) We present three channel estimation methods, namely the max power (MP) method, the maximum likelihood (ML) method, and the local maximum likelihood (LML) method. A low-complexity fast Fourier transform (FFT) implementation of the ML and LML methods is proposed to obtain a near-optimal estimate, regardless of the [training codebook]{}. In particular, with exhaustive sweeping, we show that to minimize the training error no pilot repetition (per slot) is needed for ML. We compare the performance of these methods.
3\) We perform a system-level analysis and determine the optimal training overhead. The overhead is determined by optimizing system parameters including the frame length, training duration, and training bandwidth. The objective is to maximize the long-term network throughput, accounting for random blockage and link-level training error. The solution indicates that the training overhead is around $5 \%$ under typical scenarios; however, with severe frequent blockage and worse channel conditions, the overhead increases to above $10\%$, in which case selecting a training scheme with lower overhead becomes important. The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we discuss related work. In , we introduce the channel model, system model, and hybrid beamforming structures. In Section \[sec:access-protocol\], we present the narrowband training protocol and the frame structure. In , we discuss the three beam training methods. In Section \[sec:sys\], we analyze the system-level performance and optimize the key parameters of the training protocol. Section \[sec:simu\] presents simulation results and Section \[sec:conclusion\] presents our conclusions.
Related Work {#sec:related-work}
============
Training protocols for mmWave initial access have been considered for a single AP with a single mobile in [@alkhateeb2015limited; @hur2013millimeter; @zhao2017multiuser] and multiple mobiles in [@Sun2018Hybridbeamforming; @zhao2017tone; @marzi2016compressive]. To avoid inter-user interference and pilot contamination, a tone-based training scheme is proposed in [@zhao2017multiuser], where each mobile is assigned a distinct frequency tone during training. An algorithm is proposed to estimate the AoAs at APs and mobiles for a single cell with multiple users and design the analog and digital zero-forcing precoders. In [@zhao2017tone], the tone-based AoA estimation method is considered for a multi-cell network, where the mobiles have a single antenna and the APs use digital beamforming. Those papers analyze the achievable rate for proposed channel estimation and beamforming algorithms. Here we consider the use of tones for user identification and acquisition in a network with a large number of APs and mobiles. Instead of fixing user association, as in [@zhao2017multiuser; @zhao2017tone], the mobiles acquire their APs via a sweeping protocol. We analyze the training overhead for the proposed protocol and optimize the associated parameters.
Related work on estimating the key parameters of mmWave channels, including the number of paths, spatial directions, and path gains, is presented in [@alkhateeb2015limited; @zhao2017multiuser; @zhao2017tone; @zhang2016mobile; @marzi2016compressive]. The MP method for estimating spatial directions has been considered in [@alkhateeb2015limited; @zhao2017multiuser; @zhao2017tone]. It is simple and robust with respect to system impairments, but the training overhead scales with increasing estimation resolution. In [@zhang2016mobile], an ML-based channel estimation method is proposed, and the resulting non-linear least squares problem is solved with the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. The ML method is also considered in [@marzi2016compressive], where random beamforming is used for training. The AoAs and AoDs are estimated at APs with uplink feedback using the Newton’s method. Compared with MP estimation, ML methods are more robust with respect to noise and can obtain high-resolution estimates with less training, but require knowledge of both beamforming and combining vectors to compute the estimate. The LML method we present only needs to know the receiver filters. It does not require the exchange of filters between APs and mobiles. We also propose a method for computing the ML and LML estimates using FFTs.
System-level analysis of mmWave networks has been studied in [@Ghadikolaei2015mmWave; @marzi2016compressive; @li2017design; @li2017onthebeamformed; @bai2015coverage; @zhao2018multi]. In [@marzi2016compressive], an SNR threshold required for successful estimation is derived using the Ziv-Zakai bound (ZZB) and the Cramér-Rao bound (CRB). In [@Ghadikolaei2015mmWave], a two-step initial access procedure is proposed, which exploits the features of omni-directional microwave and directional mmWave signals. The combination of directional beamforming and omni-directional transmission for initial access is also considered in [@li2017design]. In [@li2017onthebeamformed], different codebooks are evaluated in terms of access latency and overhead. Design insights are also provided on the beam width and the number of simultaneous beams. In [@bai2015coverage], coverage and rate performance are analyzed assuming an ideal sectored beam pattern in the absence of training error. In contrast, we maximize the long-term system throughput taking into account both link-level training error and random blockages.
System Model {#sec:sysModel}
============
![Example of a sub-connected hybrid transmitter/receiver structure at an AP; $D\leq J$ is the total number of data streams. The same structure applies to mobiles.[]{data-label="fig:rfchain"}](rfChain){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Consider a mmWave system with $L$ APs and $K$ mobile devices. As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:rfchain\], every transceiver is equipped with $J$ radio-frequency (RF) chains. All transceivers are assumed to adopt the partially connected hybrid beamforming architecture. Each RF chain is connected to a sub-array of phased antennas through constant-modulus phase shifters [@heath2016overview]. We assume each antenna sub-array at an AP consists of $N$ antennas, and each sub-array at a mobile consists of $M$ antennas.
The hybrid precoding structure was introduced in [@zhang2005variable]. Due to the low hardware complexity, it has been extensively studied for massive MIMO and mmWave systems [@alkhateeb2014channel; @adhikary2013jointspatial; @sohrabi2017hybrid; @gao2016energy; @ayach2012thecapacity]. In this paper, we adopt the beam steering method [@ayach2012thecapacity], where signals are transmitted by steering beams to the direction of the strongest path. Beam steering is simple and widely used in practice [@sadhu2017phasearray]. It has been shown that when the total number of antennas $NJ,MJ\to\infty$, beam steering is asymptotically optimal for a single data stream [@ayach2012thecapacity Corollary 4].
Channel Model {#sec:channelModel}
-------------
We consider a MIMO multipath channel model where the channel has a small number of propagation paths [@rappaport2017overview]. Due to the small form factor of mmWave antennas, for a particular AP and mobile pair, we assume that the channels across different sub-array combinations share the same directions and path loss, but with different delays [@heath2016overview]. The downlink virtual channel from a particular AP to a mobile is [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:channel}
\mathbf{H} = \sum_{s=1}^{S}\alpha_{s} \mathbf{u}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_s)\mathbf{a}^H(\boldsymbol{\phi}_s),
\end{aligned}$$ where $S$ denotes the total number of propagation paths, $\boldsymbol{\theta}_s$ and $\boldsymbol{\phi}_s$ denote respectively the angle of arrival (AoA) and the angle of departure (AoD), $\mathbf{u}\in\mathbb{C}^{JM}$ and $\mathbf{a}\in\mathbb{C}^{JN}$ denote the antenna response functions at the mobile and the AP, respectively, and we define $\alpha_{s} =\nu\tilde{\alpha}_s$ with $\nu=\sqrt{NMJ^2/S}$ denoting the antenna gain and $\tilde{\alpha}_s\in\mathbb{C}$ denoting the path gain. The path gain $\tilde{\alpha}_s$ includes both path loss and delay with $\mathbb{E}[|\tilde{\alpha}_s|]=\bar{\alpha}_s$. ]{}
The response functions $\mathbf{u}$ and $\mathbf{a}$ depend on the geometry of the antenna arrays and are well defined for any particular antenna configuration. For concreteness, we focus on two commonly used array structures in practice: uniform linear array (ULA) and uniform planar array (UPA), which are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:antenna\].
![Configurations of two sub-arrays, each with three elements. Left: ULA. Right: UPA.[]{data-label="fig:antenna"}](antenna){width="0.95\linewidth"}
We take $\mathbf{u}(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ as an example. A similar structure applies to $\mathbf{a}(\boldsymbol{\phi})$. To simplify notation, we first define a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) vector of length $M$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ang_vec}
\mathbf{e}(\vartheta;M) =\sqrt{1/M}\left[1,e^{j\vartheta},\cdots,e^{j(M-1)\vartheta}\right]^T.
\end{aligned}$$
The AoA of a ULA is fully characterized by a single angle $\theta$ representing the incident wave and the line of the antennas. The angular response of an antenna sub-array is then [$\mathbf{e}\left(\frac{2\pi d \sin\theta}{c/f_c};M\right)$]{} and the angular response of the ULA is then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ula}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{u}({\theta}) = \mathbf{e}\left(\frac{2\pi u \sin\theta}{c/f_c};J\right) \otimes \mathbf{e}\left(\frac{2\pi d \sin\theta}{c/f_c};M\right),
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product, $c$ denotes the light of speed, $f_c$ denotes the carrier frequency, $d$ denotes the antenna element spacing within each sub-array, and $u$ denotes the distance between the first elements of adjacent sub-arrays.
In contrast, the AoA of a UPA is characterized by two angles $\boldsymbol{\theta}=[\zeta,\xi]$, where $\zeta$ denotes the azimuth angle and $\xi$ denotes the elevation angle. The antenna response function is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:upa}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{u}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \mathbf{e}\left(\frac{\sin(\xi)\sin(\zeta)}{c/(2\pi uf_c)};J\right) \otimes \mathbf{e}\left(\frac{\sin(\xi)\cos(\zeta)}{c/(2\pi df_c)};M\right),
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where $d$ and $u$ denote the antenna element spacing on the x-axis and y-axis, respectively. In either case (ULA or UPA), we therefore have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:upa_ula}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{u}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \mathbf{e}\left(\vartheta_1;J\right) \otimes \mathbf{e}\left(\vartheta_2;M\right) ,
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\vartheta_1$ and $\vartheta_2$ are defined as in or depending on whether the arrays take the form of a ULA or UPA.
Signal Model
------------
Assuming no inter-symbol interference, the time index of all signals can be suppressed. Based on , the downlink channel from AP $l$ to mobile $k$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:channel_withIndex}
\mathbf{H}_{l,k} = \sum_{s=1}^{S_{l,k}}\alpha_{s,l,k} \mathbf{u}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{s,l,k})\mathbf{a}^H(\boldsymbol{\phi}_{s,l,k}).
\end{aligned}$$ We let AP $l$ transmit a single stream of baseband symbols. The downlink baseband received signal at mobile $k$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rcvSig_dLink}
y_k = \mathbf{w}^H_k\left(\sum_{l=1}^{L} \mathbf{H}_{l,k}\mathbf{f}_lx_l\right) + \mathbf{w}^H_k\mathbf{n}_k,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{f}_l\in\mathbb{C}^{JN}$ and $\mathbf{w}_k\in\mathbb{C}^{JM}$ denote the hybrid beamforming and combining vectors, $x_l\in\mathbb{C}$ denotes the downlink symbol sent by AP $l$, and $\mathbf{n}_k\sim \mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma_n^2\mathbf{I}_{JM})$ denotes the additive white Gaussian noise.
We assume time division duplex (TDD) mode. In the uplink, the baseband received signal at AP $l$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rcvSig_upLink}
r_l = \mathbf{g}^H_l\left(\sum_{k=1}^{K} \mathbf{H}^H_{l,k}\mathbf{v}_ks_k\right) + \mathbf{g}^H_l\tilde{\mathbf{n}}_l,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{g}_l\in\mathbb{C}^{JN}$, $\mathbf{v}_k\in\mathbb{C}^{JM}$, $s_k\in\mathbb{C}$, and denote the hybrid beamforming vector, hybrid combining vector, uplink symbol, and additive noise, respectively.
All the hybrid beamforming/combining vectors $\mathbf{f}_l,\mathbf{g}_l,\mathbf{v}_k$, and $\mathbf{w}_k$ are the composition of a digital baseband filter with an analog precoder. For example, $\mathbf{f} = \mathbf{F}_\text{RF}\mathbf{f}_\text{BB}$, where denotes the digital baseband precoder and the analog precoder $\mathbf{F}_\text{RF} = \text{diag}({\mathbf{a}}_1,{\mathbf{a}}_2,\dots,{\mathbf{a}}_J)$. The $i$-th diagonal block corresponds to the phase shifters in the $i$-th sub-array.
We adopt beam steering, as in [@ayach2012thecapacity], where all the sub-arrays of a mobile point towards a common direction. Specifically, the steering vectors $\mathbf{w},\mathbf{v}$ take the same form as , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:shortHBF}
\mathbf{w} = \sqrt{\tilde{\rho}}\mathbf{u}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \sqrt{\tilde{\rho}}\mathbf{e}\left(\vartheta_1;J\right) \otimes \mathbf{e}\left(\vartheta_2;M\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\rho}$ is a power control variable. We can also write as $\mathbf{w} = \mathbf{W}_\text{RF}\mathbf{w}_\text{BB}$ with the digital precoder $\mathbf{w}_\text{BB} = \sqrt{\tilde{\rho}}\mathbf{e}\left(\vartheta_1;J\right)$ and where the diagonal blocks of $\mathbf{W}_\text{RF}$ are $\bar{\mathbf{w}}_i=\mathbf{e}\left(\vartheta_2;M\right)$, Then each mobile has only three design parameters: angles $\vartheta_1$, $\vartheta_2$, and
If an AP serves only a single mobile, then it steers the beam towards that mobile, so that applies to its beamforming vectors $\mathbf{f}$ and $\mathbf{g}$. If an AP simultaneously serves multiple mobiles, we steer different sub-arrays towards different mobiles. Then the diagonal blocks of the analog precoder $\mathbf{a}_i=\mathbf{a}\left(\boldsymbol{\phi}_i\right)$ no longer take a common parameter $\boldsymbol{\phi}$. Also, designing the digital precoder with equal power allocation, as in , may not be optimal in general. Therefore, there are $2J$ design parameters: steering angles $\boldsymbol{\phi}_1,\cdots, \boldsymbol{\phi}_J$, and the digital precoder $\mathbf{u}_\text{BB}$.
Multiple Access Protocol {#sec:access-protocol}
========================
In this section, we propose a multiple access protocol for a mmWave network consisting of multiple APs and mobiles. The goal is to establish communication links, design beamforming and combining filters, and maintain connections with occurrences of blockage. We first present the frame structure and the protocol. We then focus on the initial access period and present a narrowband training procedure.
Frame Structure and Multiple Access Protocol
--------------------------------------------
![Frame structure. *TK* indicates the tracking subframe.[]{data-label="fig:frame"}](frame){width="0.99\linewidth"}
[Let time be partitioned into frames and consider a frame structure similar to the 5G new radio (NR) standard [@lien20175gnr] shown in Fig. \[fig:frame\]. Each frame consists of multiple subframes, and each subframe consists of multiple time slots. A time slot is the minimum unit of time resource to be allocated, which consists of multiple symbols. There are two types of subframes: *initial access* and *standard*. The length of a standard subframe depends on the channel coherence time. The length of the initial access subframe, together with the frame length and the slot duration, is optimized in Section \[sec:sys\] to maximize the system throughput.]{} [The initial access subframe is used to establish links for newly scheduled mobiles or to recover links due to blockage, assuming no prior CSI. There is one initial access subframe within each frame, which is the first subframe. The standard subframes are used for data transmission. Each has a tracking period and a data transmission period. The tracking period is used to track small angular deviations of propagation paths and channel variations between subframes, and to refine the beamforming/combining vectors [@zhang2016tracking; @zhang2016mobile; @zhu2017abp; @Palacios2017Tracking]. Since the channel paths persist across many coherence times [@niu2015survey; @maccartney2017rapid], the refinements are assumed to be minor and so the overhead for tracking is assumed negligible. We therefore focus on designing protocols for beam acquisition within the initial access subframe.]{}
At the beginning of each frame, all APs and mobiles start an initial access procedure in which signals are transmitted in both downlink and uplink directions. The goal is to connect each mobile to an AP with a good channel. Mobiles that are not successfully connected, either due to bad channel realizations or limited system resources, will wait for the next frame and attempt to connect again. Successfully connected mobiles transmit and receive data during the standard subframes through the end of the frame. The multiple access protocol requires coarse frame synchronization, which means all the APs and mobiles are required to know the approximate beginning of a frame.
Initial Access Protocol
-----------------------
[We assign each mobile a distinct narrow frequency band (slot) or unmodulated tone. Each mobile transmits and receives training signals only on its assigned narrow band. ]{} [It is assumed that mobiles in a cell use distinct frequencies.]{}[^3] This narrowband design has the following advantages:
1\) Mutual interference is eliminated during initial access. In practice, mobiles may be nearby (e.g., in a conference hall or a stadium), and their channels may share the same AoAs at an AP. Assigning different tones to different mobiles avoids pilot collisions and the APs can acknowledge their selected mobiles using their respective tones. This exploits the large bandwidth available in mmWave bands. 2) [The transmit and receive beam directions estimated on one narrow band are suitable for data transmission on other narrow bands as well. ]{} Indeed, recent mmWave channel measurements [@rappaport2017overview] have shown that the directions of major propagation paths remain almost the same over [several GHz which spans multiple coherence bands]{}. Therefore, instead of probing a wide frequency band, it suffices to estimate the path directions on a narrow band. 3) Focusing training energy on a frequency slot boosts the SNR, which can reduce training error and overhead.
4\) The complexity of narrowband signal processing is expected to be lower than that for wideband signaling. [Each mobile must only filter out signals outside its assigned frequency slot with a bandpass filter. ]{}
The initial access between an AP and a connecting mobile is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:procedure\]. There are three stages: downlink training, uplink training, and handshake. This protocol is followed by all APs and mobiles. [We assume TDD, uplink/downlink reciprocity, and that the channels are constant during the training period. The simulation indicates that the total training time is typically around 3 ms, which is shorter than the observed coherence time [@va2015basic] and path ]{} For concreteness, we describe the protocol with beam sweeping. The beamformers (or combiners) $\mathbf{f},\mathbf{g},\mathbf{w}$ take the form of $\mathbf{a}(\boldsymbol{\phi})$ or $\mathbf{u}(\boldsymbol{\theta})$, where all the sub-arrays are steered to the same direction. With a ULA phased array, signals or combiners can be directed to any desired azimuth angle by varying $\phi$ or $\theta$. With a UPA, both azimuth and elevation angles are changed to sweep over the 3-D space. [Note that the protocol applies to other training codebooks as well (see [@marzi2016compressive; @hur2013millimeter; @abari2016millimeter]). These variations may result in different training overhead, but do not require modifying the protocol.]{}
![Example of the initial access procedure for $Q=3, P=2, I=1$. Only one AP and one mobile are shown, so their indices $l$ and $k$ are omitted.[]{data-label="fig:procedure"}](procedure_2){width="0.95\linewidth"}
The *downlink training* spans $PQ$ time slots, where the APs sweep over $Q$ directions and the mobiles sweep over $P$ directions. Specifically, AP $l$ sequentially sends downlink pilots in $Q$ different directions using steering vectors $\mathbf{f}_{l,1},\mathbf{f}_{l,2},\cdots,\mathbf{f}_{l,Q}$, and mobile $k$ receives from $P$ directions with combiners $\mathbf{w}_{k,1},\mathbf{w}_{k,2},\cdots,\mathbf{w}_{k,P}$ in round-robin fashion. An AP uses the same beamforming vectors in all frequency bands, but mobile $k$ only detects the signal on its assigned frequency band $t_k$ (using a narrowband filter). In each time slot, corresponding to a particular steering vector $\mathbf{f}_{l,q}$ and combiner $\mathbf{w}_{k,p}$, the pilot symbol is repeated $I$ times, and the mobile averages the $I$ received samples to yield a sufficient statistic $y_{k,p,q}=\frac{1}{I}\sum_{i=1}^Iy_{k,p,q}[i]$. After $PQ$ time slots, mobile $k$ obtains $PQ$ samples $\{{y}_{k,p,q}\}$, which are used to estimate the direction of the strongest path $\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_k$. The steering beam is then $\hat{\mathbf{w}}_k =\sqrt{\tilde{\rho}_k}\mathbf{u}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_k) $.
In the *uplink training* stage, mobile $k$ uses $\hat{\mathbf{w}}_k$ as the beamformer and sends uplink signals over $Q$ time slots. Similarly, $I$ repeated pilots are sent within each time slot. Also, mobile $k$ only sends signals over its assigned frequency tone $t_k$. In the $q$-th time slot, AP $l$ combines signals at all frequency bands with the same combiner ${\mathbf{g}}_q$ and uses a bank of narrowband filters to separate the signals from different mobiles. The filtered baseband samples of are then averaged as $r_{k,l,q}$ which does not contain interference from other mobiles due to frequency orthogonality. After $Q$ time slots, AP $l$ estimates the direction of the strongest path from as $\hat{\boldsymbol{\phi}}_k$ based on samples $r_{k,l,1},r_{k,l,2},\cdots,r_{k,l,Q}$. Similarly, AP $l$ can estimate the direction of other mobiles and obtains the set of estimated angles $\hat{\boldsymbol{\phi}}_{l,1},\cdots,\hat{\boldsymbol{\phi}}_{l,K}$.
The *handshake* has two time slots, one for downlink acknowledgment (ACK) and one for uplink ACK. Depending on the SNRs of mobiles and system constraints (e.g., traffic condition, number of available RF chains, and physical resources), AP $l$ schedules a subset of mobiles, and selects beamformer $\hat{\mathbf{f}}_{l,k}$ over different tones based on the estimated angles of those mobiles. In the case where only mobile $k$ is scheduled, $\hat{\mathbf{f}}_l = \sqrt{\rho_l}\mathbf{a}(\boldsymbol{\hat{\phi}}_{l,k};N)$. Then AP $l$ sends a downlink ACK message $x_\text{ACK}$ to mobile $k$ on frequency $t_k$. At the same time, mobile $k$ tries to detect downlink ACK messages with combiner $\hat{\mathbf{w}}_k$ on frequency $t_k$. Upon detecting the message, mobile $k$ responds to AP $l$ by sending an uplink ACK message $s_\text{ACK}$ on frequency band $t_k$ with Since both the APs and mobiles have estimated the appropriate beamforming/combining filters, the downlink/uplink ACK messages can be sent reliably and may contain additional information for establishing the data link.
Channel Estimation {#sec:est-method}
==================
In this section, we present three methods for estimating the angles of the strongest path. [As previously mentioned, since the angles do not change over a wide range of frequencies, it suffices to perform the estimation on a narrow band. The estimated angles can be used to design beams for other narrow bands without causing performance loss.]{} We focus on a specific mobile’s estimation problem with downlink training and drop the mobile index $k$. During downlink signaling, the AP explores $Q$ beams and the mobile explores $P$ beams. We assume that the training beam sequences $\mathbf{f}_1,\dots,\mathbf{f}_Q$ and $\mathbf{w}_1,\dots,\mathbf{w}_P$ have been specified according to some signaling protocol (e.g., sweeping, compressed sensing, etc). In the $(p,q)$-th time slot, AP $l$ repeats the pilot symbol $x_{l,q}$ for $I$ times to mitigate noise, and the mobile takes an average of these $I$ received samples. So, the downlink averaged received signal is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sig:est}
\begin{split}
y_{p,q} = \mathbf{w}_p^H \sum_{l=1}^L\sqrt{\rho_l}\mathbf{H}_{l}\mathbf{f}_{l,q} x_{l,q} + \mathbf{w}_p^H\frac{1}{I}\sum_{i=1}^I\mathbf{n}_{p,q}[i],
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_l$ is the transmit power on a single tone, $\mathbf{f}_{l,q}\in\mathbb{C}^{N}$ is the normalized beamforming vector at AP $l$ with $\|\mathbf{f}_{l,q}\|^2=1$, $x_{l,q}$ is the pilot symbol with $|x_{l,q}|^2=1$, and the noise is i.i.d. over $i,p,q$. We define an observation matrix $\mathbf{Y}\in\mathbb{C}^{P\times Q}$, with $(p,q)$-th element $y_{p,q}$.
Maximum Power (MP)
------------------
The MP method chooses the beam pair $\left(\hat{p},\hat{q}\right)$ that yields the highest received power among the $PQ$ combinations, and takes the combining direction to be the $p$-th receive beam: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mp}
|y_{\hat{p},\hat{q}}|^2 \geq |y_{p,q}|^2,\text{for all }p\in\{1,\dots,P\} \text{ and }q\in\{1,\dots,Q\}.
\end{aligned}$$ MP has often appeared in previous work [@alkhateeb2015limited; @zhao2017multiuser], and is used in standards (including IEEE 802.11ad). Power detection is robust to phase errors and frequency offset. It is usually combined with beam sweeping or hierarchical search to exploit directional transmission. To achieve high estimation resolution, it requires searching a large beam space ($PQ$ beams). MP in general needs many repeated pilots for each beam pair ($I>1$) to combat noise and fading. With limited training (fixed $IPQ$), there exists a tradeoff between the number of repeated pilots $I$ and the beam space size $PQ$.
Maximum Likelihood (ML) {#sec:ml}
-----------------------
ML methods compute the parameters that maximize the likelihood of observing the given signals. Here we make some simplifying assumptions about the channel model . Since the receiver determines a single beamforming direction, it is reasonable to assume that the received signals are transmitted from some AP $l$ through a *single-path* channel with gain $\alpha$, AoA $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, and AoD $\boldsymbol{\phi}$. With i.i.d. noise $\tilde{n}_{p,q}\sim\mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma_n^2/I)$, the hypothesized received signal is then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mismatch_model}
\hat{y}_{p,q} =\alpha\mathbf{w}_p^H\mathbf{u}({\boldsymbol{\theta}})\mathbf{a}^H({\boldsymbol{\phi}})\mathbf{f}_{l,q} x_{l,q} + \tilde{n}_{p,q}.
\end{aligned}$$
Conditioned on the training symbols and the parameters $(\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{\phi},\alpha,l)$, the observed signals follow a multivariate normal distribution. Let $\mathbf{Z}(\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{\phi},l)\in\mathbb{C}^{P\times Q}$ be a beamforming gain matrix with the $(p,q)$-the element defined as $z_{p,q}(\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{\phi},l) = \mathbf{w}_p^H\mathbf{u}({\boldsymbol{\theta}})\mathbf{a}^H({\boldsymbol{\phi}}) \mathbf{f}_{l,q}$. With independent observations, the proposed ML method solves the problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ml:middle}
\underset{\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{\phi},\alpha,l}{\text{minimize}} \quad \|\alpha\mathbf{Z}(\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{\phi},l) -\mathbf{Y}\|^2_F,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\|\cdot\|_F$ is the Frobenius norm. For fixed $\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{\phi},l$, the optimal estimate of path gains $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^*({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\phi}},l) = {\text{Tr}(\mathbf{Z}^H({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\phi}},l)\mathbf{Y})}/{\|\mathbf{Z}({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\phi}},l)\|_F^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, we can rewrite as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ml}
\underset{\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{\phi},l}{\text{maximize}} \quad \frac{|\text{Tr}(\mathbf{Z}^H({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\phi}},l)\mathbf{Y})|^2}{\|\mathbf{Z}({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\phi}},l)\|_F^2}.
\end{aligned}$$
We note that the mismatch between the assumed model and the original model is typically insignificant. In the case of multiple strong paths, the estimated AoA is the one that has the largest correlation with the received signals according to .
The least squares problem is nonlinear and challenging to solve. First, it requires a search over $l=1,2,\cdots,L$ to define the mapping $\mathbf{Z}({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\phi}},l)$. Second, for a fixed $l$, the non-linear mapping $\mathbf{Z}({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\phi}},l)$ is complicated, and the problem has a large number of local maxima. In [@zhang2016mobile], the authors propose a solution method based on the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. It first uses MP to obtain an initial estimate, and then gradient descent to obtain a local optimum. However, calculation of the gradient requires a matrix inversion which is computationally expensive, and the performance largely depends on the initialization. Alternatively, in Section \[sec:FFT\], we present a solution method which uses FFTs to efficiently calculate and obtains near-optimal solutions with much lower computational complexity.
Local Maximum Likelihood (LML)
------------------------------
To compute the ML estimate in Section \[sec:ml\], the receiver must know the transmitted beamforming vectors $\{\mathbf{f}_{l,q}\}$. We next describe the LML method, which assumes the transmitted beams are not available at the receiver. A similar approach is presented in [@marzi2016compressive], where the received is sent back to the transmitter for AoD estimation. The feedback scheme cannot be directly applied here. This is because with multiple APs, we need to know to which AP to feed back. However, this is the outcome of the AP selection problem which requires the channel information being estimated.
The LML method only estimates the AoA. First, consider the following [single-path]{} model where the signal in the $(p,q)$-th slot is hypothesized to be transmitted through a single-path channel with gain $\beta_q$ and AoA $\boldsymbol{\theta}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:hch_lml}
\hat{y}_{p,q} = \beta_q\mathbf{w}_p^H\mathbf{u}({\boldsymbol{\theta}}) x_{q} + \tilde{n}_{p,q},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta_q=\alpha\mathbf{a}^H({\boldsymbol{\phi}})\mathbf{f}_{q}$ incorporates both path loss and beamforming gain during the $P$ time slots when the APs use the $q$-th precoders $\{\mathbf{f}_{l,q}\}_{1\leq l\leq L}$. For another period of $P$ time slots where the APs use the $q'$-th precoder, the received signals are hypothesized to be transmitted through another channel with a different gain $\beta_{q'}$ (due to the different precoder) but the same AoA $\boldsymbol{\theta}$. Conditioned on $\beta_1,\beta_2,\dots,\beta_Q$, and $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, the received signal is multivariate normal.
The LML method solves the following problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lml_first}
\underset{\boldsymbol{\theta},\beta_1,\beta_2,\dots,\beta_Q}{\text{maximize}}\quad f_{\hat{y}_{1,1},\dots,\hat{y}_{P,Q}}(\mathbf{Y}|\boldsymbol{\theta},\beta_1,\beta_2,\dots,\beta_Q).
\end{aligned}$$ [There is a closed-form solution for $\beta_q$, which depends on $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, $\mathbf{w}$, and $\mathbf{Y}$. Substituting in , we then wish to]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lml}
\underset{\boldsymbol{\theta}}{\text{maximize}} \quad {\|\mathbf{b}^H({\boldsymbol{\theta}})\mathbf{Y}\|^2}/{\|\mathbf{b}({\boldsymbol{\theta}})\|^2},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{b}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\in \mathbb{C}^{P}$ is a vector with the $p$-th element $b_p(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = \mathbf{w}_p^H\mathbf{u}({\boldsymbol{\theta}})$. Note that only the receiver’s local combining vectors $\{\mathbf{w}_p\}$ are required to calculate .
FFT calculation of decision statistic {#sec:FFT}
-------------------------------------
In this section, we show that with uniform arrays (UPA or ULA) defined in Section \[sec:channelModel\], the decision statistics in and can be efficiently computed with FFTs. This is based on the observation that the antenna response functions for uniform arrays in are composed of DFT-type vectors. This method works for arbitrary training beams.
For simplicity, we drop the AP index $l$, and write the numerator in as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split} \label{eq:2dfft}
\text{Tr}(\mathbf{Z}^H({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\phi}})\mathbf{Y}) &= \sum_{p=1}^{P}\sum_{q=1}^{Q} \mathbf{u}^H({\boldsymbol{\theta}})\mathbf{w}_p\mathbf{f}_q^H \mathbf{a}({\boldsymbol{\phi}})y_{p,q} \\
&= \mathbf{u}^H({\boldsymbol{\theta}})\left({\sum_{p=1}^{P}\sum_{q=1}^{Q} \mathbf{w}_p\mathbf{f}_q^Hy_{p,q}}\right) \mathbf{a}({\boldsymbol{\phi}}),
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ and the numerator in as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1dfft}
\|\mathbf{b}^H({\boldsymbol{\theta}})\mathbf{Y}\|^2 = \sum_{q=1}^Q \left| \sum_{p=1}^{P} \mathbf{u}^H({\boldsymbol{\theta}})\mathbf{w}_p y_{p,q} \right|^2= \sum_{q=1}^Q \left|\mathbf{u}^H({\boldsymbol{\theta}})\boldsymbol{\lambda}_q\right|^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where the $JM$-dimensional vector $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_q= \sum_{p=1}^{P}\mathbf{w}_p y_{p,q}$.
First, consider the case where ULA is used and the antenna spacing between sub-arrays is the same as the antenna spacing within a sub-array, that is, $u=Md$. Then the antenna response vector can be written as $\mathbf{u}(\theta) = \mathbf{e}(\vartheta;JM) $ with $\vartheta= 2\pi d \sin(\theta)f_c/c$. Since the vector $\mathbf{e}(\vartheta;JM)$ is a DFT vector, each summation term $\mathbf{u}^H({\boldsymbol{\theta}})\boldsymbol{\lambda}_q$ in is tantamount to a $JM$-point DFT of the vector $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_q$ evaluated at frequency $\vartheta$. This motivates the use of FFT to reduce the computational complexity. By performing a $C$-point FFT on $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$, where $C$ is a power of two, we can jointly obtain the statistics at $C$ angles evenly dividing the full circle. For the case $JM<C$, we with $C-JM$ zeros and perform a $C$-point FFT on the augmented vector. With sufficiently high quantization resolution $C$, this method guarantees a solution arbitrarily close to the global optimum. Similarly, the vectors $\mathbf{a}({\boldsymbol{\phi}})$ and $\mathbf{u}({\boldsymbol{\theta}})$ in are also DFT vectors, and we can use a 2D-FFT to calculate the decision statistic.
Next, consider the general case where either ULAs or UPAs defined in are used. Let $\tilde{\mathbf{W}}_p\in\mathbb{C}^{M\times J}$ be a matrix taking every $M$ consecutive elements of $\mathbf{w}_p$ as a column, and let $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_q = \sum_{p=1}^Py_{p,q}\tilde{\mathbf{W}}_p$. Using the fact that $\text{vec}(\mathbf{ABC}) = (\mathbf{C}^H\otimes\mathbf{A})\text{vec}(\mathbf{B})$, we can rewrite each summation term $\mathbf{u}^H({\boldsymbol{\theta}})\boldsymbol{\lambda}_q$ in as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2dfft_general}
\mathbf{u}^H(\boldsymbol{\theta})\boldsymbol{\lambda}_q &= \left(\mathbf{e}^H(\vartheta_1;J)\otimes \mathbf{e}^H(\vartheta_2;M)\right)\boldsymbol{\lambda}_q \\
&= \mathbf{e}^H(\vartheta_2;M) \boldsymbol{\Lambda}_q \mathbf{e}(\vartheta_1;J).
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\mathbf{e}(\vartheta_1;J)$ and $\mathbf{e}(\vartheta_2;M)$ are DFT vectors, we can use a 2D-FFT to calculate . Hence, can be calculated with 2D-FFTs (azimuth and elevation AoAs) and can be calculated with 4D-FFTs (azimuth and elevation AoAs and AoDs).
The denominators in and can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathbf{Z}({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\phi}})\|_F^2 = \sum_{p=1}^{P}\sum_{q=1}^{Q} |\mathbf{a}^H(\boldsymbol{\phi}) \mathbf{f}_q\mathbf{w}_p^H\mathbf{u}(\boldsymbol{\theta})|^2,
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathbf{b}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\|^2 = \sum_{p=1}^{P} |\mathbf{u}^H(\boldsymbol{\theta})\mathbf{w}_p|^2,
\end{aligned}$$ which can be calculated using FFTs as well. Since these are independent of the instantaneous observation $\mathbf{Y}$, each receiver can compute it offline. Note that if beam sweeping is implemented using a standard DFT codebook, then $\|\mathbf{Z}(\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{\phi})\|_F^2$ and $\|\mathbf{b}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\|^2 $ are the same for all $(\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{\phi})$ and $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, and can thus be removed from and .
The complexity of the FFT implementation is $O(C\log C)$, while direct calculation has complexity $O(CJM)$. The FFTs could be calculated with dedicated hardware modules [@son2002highspeed].
Performance Analysis {#sec:ana}
--------------------
In this section, we present some insights into the MP and ML estimation. For simplicity and analytical tractability, we assume each AP (or mobile) uses ULA. We also assume beam sweeping for signaling, where both the beamforming and combining vectors are sampled from a DFT codebook. We take downlink signaling as an example and focus on a particular mobile. In contrast to [@bai2015coverage], where an ideally sectored beam pattern is assumed, we consider a practical beam pattern having a main lobe and sidelobes.
Given a fixed total number of pilot symbols $\Omega=IPQ$, a question is whether to assign a different beam to each pilot, or to repeat pilots across a smaller set of beams. That is, the estimated directions are chosen from the $PQ$ combination of swept beams and increasing the number of sweep directions increases estimation resolution. On the other hand, repeating pilots $(I>1)$ for each beam direction suppresses noise. For MP, there is a non-trivial tradeoff between these two effects.
[In contrast, we show that there is no such a tradeoff for ML in the following proposition]{}.
[For ML estimation with ULA and beam sweeping, if the number of training beams satisfies $P\geq \bar{M}$ and $Q\geq \bar{N}$ where $\bar{M}$ and $\bar{N}$ are the number of antennas used for training, then the estimation error only depends on the total amount of training $\Omega=IPQ$. ]{}
[With beam sweeping, if the AP uses $\bar{N}$ antennas for training, then it needs to sweep at least $\bar{N}$ directions to cover the whole space. Therefore, the sweep directions need to be $Q\geq \bar{N}$. Similarly, for a mobile, we need $P\geq \bar{M}$. Let $\boldsymbol{\psi}=(\boldsymbol{\theta},\boldsymbol{\phi},l)$ denote the parameters to be estimated and $\lambda(\boldsymbol{\psi}) = \omega\text{Tr}(\mathbf{Z}^H({\boldsymbol{\theta}},{\boldsymbol{\phi}},l)\mathbf{Y})$ denote the decision statistics in , where $\omega=\sigma_n\sqrt{I\bar{N}\bar{M}/PQ}$ is a constant normalizing the variance. In that case, the decision statistic $\lambda(\boldsymbol{\psi})$ satisfies]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ml_decision_stats}
\lambda(\boldsymbol{\psi}) \sim \mathcal{CN}\left(\sqrt{\frac{IPQ}{{\bar{N}\bar{M}}}}\sum_{l=1}^L\sum_{s=1}^S\sqrt{\gamma_{s,l}}G({\boldsymbol{\psi}},\boldsymbol{\psi}_{s,l}), 1 \right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_{s,l} = \rho_l|\alpha_{s,l}|^2/\sigma_n^2$ is the received SNR when steering beams along the $s$-th path of the $l$-th AP, and $G({\boldsymbol{\psi}},\boldsymbol{\psi}_{s,l}) = \mathbf{u}^H({\boldsymbol{\theta}})\mathbf{u}({\boldsymbol{\theta}_{s,l}})\mathbf{a}^H({\boldsymbol{\phi}_{s,l}})\mathbf{a}({\boldsymbol{\phi}})$ characterizes the beamforming gain.
For ML, the estimate $\hat{\boldsymbol{\psi}}$ is the $\boldsymbol{\psi}$ that maximizes $|\lambda(\boldsymbol{\psi})|^2$, so the estimation error is uniquely determined by $\lambda(\boldsymbol{\psi})$. [The dependence on $I,P,Q$ enters only through the product $\Omega=IPQ$, hence the probability of selecting an incorrect beam pair depends only on this total amount of training $\Omega$.]{}
[.95]{} ![Received SNR of ML estimation after training. Dashed lines show the normal approximation for the probability of aligning with the second path (blue) and third path (red).[]{data-label="fig:linkAna_simu"}](3path_cdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"} \[fig:mpath\]
Next, we show the performance of ML with multiple paths. We simulate a point-to-point three-path channel where the second and third paths are 3 dB and 5 dB weaker than the main path, respectively. Fig. \[fig:linkAna\_simu\] shows the distribution of post-training SNR, which is the received SNR when steering beams to estimate directions $\hat{\gamma} =| \mathbf{u}^H(\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}})\mathbf{H}\mathbf{a}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\phi}}) |^2$. The training time is $IPQ=NMJ^2$. Results for different SNRs are presented.
[Fig. \[fig:linkAna\_simu\] shows that at high SNRs the distribution is approximately exponential. At lower SNRs, the distribution is a piece-wise function. This is because the estimated directions are mis-matched around the second or third path, instead of the strongest path. We can approximate the probability of choosing the direction around the $s$-th path as $\Pr(\hat{\boldsymbol{\psi}}=\boldsymbol{\psi}_s) \approx \Pr(\lambda(\boldsymbol{\psi_s})>\lambda(\boldsymbol{\psi_1})) \approx Q\left(\frac{\sqrt{\gamma_\text{max}}-\sqrt{\gamma_{s}} }{\sqrt{NMJ^2/IPQ}}\right)$, where $\gamma_\text{max}$ is the received SNR when aligned to the strongest path and $Q(\cdot)$ is the standard normal cumulative density function (CDF). In Fig. \[fig:linkAna\_simu\], this approximation is shown with dashed lines. Even for a single-path channel, when the training SNR is low, sidelobes can produce a similar effect as secondary paths. To achieve a target error probability, the training SNR should be sufficiently high to mitigate the effect of secondary paths and sidelobes.]{}
How much training is needed? {#sec:sys}
============================
In this section, we consider the problem of maximizing the system throughput by optimizing the key parameters of the protocol presented in Section \[sec:access-protocol\]. Recall the frame structure in Fig. \[fig:frame\], where we assume the overhead due to handshaking and beam tracking is negligible. The optimization variables include the frame length $T_\text{frame}$, initial access duration $T_\text{IA}$, and downlink/uplink pilot slot duration $T_\text{slot}$ in the initial access subframe.
Blockage Model
--------------
Due to the movement of a mobile and surrounding objects, its transmission path could be frequently blocked [@maccartney2017rapid]. When this occurs, initial access is required for discovering another path and re-establishing a connection. We consider a two-state Markov blockage model as in [@maccartney2017rapid], where the probability of blockage is $\delta$. Since blockages are usually caused by nearby pedestrians or other objects, which can be modeled as a Poisson process, we assume the duration of a is an exponential random variable with . We further define the data transmission time as $T_\text{data} = \max\{\min\left\{T_\text{path}, T_\text{frame}\right\} - T_\text{IA},0\},$ which is a non-negative random variable with expectation $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[T_\text{data}] = ({e^{-\delta T_\text{IA}} - e^{-\delta T_\text{frame}}})/{\delta}.
\end{aligned}$$
Throughput Optimization
-----------------------
We consider the problem of maximizing the long-term throughput with respect to $T_\text{IA}$, $T_\text{frame}$, and $T_\text{slot}$. A longer training time $T_\text{IA}$ reduces the training error and increases the data rate; however, this increases overhead. On the other hand, a longer frame length $T_\text{frame}$ reduces training overhead, but a transmission is more likely to be blocked within a frame, leaving the rest of the frame empty. So there exists a design tradeoff for those parameters.
We assume each time slot in the initial access subframe has a single training symbol with bandwidth $B_\text{tr}$. Adjacent slots are separated by a guard interval of length $\tau$, so the slot duration is $T_\text{slot}=\tau+1/B_\text{tr}$. Assuming beam sweeping and ML estimation, the optimization problem is
&\_[,,]{},\
& +1/B\_ T\_ \[c1\],\
& T\_B\_ NMJ\^2 \[c2\],\
& T\_ T\_ T\_ \[c3\],
where [$\gamma$ is the SINR for data transmission using the estimated beams,]{} $T_\text{switch}$ is the minimum beam switching time due to hardware implementation of phase shifters [@sadhu2017phasearray], and $T_\text{max}$ is the maximum frame length given by latency requirements. The expectation is over training error (caused by noise $\mathbf{n}$), random blockage $\delta$, and channel realization $\mathbf{h}$. To cover all spatial directions with sweeping, constrains the number of training beams to be at least the number of antennas. For very-large antenna arrays (hundreds of antennas), we propose to use a subset of antennas for training, but all antennas for data transmission. However, if compressive sensing (random beamforming) is used for signaling, then can be removed.
The received [SINR]{} depends on $T_\text{IA}$ and $B_\text{tr}$ and is independent of both random blockage $\delta$ and $T_\text{frame}$. Also, $T_\text{data}$ is independent of the training error. So, the expectation can be decoupled and the problem becomes
\[problem:ovhd\]
& \_[0]{}\^ (1+ x) dF\_X(x),\
& , , ,
where [$F_X(x)$ is the CDF of the data transmission SINR]{}. Since obtaining an analytical expression for $F_X(x)$ is difficult, we propose to evaluate it through the Monte Carlo method.
[To solve , we first observe that the optimal value for $B_\text{tr}$ is $1/(T_\text{switch}-\tau)$ for all $T_\text{IA},T_\text{frame}$. The reason is that the integral in the objective only depends on the product $T_\text{IA}B_\text{tr}$, and the first term in the objective increases when $T_\text{IA}$ decreases. Hence, for fixed $T_\text{IA}B_\text{tr}$, we should make $B_\text{tr}$ as large as possible, which is the upper bound $1/(T_\text{switch}-\tau)$. Next, with $T_\text{IA}$ fixed, the objective is a concave function of $T_\text{frame}$. Although there is no closed-form solution, we can solve for $T_\text{frame}$ numerically with gradient descent. Finally, because $T_\text{IA}$ is determined by the number of pilots transmitted, it is a discrete variable in a finite set and can be optimized by exhaustive search. For the examples considered, we observe that solving $T_\text{IA}$ with gradient descent also gives the optimal solution. This is because the objective appears to be concave over $T_\text{IA}$, so the problem is quasi-concave. However, concavity over $T_\text{IA}$ cannot be proved because there is no explicit expression for SINR as a function of $T_\text{IA}$.]{}
Performance Evaluation {#sec:simu}
======================
Training codebooks
------------------
We first compare the link-level performance of different training codebooks. We consider a network with 3 APs and 100 mobile devices. The three APs are arranged in a triangle with inter-AP distance 250 m. The mobiles are randomly dropped within the polyhedron with the minimum distance to an AP of 15 m. We use the 3GPP Urban Micro (UMi) path loss model with the carrier frequency of 28 GHz [@3gpp-38-900]. We assume each AP and mobile is equipped with a ULA with $N=M=16$ antennas and $J=2$ sub-arrays. The distance between adjacent sub-arrays is the same as the antenna element spacing within a sub-array, which is half of the carrier wavelength. The bandwidth for each narrow band training signal is 250 kHz, the minimum beam switching time is 4 $\mu s$, and the slot length is 8 $\mu s$. The training powers of APs and mobiles are 20 dBm and 15 dBm, respectively.
![Example beam patterns with different signaling methods for a ULA with 16 antennas. []{data-label="fig:beamPattern"}](beamPattern){width=".95\linewidth"}
We simulate the following [training codebooks]{} which differ in the type of beamforming/combining vectors $\mathbf{f},\mathbf{w},\mathbf{g}$ used in downlink and uplink signaling. With *full sweeping*, the training signals are sent/received with DFT beams using all the antennas. With *single-RF sweeping*, only one sub-array is activated for training, and as a result, the beams are wider with a DFT codebook. With *adaptive sweeping*, the number of activated antennas is proportional to the number of search directions. For example, with $Q$ search directions at an AP, the first $\min(Q,NJ)$ antennas are activated. *Cross sweeping* [@abari2016millimeter] is an alternative design of wide beams. The first half and second half of the antennas point to two orthogonal directions. *Random beamforming* [@marzi2016compressive] is motivated by compressive sensing. The phase of each phase shifter is chosen randomly, and the resulting beam is omni-directional with random gains. For all of these schemes, the total transmission power is the same, and is equally split over all active antennas.
Fig. \[fig:beamPattern\] shows an example of beam patterns corresponding to the different [training codebooks]{}. It shows the magnitude of the inner product of the precoder $\mathbf{f}$ and an antennas response vector $\mathbf{a}(\theta)$ for $\theta$ in $[0,2\pi]$. The plot is symmetric about $\pm\pi/2$ because $\mathbf{a}(\theta)$ is determined by $\sin(\theta)$ instead of $\theta$ as in .
[.475]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[.475]{} {width="\linewidth"}
The performance of different codebooks are shown in Fig. \[fig:16ant\] and Fig. \[fig:64ant\]. We focus on a typical mobile and use the ML method for channel estimation with an FFT size . The post-training SNR is obtained by steering beams at both the AP and the mobile towards the estimated beamforming direction, using *all* antennas, i.e., $\hat{\gamma} =| \mathbf{u}^H(\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}})\mathbf{H}\mathbf{a}(\hat{\boldsymbol{\phi}}) |^2$. [There are $16$ antennas at a mobile. We show two examples with $16$ and $64$ antennas at an AP.]{}
The simulation results indicate that, among the codebooks considered, *adaptive sweeping* performs best regardless of training time or antenna array size. Random beamforming generally needs more antennas and training time to achieve comparable performance. In either scenario, sweeping with all antennas does not perform well because with limited training, the narrow beams cannot cover all the spatial directions. By comparison, employing wider beams (either through single-RF sweeping or cross sweeping) improves performance when the training is limited. [Increasing the number of antennas at the APs improves the relative performance of random beamforming but does not significantly affect the other schemes. Also, the training overhead with adaptive sweeping increases only slightly with more antennas.]{}
Estimation Methods
------------------
[.475]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[.475]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[Next, we compare the performance of different channel estimation methods discussed in Section \[sec:est-method\] with the same training codebook. Adaptive beam sweeping is used and the number of search directions (codebook size) at an AP/mobile is $\sqrt{\Omega}$, $\Omega$ being the number of pilots.]{} We simulate two scenarios with AP power budgets 17 dBm and 20 dBm. The results are shown in Figs. \[fig:bfGain\_22\] and \[fig:bfGain\_25\]. The *optimal DFT* algorithm takes a 2-D DFT of the channel matrix and selects the angles (AoA and AoD) with the largest magnitude. This is the maximum received SNR that can be obtained using beam steering. The ML and LML methods both perform uniformly better than the MP. With increasing number of training pilots, the performance of both methods approaches the global optimum, whereas the MP method has a performance loss due to the quantization of training beams. [Fig. \[fig:bfGain\_22\] includes ML with an FFT size of 32 and shows that ML can achieve the same estimation accuracy of MP with much less training.]{} There is little gap between the ML and LML results, so the analysis of ML in Section \[sec:ana\] also gives an accurate estimate of the performance of LML. Comparing the ML curves in Figs. \[fig:bfGain\_22\] and \[fig:bfGain\_25\], to achieve an SNR within $1$ dB of the upper bound, the required training time in Fig. \[fig:bfGain\_22\] is about twice that shown in Fig. \[fig:bfGain\_25\]. Since the power difference between the two figures is 3 dB, this is consistent with the decision statistic in where doubling the training time effectively doubles the power.
![Averaged post-training SNR for the ML method with different FFT sizes.[]{data-label="fig:fftSize"}](fft_num){width=".95\linewidth"}
Fig. \[fig:fftSize\] compares the performance of the ML method with varying FFT sizes. The results show that near-optimal performance can be obtained with a moderate FFT size of $64$. If the antenna array is very large and the beams used for data transmission are very narrow, a larger FFT size might be desired to increase resolution.
Campus Scenario
---------------
In this section, we show results corresponding to a scenario in which mmWave APs are deployed on a college campus. Geographic information about buildings and roads for the Evanston campus of Northwestern University (Evanston, Illinois) are obtained from OpenStreetMap [@OpenStreetMap]. The map and the abstraction are shown in Fig. \[fig:sim\_map\]. We generate the urban micro (UMi) scenario in NYUSIM [@sun2017nyusim] with default environmental parameters. We place 10 APs in a hexagonal topology with inter-AP distance of approximately 200 m. The APs are assumed to be on the top of buildings with antenna height of 10 m. Mobiles are uniformly distributed on the roads with moving speed of 3 km/h. The antenna height at a mobile is 1.5 m. [Each AP has 32 ULA antennas and each mobile has 16 ULA antennas.]{}
At mmWave frequencies, propagation paths can be easily blocked by trees or other pedestrians. We simulate those effects by randomly placing 2,000 small blockages in the system with size Based on actual geographical locations of APs and mobiles, the channels are line-of-sight (LoS) if there is no blockage (buildings or small obstacles) between the transmitter and receiver; and otherwise are non-line-of-sight (NLoS). There is a LoS path and multiple NLoS paths in a LoS channel; the NLoS channels only contains multiple NLoS paths. The AoA, AoD, and delay of a LoS path are calculated based on the geographic locations of the AP and mobile. For all NLoS paths (of both LoS channels and NLoS channels), we assume their AoAs, AoDs, and phase delay are uniformly distributed in $[0,2\pi]$ for simplicity.
![Campus simulation map showing AP locations and obstructions.[]{data-label="fig:sim_map"}](nu_map){width=".9\linewidth"}
For beam training, we use adaptive sweeping with LML estimation. The data transmission uses a total bandwidth of 100 MHz, which is further divided into 10 sub-bands with 10 MHz each. Beam steering is used for data transmission where the coefficients of beamforming and combining vectors are adjusted to the transmission frequency using estimated angles. Frequency division multiplexing (FDM) controls inter-user interference during data transmission. Specifically, mobiles served by the same AP are sorted according to their estimated AoDs and are assigned frequency slots in round-robin fashion. Mobiles with similar AoDs are assigned to different frequencies to reduce mutual interference. At the receiver, the maximum data receiving SINR is capped at 30 dB (in part due to quantization errors).
[.475]{} ![Optimal training overhead.[]{data-label="fig:detail"}](ovhd100 "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.475]{} ![Optimal training overhead.[]{data-label="fig:detail"}](ovhd20 "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
We compute the optimal training overhead for the whole system by solving problem . Fig. \[fig:detail\] shows how the optimized training overhead varies with the number of mobiles and the blocking rate. Since the time until an LoS path is blocked is typically more than a hundred milliseconds, which is larger than the frame length, we only consider blockage of NLoS paths. Different colors indicate different overhead levels listed in the colorbar. The Fig. \[fig:time\] shows results for the scenario with maximum frame length 100 ms. With a moderate number of mobiles and blocking rate, the training overhead is around $5\%$; in extreme cases with very large number of mobiles and high blocking rate, it could exceed $10 \%$. In Fig. \[fig:tr\], we show the results with maximum frame length of $20$ ms. The training overhead, in this case, is similar to the 100-ms case when the blocking rate is high, whereas the overhead is substantially higher than the 100-ms case when the blocking rate is low. This is because the optimal frame length at low-blockage scenarios reaches the 20 ms constraint, so the training is initiated more often than necessary. A simple modification to address this issue is to let only mobiles that are blocked in the previous frame join the initial access process. This blockage occurrence can be readily detected in beam tracking phases. For mobiles that are not blocked, the APs can continue to transmit data with previously estimated beamformers.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
In this paper, we have investigated the design and analysis of a mmWave network consisting of multiple APs and mobiles. We have proposed a narrowband training protocol along with different codebooks and estimation methods for beam acquisition. Simulation results indicate that adaptive sweeping with LML estimation achieves the best performance with moderate complexity. Campus scenario simulation shows that the training overhead with the proposed scheme is typically around $5\%$ and may exceed $10\%$ in a high-mobility environment or with high network loads.
[^1]: The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208 USA (email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]).
[^2]: The work was presented in part at Asilomar 2018 [@hao2018initialaccess]. This work was supported in part by a gift from Futurewei Technologies.
[^3]: [Those could be assigned via a control channel for cellular systems.]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by recent experimental results for the step sizes of dynein motor proteins, we develope a cellular automata model for intra-cellular traffic of dynein motors incorporating special features of the hindrance-dependent step size of the individual motors. We begin by investigating the properties of the aggressive driving model (ADM), a simple cellular automata-based model of vehicular traffic, a unique feature of which is that it allows a natural extension to capture the essential features of dynein motor traffic. We first calculate several collective properties of the ADM, under both periodic and open boundary conditions, analytically using two different mean-field approaches as well as by carrying out computer simulations. Then we extend the ADM by incorporating the possibilities of attachment and detachment of motors on the track which is a common feature of a large class of motor proteins that are collectively referred to as cytoskeletal motors. The interplay of the boundary and bulk dynamics of attachment and detachment of the motors to the track gives rise a phase where high and low density phases separated by a stable domain wall coexist. We also compare and contrast our results with the model of Parmeggiani et. al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 086601 (2003)) which can be regarded as a minimal model for traffic of a closely related family of motor proteins called kinesin. Finally, we compare the transportation efficiencies of dynein and kinesin motors over a range of values of the model parameters.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur 208016, India'
- 'Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität zu Köln, Zülpicher Str. 77, D-50937 Köln, Germany'
author:
- 'Ambarish Kunwar, Andreas Schadschneider, and Debashish Chowdhury'
title: From aggressive driving to molecular motor traffic
---
Introduction
============
Molecular motors are protein molecules that drive a wide range of intra-cellular activities including transport of molecular cargo [@schliwa; @howard]. There are many similarities between collective molecular motor transport and vehicular traffic [@reviews; @physica]. In recent years non-equilibrium statistical mechanics has found unusual application in research on traffic flow of various different types of objects starting from objects as small as molecular motors to macroscopic objects like vehicles [@debch1; @debch2; @reviews; @physica]. Analytical as well as numerical techniques of the statistical physics are being used to understand rich variety of physical phenomena exhibited by traffic systems. Some of these phenomena, observed under different circumstances, include phase transitions, criticality and self-organized criticality, metastability and hysteresis, phase-segregation,etc.
A common modeling strategy is to represent the motile objects (e.g., a vehicle or a molecular motor) by a self-propelled particle, ignoring its structural details, and then treating the traffic as a system of interacting particles driven far from equilibrium. These models belong to a class of non-equilibrium systems called [*driven-diffusive lattice gases*]{} [@zia; @schutz; @priv; @marro]. In most of these traffic models the dynamics of the particles is formulated using the language of [*cellular automata*]{} (CA) [@wolfram].
To our knowledge, the first model for molecular motor traffic was formulated in 1968 in the context of collective movement of ribosomes on messenger RNA track [@macdonald68; @macdonald69]. In recent years several groups have independently developed a class of minimal generic models for traffic of molecular motors which move on tracks that are filamentary proteins. All these models are essentially extensions of the totally asymmetric simple exclusion process (TASEP) [@derrida; @zia] which is one of the simplest models of driven diffusive lattice gas systems. In these models [@frey; @frey2; @lipo1; @lipo2; @santen; @popkov] the molecular motors are represented by particles whereas the sites for the binding of the motors with the tracks are represented by a one-dimensional discrete lattice. Just as in TASEP, the motors are allowed to hop forward, with probability $q$, provided the site in front is empty. However, unlike TASEP, the particles can also get “attached” to an empty lattice site, with probability $ \omega_A$, and “detached” from an occupied site, with probability $\omega_D$ from any site except the end points. Parmeggiani et al. [@frey] demonstrated a novel phase where low and high density regimes, separated from each other by domain walls, coexist. They interpreted this spatial organization as traffic jam of molecular motors.
None of the models of molecular motor traffic mentioned above distinguish between kinesins and dyneins which form the two superfamilies of motor proteins that move on the same type of tracks, namely, microtubules. On the other hand, detailed experiments over the last two years have established that, in contrast to kinesins, dyneins can take steps of four different sizes depending on the opposing force or hindrance. One of the aims of this paper is to introduce a minimal model that distinguishes between these two features of kinesin and dynein motors.
In this paper we begin by investigating the aggressive driving model (ADM), a stochastic CA model for traffic flow [^1] that is closely related to the Nagel-Schreckenberg (NaSch) model [@nagel; @ito1]. One of the reasons for studying this model is that it allows natural extensions so as to capture the essential features of dynein motor traffic including the unique features of dynein stepping (which we shall explain in section \[dyneinexperiment\]). Besides, the ADM model is an interesting model of vehicular traffic in its own right and is also related to the Fukui-Ishibashi (FI) model [@fi]. However, in contrast to the FI model, it still shows spontaneous jam formation. We investigate the properties of the ADM by approximate analytical calculations as well as by computer simulations. Then, we use an extended version, which we refer to as the dynein traffic model (DTM), for a quantitative desciption of intra-cellular traffic of dynein motors.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we describe the ADM and the method of simulation. In section \[sec3\] we investigate the properties of the ADM with periodic boundary conditions and we describe the analytical theories for calculating its flow properties. We present a comparison of the ADM with NaSch model at the end of section \[sec3\]. In section \[sec4\] we investigate the density profiles and phase diagram of the ADM with open boundary conditions. In section \[sec5\] we describe the experimentally observed hindrance-dependence of the step sizes of dynein motors and introduce the dynein traffic model (DTM). We present the results for the DTM with periodic boundary conditions in section \[sec6\] and those under open boundary conditions in section \[sec7\]. Finally we summarize the main results and the conclusions in section \[sec8\].
The CA Model of Aggressive Driving {#sec2}
==================================
In the cellular automata model of aggressive driving a lane is represented by a one-dimensional lattice. The boundary conditions may be periodic or open. Each of the lattice sites represents a cell that can be either empty or occupied by at most one vehicle at a time. The speed $V$ of each vehicle can take one of the allowed integer values $V=0,1,2,....V_{\rm max}$. Let $x_{n}$ and $V_{n}$ be the position and speed, respectively, of the $n$th vehicle. Then we define the (distance) headway of the $n$th vehicle at time $t$ by $d_{n} = x_{n+1}-x_{n}-1$, i.e. as the number of empty cells in front of this car. At each time step $t
\rightarrow t+1$ the state of all vehicles on this 1-D lattice is updated in [*parallel*]{} according to the following rules:\
$I$: [*Acceleration:*]{} If $d_{n} \ge V_{\rm max}$ then $V_{n}
\rightarrow V_{\rm max}$ and if $d_{n} < V_{\rm max}$ then $V_{n}
\rightarrow d_{n}$, that is, $V_{n} = \min(V_{\rm max},d_{n})$\
$II$:[*Randomization:*]{} If $V_{n} > 0$, the speed of the $n$th vehicle is decreased randomly by one with probability $p$; that is, $V_{n}=\max(V_{n}-1,0)$ with probability $p$\
$III$:[*Vehicle movement:*]{} Each vehicle is moved forward so that $x_{n}
\rightarrow x_{n}+V_{n}$.\
Step $I$ reflects the tendency of drivers to drive the vehicle as fast possible, without exceeding the maximum speed of the vehicle, and avoiding accidents between vehicles at the same time. Thus, if there is enough gap in front, vehicles in this model can accelerate to the maximum allowed velocity within one single timestep.This captures at least one type of aggressive driving and hence the name. The randomization in the step $II$ takes into account the different behavioral patterns of the individual drivers, especially non-deterministic acceleration and over-reaction while slowing down.
As usual, the [*flux*]{} is defined to be the number of vehicles crossing a detector site per unit time. In the context of vehicular traffic, the most important quantity of interest is the so-called [*fundamental diagram*]{} which depicts the dependence of flux on the density of vehicles. The number of empty sites in between a pair of vehicles is usually taken as a measure of the corresponding [ *distance-headway*]{}. The [*time-headway*]{} is defined as the time interval between the passage of two successive vehicles recorded by a detector placed at a fixed position on the highway. We have calculated all these characteristic quantities for the ADM and will present these results in the following sections.
Before presenting the results for the ADM, we would like to compare and contrast it with a few other well known models of vehicular traffic. In the NaSch model, the calculation of the speed of a vehicle at the next time step ($t+1$) during the acceleration stage requires the knowledge of its speed at previous time step $t$ and its speed after the deceleration stage depends on the available headway in front of it, whereas, in the aggressive driving model the calculation of the speed of a vehicle at next time step does not require any knowledge of its velocity at previous time step and depends only on the available headway in front of the vehicle. In contrast to the NaSch model it therefore has no velocity memory. From now onwards, we shall refer to this model as aggressive driving model (ADM).
This ADM differs from the Fukui-Ishibashi (FI) model [@fi] at Step $II$ of the updating procedure. In the FI model the randomization is applied only to those vehicles whose final velocities become $V_{\rm max}$ after the acceleration stage and, therefore, the FI model is unrealistic for normal traffic. Consequently, the FI model fails to capture overreactions at braking which are responsible for spontaneous jam formation (see e.g. [@altenberg]).
Results for ADM with periodic boundary conditions {#sec3}
=================================================
Numerical results of computer simulations
-----------------------------------------
In the special case $V_{\rm max}=1$, the ADM reduces to NaSch model [@nagel] with $V_{\rm max}=1$. In this limit the fundamental diagram is given by exact expression [@ito1] $$J= \frac{1}{2} \Big[ 1- \sqrt {1-4(1-p)c(1-c)} \Big ].$$ The symmetry about $c_{*}=1/2$ in this fundamental diagram breaks down for all $V_{\rm max} > 1$. Fig. \[fig-2\] shows the fundamental diagram of the ADM for different values of $V_{\rm max}$ for fixed $p=0.25$ and $p=0.75$. Fig. \[fig-3\](a) and Fig. \[fig-3\](b), show variation of flux and average speed, respectively, with $c$ for different values of the braking probability $p$ for fixed $V_{\rm max}=3$.
\(a) (b)
\(a) (b)
For $V_{\rm max}=1$, the fundamental diagram of ADM has a perfect particle-hole symmetry with a flow maximum at $c=0.5$. However, as in the NaSch model, this particle-hole symmetry breaks down for all $V_{\rm max}
> 1$ and the maximum shifts to lower densities with increasing $V_{\rm
max}$. The system remains in the [*free-flow*]{} regime for densities on the left side of this maximum where the flux increases with increasing density. The densities on the right hand side of this maximum correspond to [*congested flow*]{} regime where flux starts decreasing with increasing density and finally vanishes at $c=1$. For a given $V_{\rm max}$, the maximum value of the flux starts decreasing with increasing braking probability $p$. The fundamental diagram of the ADM shows unusual behavior in the deterministic limit $p=1$ where the flux vanishes at $c=0.5$ for all $V_{\rm max} > 1$. The reason for this unusual behavior will be explained in the following sections.
The [*distance headway*]{} is usually defined as the distance from a selected point on a vehicle to the same point on the corresponding lead vehicle (i.e., the next vehicle downstream). Since in our model all vehicles have the same length we can use the number $d_n$ of empty cells in front of vehicle $n$ as a measure of the headway. In Fig. \[fig-5\](a) we have shown the distribution $P_{n}$ of the distance headway in ADM obtained from simulations.
At low densities the distance headway distribution shows a broad peak near $n = V_{\rm max}$. This corresponds to the free-flow regime where the cars are distributed almost homogeneously. In contrast, at higher densities the peak in the distribution occurs at a smaller distance headway. In fact, the most probable distance headway decreases with increasing density. Finally, at sufficiently high densities, the maximum of the probability distribution occurs only at $n=0$. Thus, with increase of vehicle density, the compact cluster of jammed vehicles becomes larger while large headways are strongly surpressed.
\(a) (b)
The time headway distribution is determined by (a) the time interval between the departure from one site and arrival at the next site and (b) the waiting time at a given site; the latter depends not only on the hindrance from the vehicle in front but also on the randomization parameter $p$. Equivalently, the time-headway depends not only on the spatial distance-headway but also on the velocity of the vehicles.
A few typical time headway distributions $P(\tau)$ in ADM are shown in Fig. \[fig-5\](b) for a few different densities of the vehicles. At sufficiently low densities it shows a peak at $\tau=2$ as, because of the [*parallel*]{} updating scheme, minimum two time steps must elapse between the arrival of a vehicle at two successive sites even when it moves totally unhindred by any other vehicle. Since mean time headway is the inverse of the flux, it is expected to exhibit a minimum when plotted against the density. The trend of variation of the most probable time headway with increasing density is also similar, as can be seen also in Fig. \[fig-5\]. At low densities the peak is rather sharp and it becomes much broader at higher densities. Compared to the corresponding results for the NaSch model [@Gosh], large headways are surpressed in the ADM; this is caused by the possibility of large acceleration whereas in the NaSch only allowed acceleration is unity. The broader distribution at higher densities arises from the longer waiting times at each site which is caused by the hindrance from the vehicle immediately in front.
Numerical and Exact Analytical Results for ADM in Limiting Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
### Deterministic limit $p$=0
This stochastic model becomes deterministic in the limit $p=0$. In this special case, the deterministic update rules of the model can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
V_{n}(t+1) = \min(V_{\rm max},d_{n}) \\
x_{n}(t+1) = x_{n}(t)+ V_{n}(t+1)\end{aligned}$$ which leads to two types of steady states depending on density of vehicles [@herrmann] . At low densities, the system can self-organize so that $ d_{n} \ge V_{\rm max}$ for all $n$ and, therefore every vehicle can move with $V_{\rm max}$, giving rise to the corresponding flux $cV_{\rm max}$. This steady state is, however, possible only if enough empty cells are available in front of every vehicle, i.e., for $c \le c_{*}^{\rm det} = 1/(V_{\rm max}+1)$ and the corresponding maximum flux is $J_{*}^{\rm det} = V_{\rm max}/(V_{\rm
max}+1)$. On the other hand, for $c > c_{*}^{\rm det}$, $d_{n} <
V_{\rm max}$ and, therefore, the relevant steady states are characterized by $V_{n} = d_{n}$, i.e. flow is limited by density of holes. Since the average distance headway is $1/c-1$, the fundamental diagram of the model in the deterministic limit $p=0$ is given by [ *exact*]{} expression $$J = \min[cV_{\rm max},1-c].$$ This is identical to the fundamental diagram of the NaSch model in the deterministic limit, despite the slightly different dynamics.
### Deterministic limit $p=1$
As we discussed earlier in this paper that in the special case $V_{\rm
max}=1$ the ADM reduces to NaSch model with $V_{\rm max} = 1$ and hence in the deterministic limit $p=1$, $J=0$ for all densities $c$ as expected. However, for $V_{\rm max} > 1$, the properties of the ADM with maximum allowed speed $V_{\rm max}$ in the deterministic limit $p=1$ are not exactly identical to those of the same model with maximum allowed speed $V_{\rm max}-1$ and $p=0$. If $V_{\rm max} >
1$, then, for $c \ge 1/2$, all initial states lead to $J=0$ because in the steady state system self-organizes itself in such a way that there is a maximum headway of one lattice site in front of each vehicle and hence speed of all vehicles becomes zero immediately after the randomization step (step $II$ in update rules). However, for $V_{\rm
max} > 1 $ and $p=1$, $J \ne 0$ for all $c < 1/2$. The maximal attainable velocity for every vehicle in this limit becomes $V_{\rm
max}-1$. The fundamental diagram of ADM for $V_{\rm max} > 1 $ in the deterministic limit $p=1$ is given by [*exact*]{} expression\
$$J=
%\begin{cases}
\cases{
\min[c(V_{\rm max}-1),1-2c] & $\text{\ \ for\ } c \le 1/2$ \\
0 & $\text{\ \ for\ } c \ge 1/2$.
}
%\end{cases}$$ This unusual behavior of the ADM is different from the corresponding behaviour in the NaSch model. In the deterministic limit $p=1$ of the NaSch model, irrespective of $V_{\rm max}$ and $c$, all random initial states lead to $J=0$ [@debch2], because a car which has velocity $V=0$ will never move again.
### Limit $V_{\rm max} = \infty $
There are several possible ways of extrapolating to this limit since only finite systems can be treated in computer simulations. We here investigate the case $V_{\rm max}=L$. The fundamental diagram of the model is plotted in Fig. \[fig-6\] for different values of $p$ in this limit. This fundamental diagram has a form quite different from that in the case of finite $V_{\rm max}$. The flow does not vanish in the limit $c \rightarrow 0$ since already one single vehicle produces a finite value of flow, $J(c \rightarrow 0) =1 $. $J(c)$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $c$. Another characteristic feature of this fundamental diagram is the absence of the characteristic plateau which is exhibited by the NaSch model with $V_{\rm max} = \infty$ [@sasvari; @vinfty].
Approximate analytical theories of ADM
--------------------------------------
In this section we will present the site-oriented mean-field (SOMF) and car-oriented mean-field (COMF) approaches for calculating the fundamental diagram of the ADM with periodic boundary conditions following the methods of [@ito1] after a brief review of the earlier works done in this regard.
A SOMF theory was developed earlier for the FI model [@bing]. Starting with a microscopic relation for the updating rule, which describes the occupancy of each site on the lattice, a macroscopic time-evolution relation is obtained for the average speed of the vehicles by carrying out statistical averages. Mean field equations are obtained as the asymptotic limit of the evolution relation. This gives average vehicle speed in the long time limit as a function of the vehicle density.
A COMF theory for the FI model was developed in [@bing1] starting with the basic equations which describe the time evolution of the headway in front of each car. By introducing the concept of inter-car spacing longer and shorter than the maximum attainable velocity $V_{\rm max}$, the average speed of the vehicles has been obtained analytically as a function of car density in the asymptotic limit which corresponds to the steady state.
### Site-oriented Mean-field Theory of ADM
In the SOMF [@ito1] approach, ${c_V}(i,t)$ denotes the probability that there is a vehicle with speed $V = 0,1,2,...{V_{\rm max}}$ at site $i$ at time step $t$. Then, obviously, ${c}(i,t) = \sum_{j=0}^{V_{\rm
max}} {c_j}(i,t)$ is the probability that the site $i$ is occupied by a vehicle at the time step $t$ (irrespective of its speed) and $d(i,t) = 1-c(i,t)$ is the corresponding probability that the site $i$ is empty. Using the definition\
$$J(c,p)= \sum_{V=1}^{V_{\rm max}}V {c_V}$$ for the flux $J(c,p)$ one can determine the mean-field fundamental diagram for the given $p$, provided one can determine $c_V$ in the mean-field approximation.
According to the update rules of the ADM, the time evolutions of the probabilities ${c_V}(i,t)$ are given by the following equations:\
[*Step I:*]{} Acceleration($t \rightarrow {t_1}$) $$\begin{aligned}
{c_0}(i,{t_1})&=&{c}(i,t){c}(i+1,t) \\
%{c_0}(i,{t_1})&=&{c_0}(i,t)+{c_0}(i+1,t) \sum_{V=1}^{V_{\rm max}}{c_v}(i,t)\\
{c_V}(i,{t_1})&=&c(i+V+1,t) \prod_{j=1}^{V} d(i+j,t) c(i,t)
%\sum_{V'=0}^{V_{\rm max}}{c_{v'}}(i,t) \quad
%\hspace{0.5in}
\quad(0 < V < V_{\rm max}) \\
{c_{V_{\rm max}}}(i,{t_1})&=&\prod_{j=1}^{V_{\rm max}} d(i+j,t) c(i,t)
%\sum_{V'=0}^{V_{\rm max}}c_{v'}(i,t) \end{aligned}$$
[*Step II:*]{} Randomization (${t_1} \rightarrow {t_2}$) $$\begin{aligned}
{c_0}(i,{t_2}) &=& {c_0}(i,{t_1}) + p {c_1}(i,{t_1}) \\
{c_V}(i,{t_2}) &=& q{c_V}(i,{t_1}) + p {c_{V+1}}(i,{t_1})\hspace{0.5in}
(0 < V < V_{\rm max}) \\
{c_{V_{\rm max}}}(i,{t_2}) &=& q{c_{V_{\rm max}}}(i,{t_1})\end{aligned}$$
[*Step III:*]{} Movement of vehicles (${t_2} \rightarrow t+1$) $${c_{V}}(i,t+1) = {c_V}(i-V,{t_2}) \hspace{0.5in}(0 \le V
\le V_{\rm max})$$
Recall that ADM with $V_{\rm max} = 1$ is identical to the NaSch model with $V_{\rm max} = 1$. Therefore, for nontrivial results of the ADM one must consider $V_{\rm max} \geq 2$. For $V_{\rm max}=2$, the full SOMF equations read (with $q=1-p$)\
\
$$\begin{aligned}
{c_0}(i,t+1) &=& c(i,t)c(i+1,t) +
pc(i+2,t)d(i+1,t)c(i,t) \label{somf20}\\
{c_1}(i,t+1) &=& qc(i+1,t)d(i,t)c(i-1,t) + pd(i+1,t)d(i,t)c(i-1,t)
\label{somf21}\\
{c_2}(i,t+1) &=& qd(i,t)d(i-1,t)c(i-2,t) \label{somf22}\end{aligned}$$
In the steady state, i.e. for $t \rightarrow \infty$, the ${c_V}(i,t)$ are independent of $t$. For periodic boundary conditions the system becomes homogeneous in the steady state and hence the $i$-dependence of ${c_V}(i)$ also drops out. (\[somf20\])-(\[somf22\]) then give $c_V$ explicitly as a function of the density $c$. The steady state flux for $V_{\rm max}=2$ is then given by\
$$J = {c_1}+2{c_2} = c(1-c)(2-c-p)$$ The results obtained from the SOMF theory are plotted in Fig. \[fig-7\](left) for a few values of $p$ along with the corresponding numerical data from computer simulation. The agreement between the fundamental diagrams obtained from this simple SOMF theory and those obtained from computer simulations is quite poor because the important correlations between neighboring sites are neglected in this approach.
Interestingly, in contrast to the NaSch model [@ito1], the fundamental diagram shows an inflection point at intermediate densities. This non-convexity of the flow-density relation becomes more pronounced for large values of the randomization $p$.
Asymptotically, for large densities $c\approx 1$, the flow in the ADM will be identical to that in the corresponding NaSch model, i.e.$J\approx (1-p)(1-c)$. However, in the NaSch model, and in many other traffic models, the flow at [*any*]{} density $c$ can never exceed $(1-p)(1-c)$, the flow on the jammed branch. But, in contrast, because of the possibility of large accelaration of the vehicles in the ADM, the flow can far excced the value $(1-p)(1-c)$ at intermediate densities. Then, for obvious mathematical reasons, any smooth function with the asymptotic behaviour $(1-p)(1-c)$ has to exhibit an inflection point.
In the NaSch model SOMF always systematically underestimates the true flux because of the effective particle-hole attraction [@ito1]. Surprisingly, the same is not always true in the ADM (see e.g. $p=0.75$ in Fig. \[fig-7\](left)). This indicates that the correlations in the ADM at intermediate densities are somewhat different from those in the NaSch case. Since now SOMF [*overestimates*]{} the flow over a range of density, this indicates the presence of effective particle-particle attraction, instead of particle-hole attraction in that regime. This is a consequence of the large accelerations of the vehicles which lead to a tendency towards particle-particle aggregation. This tendency becomes stronger at large values of the randomization $p$, where fluctuations that reduce the velocity of a car temporarily become more likely.
In the next section we describe an improved mean field theory, namely car-oriented mean field theory, which takes into account certain correlations between the sites.
### Car-oriented Mean-field Theory of ADM
Here, we present the car-oriented mean-field (COMF) theory [@schad] of ADM with $V_{\rm max} = 2$. The central quantity in COMF theory is the probability ${P_n}(t)$ to find at time $t$ (exactly) $n$ empty sites in front of a vehicle, i.e. the spatial headway distribution. This approach is also known as [*empty interval method*]{} or [*interparticle distribution function method*]{}. For a nice introduction and list of related references we refer to [@emptyinterval].
The time evolution of the probabilities ${P_n}(t)$ can conveniently be expressed through the probability ${g_j}(t)$ $(j=0,1,2)$ that a car moves $j$ sites in the next time step. In order to find the time evolution of the ${P_n}(t)$ we first determine from which configurations at time $t$ a given state a time $t+1$ could have evolved. Take for instance a car — called second car in the following — which has $n \ge 4$ free sites in front, i.e. its distance to the next car ahead (called first car in the following) is $n+1$ sites. Since the velocity difference of the two cars is at most 2, a headway of $n$ sites at time $t+1$ must have evolved from a headway of length $n-1$, $n$, $n+1$ or $n+2$ in the previous time step. A headway of $n-1$ sites evolves into a headway of $n$ sites only if the first car moves (with probability ${g_2}(t)$) and the second car brakes in the randomization step (with probability $p$), i.e. the total probability for this process is $p{g_2}(t)P_{n-1}(t)$. The headway will remain constant if the first car moves with probability $g_1(t)$ and second car brakes with probability $p$ (total probability for this process is $p{g_1}(t){P_n}(t)$) or the first car moves with probability $g_2(t)$ and second car moves with probability $q$ (total probability for this process is $q{g_2}(t){P_n}(t)$). Similarly, a headway of $n+1$ sites evolves into a headway of $n$ sites if the first car does not move (probability ${g_0}(t)$)and second car brakes with probability $p$ (total probability being $p{g_0}(t)P_{n+1}(t)$) or the first car moves with probability $g_1(t)$ and second car moves with probability $q$ (total probability for this process is $q{g_1}(t)P_{n+1}(t)$). Finally, a headway of $n+2$ evolves into a headway of $n$ only if the second car moves with probability $q$ (total probability for this $q{g_0}(t)P_{n+2}(t)$).
The special cases $n=0,1,2$ and $3$ can be treated in an analogous fashion. In this way one obtains the time evolution of the probabilities as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{first}
\fl \qquad{P_0}(t+1) &=& {g_0}(t){P_0}(t) + q{g_0}(t)[{P_1}(t)+{P_2}(t)], \\
%
\fl \qquad{P_1}(t+1) &=& {g_1}(t){P_0}(t) + (p{g_0}(t)+q{g_1}(t))
[{P_1}(t)+{P_2}(t)] + q{g_0}(t){P_3}(t),\quad \\
%
\fl \qquad{P_2}(t+1) &=& {g_2}(t){P_0}(t) + (p{g_1}(t)+q{g_2}(t))
[{P_1}(t)+{P_2}(t)] \nonumber \\
\fl \qquad &+& (p{g_0}(t)+ q{g_1}(t)){P_3}(t) + q{g_0}{P_4}(t), \\
%
\fl \qquad {P_3}(t+1) &=& p{g_2}(t)[{P_1}(t)+{P_2}(t)] +
(p{g_1}(t)+q{g_2}(t)){P_3}(t) \nonumber \\
\fl \qquad &+& (p{g_0}(t)+q{g_1}(t)){P_4}(t) +q{g_0}(t){P_5}(t), \\
%
\fl \qquad {P_n}(t+1) &=& p{g_2}(t){P_{n-1}}(t) + (p{g_1}(t)+q{g_2}(t))
{P_n}(t) \nonumber \\
\fl \qquad &+& (p{g_0}(t)+q{g_1}(t)){P_{n+1}}(t) + q{g_0}(t){P_{n+2}}(t) \ \ \
%\hspace{2.0in}
(n \ge 4)
\label{last}\end{aligned}$$ A car will not move in next time step if there is no empty site in front of it (probability ${P_0}(t)$) or if there is exactly one empty site in front of it and it decelerates in the randomization step 2 (probability $p{P_1}(t)$). It will move one site if either there is exactly one empty site ahead and it does not decelerate (probability $q{P_1}(t)$) or there are at least two empty sites in front, but the car decelerates in step 2 (probability $p\sum_{n\ge2}{P_n}(t)$). In all other cases it will move two sites. Therefore the probability $g_j(t)$ that a car moves $j$ sites in the next time step is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{g_0}(t) &=& {P_0}(t) + p{P_1}(t) \nonumber \\
%
{g_1}(t) &=& q{P_1}(t) + p\sum_{n\ge2}{P_n}(t) = p-p{P_0}(t)+(q-p){P_1}(t) \\
%
{g_2}(t) &=& q\sum_{n\ge2}{P_n}(t)= q[1-{P_0}(t)-{P_1}(t)] \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where we have used the normalization condition $$\label{second}
\sum_{n\ge0}{P_n}(t) = 1$$ to rewrite the probabilities $g_j(t)$ in terms of ${P_0}(t)$, ${P_1}(t)$, ${P_2}(t)$ and ${P_3}(t)$ only.
The probabilities can also be related to the density $c=N/L$ of cars. Since each car which has the headway $n$ to the next car one in front of it ’occupies’ $n+1$ sites we have following relation: $$\sum_{n\ge0}(n+1){P_n}(t) = \frac{1}{c}\, .$$ Here we are mainly interested in the stationary state (t $\rightarrow
\infty$) with $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}$ ${P_n}(t) = {P_n}$. In order to determine the probabilities in the stationary state we introduce the generating function\
$$P(z) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{P_n}z^{n+1}$$ After multiplying corresponding equation in \[\[first\]-\[last\]\] by $z^{n+1}$ and summing over all equations one finds an explicit expression for the generating function, $$\label{generating}
P(z)=\frac{{a_5}{z^5}+{a_4}{z^4}+{a_3}{z^3}+{a_2}{z^2}+{a_1}z}{-pg_2({z^2}
-{2b_1}{z}+{b_2})}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\fl a_1 = qg_0P_0, \qquad && a_2 = (g_0+qg_1)P_0+qg_0P_1 ,\nonumber\\
\fl a_3 = (g_1+qg_2)P_0 + (pg_0+qg_1)P_1, \qquad
&& a_4 = g_2P_0 + (pg_1+qg_2)P_1, \qquad a_5 = pg_2P_1, \nonumber\\
\fl b_1 = \frac{qg_1+g_0}{2pg_2}, \qquad
&& b_2 = -\frac{qg_0}{pg_2}.
%\nonumber
%\end{alignat}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\sum_{j}a_{j} = (1+q){P_0} + {P_1}$. The denominator of $P(z)$ has two zeros located at $s_{\pm}=b_1 \pm
\sqrt{b_{1}^{2}-b_2}$ with $\vert s_{+} \vert \ge 1$ and $\vert s_{-}
\vert \le 1$.
The normalization condition (\[second\]) is equivalent to $P(1)=1$ and is already satisfied by (\[generating\]). The density relation implies $P'(1)=\frac{1}{c}$, where $P'(z)$ denotes the derivative of $P(z)$. In order to have $0 \le P_n \le 1$ and $\lim_{n \rightarrow
\infty} P_n =0 $ the generating function must be analytic in the unit disc $\vert z \vert \le 1$. Therefore the zero $s_{-}$ of the denominator has to be cancelled by a corresponding zero of the numerator. The equation ${a_5}{s_{-}^5}+{a_4}{s_{-}^4}+{a_3}{s_{-}^3}+{a_2}{s_{-}^2}+{a_1}s_{-}=0$ yields a relation between the variable $P_0$ and $P_1$ so that $P(z)$ only depends on one free parameter, e.g. $P_0$. This parameter, in turn, is a function of the only physically relevant parameter, the density c, via $P'(1)=\frac{1}{c}$.
To obtain the fundamental diagram we have to calculate the flux. It is given by $$J(c,p) = c[g_1 + 2g_2].
\label{eq-29}$$
In order to calculate the flux $J(c,p)$ for a given set of $c$ and $p$ one has to solve the following two equations numerically. $$\label{appenda1}
{a_5}{s_{-}^5}+{a_4}{s_{-}^4}+{a_3}{s_{-}^3}+{a_2}{s_{-}^2}+{a_1}s_{-}=0$$ and $$\label{pdashone}
P'(1)=\frac{1}{c}$$ where $P'(z)$ denotes the derivative of $P(z)$. Eq. (\[pdashone\]) can be written as $$\label{appenda3}
\frac{p{g_2}(2-2{b_1})+(5{a_5}+4{a_4}+3{a_3}+2{a_2}+{a_1})}{p{g_2}(1-2{b_1}
+{b_2})}+\frac{1}{c}=0$$ Eqs. (\[appenda1\]) and (\[appenda3\]) were solved numerically. Values of $P_0$ and $P_1$ thus obtained for a given set of $c$ and $p$ are used to calculate the values of $g_0$, $g_1$ and $g_2$. Finally flux $J$ is calculated using equation (\[eq-29\]).
The results obtained from COMF are plotted in Fig. \[fig-7\](right) for a few values of $p$ along with the corresponding numerical data from computer simulation. Fundamental diagrams obtained from COMF show an excellent agreement with the numerical data in the limit $p
\rightarrow 0$. Thus COMF can capture the important correlations much better than SOMF. Especially it is able to reproduce the occurance of an inflection point at larger values of $p$. The small deviations are due to the fact that COMF neglects the correlations between the headways in front of successive vehicles.
Comparison of ADM with Nagel-Schreckenberg Model
------------------------------------------------
\(a) (b)
In Fig. \[fig-9\] we have plotted the fundamental diagram of the ADM with $V_{\rm max} =3$ and the average speed of vehicles against their density along with that of the NaSch model with $V_{\rm max} =3$ for a few values of $p$. In the absence of randomization, i.e. for $p=0$, this model and the NaSch model give identical fundamental diagram and variation of average speed with density. In the presence of randomization, i.e. $p \ne 0$, the flow in the ADM is always larger than that of the corresponding NaSch model due to the faster acceleration. This difference is most pronounced at densities slighty beyond the maximum flow.
ADM with Open Boundary Conditions {#sec4}
=================================
![Schematic representation of the analyzed system with open boundary conditions. The main system consists of $L$ cells. Vehicles move from left to right, and are represented by dark circles. The left boundary consists of mini system of $V_{\rm max}$ cells. This left mini system is occupied by at most one vehicle with probability $\alpha$. Similarly the right boundary consists of a mini system of $V_{\rm max}$ cells and particles are extracted from it with probability $\beta$. We shall represent each cell by a site on the lattice formed by these cells.[]{data-label="fig-10"}](kunwarfig7.eps){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
In this section we consider the ADM with open boundary conditions where vehicles move deterministically, i.e. with randomization probability $p=0$. A schematic representation of the analyzed system is shown in Fig. \[fig-10\]. Our main system consist of $L$ cells. This main system is connected to two mini systems of length $V_{\rm max}$ on each side [@huisinga]. This is done to provide a proper insertion and extraction strategy allowing us to investigate the whole spectrum of the possible states. The state of the mini system of the left boundary has to be updated every time step before the vehicles of whole system. The update procedure consists of two steps. If any cell of the left mini system is occupied it has to be emptied first. Then a vehicle is inserted in the system with probability $\alpha$. The position of the inserted vehicle has to satisfy the following conditions: (i) The headway between the inserted vehicles in the mini system and the first vehicle in the main system is equal to $V_{\rm
max}$, and (ii) the distance to the main system has to be minimum i.e. if there is no vehicle present in the main system within first $V_{\rm max}$ cell then the rightmost cell of the left boundary is occupied. The right boundary consists of $V_{\rm max}$ cells and vehicle are removed from these cells with probability $\beta$. These boundary conditions are capable of generating all flows observed in the case of periodic boundary conditions, including the maximal flow. From now onwards, we shall represent the cells by the sites of a lattice formed by the cells.
The above insertion and extraction scheme generates the maximum flow of the corresponding aggressive driving model with periodic boundary conditions for $\alpha = \beta = 1$, i.e. $$J = \frac{V_{\rm max}}{V_{\rm max}+1}\hspace{0.9in}({\rm for}\hspace{0.1in}
\alpha = \beta =1).$$
Density Profiles in the ADM
---------------------------
For small $\alpha$ and large $\beta$, the system is found in the free flow regime. In Fig. \[fig-12\] we have shown density profiles over a spatial region located in the middle of the bulk of the system for $V_{\rm max}=4$ and $L=1000$ in the free flow regime. The density profile shows a periodic structure with a period of oscillation $\Delta i=4$. For any arbitrary $V_{\rm max}$, we find that the period of this oscillating pattern is $\Delta i= V_{\rm max}$.
\(a) (b)
In order to understand this periodicity we first consider the density profile for very low injection rates and maximum extraction rate ($\beta=1$) (see Fig. \[fig-12\]). For $\alpha=0.01$ the probability of inserting a vehicle at the rightmost site of the left mini-system in two successive time step is very small and, therefore, the vehicles at the beginning of the system do not feel influence of each other. This means that a vehicle which is inserted at the rightmost site of the left mini system moves to $i=4$ at the next time step and can be found at site $i=4t$ after $t$ times steps ($t=1,2,3,...$). The density on these sites is $\rho
\approx \alpha$ ($\alpha \le 0.1$).
For increasing injection rate $\alpha$, the probability of inserting a vehicle in two successive time steps increases which results in the increase in the hindrance that a vehicle feels from the front vehicle at the beginning of the system. This can be explained as follows [@cheybanipre7]: Suppose we insert a vehicle A in the mini-system at time step $T$ and a vehicle at time step $T+1$. Considering the system at time step $T+1$, we see that vehicle A is on site $i=4$ and will move with velocity $4$ where as vehicle B will occupy position $i=3$ in the next time step $T+2$ because the vehicles are inserted in left mini-system in such a way that the headway between the inserted vehicle and the next vehicle downstream is is $4$. At time $T+t$, vehicle A is on $i=4t$ and vehicle B is on $i=4(t-1)-1$. In other words, we can say that the hindrance due to left boundary condition leads to a shift of the position of the vehicles within the system. This shift is reflected in the oscillation in the density profile of \[fig-12\]. The probability of finding a vehicle at $i=4t+3$ is smaller than at $i=4t$ and it is much smaller for $i=4t+2$ and even much smaller for $i=4t+1$.
As we move from the free flowing regime to congested flow regime (keeping $\alpha$ fixed and decreasing $\beta$) something interesting happens: the oscillations start vanishing and envelope of density profile rises (see Fig. \[fig-13\]). For low values of $\beta$, the density profile is just a constant whose value increases with decreasing $\beta$. This phenomenon is due to the hindrance that vehicles feel at the right boundary with decreasing probability $\beta$. Consequently a jam develops at the right boundary which expands to the left with decreasing $\beta$.
Phase Diagram in the ADM
------------------------
In order to identify the regions of free-flow and congested flow in the phase diagram of the ADM we measure the bulk density and the flux in the middle of the open system by varying the boundary rates. Density-flux pairs falling on the free flow branch of the periodic system are identified as belonging to the free flow phase, those falling on the jammed branch as congested flow. Since density profile shows a periodic structure in the free flow regime, in order to compute the bulk density in the middle of the system, we average over the densities of $V_{\rm max}$ lattice sites (i.e. one period of oscillation) for a given $V_{\rm max}$.
The phase diagram of the ADM with open boundary conditions for $V_{\rm max}=4$ and $V_{\rm max}=9$ is shown in Fig. \[fig-11\]. The system will be found either in free-flow or congested-flow regime depending on the values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Here, the $\alpha$ = $\beta$ line does not separate the free flowing and congested flow regime. Instead, the free flow regime is larger than the congested flow regime. The span of the free-flow regime increases with increasing $V_{\rm max}$. In the special case $V_{\rm max}=1$ the above insertion and extraction scheme leads us to the phase diagram of TASEP with open boundary and where the line $\alpha$ = $\beta$ separates free flow and congested flow regime.
![Phase diagram of aggressive driving model with open boundary conditions for $V_{\rm max}=4$ and $V_{\rm max}=9$.[]{data-label="fig-11"}](kunwarfig10.eps){width="0.40\columnwidth"}
Cytoplasmic dynein: from experiment to model {#sec5}
============================================
In this section we first mention the main experimentally observed features of the steppings of dynein motors. Then, by extending the ADM, we develope a simple theoretical model that captures the essential features of dynein stepping.
Stepping of dynein: experimental results {#dyneinexperiment}
----------------------------------------
In order to understand the mechanism of a single dynein motor, Mallik et al. [@roop] extracted the step size of single dynein motor from their experimental data. In their experiment, hindrance against forward movemnent of dyneins was caused by an opposing force. In principle, this hindrance could also be created by other motors. The smallest possible step size would be $8$ nm as the equispaced binding sites on the microtubule form a lattice with lattice constant of $8$ nm. Mallik et al. [@roop] observed that in the absence of hindrance the step sizes of dyneins were mostly $\sim 32$ nm, i.e., four times the lattice constant. Moreover, the step size decreased with increasing hindrance: under weak hindrance the step size was approximately $\sim 24$ nm, under intermediate hindrance step size was about $\sim16$ nm, whereas under strong hindrance dynein takes steps of $\sim8$ nm. On the basis of these observations, Mallik et al. [@roop] suggested a [*molecular gear mechanism*]{} for dynein motors.
In their generic model of molecular motor traffic, Parmeggiani et al. [@frey] implicitly assumed a hindrance-independent step size of the motors. Therefore, in the light of the experimental observations on dynein steppings [@roop], one may interpret the model developed in [@frey] to be a minimal model for the traffic of kinesin motors which are known to take steps of $8$ nm irrespective of the hindrance. Therefore, to model the traffic of dynein motors, which can take steps of upto $32$ nm (i.e., four times the lattice spacing in between the successive binding sites) at one go in the absence of hindrance, we need a more sophisticated model. In the next subsection we describe the model which we propose for the traffic of dynein motors.
Dynein traffic model (DTM)
--------------------------
Our dynein traffic model (DTM) has been obtained by extending the ADM which we have discussed extensively in the preceeding sections. The lattice sites in this case represent the dynein binding site on the microtubule track and the lattice constant is $8$ nm. In order to capture the fact that in the absence of hindrance a single dynein motor can take a single step of $32$ nm, we set $V_{\rm {max}} = 4$ in the ADM. Moreover, to capture the attachment and detachment of the motors from the microtubule track, we also allow the detachment of a motor from an occupied site with rate $\omega_D$ and attachment of a motor to an empty site with rate $\omega_A$. The state of the system is updated in a random sequential manner. In this DTM, a single dynein motor can move forward by four lattice sites (i.e., $32$ nm) in one single step if the available gap is greater than or equal to $32$ nm; otherwise, the step size will be equal to the available gap as the mutual exclusion between the motors hinders the motion of the following dynein.
Results for DTM with periodic boundary conditions {#sec6}
=================================================
![Flux $f$ in the DTM with $V_{max} = 4$ for different values of the binding constant $K$ and with (a) random-sequential updating, (b) parallel updating.[]{data-label="dyperiodic"}](kunwarfig11a.eps "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"} ![Flux $f$ in the DTM with $V_{max} = 4$ for different values of the binding constant $K$ and with (a) random-sequential updating, (b) parallel updating.[]{data-label="dyperiodic"}](kunwarfig11b.eps "fig:"){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
\(a) (b)
In the case of periodic boundary condition we allow attachment and detachment of motors from all lattice sites with probability $\omega_A$ and $\omega_D$ respectively. This prescription is very similar to that followed by Parmeggiani et al.[@frey] in their generic model of molcular motor traffic. In order to compare and contrast our DTM with the model of Parmeggiani et al.[@frey], all our computer simulations of the DTM have been carried out by random sequential updating which was adopted in ref.[@frey]. We have carried out limited investigation of the DTM also by implementing parallel updating. But, unless explicitly stated otherwise, by computer simulation of the DTM we shall mean simulation using random sequential updating.
Fig. \[dyperiodic\] shows the values of flux $f$ as a function of the binding constant $K = \omega_A/\omega_D$ for different values of $\omega_D$ obtained from the computer simulations implementing random-sequential updating (Fig. \[dyperiodic\](a)) and parallel updating (Fig. \[dyperiodic\](b)). In both the cases the flux initially increase with increasing $K$. However, beyond a threshold value of $K$ the flux starts decreasing with the further increase of $K$. Comparing the figures \[dyperiodic\](a) and \[dyperiodic\](b) we find that, for the same set of values of the parameters, higher flux is obtained with parallel updating; this effect becomes more pronounced at higher $\omega_D$. This is consistent with the well known result that flux obtained with parallel updating is higher than that obtained with random-sequential updating even in the simpler situation of TASEP.
We have carried out a Site-Oriented Mean Field (SOMF) calculation for the DTM following the same procedure as we followed earlier for the ADM. For $V_{\rm {max}}=4$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-dynpar1}
{c_0}(i,t+1) &=& c(i+1,t)[{c_1}(i,t)+{c_2}(i,t)+{c_3}(i,t)+{c_4}(i,t)] \\
\label{eq-dynpar2}
{c_1}(i,t+1) &=& qc(i+1,t)d(i,t)c(i-1,t)\\
\label{eq-dynpar3}
{c_2}(i,t+1) &=& qc(i+1,t)d(i-1,t)d(i,t)c(i-2,t)\\
\label{eq-dynpar4}
{c_3}(i,t+1) &=& qc(i+1,t)d(i-2,t)d(i-1,t)d(i,t)c(i-3,t)\\
\label{eq-dynpar5}
{c_4}(i,t+1) &=& qd(i-3,t)d(i-2,t)d(i-1,t)d(i,t)c(i-4,t)\end{aligned}$$ In the steady state, i.e. $t \rightarrow \infty$, ${c_V}(i,t)$ are independent of $t$. For periodic boundary conditions the system becomes homogeneous in the steady state and hence the $i$-dependence of ${c_V}(i)$ also drops out. Therefore the steady state flux for $V_{\rm {max}}=4$ is given by $$f = {c_1}+2{c_2}+3{c_3}+4{c_4} = qcd[c+2cd+3cd^2+4d^3]$$ where $q$ is the probability that the motor does, indeed, hop, instead of getting detached from the track. Finally, substituting $q=1-\omega_D$, the steady flux in the DTM, under the SOMF approximation, is given by $$\label{eqn-flux}
f= cd\bigl((1-\omega_D)c+2(1-\omega_D)cd+3(1-\omega_D)cd^2+4
(1-\omega_D)d^3\bigr)$$ where $c$ is given by the well-know ratio $K/(1+K)$ of Langmuir equilibrium density and $d=1-c$. In Figs. \[dyperiodic\](a) and (b) we have shown the curves obtained from Eq. (\[eqn-flux\]) to compare the predictions of the SOMF theory with the corresponding simulation data. Although the agreement is not very good, we find that the SOMF provides better estimates of flux at higher values of the detachment probability $\omega_D$.
One interesting feature of the SOMF result is that it is an overestimate of the flux for random-sequential updating whereas it is an underestimate of that corresponding to parallel updating. Moreover, the SOMF estimates are closer to the simulation data from random-sequential updating than those from parallel updating. This behaviour indicates that the underlying correlations are rather subtle.
![The fundamental diagram in a [*hypothetical*]{} DTM with $V_{\rm max}=2$ and parallel updating under periodic boundary conditions.[]{data-label="hypdtm"}](kunwarfig12.eps){width="0.40\columnwidth"}
The agreement between SOMF theory and computer simulations is much better in the DTM than in the ADM. Is it an artefact of the different values of $V_{max}$ used in Fig.\[fig-7\](a) and Fig. \[dyperiodic\](b)? In order to investigate this possibility, we have studied a hypothetical DTM with $V_{max} = 2$ by SOMF as well as by computer simulation implementing parallel updating. The SOMF estimate for the flux in this hypothetical DTM with $V_{max}=2$ is given by $$f= c d (2-c) (1-\omega_d)$$ where $c=K/(1+K)$. This SOMF estimate is compared in Fig.\[hypdtm\] with the numerical data obtained from the simulation of the same model with parallel updating. The agreement is as good as that in Fig. \[dyperiodic\] for the actual DTM with $V_{max} = 4$. Thus, the reason for better success of SOMF in DTM than in ADM remains a challenging open problem for future investigation.
DTM with open boundary condition {#sec7}
================================
![Schematic representation of the DTM with open boundary conditions.[]{data-label="dyneinmodel"}](kunwarfig13.eps){width="0.6\columnwidth"}
A schematic representation of the analysed system with open boundary conditions is given in Fig. \[dyneinmodel\]. To capture the attachment and detachment of the motors from the microtubule we allow the detachment of a motor from an occupied site with rate $\omega_D$ and attachment of a motor to an empty site with rate $\omega_A$ in the bulk i.e. from all site other except those who belong to the reservoirs at the left and right boundary. Our proposed model with open boundary conditions reduced to the model of Parmeggiani et al.[@frey], which is a minimal model for the intra-cellular traffic of kinesin motors, if one sets $V_{\rm {max}}=1$.
![Average density profiles $\langle n_i \rangle$ in the DTM obtained from Monte Carlo simulations and plotted against the rescaled space variable $x = i/L$ for different values of $\Omega_D$. The common parameter values are $L=10000, \alpha=0.2, \beta=0.6,
K=3$. []{data-label="densityprofile"}](kunwarfig14a.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"} ![Average density profiles $\langle n_i \rangle$ in the DTM obtained from Monte Carlo simulations and plotted against the rescaled space variable $x = i/L$ for different values of $\Omega_D$. The common parameter values are $L=10000, \alpha=0.2, \beta=0.6,
K=3$. []{data-label="densityprofile"}](kunwarfig14b.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}
A competition between bulk dynamics (Langmuir kinetics) and boundary induced non-equilibrium effects (TASEP-like dynamics) is expected only if the particles injected either at boundary or somewhere in bulk visits a finite fraction of the total system size. In that case particles will spend enough time on lattice to feel mutual influence and eventually would produce collective effects.
Study of competition between bulk and boundary dynamics for large systems ($L \gg 1$) requires that the kinetic rates $\omega_A$ and $\omega_D$ decrease simultaneously with increasing system size $L$. This can be illustrated by considering the following heuristic argument given in ref. [@frey]. The average time $\tau$ spent by a particle before detachment is roughly of the order of $\sim$ $1/\omega_D$. During this time $\tau$ the number of sites $n$ visited by a given particle is of the order of $n \sim \tau$. Therefore the fraction $n/L$ ($=1/\omega_DL$) of the lattice site visited by a given particle during this time would tend to zero for fixed $\omega_D$ as $L \rightarrow \infty$. In order that a given particles explores a finite fraction of the total sites before detaching for system size $L \gg 1$, one has to define the “total" detachment rate $\Omega_D = \omega_DL$ such that $\Omega_D$ remain constant as $L \rightarrow \infty$. A similar argument shows that a vacancy visits a finite fraction lattice sites until it is filled by the attachment of a particle if $\omega_A$ scales to zero as $\Omega_A/L$ with fixed “total" detachment rate $\Omega_A$ [@frey]. Therefore we define total detachment rate $\Omega_D =
\omega_DL$ and total attachment rate $\Omega_A = \omega_AL$ such that $\Omega_D$ and $\Omega_A$ remain constant as $L \rightarrow \infty$. Note that the binding constant $K=\omega_A/\omega_D$ remains unchanged as $L \rightarrow \infty$.
Density profiles in the DTM
---------------------------
### Density profiles
![Average density profiles in the DTM obtained from Monte Carlo simulations and plotted against rescaled space variable for different system sizes. The common parameter values are $\alpha=0.2, \beta=0.6,
K=3$ and $\Omega_D=0.2$.[]{data-label="systemsize"}](kunwarfig15.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[densityprofile\] (a) we have plotted the typical average density profiles $\langle n_i \rangle$ obtained from Monte Carlo simulations for this model in rescaled space variable $x = i/L$ (where $n_i$ denotes occupation of nth lattice site in the bulk i.e. $i=1,2,...L$) by choosing a path in the parameter space along the curves with fixed $\alpha, \beta$ and $K$ while increasing $\Omega_D =
\Omega_A/K$. For low values of kinetic rates $\Omega_D, \Omega_A \ll
\alpha, \beta$ the system remain in low-density phase where average density in the bulk remains constant. For High values of kinetic rates $\Omega_D$ and $\Omega_A$ the system goes to high density phase where average density in the bulk again constant. The bulk density in this case is determined by the well know ratio $K/(1+K)$ of Langmuir equilibrium density. For intermediate values of the rates, for example $\Omega_D =0.2$, the density profile in the bulk exhibits unusual feature where regions of high density and low density are connected by a steep rise. In Fig. \[densityprofile\] (b) we have shown the density profiles obtained by Parmeggiani et al. [@frey] for their model where $V_{\rm {max}} = 1$. Comparison of Figs. \[densityprofile\] (a) and \[densityprofile\] (b) shows that the average bulk density in the low density phase in Fig. \[densityprofile\] (a) is smaller than in Fig. \[densityprofile\] (b). This observed decrease in the bulk density in the low density phase for identical values of the parameters $\alpha ,\beta, K $ and $\Omega_D$ is due to the fact that particles in low density phase move with higher velocity which leads to higher current and lower density. Fig. \[densityprofile\] (a) also shows oscillations in the density profile at the beginning of the system in the low density phase. These oscillations result from the hindrance that particles have at the beginning of the system from each other [@cheybanipre]. These oscillations die out for higher systems sites. Comparison of Fig. \[densityprofile\] (a) and Fig. \[densityprofile\] (b) also shows that in the case of dynein motors the domain wall is found inside the the system for slightly higher value of $\Omega_D$.
Figure \[systemsize\] shows the average density profile $\langle n_i
\rangle$ computed from Monte Carlo simulation in rescaled space variable $x$ for different system sizes. The width of the transition region decreases with increasing system size. The data obtained from our simulations suggest a sharp discontinuity of the density profile in terms of the rescaled space variable $x = i/L$ in the limit $L\rightarrow \infty$. Therefore the low and high density phases separated by a sharp domain wall coexist in our model over an intermediate range of parameter values where boundary and bulk kinetic rates compete against each other. This discontinuity in the density profile is stable and the position of the domain wall is determined by the values of the kinetic rates as shown in Fig. \[dwposition\]. This coexistence of high and low density phase separated by a domain wall can be regarded as a [*traffic jam*]{} for molecular motors.
![Domain wall positions in the DTM for different values of $\Omega_D$. The common parameter values are $L=10000, \alpha=0.2,
\beta=0.6$ and $K=3$.[]{data-label="dwposition"}](kunwarfig16.eps){width="0.45\columnwidth"}
Phase diagrams in the DTM
-------------------------
![Phase diagrams of the DTM for (a) $V_{\rm {max}} =4, \Omega_D =0.0$ (b) $V_{\rm {max}} =4, \Omega_D =0.1$ (c) $V_{\rm {max}} =4, \Omega_D =0.2$ and (d) $V_{\rm {max}} =4,
\Omega_D = 10$ (e) $V_{\rm {max}} =1, \Omega_D =0.0$ (f) $V_{\rm
{max}} =1, \Omega_D =0.1$ (g) $V_{\rm {max}} =1, \Omega_D =0.2$ and (h) $V_{\rm {max}} =1, \Omega_D = 10$. Other common parameter values are $L=10000, K=3$.[]{data-label="phasediag"}](kunwarfig17.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
In order to identify the regions of coexistence, we have obtained the phase diagram of our model for intra-cellular traffic of dynein motors by varying the boundary rates $\alpha$ and $\beta$ for fixed values of $K$ and $\Omega_D$. Fig. \[phasediag\](a) shows the phase diagram for $\Omega_D=0$. In this case model reduces to the aggressive driving model with random sequential updating. For $\Omega_D=0$, by varying boundary rates $\alpha$ and $\beta$ one gets three kind of phases namely Low density phase (LD), High density phase (HD) and Maximal Current phase (MC). For very small values of $\Omega_D$ ($\Omega_D
\sim 0.001$) the boundary rates $\alpha$ and $\beta$ dominate and the structure of the phase diagram is determined only by the boundary rates $\alpha$ and $\beta$. For $\Omega_D \sim 0.001$ one obtained a phase digram similar to Fig. \[phasediag\](a). On increasing the value of $\Omega_D$ the boundary and bulk rates start competing with each other and in this case one gets a phase diagram where MC phase disappears and one can identify four distinct regions in the phase diagram namely, Low density phase (LD), Low density high density coexistence region (LD-HD), High density phase (HD) and “Meissner" (M) phase. The Meissner phase [@frey] has some interesting features that are genuinely distinct from the High density phase. The density profile in the bulk is independent of the boundary rates $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and is determined only by the bulk. On further increase of $\Omega_D$ the low density phase also disappears from the phase diagram as shown in Fig. \[phasediag\](c) and in this case one gets HD phase, M phase and coexistence region. For large values of $\Omega_D$ the phase diagram is spanned only by the M phase as shown in Fig. \[phasediag\] (d). In Fig. \[phasediag\](e)-(h) we have shown phase diagrams of the model of Parmeggiani et al. [@frey] for the identical set of parameters. Comparison of the phase diagrams shown in Figs. \[phasediag\](a)-(d) and \[phasediag\](e)-(h) shows that the regions of coexistence of Low and High density phases are slightly different in the $\alpha - \beta$ plane for identical values of the parameters $K$ and $\Omega_D$.
Transportation efficiency
-------------------------
Comparison of $32$ nm step of dynein at in the absence of hindrance and $8$ nm step of kinesin implies that as a cargo transporter the dynein is four times more fuel-efficient than kinesin as both require one molecule of ATP as fuel. To study the transportation efficiency of dynein motors and kinesin motors as a function of the parameters $K$ and $\Omega_D$ we define the transportation efficiency by the relation $$\% \textnormal{Transportation efficiency} = \frac{\textnormal{No. of
steps taken}} {\textnormal{No. of attempts made}\times4} \times
100$$
![Efficiency of dynein and kinesin motors for (a) different values of $K$ and (b) $\Omega_D$. The common parameter values are $L=1000, \alpha=0.2$ and $\beta=0.6$[]{data-label="efficiency"}](kunwarfig18a.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"} ![Efficiency of dynein and kinesin motors for (a) different values of $K$ and (b) $\Omega_D$. The common parameter values are $L=1000, \alpha=0.2$ and $\beta=0.6$[]{data-label="efficiency"}](kunwarfig18b.eps "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}
The above relation has been defined in such a way that if a dynein motor takes 4 steps of 8 nm in each attempt (i.e. for each ATP hydrolysis) then its efficiency will be 100 % similarly if a kinesin motor takes 1 step of 8 nm in each attempt then its efficiency will be equal to 25 %. The transportation efficiency of cytoplasmic dynein motors ($V_{\rm {max}} = 4$) and kinesin motors ($V_{\rm {max}} = 1$) are plotted in Fig. \[efficiency\] (a) and Fig. \[efficiency\] (b) for different values of $\Omega_D$ and $K$. There is practically no difference between the efficiency of dynein and kinesin motors for very large values of $\Omega_D$ and $K$ ($\Omega_D \sim 10$ and $K
\sim 10$) as for very large values of $\Omega_D$ and $K$ system is found in high density phase (HD).
Summary and conclusions {#sec8}
=======================
In this paper we have first investigated the properties of the aggressive driving model (ADM) which is a simple cellular automata model for vehicular traffic. One of the motivations for considering this model is that the rule for aggressive driving can be naturally extended to capture the special features of step sizes of dynein motors and, therefore, the ADM is ideally suited for extending so as to study intra-cellular molecular motor traffic by dynein motors.
The ADM shows different behavior for $V_{\rm max} = 1$ and $V_{\rm max} > 1$. For $V_{\rm max} = 1$ the model is identical to the NaSch model with $V_{\rm max} = 1$ which has perfect particle-hole symmetry. This symmetry is broken for $V_{\rm max} > 1$. The fundamental diagram of this model in the special limit $V_{\rm max} = \infty$ has a form which is quite different from that of the NaSch model in the limit $V_{\rm max} = \infty$. We have also shown few distance headway and time-headway distributions. We have calculated the fundamental diagram using two different mean-field approaches, namely, site-oriented mean-field approach (SOMF) and car-oriented mean-field approach (COMF). A simple SOMF theory shows a poor agreement with the simulation data. However, an improved mean field theory, namely COMF, shows good agreement with the numerical data obtained from computer simulations. We compare our ADM with the Nagel-Schreckenberg model which captures essential features of normal driving. We have also investigated the density profiles and phase diagrams of this model replacing the periodic boundary conditions by open boundary conditions. The density profile of this model with open boundary conditions shows periodic structures in the free-flowing regime whose period of oscillation depends on the maximum attainable velocity $V_{\rm max}$.
We have extended the ADM to develope a dynein traffic model (DTM) which is a model of intra-cellular molecular motor traffic from cell periphery towards the nucleus of the cell. We have investigated the properties of this model with periodic and open boundary conditions. Under open boundary conditions, DTM shows an unusual feature where low and high density phases separated by a static domain wall coexist over a range of parameter values which can be interpreted as a traffic jam of molecular motors. This is in sharp contrast to the phase diagram of the ADM which does not exhibit such coexistence of congested and free-flowing regions. The occurrence of the phase is, thus intimately related to the competition between the hopping and the kinetics of attachment/detachment of the motors on the track. Finally, we have compared the efficiencies of dynein and kinesin motors for different values of parameters. For very large values of the parameters $\Omega_D$ and $K$ system is found in the high density phase and, in that case, one observes practically no difference between the efficiencies of kinesin and dynein motors.
To our knoweledge, our DTM is the first model of traffic-like collective transport of [*dynein*]{} motors on filamentary microtubule tracks. A model that incorporates both the species of dyneins and kinesin motors, which move in opposite directions along the same track, may provide deep insight into experimentally observed bidirectional traffic [@gross].
[**Acknowledgements**]{}: This work has been supported (through DC), in part, by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) of the government of India. DC also thanks Max-Planck Institute for Physics of Complex Systems, Dresden, and Prof. Frank Jülicher for hospitality during a short visit when a part of this manuscript was prepared.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[unsrt]{} M. Schliwa (ed.), [*Molecular Motors*]{}, (Wiley-VCH, 2003). J. Howard, [*Mechanics of Motor Proteins and the Cytoskeleton*]{} (Sinauer Associates, massachusetts, 2001). D. Chowdhury, A. Schadschneider, K. Nishinari, Phys. Life Rev. [**2**]{}, 318 (2005) See the special issue of Physica A (2006) for the close similarities and crucial differences between biological traffic and vehicular traffic. Physica Scripta ([*Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences*]{}), [**T106**]{}, 13 (2003). D. Chowdhury, L. Santen, and A. Schadschneider, Phys. Rep. [**329**]{}, 199 (2000). B. Schmittmann and R.K.P. Zia, in: [*Phase Transition and Critical Phenomena*]{}, Vol. 17, eds. C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz (Academic Press, 1995). G. Schütz, in: [*Phase Transition and Critical Phenomena*]{}, Vol. 19, eds. C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz (Academic Press, 2000). V. Privman (ed.), [*Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics in One Dimension*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 1997) J. Marro and R. Dickman, [*Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions in Lattice models*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, 1999) S. Wolfram, [*Theory and Applications of Cellular Automata*]{} (World Sci., 1986); [*A New Kind of Science*]{} (Wolfram Research Inc., 2002) C. MacDonald, J. Gibbs and A. Pipkin, Biopolymers, [**6**]{}, 1 (1968). C. MacDonald and J. Gibbs, Biopolymers, [**7**]{}, 707 (1969). B. Derrida, Phys. Rep. [**301**]{}, 65 (1998). A. Parmeggiani, T. Franosch and E. Frey, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 086601 (2003); Phys. Rev. E [**70**]{}, 046101 (2004). E. Frey, A. Parmeggiani and T. Franosch, Genome Inf. [**15**]{}, 46 (2004) and references therein. R. Lipowsky, S. Klumpp and T.M. Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 108101 (2001). R. Lipowsky and S. Klumpp, Physica A [**352**]{} 53 (2005) and references therein; R. Lipowsky, Y. Chai, S. Klumpp, S. Liepelt and M. J. I. Müller, in [@physica] and references therein. M.R. Evans, R. Juhasz and L. Santen, Phys. Rev. E [**68**]{}, 026117 (2003). V. Popkov, A. Rakos, R.D. Williams, A.B. Kolomeisky a nd G.M. Schütz, Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 066117 (2003). A. Schadschneider, in: [*Traffic and Granular Flow ’97*]{}, ed. by M. Schreckenberg and D.E. Wolf (Springer, 1998) K. Nagel and M. Schreckenberg, J. Physique I [**2**]{}, 2221 (1992) M. Schreckenberg, A. Schadschneider, K. Nagel and N. Ito, Phys. Rev. E [**51**]{}, 2939 (1995); A. Schadschneider and M. Schreckenberg, J. Phys. A [**26**]{}, L679 (1993) M. Fukui, Y. Ishibashi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., [**65**]{}, 1868 (1996) A. Schadschneider, Physica A [**313**]{}, 153 (2002) K. Ghosh, A. Majumdar, D. Chowdhury, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 4012 (1998) K. Nagel and H. J. Herrmann, Physica A [**199**]{}, 254 (1993) M. Sasvári and J. Kertész, Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{}, 4104 (1997) Sascha Grabolus, diplom thesis, University of Cologne (2001) B. H. Wang, Y. R. Kwong and P. M. Hui, Phys. Rev. E [**57**]{}, 2568 (1998); Physica A [**254**]{}, 122 (1998) B. H. Wang, L. Wang, P.M. Hui and B. Hu, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 2876 (1998) A. Schadschneider and M. Schreckenberg, J. Phys. A [**30**]{}, L69 (1997) D. ben-Avraham: in [*Nonequilibirum Statistical Mechanics in One Dimension*]{}, edited by V. Privman, Cambridge University Press (1997). R. Barlovic, T. Huisinga, A. Schadschneider, and M. Schreckenberg, Phys. Rev. E [**66**]{}, 046113 (2002) S. Cheybani, J. Kertész and M. Schreckenberg, Phys. Rev E [**63**]{}, 016107 (2000) R. Mallik, B. C. Carter, S. A. Lex, S. J. King and S. P. Gross, Nature [**427**]{}, 649 (2004). S. Cheybani, J. Kertész and M. Schreckenberg, Phys. Rev E [**63**]{}, 016108 (2000). S.P. Gross, Phys. Biol. [**1**]{}, R1 (2004).
[^1]: Originally the model was introduced in [@astgf97].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Sanjay Dasari
- Anindya Kumar Biswas
title: An Economic analogy to Electrodynamics
---
Introduction
============
Physicists have tried to understand the complexity of economics from time immemorial, starting from Copernicus, through Isaac Newton to Eugene Stanley[@Jean1]. There have been continuous efforts in recent times to understand statistical mechanics[@Jean2] and thermodynamics[@saslow] of economics.
The question keeps coming, can we understand economics as simply as mechanics[@pikle]? Can we comprehend force laws behind economic developments as simply as four force laws in physics? Though there are few interesting attempts, direct attacks to answer the questions probably are missing.
In this letter, we will refer to the easily available books on electrodynamics[@david] and economics[@eco] while trying to separate, step by step, one kind of force law in action in economics. We do this in the following way. First we describe the Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics as well as continuity equation and Lorentz force law. Then we introduce the chief economic variables and formulate the correspondence of the economic variables to the standard electrodynamic variables and parameters. After that we verify how equations of electrodynamics are holding good in economic systems. We also consider analogue of materials in economics. Potential formulation of electrodynamics is a powerful solution technique. We will see how that too descends down to us in economics.
Unemployment, inflation of prices are day to day headache. Recession was the first word of the song for the day to start with until a year back. What is less heard that there is an empirical graphical relation between inflation rate and unemployment rate, in the short run. The name of the line is Phillip’s curve. We derive sort of Phillip’s curve using the rules, describe the recession also. Moreover, option trading (one type of booking share) is something that makes the share market efficient. Pricing of the option has been a long standing academic issue. F. Black and M. Scholes were the first to, using intuition from Physics, namely diffusion equation of heat, give a reasonable formula [@bs1] for the call (and hence put) option. In this letter we re-derive the Black-Scholes formula, visualising call option as one component of profit flow rather than temperature, as a particular case of more general class of feasible formulas. Unobservable factor market volatility, too gets split up.
We will take India and Indian currency, Rupee, as a background for our purpose of the paper. But the full content will be holding true, if India and Indian currency are replaced globally, in the letter, by any country and the corresponding currency.
Maxwell’s equations
===================
We recall that the basic variables of electrodynamics are electric field, $\overrightarrow{E}$ and magnetic field, $\overrightarrow{B}$. These two fields can exist without, can generate in a medium or, can be produced by electric charge density, $\rho$ and electric current density, $\overrightarrow{j}$. The relations, whenever relevant, between electromagnetic fields and charge (current) in a vacuum (material medium) are fixed by permittivity constant, $\epsilon_{0}$, and permeability constant, $\mu_{0}$. These four variables have an interesting interrelationship. Moreover, the charge density and current constrain each other through a constitutive relation. Let us describe along that line in the paragraph to follow
The four equations of electrodynamics as completed by Maxwell are as [@david] $$\label{e1}
\epsilon_{0}\nabla\cdot\overrightarrow{E}= \rho$$ $$\nabla \times\overrightarrow{E}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial t
}\overrightarrow{B}$$ $$\nabla\cdot\overrightarrow{B}=0$$ $$\nabla \times\overrightarrow{B}=\mu_{0}\epsilon_{0}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t }\overrightarrow{E}+
\mu_{0}\overrightarrow{j}$$ The constitutive relation, called continuity equation, is $$\label{con}
\nabla\cdot\overrightarrow{j}+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\rho = 0$$ The force acting on a charge distribution is given by Lorentz Force Law $$\overrightarrow{F}=\rho(\overrightarrow{E}+\overrightarrow{v}\times\overrightarrow{B})$$
Analogous economic variables
============================
We denote the main economic variables as follows:
- competition flow as $\overrightarrow{c}$
- profit flow as $\overrightarrow{P}$
- money flow as $\overrightarrow{M}$
- money density as $n$
- Ambition of a person as $\overrightarrow{Am}$
- Price index as $Pi$
- Choice flow as $\overrightarrow{Ch}$
- Economic power flow as $\overrightarrow{E_{p}}$
- Economic activity as $E_{a}$
- inverse of basic strength-scale of currency, at least for macro economy, as $s_{0}$
- basic technical knowhow+political power, at least for macro economy, as $k_{0}$
- human infrastructure as h
Correspondence
==============
- $\overrightarrow{E}\longleftrightarrow\overrightarrow{c}$
- $\overrightarrow{B}\longleftrightarrow\overrightarrow{P}$
- $\overrightarrow{j}\longleftrightarrow-\overrightarrow{M}$
- $\rho\longleftrightarrow -n$
parameters
----------
- $\epsilon_{0}\longleftrightarrow s_{0}$
- $\mu_{0}\longleftrightarrow k_{0}$
- $\epsilon_{0}\epsilon_{r}\longleftrightarrow s $
- $\mu_{0}\mu_{r}\longleftrightarrow k$
- $\sigma\longleftrightarrow$ h
functions
---------
- $\overrightarrow{v}\longleftrightarrow\overrightarrow{Am}$
- Scalar potential, $ V\longleftrightarrow -Pi$
- Vector potential, $\overrightarrow{A}\longleftrightarrow-\overrightarrow{Ch}$
- Poynting vector, $\overrightarrow{S}
=\frac{1}{\mu_{0}}\overrightarrow{E}\times\overrightarrow{B}\longleftrightarrow
\overrightarrow{E_{p}}$
- energy density $\longleftrightarrow E_{a}$
- $\sigma_{cross}$multiplied by power,P $\longleftrightarrow$$<employment>$,\
employment generation rate
Analogy brought inside out
==========================
Maxwell’s equations
-------------------
- Excess liquidity stimulates economic activity i.e. generates competition. Faraway from mints, activity drops to zero, competition fizzles out.
To understand it better, let us consider the following simple situation, one has left a one rupee note on the road separating two parts of a market, it will lead to a competition among the onlookers to pick it up. Imagine, instead one lakh rupee note kept on the road. It will lead to fiercer competition among the onlookers. Not only that competition which is under way along the road or, along either part of the market, will get a component across the road. Hence money density in a place generates divergence in competition flow and proportional. This is proportional at least to the first approximation. Moreover, competition points towards the money.
Let us think the exactly same situation happening twenty five years back. Then, one rupee note would have given the same divergence in the competition flow as ten thousand rupees give today. Within past twenty five years, rupee has gotten devalued by huge amount. Hence, the proportionality factor $s_{0}$ stands for the inverse of strength-scale of the currency.
This sequence of arguments follow even if we consider not this kind of free notes but constrained notes. We mean, the same kind of situation will arise with the salary of an advertised job also. We will be concerned in this paper with competition associated with the constrained notes.
Hence we deduce the first law analogous to the eq. (\[e1\]) $$\label{E1}
s_{0}\nabla.\overrightarrow{c}=-n$$
In this sense, money density is analogue of negative charge density. Scarcity is analogue of positive charge. Scarcity density is more like hole density than free positive charge density. Note and scarcity, in equal magnitude form dipole. An arbitrary distribution of note (scarcity) over space can be cast into the form of multipole expansion.
In an organisation, when money is not flowing or, notes are stationary there is no competition. This is like $\overrightarrow{E}=0$ in a conductor.
- In general profit is a composite object composed of money, labor etc. In the simplest cases profit is quantified as money gain. In any exchange, positive profit of one is equal to, in magnitude, the negative profit of the other. Hence, in any exchange, net change in profit is zero. If there is no exchange, there is no change in profit, either way. Hence, we have $$\label{E2}
\nabla.\overrightarrow{P}=0.$$
- Profit flow coming from retail chain sector leads local businessmen to get united and protest. Protest is a form of competition flow. We may note that this is what experienced in pure diamagnetic phenomenon or, when a bar magnet is pushed orthogonally towards a wire loop. Initial reactions to software coming to India were also similar. This motivates us to write $$\label{E3}
\nabla \times\overrightarrow{c}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial t
}\overrightarrow{P}.$$ This also indicates that Faraday’s law boils down to Ricardo’s principle in economics.
- Like magnetic field profit is also non-conservative field. If there is no money, there is no profit. Circulation of notes gives rise to profit. As money starts incoming more and more to a place, profit also increases, say in a place, to some people more and more. As money comes more, differences in money contents from person to person, say, increase more. Rich becomes richer, poor becomes poorer.
Let us think of the opposite limit, where there is no money flow into a place. But if competition flow, say promotional competition in a company, changes with time, like in some months of the year, this leads to more spending, hence more profit circulation in the local economy or, micro-economy. Product differentiation too leads to circulation of profit in a local economy. These considerations lead us to the relation $$\label{E4}
\nabla \times\overrightarrow{P}=s_{0}k_{0}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t }\overrightarrow{c}-
k_{0}\overrightarrow{M}$$
continuity equation
-------------------
We know that no one creates (destroys) money, unless one is crazy. The amount of money that enters (goes out) from one’s pocket, or, from one ATM, or, from one bank, in unit time is just equal to the rate of change of money in that pocket or, ATM or, the bank. This is just the continuity eq. (\[con\]).\
But there is an exception. Notes are destroyed or, generated at the mint(s), leading to appreciation or, depreciation w.r.t. a standard currency.\
So the relation(\[con\]) gets modified, in case of economics, to $$\nabla\cdot\overrightarrow{M}+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}n =
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}n_{p}$$ where, $n_{p}$ is the amount of money being printed or, destroyed in a mint.
Lorentz Force Law
-----------------
Let us imagine, competition has started flowing in a place, buy a house or, buy sports goods or, buy a ticket for a show. A person will respond or, not and if responds to what extent, depends on how much money is there in his pocket. Whether a locality around an ATM will respond or, not or, to what extent will depend on how much notes are there at the ATM. Response varies directly also with the appeal or, magnitude of the competition flow. So the force along the competition flow on a person or, a local society around an ATM is proportional to the competition flow, to the first approximation and the proportionality factor is money density. The same thing occurs for a nation about a Federal bank, in response to an oncoming competition flow. Here, we are meaning by competition flow, social competition flow.
Let us consider an opposite situation. Reality sector boom is coming onto a place, along the “third dimension”. A person will respond provided he has business ambition. The response will be proportional to the money he owes. Once he responds this will give sidewise pushes to the people around him, who might be harbouring academic ambition only, on-setting competition along the direction perpendicular to the person’s ambition direction and the profit flow direction.
Hence we heuristically come down to an equation of economic force, which is exactly the same form as Lorentz force law $$\overrightarrow{F}=-n(\overrightarrow{c}+\overrightarrow{Am}\times\overrightarrow{P})$$ Here, we observe that only competition flows cannot give a man having scarcity, equilibrium but profit flows can. This is like Earnshaw’s theorem. Second part of the statement is like magnetic confinement of charge.
Here, we also notice that two twins having the same money, same ambition and subjected to the same competition and profit flows, will feel the same force. But depending on their accumulated entrepreneul skills their venture accelerations will be different. For example, one will set-up a cyber cafe much earlier than other, if the first one has software and little bit management training whereas the second one does not have that skill set. Hence economic inertial mass of a person is reciprocal of the number of his entrepreneul skills. We denote from hereon,
- economic inertial mass= $M_{e}$
- Number of skills= $N_{es}$
The same story will follow for two twin companies or, two twin countries. Hence we have the following identification
- $M_{e}=\frac{1}{N_{es}}$
Material
========
Let us think that competition flow is oncoming to a place. This will create money accumulation among some and scarcity among others, giving rise to something like polarisation, bound money density at the surface of the society and at the volume. As a consequence, net competition flow will be different from the external competition flow. For weakly responsive society, polarisation vector will be equal to $s_{0}R_{c}\overrightarrow{c}$. $R_{c}$ is the measure of the response of the society. $\overrightarrow{c}$ refers to the net competition flow in the society. The equation (\[E1\]) will get modified to $$\nabla.s\overrightarrow{c}=-n.$$ $n$ refers to external money density. $s=s_{r}s_{0}=s_{0}(1+R_{c})$.
Similarly, profit flow leads to bound surface and volume circulation of notes. This results in the net profit flow differing from the external profit flow vector. This leads to a relation modified from the equation (\[E2\]) $$\nabla.k\overrightarrow{P}=0$$ where, $k=k_{0}k_{r}=k_{0}(1+R_{p})$.\
Probably, $s$, $k$ span a two dimensional plane. Presumably, existence of black market is an example of $s$, $k$ being both negative[@meta].\
Profit and competition flows both polarize.
conductivity
------------
Sometimes economy is conducive. Competition vector is proportional to money flow vector or, liquidity just like in conductor, $$\overrightarrow{j}= \sigma \overrightarrow{E}$$ Proportionality factor, h, in economic system, like conductivity, is a measure of the quality of the human infrastructure of the company. So we have here the following rule $$\overrightarrow{M}=-h\overrightarrow{c}$$ In highly efficient ($h\rightarrow \infty$) organisation, internal competition is zero always, which is like in metal ($\sigma
\rightarrow \infty$). $h$ can stand for $Human Capital$.
Potential Formulation
=====================
To show the form of the scalar potential, let us notice the following, $$\overrightarrow{c}=-\nabla (-Pi)$$ implies $$\nabla^{2} Pi= -n\frac{1}{s_{0}}$$ As money density increases, Price-index also increases, we see inflation.
Price index over space and time is determined by two considerations
- Prices and consumption ratios of various items at a place at a given time.
- Prices and consumption ratios of items at another time and/or at another place, compared to the base prices and consumption ratios.
The prices and consumption ratios of items change continuously over the space and time.
Hence, Price index, $Pi$, change continuously over space and time. So, Price index, $Pi$, is analogous to scalar potential, $V$. The first consideration sets a fixed reference value to the price-index for all other places at that time as well as for all other times. A relevant fact worth mentioning in this context is that gas index in U.S. is based on the price of gas at a point where majority of the gas pipelines intersect.
To show the form of the vector potential, let us notice the following, $$\nabla^{2}\overrightarrow{Ch}=-k_{0}\overrightarrow{M}$$ wherever, choice flow is divergence less. This continues to be as long as there is no will.
Hence, $\overrightarrow{Ch}$ is in the same direction as $\overrightarrow{M}$, which is our experience.
Moreover, $(Pi,\overrightarrow{Ch})$ can be combined into a four vector. Ambition, $\overrightarrow{Am}$, multiplied by Price index can be choice. Maximum Ambition is determined by the velocity of light and in fact, may be taken as velocity of light. We would like to move in any direction with the magnitude of velocity of light, c, given chance. Therefore it’s quite plausible to write $$\overrightarrow{Ch^{'}}=\frac{\overrightarrow{Ch}-\overrightarrow{Am}Pi}{\sqrt{1-\frac{Am^{2}}{c^{2}}}}$$
Application
===========
Phillip’s curve
---------------
We know, in economics, Inflation rate, $\Pi$, is defined as $$\Pi=\frac{d}{dt}{lnPi}.$$ Since, $$V\leftrightarrow Pi, \nonumber$$ $$\frac{d}{dt}{lnV}\leftrightarrow \Pi \nonumber$$ or, time derivative of logarithm of scalar potential is expected to show features of economic inflation. To proceed along that line, we note from the theory of radiation in electrodynamics, $$\frac{d}{dt}{lnV}=\omega,$$ for electric dipole radiation, whereas, the total power radiated by the dipole is given by $$<P>=constant \quad \omega^{4}$$ Hence, $$\frac{d}{dt}{lnV}\sim <P>^{\frac{1}{4}}$$ Here we recall that when an electromagnetic radiation falls on a medium, three processes occur. For low energy, photoelectric effect is the dominant process. As the energy increases of the infalling radiation, Compton scattering starts becoming important. At still higher energy, pair production takes over. For the photoelectric effect, cross-section, $\sigma_{cross}$, or, probability for the process to occur $$\sigma_{cross} \sim \frac{1}{\omega^{\frac{7}{2}}}$$ Photoelectric effect is producing free electrons at the cost of work-function. This phenomenon is exactly similar to employment generation from the pool of unemployed youth at the cost of lump sum money. In India, this is like giving one-time small money/loan to buy say an auto/a cab to an unemployed young man and making him self-employed. Compton scattering is pumping money in risky assets. Pair production is like bringing an woman to work place at the cost of a vacancy at the household cores.
Again we know, product of employment generation rate and unemployment generation rate is constant, because the two processes occur in mutually exclusive sectors, influencing each other in extreme cases, viz. percolation of software jobs to mechanical and clerical sectors.
As a result we come down to the following conclusion for the low scale economic activity inflow, $$\Pi\sim\frac{1}{<unemployment>^2}.$$
This is nothing but Phillip’s curve, qualitatively.
On the other hand, in the domain where Compton scattering becomes important[@bjorken] $$\sigma_{cross} \sim\frac{1}{\omega}ln\omega.$$ Then $$\Pi \sim\frac{1}{<unemployment>^{\frac{1}{3}}}.$$ apart from the slowly varying scale-dependent logarithmic part.
Hence, in the scale of economic activity inflow, $|\overrightarrow{E_{p}}|$ where, Compton scattering-type of phenomenon becomes important compared to photoelectric type, we get sudden increase of inflation with unemployment. This is stagflation. This is stagflation with scale-dependence setting in.
If one is interested in total absorption cross-section, one can look in [@kaplan] as well as in [@heitler] and surmise about the details of the ensuing Inflation vs unemployment curve.
Recession
---------
A Recessing phase corresponds to one inertial frame for a macro-economy. The recessing inertial frame has lower ambition, $|\overrightarrow{A_{m}}|$, with respect to that of an almost contemporary macro-economy. Going to the recessing frame occurs due to saturations of collective biological activities of the society attached with the macro-economy.
The inertial frame’s ambition corresponding to the macro-economy, can be thought as group ambition of the society.
As a result we see in the recessing phase, lower price index, lower choice flow, hence lower consumption. This gets manifest through deflation, unemployment.
Since $\nabla.\overrightarrow{Ch}$ is not Lorentz invariant, $\nabla.\overrightarrow{Ch}\neq 0$ in the recessing phase. This is like at mint $\nabla.\overrightarrow{M}\neq 0$. That implies number of choice lines striking a populace from one side is less than the number of lines leaving the populace in the other side. That means human will is setting in and populace is not spending to the brim. That is change in consumption pattern of commodities as well as that of prices at each place with time. This in turn will lead to lesser and lesser production and more and more unemployment.
Black-Scholes formula
---------------------
Let us suppose that we have gone to the stock-market armed with the set of equations we have heuristically gotten and embark on analysing the share trading. Moreover, let us focus on profit attached with call option. Then the instantaneous profit is call option value for someone having a share and writing a call option for that share. Now let us try to find the value. Let us guide ourselves by the thread of physical considerations of Black and Scholes as appears in the first few pages of the reference[@bs1].
As long as $\overrightarrow{E}$ which is analogue of competition flow, $\overrightarrow{n}$, is constant or, slowly changing with time, Maxwell’s last two equations with the Ohm’s law yields $$\label{e:bs}
\nabla^{2}\overrightarrow{B}=\mu_{0}\sigma\frac{\partial\overrightarrow{B}}{\partial
t}$$ In terms of dimensionless length variables, this equation (\[e:bs\]) appears as $$\frac{\partial\overrightarrow{B}}{\partial t}=\mu_{0}\sigma v^{2}
\nabla^{2}\overrightarrow{B},$$ where, $|v|$ is the drift speed in the medium. Translating to economic system by our dictionary and restricting us to the variation of $\overrightarrow{P}$ along the third dimension, $x$, say in the stock market, we get $$\label{black}
\frac{\partial P_{i}(x,t)}{\partial
t}=k_{0}h|\overrightarrow{Am}|^{2}
\frac{\partial^{2}P_{i}(x,t)}{\partial x^{2}}.$$ where, for $i=1,2,3$, $P_{i}$ means $P_{x}, P_{y}, P_{z}$. Writing, $\tau=T-t$ and further doing the identification
- implied volatility, $\sigma =\sqrt{2k_{0}h}|\overrightarrow{Am}|$
- $P_{i}=C(S,t)e^{r\tau}=u$ is the profit at time T, corresponding to option trading at time t. $C(S,t)$ is the value of the option when it is traded at time t. $C(S,T)=max(S-K,0)$
we get from the equation (\[black\]) Black-Scholes differential equation as given in the reference[@bs2], $$\label{black1}
\frac{\partial u(x,\tau)}{\partial \tau}=\frac{\sigma^{2}}{2}
\frac{\partial^{2}u(x,\tau)}{\partial x^{2}}.$$ At this point let us do some more dimensional considerations: in Option trading, relevant independent variables are
- Current stock price at time $t = S$
- Strike price or, agreed upon price of the stock at the expiry i.e. at time T is K
- Risk less interest rate is r (per year)
- Implied volatility in the stock price at time T is $\sigma$ where, $\sigma^2$ has the dimension of time inverse (per year).
One way to combine these variables to get a dimensionless variable $x$ is to write $x=ln\frac{S}{K} +(r-\frac{\sigma^2}{2})\tau$. Once this is done, the straightforward solution of the equation (\[black1\]) yields the price of the call option, $$C(S,t)= SN(d_{1})-Ke^{-r(T-t)}N(d_{2})$$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
d_{1}=\frac{ln(\frac{S}{K})+(r+\frac{\sigma^2}{2})(T-t)}{\sigma\sqrt{T-t}},\nonumber\\
d_{2}=d_{1}-\sigma\sqrt{T-t},\nonumber\\
N(d)=\frac{1}{2\pi\sigma^2}\int_{\infty}^{d}
dxe^{-\frac{x^2}{2\sigma^2}}\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
Points
======
Here we touch on some delicate issues. Competition flow in this letter is separate from “pure arbitrage flow” just like profit is more than money gain. We can think of three dimensional vector spaces, locally composed of two dimensional plane and a “third dimension”. For a company, the “third dimension” is hierarchy. In the stock market, the “third dimension” is the “share” direction as we have explained in the previous subsection. Normally, the “third dimension” is the third dimension, communication is being made along that electrically or, electromagnetically i.e. by land line or, satellite.
Outlook
=======
Naively, one tends to wonder whether the topological considerations in mathematical economics can be related to magnetic topologies. Similarly many topics in economics, elementary as well as advanced, say, utility, supply-demand line, production, IS-LM model, are expected to be described by electrodynamics using the dictionary introduced in this paper.
One can take a straightforward route also. Consider the eqn.s (7-12) as the rules of economics, measure the variables and the parameters discussed, say, knowing $Human Capital$ ala economists, one can try to measure competition flow using eq.(16), and therefrom try to explain as many economic empirical relations as possible. The unexplained empirical relations and the parameters put by hand, may give us hints how to get economic analogues of gravitation and other non-abelian models, as well as ways to generalise Maxwell’s equations.
Conclusion
==========
We have given an alternative formulation of economics. The rules of the formulation are equations (7-12). The variables are as mentioned, e.g. profit flow, competition flow, money flow, constrained note density etc. These rules are analogue of Maxwell’s equations. Moreover, we have obtained continuity equation, force rule, inertial mass for an economic system and an operational definition of $Human Capital$. We have constructed a 4-potential formulation. Using the model we get Phillip’s curve, describe stagflation, recession. Dwelling on stock-market we recover Call option function. We have gotten a scenario where, unobservable market volatility can be made observable if we can measure the drift ambition of sort-sellers. We have pointed to few avenues, amidst many, along which this approach can be explored further.
To the best of our knowledge, the topic covered in this manuscript was not dealt with anywhere else.
[0]{} The Back Page in APS News 17\[11\], 8-9 (December 2008). Am. J. Phys.[67]{} The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 5(20), [303-318]{}. http://in.arxiv.org/abs/condmat/9811197 J.Complex Systems (November 1998); http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/condmat/ 9806138. , [04 April, 1998]{},[42-45]{}. , [3rd ed.]{} , [9th ed.]{} .
, [2nd ed.]{}, [416-417]{} , [3rd ed.]{} . Black-Scoles-Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, p5, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black..Scholes
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The transition from a superfluid to a Mott insulator (MI) phase has been observed in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) of ytterbium (Yb) atoms in an optical lattice. An all-optically produced BEC of $^{174}$Yb atoms was loaded into three-dimensional optical lattices produced by a 532 nm laser beam. The interference pattern was measured after releasing the quantum gas from the trapping potential. As increasing the optical lattice depth, we observed the disappearance of the interference patterns, which is a signature of entering the MI regime. This result is an important step into studies by using a combination of the MI state and the ultranarrow optical transition of ultracold alkaline-earth-like atoms.'
author:
- Takeshi Fukuhara
- Seiji Sugawa
- Masahito Sugimoto
- Shintaro Taie
- Yoshiro Takahashi
title: 'A Mott Insulator of Ultracold Alkaline-Earth-Like Atoms'
---
A atomic quantum gas in a periodic potential is an important and promising system for a variety of studies. Since the first observation of the phase transition from a superfluid to a Mott insulator (MI) in a atomic Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) of Rb atoms held in a three-dimensional (3D) optical lattice [@Greiner02], strongly correlated quantum systems using ultracold atoms in optical lattices have been extensively studied. In addition, the MI phase with one atom per site is an important starting point for implementing quantum information processing based on ultracold atoms [@Jaksch99]. So far, however, the MI phase has been realized only in alkali atoms [@Greiner02; @Xu05]. Here we report the observation of the transition from a superfluid to a MI phase in ytterbium (Yb), an alkaline-earth-like atom.
It is important to realize a MI phase in Yb for the following reasons. First, Yb is an excellent candidate for an optical lattice clock [@Takamoto05; @Taichenachev06]. The absolute frequency of the $^1S_0$$-$$^3P_0$ transition in bosonic $^{174}$Yb atoms has been recently determined within a fractional uncertainty of $1.5 \times 10^{-15}$ [@Poli08]. The main contribution to the uncertainty is the density shift due to cold collisions between ultracold $^{174}$Yb atoms in a 1D optical lattice. A method to eliminate the collisional frequency shifts is to load bosonic atoms into 3D optical lattices [@Akatsuka08], and the preparation of the MI phase with single atom per site leads to the largest signal-to-noise ratio. Second advantage arises from the possibility of high-resolution spectroscopy using the ultranarrow transitions of $^1S_0$$-$$^3P_0$ and $^1S_0$$-$$^3P_2$. From high-resolution laser spectroscopy of a BEC in $^{174}$Yb, density-dependent collisional shifts have been found to be large [@Uetake; @Yamaguchi08], and thus we can spectroscopically investigate a shell structure of the MI phase and probe the interaction energy by using the ultranarrow transitions with increased resolution. Third, two fermionic isotopes ($^{171}$Yb with nuclear spin $I=1/2$ and $^{173}$Yb with $I=5/2$) have been cooled down to below the Fermi temperature [@Fukuhara08; @Fukuhara07a], and intriguing systems of ultracold fermionic gases in optical lattices can be provided by using basically the same procedure described here. They are especially important because interesting schemes for quantum computing based on the nuclear spin state in alkaline-earth-like atoms are recently proposed [@Shibata; @Daley08].
![(color online). Absorption images of matter-wave interference patterns after releasing atoms from an optical lattice potential with a potential depth of (a) 0$E_R$, (b) 5$E_R$, (c) 8$E_R$, (d) 11$E_R$, (e) 14$E_R$, (f) 17$E_R$, and (g) 20$E_R$ ($E_R = \hbar ^2 k_L^2 / 2 m$ is the recoil energy with $k_L = 2\pi / \lambda _ L$ and the atomic mass $m$). The decrease in the visibility of the interference pattern is observed as the lattice depth increases. (h) Interference pattern is restored after preparing a MI phase at a lattice depth of 20$E_R$ and decreasing the potential to 5$E_R$ within 15 ms. The data are averaged over three measurements. \[transition\]](transition-s.eps){width="\linewidth"}
The transition from a superfluid to a MI phase in a BEC of alkaline-earth-like $^{174}$Yb atoms is observed in optical lattices created by lasers at a wavelength of $\lambda _L = 532$ nm. A multiple matter-wave interference pattern is measured after suddenly releasing the atoms from the optical lattice potential and a subsequent time-of-flight period of 10ms (Fig. \[transition\]). As increasing the optical lattice depth $V_0$, we observe the disappearance of the interference patterns, which is a signature of entering the MI regime. We also observe a restoration of the interference pattern after ramping up to a lattice depth of 20$E_R$, where the system is in a MI phase, and ramping down the potential to 5$E_R$, where the system is in a superfluid phase.
The experiment is carried out in our new apparatus with 20 viewports providing excellent optical access. The background gas pressure in the chamber is $\sim 3 \times 10^{-11}$ Torr. The experimental procedure for producing a $^{174}$Yb BEC is basically the same as in our previous work [@Takasu03; @Fukuhara07b]. Yb atoms are decelerated by a Zeeman slower with the strong transition ($^1S_0$$-$$^1P_1$, a wavelength of 399 nm and a linewidth of 29 MHz) and then loaded into a magneto-optical trap (MOT) with the intercombination transition ($^1S_0$$-$$^3P_1$, a wavelength of 556 nm and a linewidth of 182 kHz). The MOT beams are created by frequency doubling of a 1112-nm fiber laser [@Uetake08]. The laser-cooled Yb atoms are transferred from the MOT to an crossed far-off-resonance trap (FORT).
![(color online). Schematic diagram of experimental setup (upper) and experimental procedure to load the atoms into optical lattices (lower). Absorption images can be taken along the two orthogonal lattice axes to confirm 3D interference pattern. \[lattice\]](latticesetup-s.eps){width="\linewidth"}
In our previous experiments, the crossed FORT is generated by two laser beams, which are oriented horizontally and vertically [@Takasu03; @Fukuhara07a; @Fukuhara07b]. In this experiment, however, the vertical FORT beam, perpendicular to the horizontal FORT beam, is at an angle of approximately 50$^{\circ }$ from the vertical z axis (Fig. \[lattice\]). It is noted that the configuration of the beam is not so important since the main role of the second FORT beam is to increase the atom density by loading atoms into the crossing region. Evaporative cooling is carried out by lowering the potential depth of the horizontal FORT beam while the depth of the vertical FORT beam kept constant. At the final stage of evaporation, where the temperature of the cloud is near the BEC transition temperature, the power of the vertical FORT beam is also decreased to suppress the three-body recombination atom loss by lowering the atom density. After evaporation the atoms are held in the trap for typically 500 ms, resulting in a quasipure BEC with no discernible thermal cloud.
A $^{174}$Yb BEC with up to $3 \times 10^4$ atoms is loaded into 3D optical lattices. The lattice potential is formed by three orthogonal, retroreflected laser beams (Fig. \[lattice\]). The beams are produced by the same laser (10 W diode-pumped solid-state lasers operating at 532 nm, Coherent Verdi-V10) used for the horizontal FORT beam; the first-order diffraction beam of an acousto-optic modulator (AOM) is used for the horizontal FORT beam and the transmitted beam for the optical lattices. The linewidth of the laser is less than 5 MHz. In order to eliminate interferences between different beams, the three lattice beams and the horizontal FORT beam are frequency shifted at least 5 MHz relative to each other by using AOMs and the polarization of the three lattice beams is orthogonal to each other. The three beams are spatially filtered with a single-mode optical fiber before being focused to a $1/e^2$ beam waist of $\sim$50 $\mu$m at the position of the BEC, and the intensities are stabilized by using AOMs. The lattice depth is calibrated by observing the diffraction caused by a pulsed optical lattice [@Ovchinnikov99].
The lattice depth is linearly increased to 5$E_R$ in 100 ms, during which the intensity of the vertical FORT beam is decreased to zero. Here, the intensity of the horizontal FORT beam is also slightly increased to keep constant the trap confinement along the gravity. At this point, there is an additional external harmonic potential by the horizontal FORT beam and the lattice beams with a gaussian shape. The radial trapping frequencies of the horizontal FORT beam is measured to be $2\pi \times$160 Hz (the horizontal direction) and $2\pi \times$240 Hz (the vertical direction) by exciting the center-of-mass motion. To confirm that the condensate is loaded without decoherence, we observe the interference pattern in the density distribution of the atoms suddenly released from the optical lattices and the FORT (Fig. \[transition\](b)). Subsequently, the optical lattice is linearly ramped up to maximum potential of 20$E_R$ in 75 ms. As the lattice depth is increased, the interference pattern disappears (Fig. \[transition\](b)$-$(g)), which indicates the transition to the MI state, accompanied by the loss of phase coherence [@Greiner02]. After forming the MI phase at the lattice depth of 20$E_R$ and ramping down the potential depth to 5$E_R$, the revival of the interference pattern is also observed. We measure the width of the center peak for various ramp-down times $\tau_r$ and obtain the time scale of 0.4 ms for restoration of coherence. The time is comparable to the tunneling time scale $\hbar/J \sim$ 0.6 ms at a potential depth of 5$E_R$ [@Greiner02], where $J$ is the tunneling matrix element.
To quantitatively evaluate the interference fringes, we define the visibility of the interference pattern as $\mathcal{V}=\left( N_{max} - N_{min} \right) / \left( N_{max} + N_{min} \right)$ [@Gerbier05]. Here $N_{max}$ is the sum of the number of atoms in the regions of the first order interference maxima and $N_{min}$ is the sum of the number of atoms in equivalent regions at the same distance from the center peak along the diagonals (see the inset of Fig. \[visibility\]). We measure the visibility $\mathcal{V}$ as a function of the lattice depth $V_0$ (Fig. \[visibility\]). At the point where the condensate are loaded into the optical potential with the lattice depth $V_0=$5$E_R$, the visibility is $\sim 1$. We can see the decrease in the visibility at a lattice depth higher than 11$E_R$. The visibility becomes almost zero at the maximum potential of 20$E_R$.
![(color online). Visibility as a function of lattice depth. Each data point is the average of three measurements. The error bars represent only the standard errors of the measurements. The inset shows the regions used for evaluating the visibility (see text). \[visibility\]](visibility-s.eps){width="\linewidth"}
The ultracold Bose atoms in the optical lattices can be described by the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian [@Fisher89; @Jaksch98]. According to the mean-field theory for the homogenous systems, the critical value for the phase transition to the MI state with $n$ atoms per lattice site is estimated to be [@Krauth92] $$\frac{U}{J} = z \left\{2 n + 1 + 2 \sqrt{n \left( n+1 \right)} \right\},$$ where $U$ is the on-site interaction energy and $z$ is the number of nearest neighbors ($z=6$ for simple cubic 3D lattices). We use the approximate expressions $U/E_R = 5.97 \left(a_s / \lambda _L \right) \left(V_0 / E_R \right)^{0.88}$, and $J/E_R = 1.43 \left(V_0 / E_R \right)^{0.98} \exp\left(-2.07\sqrt{V_0 / E_R} \right)$ [@Gerbier05], with the scattering length $a_s = 5.55$ nm [@Kitagawa08]. By using these formulas, we find that the critical values are $V_0=$11$E_R$, 13$E_R$, 14$E_R$ and 15$E_R$ for $n=$1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. These values are in good agreement with the reduction in the measured visibility above 11$E_R$.
The peak occupation number can be simply estimated assuming zero temperature and no tunneling [@DeMarco05]. We define the parameter $$\xi =\frac{3 N d^3}{4 \pi }\left(\frac{m \bar{\omega }^2}{2U} \right)^{3/2},$$ where $N$ is the total number of atoms, $d$ is the lattice spacing ($d=\lambda _L / 2$), and $\bar{\omega}=(\omega_1 \omega_2 \omega_3)^{1/3}$ is the geometrical average of the trap frequencies of the external harmonic confinement. If the condition $$\Sigma _{k=0}^{n_0 - 1} k^{3/2} < \xi < \Sigma _{k=0}^{n_0} k^{3/2}$$ is satisfied, then the peak occupation number is $n_0$. In our case of $3 \times 10^4$ atoms in the lattice potential with $V_0=$20$E_R$, where the trapping frequencies are estimated to be $2\pi \times$(120, 200, 270) Hz, the parameter $\xi$ is calculated to be 3.3, and thus the peak occupation number should be $n_0=2$.
In order to experimentally investigate the occupation numbers, spectroscopic studies are proven to be powerful methods [@Campbell06]. Here we discuss the possibility of the spectroscopic study of the MI shells of Yb atoms. While the spectroscopy of the MI shells by using two-photon rf spectroscopy for Rb atoms is recently demonstrated [@Campbell06], optical spectroscopy with increased resolution can be conducted for $^{174}$Yb atoms by using the ultranarrow optical transition of $^1S_0$$-$$^3P_2$. In order to measure the structure by using density-dependent collisional shifts of the transition from the state $|1>$ to the state $|2>$, the difference between $a_{11}$ and $a_{12}$ is important. Here $a_{11}$ is the scattering length between two atoms in the $|1>$ state and $a_{12}$ is the scattering length between two atoms in states $|1>$ and $|1>$. Concerning the MI shells, the collisional frequency shifts for the $n$ and $n-1$ MI phases are different by $\delta\nu =U/h\left[\left(a_{12} - a_{11} \right) / a_{11} \right]$ [@Campbell06]. For the transition of $^1S_0$$-$$^3P_2$ in $^{174}$Yb, the scattering lengths are $a_{11}=5.55$ nm and $a_{12} = - 33$ nm [@Yamaguchi08]. At a lattice potential with 20$E_R$, the difference in the collisional frequency shift $\delta\nu$ is estimated to be 24 kHz, which can be well resolved by using the ultranarrow transition of about 10 mHz linewidth. For investigation of the site occupation, this spectroscopic technique is quite useful.
In conclusion, we have observed the phase transition from the superfluid to the MI state in a $^{174}$Yb BEC held in 3D optical lattices. As the lattice depth is increased, the disappearance of the interference pattern is observed above a potential depth of 11$E_R$, which is consistent with the prediction based on the mean-field theory.
We acknowledge S. Uetake for experimental assistance. This work was partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of JSPS (18204035) and the Global COE Program “The Next Generation of Physics, Spun from Universality and Emergence” from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan. S. S. acknowledges support from JSPS.
[99]{} M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. Hänsch and I. Bloch, Nature (London) **415**, 39 (2002). D. Jaksch, H. -J. Briegel, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. **82**, 1975 (1999). M. Takamoto, F.-L. Hong, R. Higashi, and H. Katori, Nature **435**, 321 (2005). K. Xu, Y. Liu, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, T. Mukaiyama, J. K. Chin, D. E. Miller, W. Ketterle, K. M. Jones, E. Tiesinga, Phys. Rev. A **72**, 043604 (2005). A. V. Taichenachev, V. I. Yudin, C. W. Oates, C. W. Hoyt, Z. W. Barber, and L. Hollberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 083001 (2006); Z. W. Barber, C. W. Hoyt, C. W. Oates, L. Hollberg, A. V. Taichenachev, and V. I. Yudin,, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 083002 (2006). N. Poli, Z. W. Barber, N. D. Lemke, C. W. Oates, L. S. Ma, J. E. Stalnaker, T. M. Fortier, S. A. Diddams, L. Hollberg, J. C. Bergquist, A. Brusch, S. Jefferts, T. Heavner, and T. Parker, Phys. Rev. A **77**, 050501(R) (2008). T. Akatsuka, M. Takamoto, and H. Katori, Nature Phys. **4**, 954 (2008). S. Uetake *et al.*, *Proceedings of the 9th international Symposium on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the light of new technology*. A. Yamaguchi *et al.*, submitted. T. Fukuhara, S. Sugawa, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, to appear in Phys. Rev. A Rapid Communication. T. Fukuhara, Y. Takasu, M. Kumakura, and Y. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 030401 (2007). K. Shibata, S. Kato, A. Yamaguchi, S. Uetake, Y. Takahashi, presented at *Symp. Quantum Information Technology 15* (2006). A. J. Daley, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 170504 (2008). Y. Takasu, K. Maki, K. Komori, T. Takano, K. Honda, M. Kumakura, T. Yabuzaki, and Y. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 040404 (2003). T. Fukuhara, S. Sugawa, and Y. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. A **76**, 051604(R) (2007). S. Uetake, A. Yamaguchi, S. Kato, Y. Takahashi, Appl. Phys. B **92**, 33 (2008). Y. B. Ovchinnikov, J. H. Müller, M. R. Doery, E. J. D. Vredenbregt, K. Helmerson, S. L. Rolston, and W. D. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett. **83**, 284 (1999); J. H. Denschlag, J. E .Simsarian, H. Häffner, C. McKenzie, A. Browaeys, D. Cho, K. Helmerson, S. L. Rolston, and W. D. Phillips, J. Phys. B **37**, 1391 (2002). F. Gerbier, A. Widera, S. Fölling, O. Mandel, T. Gericke, and I. Bloch, Phys. Rev. A **72**, 053606 (2005). M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B **40**, 546 (1989). D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. **81**, 3108 (1998). W. Krauth, M. Caffarel, and J.-P. Bouchaud, Phys. Rev. B **45**, 3137 (1992). M. Kitagawa, K. Enomoto, K. Kasa, Y. Takahashi, R. Ciurylo, P. Naidon, and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A **77**, 012719 (2008); K. Enomoto, M. Kitagawa, K. Kasa, S. Tojo, and Y. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 203201 (2007). B. DeMarco, C. Lannert, S. Vishveshwara, and T.-C. Wei, Phys. Rev. A **71**, 063601 (2005). G. K. Campbell, J. Mun, M. Boyd, P. Medley, A. E. Leanhardt, L. G. Marcassa, D. E. Pritchard, W. Ketterle, Science **313**, 649 (2006).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Lev Sakhnovich
date: 'March 29, 2005'
---
**Meromorphic Solutions of Linear Differential Systems, Painleve type functions**
**Lev Sakhnovich**
*735 Crawford ave., Brooklyn, 11223, New York, USA*\
E-mail address: [email protected]
**Abstract**
We consider the $n{\times}n$ matrix linear differential systems in the complex plane. We find necessary and sufficient conditions under which these systems have meromorphic fundamental solutions. Using the operator identity method we construct a set of systems which have meromorphic solutions. We prove that the well known operator with the sine kernel generates a class of meromorphic Painleve type functions. The fifth Painleve function belongs to this class. Hence we obtain a new and simple proof that the fifth Painleve function is meromorphic.\
**Mathematic Subject Classification (2000)**. Primary 34M05, Secondary 34M55, 47B38.\
**Keywords.** Strong regularity, global solution, meromorphic solution, differential system with parameter, operator identity method, Painleve type functions.
Introduction
============
Let us consider the $n{\times}n$ matrix system of the form $$\frac{dW}{dx}=A(x)W,$$ where $A(x)$ is the $n{\times}n$ matrix function. Further we assume that the matrix function $A(x)$ is holomorphic and single valued in a punctured neighborhood of a point $x_{0}$.\
Every fundamental solution $W(x)$ of system (1.1) has the form (see \[1\],\[20\])$$W(x)=S(x)(x-x_{0})^{\Phi},$$ where the matrix $S(x)$ is holomorphic and single valued in the domain $0<|x-x_{0}|<\rho$ and $\Phi$ is a constant matrix.\
**Definition 1.1.** (see \[1\],\[20\]) The point $x_{0}$ is called a *regular point of system* (1.1) if the corresponding matrix $S(x)$ is either holomorphic in a neighborhood of $x_{0}$ or has a pole in $x_{0}$.\
**Definition 1.2.** We shall name the regular point $x_{0}$ of system (1.1) *a strong regular* if $\Phi=0$ in formula (1.2).\
We use the following transformation $$W(x)=F(x)Y(x),$$ where $$F(x)=\sum_{k=\ell}^{m}f_{k}(x-x_{0})^{k},$$ $f_{k}$ are constant $n{\times}n$ matrices, $\mathrm{det}F(x){\ne}0,\quad
x{\ne}x_{0}.$ Then system (1.1) takes the form $$\frac{dY}{dx}=B(x)Y,$$where $$B(x)=F^{-1}(x)A(x)F(x)-F^{-1}(x)\frac{dF}{dx}.$$ The following theorem gives the condition of regularity .\
**Theorem 1.1.** (Horn’s theorem (see \[1\])*The point $x_{0}$ is regular for system $(1.1)$ if and only if there exists transformation $(1.3)$ such that the corresponding matrix $B(x)$ has the form $$B(x)=\frac{B_{1}(x)}{x-x_{0}},$$ where $B_{1}(x)$ is holomorphic in the domain* $0{\leq}|x-x_{0}|<\rho.$\
The conditions of Horn’s theorem are necessary conditions of the strong regularity. In the present paper we give necessary and sufficient conditions of strong regularity.\
Separately we consider the case when the entries of $A(x)$ are meromorphic functions .\
**Definition 1.3.** We name the fundamental solution $W(x)$ of system (1.1) *global strong regular* if this solution is strong regular for all singular points of $A(x)$.\
It is easy to see that the global strong solution is meromorphic. We apply the obtained results to the canonical differential systems \[15\] with the spectral parameter $\rho$: $$\frac{dW(x,\rho)}{dx}=[P(x)+{\rho}Q(x)]W(x,\rho).$$ We investigate in detail the special case when $n=2,\quad P(x)=0,$ and $$Q(x)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & r^{-2}(x) \\
r^{2}(x) & 0 \\
\end{array}\right].$$ Now we shall explain the connection of system (1.8), (1.9) with the classical second order equations. The solution of this system $$U(x,\rho)=\mathrm{col}[u_{1}(x,\rho),u_{2}(x,\rho)]$$ satisfies the relations $$\frac{du_{1}}{dx}=i{\rho}\,r^{-2}(x)u_{2}(x,\rho),\quad
\frac{du_{2}}{dx}=i{\rho}\,r^{2}(x)u_{1}(x,\rho).$$ System (1.8), (1.9) reduces to two equations of the second order . $$-\frac{d}{dx}r^{2}(x)\frac{du_{1}}{dx}=\rho^{2}r^{2}(x)u_{1}(x,\rho),$$ $$-\frac{d}{dx}r^{-2}(x)\frac{du_{2}}{dx}=\rho^{2}r^{-2}(x)u_{2}(x,\rho).$$ Let us note that equations (1.12) and (1.13) are mutually dual \[5\],\[8\],\[16\] and play an important role in a number of theoretical and applied problems (prediction theory \[11\], vibration of a thin straight rod \[3\],generalized string equation \[15\] ).\
Using the operator identity method \[15\] we construct classes $r(x)$ such that the corresponding equations (1.12) and (1.13) have meromorphic solutions in respect to $x$ for all $\rho$. In particular we construct a class of the rational functions $r(x)$ with this property.\
The operator identity method allows to construct an analytic continuation of $r^{2}(x)$ from half-axis $(0,\infty)$ onto the complex plane. We have applied this approach to the third and the fifth Painleve functions. In particular we have obtained a new and simple proof that the fifth Painleve function is meromorphic ( see \[7\]).\
**Remark 1.1.** The global Fuchsian theory (see \[1\],\[20\]) requires that the regularity condition be met at infinity as well. In our approach this condition can fail for $x=\infty$. Thus our theory can be applied to the important examples ( see sections 8-10) in which classical Fuchsian theory does not work.\
**Remark 1.2.** The meromorphic solutions of the differential systems play an important role in the spectral theory in the space with indefinite metric \[13\].
Conditions of strong regularity
================================
Taking into account Horn’s theorem we begin with the matrix function $A(x)$ which can be represented in the form $$A(x)=\frac{a_{-1}}{x-x_{0}}+a_{0}+a_{1}(x-x_{0})+... ,$$where $a_{k}$ are $n{\times}n$ matrices. We investigate the case when $x_{0}$ is either a regular point of $W(x)$ or a pole. Hence the following relation $$W(x)=\sum_{k{\geq}m}b_{k}(x-x_{0})^{k},\quad b_{m}{\ne}0$$ is true. Here $b_{k}$ are $n{\times}n$ matrices. We note that $m$ can be negative. From formulas (1.1), (2.1) and (2.2) we deduce that $$(k+1)b_{k+1}=\sum_{j+\ell=k}a_{j}b_{\ell},$$ where $j{\geq}-1,\quad \ell{\geq}m.$ Relation (2.3) can be rewritten in the recurrent form $$[(k+1)I_{n}-a_{-1}]b_{k+1}=\sum_{j+\ell=k}a_{j}b_{\ell},\quad
k{\geq}m,$$where $j{\geq}0,\quad \ell{\geq}m.$ When $k=m-1$ we have $$(mI_{n}-a_{-1})b_{m}=0.$$ From relation (2.5) we deduce the following assertion.\
**Proposition 2.1.**(necessary condition) *If the solution of system $(1.1)$ has form $(2.2)$ then $m$ is an eigenvalue of $a_{-1}$.*\
We denote by M the greatest integer eigenvalue of the matrix $a_{-1}$. Using relations (2.5) we obtain the assertion.\
**Proposition 2.2.**(sufficient condition) *If the matrix system $$[(k+1)I_{n}-a_{-1}]b_{k+1}=\sum_{j+\ell=k}a_{j}b_{\ell},$$ where $m{\leq}k+1{\leq}M$ has a solution $b_{m},
b_{m+1},...,b_{M}$ and $b_{m}{\ne}0$ then system $(1.1)$ has a solution of form $(2.2)$.*\
We consider the system of equations $$\frac{dY}{dx}=-YA(x),$$ where $Y(x)$ has the form $$Y(x)=\sum_{k{\geq}p}c_{k}(x-x_{0})^{k},\quad c_{p}{\ne}0.$$Formulas (2.1), (2.7) and (2.8) imply that $$(k+1)c_{k+1}=-\sum_{j+\ell=k}c_{\ell}a_{j},$$ where $j{\geq}-1,\quad \ell{\geq}p.$ We rewrite relation (2.9) in the form $$c_{k+1}[(k+1)I_{n}+a_{-1}]=-\sum_{j+\ell=k}c_{\ell}a_{j},$$ where $j{\geq}0,\quad \ell{\geq}p.$ In the same way as Propositions 2.1 and 2.2 we obtain the following results.\
**Proposition 2.3.** *If the solution of system $(1.1)$ has form $(2.2)$ then $(-p)$ is an eigenvalue of $a_{-1}$.*\
**Proposition 2.4.** *Let $(-P)$ be the smallest integer eigenvalue of the matrix $a_{-1}$. If the matrix system $$c_{k+1}[(k+1)I_{n}+a_{-1}]=-\sum_{j+\ell=k}c_{\ell}a_{j},$$ where $p{\leq}k+1{\leq}P$ has a solution $c_{p}\ne0,c_{p+1},...,c_{P}$, then system $(1.1)$ has a solution of form $(2.2)$.*\
**Remark 2.1.** If $W(x)$ is a fundamental solution of system (1.1), then $Y(x)=W^{-1}(x)$ is a fundamental solution of system (2.7).\
**Proposition 2.5.** *If $W(x)$ and $W^{-1}(x)$ satisfy relations $(1.1), (2.1)$ and $(2.7), (2.8)$ respectively, then $m$ and $-p$ are eigenvalues of the matrix $a_{-1}$. The corresponding matrix $a_{-1}$ is either scalar or has at least two different integer eigenvalues.*\
*Proof.* Let the matrix $a_{-1}$ not be a scalar one. Then it follows from relation (2.5) that $${\mathrm{det}}\,b_{m}=0.$$ Let us suppose that $a_{-1}$ doesn’t have integer eigenvalues different from $m$. In view of Propositions 2.1 and 2.3 the equality $p=-m$ is true. From relations (2.2), (2.8) and the equality $W(x)W^{-1}(x)=I_{n}$ we have $b_{m}c_{m}=I_{n}$ which contradicts relation (2.12). This proves the proposition.\
Integer eigenvalues
====================
We consider again differential system (1.1) , where $A(x)$ has form (2.1). Let $T$ be a constant matrix such that $$T^{-1}a_{-1}T=b_{-1},$$where $b_{-1}$ is Jordan matrix, i.e. $b_{-1}$ has the following structure $b_{-1}={\mathrm{diag}}(J_{1},J_{2},...,J_{s}),\quad
s{\leq}n.$ Here $J_{k}=\lambda_{k}I_{k}+H_{k},\quad
1{\leq}k{\leq}s$ and\
$H_{k}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 1 &0 & ... & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1& ... & 0 \\
... & ... & ... &... & ...\\
... & ...& ... & ... & 1 \\
0& 0 & 0& ...&0\\
\end{array}\right].$\
We reduce system (1.1) to the form $$\frac{dV}{dx}=B(x)V,$$ where $W(x)=TV,\quad
B(x)=T^{-1}A(x)T$. Now we describe the “shearing” transformation ( see \[20\],Ch.5) which lowers the eigenvalue $\lambda_{s}$ of the matrix $b_{-1}$ by one , while leaving the others unchanged.\
We denote by $q$ the order of Jordan matrix $J_{s}$ and represent $B(x)$ in the form $$B(x)=\frac{1}{x-x_{0}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\tilde{b}_{-1} & 0\\
0& J_{s} \\
\end{array}\right]+\tilde{B}(x),$$where $\tilde{B}(x)$ is holomorphic at $x_{0}$ and $$\tilde{b}_{-1}={\mathrm{diag}}(J_{1},J_{2},...,J_{s-1}).$$ The “shearing” transformation is defined by the relation (see \[1\],\[20\]) $$V=S(x)U.$$ Here $$S(x)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
I_{n-q} & 0\\
0& (x-x_{0})I_{q} \\
\end{array}\right].$$ Using (3.5) we deduce that $$\frac{dU}{dx}=C(x)U,$$where $$C(x)=S^{-1}(x)B(x)S(x)-S^{-1}(x)\frac{d}{dx}S(x) .$$It follows from (3.3) and (3.6) that $$c_{-1}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\tilde{b}_{-1} & 0\\
\Gamma& J_{s}-I_{q} \\
\end{array}\right].$$ It is easy to see that the matrix $c_{-1}$ has the same eigenvalues as $b_{-1}$ except that the eigenvalue $\lambda_{s}$ has been decreased by unity.\
**Theorem 3.1.** *If the fundamental solution of system $(1.1)$ is strong regular then all the eigenvalues of the corresponding matrix $a_{-1}$ are integer.*\
*Proof.* Using a finite number of pairs of constant and “shearing” transformations we can reduce system (1.1) to the system $$\frac{d}{dx}\tilde{W}(x)=\tilde{A}(x)\tilde{W}(x),$$ where all the integer eigenvalues of $\tilde{a}_{-1}$ coincide with the smallest integer eigenvalue of $a_{-1}$, the non integer eigenvalues of $a_{-1}$ and $\tilde{a}_{-1}$ coincide. If the fundamental solution $W(x)$ of system (1.1) is strong regular then the fundamental solution $\tilde{W}(x)$ of system (3.10) is strong regular as well. If $\tilde{a}_{-1}$ has non integer eigenvalues then according to Proposition 2.5 the matrix $\tilde{a}_{-1}$ has at least two different integer eigenvalues. The theorem is proved.\
Examples
========
**Example 4.1.** V.Katsnelson and D.Volok \[10\] investigated the case when the point $x_{0}$ is a simple pole of $W(x)$ and a holomorphic point of the inverse matrix function $W^{-1}(x)$. They proved that in this case $$a_{-1}^{2}=-a_{-1},\quad a_{-1}a_{0}a_{-1}=-a_{0}a_{-1}.$$It follows from the first of the relations (4.1) that the eigenvalues of $a_{-1}$ are equal $-1$ or $0$. From Proposition 2.2 we deduce the assertion.\
**Proposition 4.1.** *Let conditions $(4.1)$ be fulfilled. Then system $(1.1)$ has a strong regular solution , where $m=-1$.*\
*Proof.* In the case under consideration we have $m=-1,\quad
M=0.$ Hence system (2.6) takes the form $$(I_{n}+a_{-1})b_{-1}=0,\quad
-a_{-1}b_{0}=a_{0}b_{-1}.$$Comparing the first relations of (4.1) and (4.2) we obtain the equality $$b_{-1}=a_{-1}c,$$ where c is an arbitrary invertible matrix. It follows from the second relation of (4.1) that $$b_{0}=a_{0}a_{-1}c$$ satisfies the second equality of (4.2). The proposition is proved.\
**Example 4.2.** Let us consider the case when $A(x)$ has a pole of the second order. We suppose that the matrix $A(x)$ has the form $$A(x)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
a_{11}(x) & a_{12}(x)\\
a_{21}(x)& a_{22}(x)\\
\end{array}\right],$$ where $$a_{11}(x)=\alpha_{0}+\alpha_{1}(x-x_{0})+...,$$$$a_{22}(x)=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1}(x-x_{0})+...,$$$$a_{12}(x)=\gamma_{-2}(x-x_{0})^{-2}+\gamma_{-1}(x-x_{0})^{-1}+...,$$ $$a_{21}(x)=\mu_{2}(x-x_{0})^{2}+\mu_{3}(x-x_{0})^{3}+....$$ We introduce the matrix function $$\tilde{A}(x)=F^{-1}(x)A(x)F(x)-F^{-1}(x)\frac{d}{dx}F(x)
,$$where $$F(x)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{x-x_{0}} & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}\right]$$It is easy to see that the matrix function $ V(x)=F^{-1}(x)W(x) $ satisfies the equation $$\frac{d}{dx}V=\tilde{A}(x)V.$$It is important that the matrix function $\tilde{A}(x)$ has a pole of the first order. Indeed it follows from formulas (4.5)-(4.10) that $$\tilde{A}(x)=\frac{\tilde{a}_{-1}}{x-x_{0}}+\tilde{a}_{0}+...
\quad ,$$ where\
$\tilde{a}_{-1}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \gamma_{-2} \\
0 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right],$ $\tilde{a}_{0}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha_{0} & \gamma_{-1} \\
0 & \beta_{0} \\
\end{array}\right].$\
We shall consider the case when $$V(x)=\sum_{k{\geq}m}\tilde{b}_{k}(x-x_{0})^{k},\quad
\tilde{b}_{m}{\ne}0$$ is true. Here $\tilde{b}_{k}$ are $n{\times}n$ matrices.\
**Proposition 4.2.** *Let the matrix $A(x)$ have the form defined by relations $(4.6)-(4.9)$. Then system $(1.1)$ has a strong regular solution if and only if* $$\gamma_{-2}(\alpha_{0}-\beta_{0})=\gamma_{-1}.$$ *Proof.* In this case we have $m=0,\quad M=1.$ From equality $\tilde{a}_{-1}\tilde{b}_{0}=0 $ we deduce that $\tilde{b}_{0}$ has the following form $$\tilde{b}_{0}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-s\gamma_{-2} & -t\gamma_{-2} \\
s & t\\
\end{array}\right].$$ In view of (2.4) we have $$(I_{m}-\tilde{a}_{-1})\tilde{b}_{1}=\tilde{a}_{0}\tilde{b}_{0}$$ Equation (4.17) has a solution $\tilde{b}_{1}$ if and only if relation (4.15) is fulfilled. From Proposition 2.2 we deduce the desired assertion.\
**Corollary 4.1.** *In addition to the conditions of Proposition 4.2 we suppose that $\alpha_{0}=\beta_{0}$. System $(1.1)$ has a strong regular solution if and only if $\gamma_{-1}=0$.*\
Differential Systems with spectral parameter
============================================
We consider the differential system with the parameter $\rho$: $$\frac{dW(x,\rho)}{dx}=[P(x)+{\rho}Q(x)]W(x,\rho),$$ where the $n{\times}n$ matrix functions $P(x)$ and $Q(x)$ can be represented in the forms $$P(x)=\frac{p_{-1}}{x-x_{0}}+p_{0}+... \quad ,$$ $$Q(x)=\frac{q_{-1}}{x-x_{0}}+q_{0}+... \quad .$$ Systems (5.1) play an important role in the spectral theory of the canonical differential systems with the spectral parameter $\rho$ (see \[15\]). Due to Theorem 3.1 the following assertion is true.\
**Proposition 5.1.**(necessary condition) *If system $(5.1)-(5.3)$ has a strong regular fundamental solution $W(x,\rho)$ for all $\rho$ then all the eigenvalues of the matrix $p_{-1}+{\rho}q_{-1}$ are integer and do not depend on $\rho$.*\
**Example 5.1.** Let $n=2$ and $p_{-1}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\lambda_{1}& \Gamma_{1} \\
0 & \lambda_{2}\\
\end{array}\right],$ $q_{-1}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0& \Gamma_{2} \\
0 & 0\\
\end{array}\right].$\
We assume that $\lambda_{1}$ and $\lambda_{2}$ are integer numbers. The eigenvalues of the matrix $p_{-1}+{\rho}q_{-1}$ are equal to $\lambda_{1}$ and $\lambda_{2}$, i.e. these eigenvalues are integer and do not depend on $\rho$.\
**Example 5.2.** We consider the system $$\frac
{d}{dx}W(x,\rho)={\rho}A(x)W(x,\rho),$$ where the matrix function $A(x)$ is defined by relations (4.6)-(4.9). We introduce the matrix $$\tilde{A}(x,\rho)={\rho}F^{-1}(x)A(x)F(x)-F^{-1}(x)\frac{d}{dx}F(x)
,$$where $$F(x)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{x-x_{0}} & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}\right]$$The matrix function $ V(x,\rho)=F^{-1}(x)W(x,\rho) $ satisfies the equation $$\frac{d}{dx}V=[P(x)+{\rho}Q(x)]V,$$ where $$P(x)=-F^{-1}(x)\frac{d}{dx}F(x)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{x-x_{0}} & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}\right],$$ $$Q(x)=F^{-1}(x)A(x)F(x).$$ It follows from (5.8) and (5.9) that\
$p_{-1}=\left[\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right],$ $p_{0}=\left[\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right],$ $q_{-1}={\rho}\left[\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \gamma_{-2} \\
0 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right],$ $q_{0}={\rho}\left[\begin{array}{cc} \alpha_{0} & \gamma_{-1} \\
0 & \beta_{0} \\
\end{array}\right].$\
Condition (4.15) takes the form $${\rho}\gamma_{-2}(\alpha_{0}-\beta_{0})=\gamma_{-1}.$$ Using Propositions 4.2 and 5.1 we obtain the following assertion.\
**Proposition 5.2.** *Let the matrix function $A(x)$ be defined by relations $(4.6)-(4.9)$. System $(5.1)$ has a strong regular fundamental solution for all $\rho$ if and only if* $$\alpha_{0}=\beta_{0},\quad \gamma_{-1}=0.$$
Global strong regular solutions
===============================
In sections 1-5 we investigated the strong regular solutions in a punctured neighborhood of the singular point $x_{0}$. Now we deduce the conditions under which the solution of system (5.1) is strong regular for all complex $x{\ne}\infty$ and all complex $\rho{\ne}\infty$ (global strong regular solution). It is obvious that the global strong solution is meromorphic in $x$ and entire in$\rho$.\
Let us consider the differential system $$\frac{dW}{dx}={\rho}A(x)W,$$ where the $2{\times}2$ matrix function $A(x)$ has the form\
$$A(x)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & r(x)^{-2} \\
r(x)^{2} & 0 \\
\end{array}\right].$$ Here $r(x)$ is a meromorphic function in the complex plane. We denote by $x_{k},\quad
1{\leq}k{\leq}n{\leq}\infty$ and by $y_{\ell},\quad
1{\leq}\ell{\leq}m{\leq}\infty$ the different roots of $r(x)$ and of $r^{-1}(x)$ respectively. Proposition 5.2 implies the following result.\
**Theorem 6.1.** *Let all the roots $x_{k}$ and $y_{\ell}$ of $r(x)$ and of $r^{-1}(x)$ respectively be simple. The fundamental solution $W(x,\rho)$ of system $(6.1),
(6.2)$ is strong regular for all $x$ and $\rho$ if and only if* $$r(x_{k})=0,\quad r^{\prime}(x_{k}){\ne}0,\quad
r^{\prime\prime}(x_{k})=0, \quad (1{\leq}k{\leq}n),$$ $$q(y_{\ell})=0,\quad q^{\prime}(y_{\ell}){\ne}0,\quad
q^{\prime\prime}(y_{\ell})=0, \quad (1{\leq}\ell{\leq}m),\quad
q(x)=r^{-1}(x)$$.\
The following assertions can be proved by the direct calculation.\
**Proposition 6.1.** *The functions $$I)\quad r_{1}(x)=x,\quad II)\quad
r_{2}(x)={\mathrm{tan}}x$$ satisfy all the conditions of Theorem 6.1. The corresponding $x_{k}$ and $y_{\ell}$ are defined by the relations:*\
$I) n=1,m=0, x_{1}=0,\quad II)
x_{k}=k\pi,\quad y_{\ell}=\ell\pi+\frac{\pi}{2}, \quad
-\infty<k,\ell<\infty.$\
**Proposition 6.2.** *If $r(x)$ is a polynomial and $\mathrm{deg}r(x){\geq}2$ then $r(x)$ does not satisfy conditions $(6.3)$*.\
**Proposition 6.3.** *The functions $$r_{3}(x)=\frac{x-\lambda_{1}}{x-\lambda_{2}},\quad
\lambda_{1}{\ne}\lambda_{2},$$ $$r_{4}(x)=\frac{(x-\lambda_{1})(x-\lambda_{2})}{x-\mu_{1}}
\quad \lambda_{1}{\ne}\lambda_{2},\quad
\lambda_{1,2}{\ne}\mu_{1}$$ do not satisfy conditions $(6.3),(6.4)$*.\
Theorem 6.1 and Propositions 6.1-6.3 lead to the following problems.\
**Problem 6.1.** To construct meromorphic functions $r(x)$ which satisfy conditions (6.3) and (6.4).\
**Problem 6.2.** To construct rational functions $r(x)$ which satisfy conditions (6.3) and (6.4).\
These problems will be investigated in the next sections.\
The connection of system (6.1), (6.2) with the classical second order equations is explained in the introduction.
Operator Identity
=================
To solve Problems 6.1 and 6.2 we use the operator identity method (see \[15\]). We introduce the operators $$Af=i\int_{0}^{x}f(t)dt,\quad f(x){\in}L^{2}(0,a)$$ and $$Sf=f(x)+\int_{0}^{a}f(t)k(x-t)dt,$$ where the function $k(x),\quad (-a{\leq}x{\leq}a)$ is continuous and $$k(x)=k(-x)=\overline{k(x)}.$$We use the following operator identity $$AS-SA^{\star}=i(\Phi_{1}\Phi_{2}^{\star}+\Phi_{2}\Phi_{1}^{\star}).$$Here the operators $\Phi_{1}$ and $\Phi_{2}$ are defined by the relations $$\Phi_{1}g=M(x)g,\quad \Phi_{2}g=g,$$ where $$M(x)=\int_{0}^{x}k(u)du+\frac{1}{2},\quad
0{\leq}x{\leq}a.$$ Thus the operators $\Phi_{1}$ and $\Phi_{2}$ map the one-dimensional space of constant numbers $g$ into $L^{2}(0,a)$. Let us consider the operator $$S_{\xi}f=f(x)+\int_{0}^{\xi}f(t)k(x-t)dt,\quad
f(x){\in}L^{2}(0,\xi)\quad 0{\leq}\xi{\leq}a.$$Let us formulate the following results (see \[13\]).\
**Theorem 7.1.** *We assume:\
There are points $0<x_{1}<x_{2}<...$ having no limit points in $[0,a]$ and such that the operator $S_{\xi}$ is invertible on $L^{2}(0,\xi)$ for each $\xi{\in}[0,a)/\{x_{1},x_{2},...\}$.\
Then the matrix function $$B(\xi)=\Pi^{\star}S_{\xi}^{-1}P_{\xi}\Pi,\quad
\Pi=[\Phi_{1},\Phi_{2}]$$ is continuous and nondecreasing in each of the intervals $(x_{k},x_{k+1})$. The matrix function $$W(\xi,\rho)=I_{2}+i{\rho}J\Pi^{\star}S_{\xi}^{-1}P_{\xi}(I-{\rho}A)^{-1}\Pi$$ is a fundamental solution for the system $$W(\xi,\rho)=I_{2}+i{\rho}J\int_{0}^{\xi}[dB(t)W(t,\rho),$$where* $$J=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right].$$ **Theorem 7.2.** *Let $B(x)$ be constructed by $(7.8)$ . Then $B(x)$ is continuously differentiable in the intervals between the singularities , and in these intervals $$H(\xi)=B^{\prime}(\xi)=[h_{i}^{\star}(\xi)h_{j}(\xi)]_{1}^{2},$$ where* $$h_{1}(\xi)=M(\xi)+\int_{0}^{\xi}\Gamma_{\xi}(\xi,t)M(t)dt.$$ $$h_{2}(\xi)=1+\int_{0}^{\xi}\Gamma_{\xi}(\xi,t)dt,$$We use here the formula $$S_{\xi}^{-1}f=f(x)+\int_{0}^{\xi}\Gamma_{\xi}(x,t)f(t)dt.$$We remark that $H(\xi)$ has the special form \[16\] $$H(\xi)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}
Q(\xi) & 1 \\
1 & Q^{-1}(\xi) \\
\end{array}\right].$$ It follows from relations (7.10) and (7.11) that $$\frac{dW(x,\rho)}{dx}=i{\rho}JH(x)W(x,\rho).$$ Introducing $U(x,\rho)=W(2x,\rho)e^{-ix\rho}$ we reduce system (7.17) to the form $$\frac{dU(x,\rho)}{dx}=i{\rho}JH_{1}(x)U(x,\rho),$$ where $$H_{1}(x)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
r^{2}(x) & 0 \\
0& r^{-2}(x) \\
\end{array}\right],$$ $$R(x)=Q(2x).$$ Let us note that obtained system (7.18), (7.19) coincides with system (6.1), (6.2).
Rational $r(x)$
===============
Let us consider the operator $S_{\xi}$ (see(7.7)), where $k(x)$ satisfies conditions (7.3) and is a polynomial of degree $2m$. The kernel $k(x-t)$ can be represented in the form $$k(x-t)=\sum_{s=0}^{2m}x^{s}p_{s}(t),$$ where $p_{s}(t)$ are the polynomials ($\mathrm{deg}\,p_{s}(t){\leq}(2m-s))$. We introduce the matrix $$A_{\xi}=[\delta_{j,s}+(x^{s},p_{j}(x))_{\xi}]_{0}^{2m}$$ and the determinant $$\Delta_{\xi}=\mathrm{det}A_{\xi}.$$In formula (8.2) we used the notation $(f,g)_{\xi}=\int_{0}^{\xi}f(t)\overline{g(t)}dt.$ The solution $g(x,\xi)$ of the equation $$S_{\xi}g=f(x)$$has the form $$g(x,\xi)= f(x)-\sum_{s=0}^{2m}c_{s}(\xi)x^{s},$$ where $c_{s}(\xi)=(g,p_{s})_{\xi}.$ It follows from (8.4) and Cramer’s rule that $$c_{s}(\xi)=\frac{d_{s}(\xi)}{\Delta_{\xi}},$$ where the determinant $d_{s}(\xi)$ is formed by replacing the column under number $s$ in $\Delta_{\xi}$ by the column\
$\mathrm{col}[(f,p_{0})_{\xi},(f,p_{1})_{\xi},...,(f,p_{2m})_{\xi}].$\
Using (8.5) and (8.6) we have $$g(x)=f(x)+\int_{0}^{\xi}\Gamma_{\xi}(x,t)f(t)dt,$$where $$\Gamma_{\xi}(x,t)=\frac
{1}{\Delta_{\xi}}\sum_{s=0}^{2m}D_{s}(\xi,t)x^{s}.$$Here the determinant $D_{s}(\xi,t)$ is formed by replacing the column under number $s$ in $\Delta_{\xi}$ by the column\
$\mathrm{col}[p_{0}(t),p_{1}(t),...,p_{2m}(t)].$\
The expression $$\Gamma_{\xi}(0,\xi)=\frac{D_{0}(\xi,\xi)}{\Delta_{\xi}}$$ plays an important role in our theory.\
From (8.7) and (8.8) we deduce the following assertion.\
**Theorem 8.1.** *If $k(x)$ satisfies conditions $(7.3)$ and is a polynomial then the corresponding function $Q(\xi)$ (see $(7.16)$) is rational.*\
*Proof.* Let $f(x)=1$ . In this case formula (8.5) gives $$g(x,\xi)=1+\sum_{s=0}^{2m}x^{s}R_{s}(\xi),$$ where the functions $R_{s}(\xi)$ are rational. Hence the function $g(\xi,\xi)=h_{2}(\xi)$ is rational too. The assertion of the theorem follows directly from the equality $$Q^{-1}(x)=2h_{2}^{2}(x),$$ which can be obtained from (7.12) and (7.16).\
We denote by\
$\xi_{1},\xi_{2},...,\xi_{n}$ the roots of the polynomial $\Delta_{\xi}$.\
**Theorem 8.2.** *If $k(x)$ satisfies conditions $(7.3)$ and is a polynomial then the corresponding matrix function $W(\xi,\rho)$ defined by relation $(7.9)$ is entire in respect to $\rho$ and meromorphic in respect to $\xi$ with the poles in the points $\xi_{1},\xi_{2},...,\xi_{n}$* .\
*Proof.* According to (7.6) the function $M(x_)$ is a polynomial. Hence the function $(I-A{\rho})^{-1}M(x)$ is an entire function of $\rho$ and $x$. Using (7.9) and (8.8) we deduce the assertion of the theorem.\
**Remark 8.2.** We consider $Q(\xi)$ and $W(\xi,\rho)$ for all the complex $ \xi{\ne}\xi_{k},(1{\leq}k{\leq}n)$ and for all the complex $\rho$.\
Due to analytic continuation the equality $$\frac{dW}{d\xi}=i{\rho}JH(\xi)W(\xi,\rho)$$ is true for all complex $ \xi{\ne}\xi_{k},(1{\leq}k{\leq}n)$ and for all the complex $\rho$. Here the matrix function $H(\xi)$ is defined by formula (7.16). Theorems 7.2 and 8.2 imply the following assertion.\
**Corollary 8.2** *The function $r(x)=1/[\sqrt{2}h_{2}(2x)]$ is a rational function. The union of the sets of the roots and the poles of $r(x)$ coincides with the set*\
$\frac{1}{2}\xi_{1},\frac{1}{2}\xi_{2},...,\frac{1}{2}\xi_{n}$.\
We shall use the relation (see \[7\],Ch.4.) $$\frac{dg(\xi,\xi)}{d\xi}=\Gamma_{\xi}(0,\xi)g(\xi,\xi),\quad g(\xi,\xi)=h_{2}(\xi).$$From relation (8.13) and Corollary 8.2 we deduce the assertion.\
**Corollary 8.3** *If all roots of $\Delta_{\xi}$ are simple then the corresponding function $r(x)$ satisfies the conditions $(6.3), (6.4)$.*\
**Example 8.1.** Let us consider the case when $$k(x)=x^{2}.$$ In this case we have $p_{0}(t)=t^{2},
p_{1}(t)=-2t, p_{2}(t)=1.$ Hence the determinants $\Delta_{\xi}$ and $d_{0}(\xi)$ are defined by the relations $$\Delta_{\xi}=\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
1+\xi^{3}/3 & \xi^{4}/4 & \xi^{5}/5 \\
-\xi^{2} & 1-2\xi^{3}/3 & -\xi^{4}/4 \\
\xi & \xi^{2} & 1+ \xi^{3}/3 \\
\end{array}\right|,$$ $$d_{0}(\xi)=\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
-\xi^{2} & \xi^{4}/4 & \xi^{5}/5 \\
2xi & 1-2\xi^{3}/3 & -\xi^{4}/4 \\
-1 & \xi^{2} & 1+ \xi^{3}/3 \\
\end{array}\right| .$$It follows from (8.15) and (8.16) that $$\Delta_{\xi}=\frac{1}{1080}\xi^{9}-\frac{1}{30}\xi^{6}+1,$$ $$d_{0}(\xi)=-\xi^{2}[(1-\xi^{3}/6)^{2}+\xi^{3}(1-\xi^{3}/15)/2-\xi^{3}(1-\xi^{3}/24)/5].$$The polynomial $\Delta_{\xi}$ has nine different roots\
$x_{k}^{3}=6, (1{\leq}k{\leq}3),\quad
x_{k}^{3}=15+9\sqrt{5}, (4{\leq}k{\leq}6),\quad
x_{k}^{3}=15-9\sqrt{5}, (7{\leq}k{\leq}9).$\
By the direct calculation we prove the following assertion.\
**Proposition 8.1.** *The poles of $\Gamma_{\xi}(0,\xi)$ coincide with $x_{k},(1{\leq}k{\leq}9).$ These poles are simple and the residues in the points $x_{k},(1{\leq}k{\leq}3)$ are equal to $1$ and in the points $x_{k},(4{\leq}k{\leq}9)$ are equal to $-1$.*\
From relation (8.17) and Proposition 8.1 we deduce that $$h_{2}(x)=\frac{\frac{1}{6}x^{3}-1}{\frac{1}{180}x^{6}-\frac{1}{6}x^{3}-1}.$$ Hence the corresponding function $r(x)=1/[\sqrt{2}h_{2}(2x)]$ is rational and satisfies conditions (6.3) and (6.4) (see Problem 6.2).
Exponential $r(x)$
==================
The following example was considered in the paper \[13\].\
**Example 9.1.** Let the operator $S_{\xi}$ have the form $$S_{\xi}f=f(x)+\beta\int_{0}^{\xi}[e^{i\lambda(x-t)}+e^{-i\lambda(x-t)}]f(t)dt,$$ where $\beta=\overline{\beta}{\ne}0,\quad \lambda>0.$ We find $$S_{\xi}^{-1}f=f(x)-K_(x)T^{-1}(\xi)\int_{0}^{\xi}K^{\star}(t)f(t)dt,$$where $K(x)=[e^{i\lambda{x}},e^{-i\lambda{x}}]$ and $$T(\xi)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\xi+{\beta}^{-1} & \lambda^{-1}e^{-i\lambda{\xi}}\mathrm{sin}\lambda{\xi} \\
\lambda^{-1}e^{i\lambda{\xi}}\mathrm{sin}\lambda{\xi} & \xi+{\beta}^{-1} \\
\end{array}\right].$$ By direct calculation we have $h_{1}(x)=\frac{1}{2h_{2}(x)}$ and $$h_{2}(x)=\frac{u(x)}{v(x)},$$ where $$u(x)=x+\beta^{-1}
-\lambda^{-1}\mathrm{sin}\lambda\,x,\quad v(x)=x+\beta^{-1}
+\lambda^{-1}\mathrm{sin}\lambda\,x.$$ It is easy to see that all the roots and the poles of $h_{2}(x)$ are simple. In the same way as Corollary 8.3. we deduce the following assertion.\
**Proposition 9.1.** *The corresponding function $$r(x)=\frac{2x+\beta^{-1}
+\lambda^{-1}\mathrm{sin}2\lambda\,x}{\sqrt{2}(2x+\beta^{-1}
+\lambda^{-1}\mathrm{sin}2\lambda\,x)}.$$ is rational and satisfies conditions (6.3) and (6.4)*
Analytic continuation, Painleve transcendents
=============================================
1\. Let us consider the operator $$(S_\xi f)(x) = f(x) + \int_0^\xi k(x,t)f(t)\;dt$$ on $L^2(0,\xi)$.\
**Theorem 10.1.** *Let the kernel $k(x,t),\quad
0<x,t<\infty$ have an extension to a function $k(z,w)$ which is analytic as function of $z$ and $w$ in a region $G$ such that $G$ contains the set $(0,\infty)$ and $zt{\in}G$ whenever $z{\in}G,\quad 0<t<1.$ Then the function $$\sigma(\xi,f,g)=(S_{\xi}^{-1}f,g)_{\xi}$$ where $f(x)$ and $g(x)$ are entire functions of $x$, has an extension to a function $\sigma(z,f,g)$ which is analytic in $G$ except at isolated points. All finite singular points of $\sigma(z,f,g)$ are poles*\
*Proof.* For small $\xi$, the operator $S_\xi$ differs from the identity operator by an operator of norm less than one. Therefore $S_\xi$ is invertible for $0 \le
\xi < \varepsilon$ for some $\varepsilon > 0$. For each $\xi$ in $(0,\infty)$, define $U_\xi$ from $L^2(0,1)$ to $L^2(0,\xi)$ by $$(U_\xi f)(t) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\xi}} \,
f\left(\frac{ x}{\xi}\right),
\qquad 0 < x < \xi.$$ Then $U_\xi$ maps $L^2(0,1)$ isometrically onto $L^2(0,\xi)$, and $$(U_\xi^{-1} g)(x) = \sqrt{\xi}
g(t\xi)
\qquad 0 < t < 1.$$ Hence $\tilde{S_{\xi}}=U_\xi^{-1} S_\xi U_\xi$ is a bounded operator on $L^{2}(0,1)$ given by $$\tilde{S_{\xi}}f(x)=
f(x) + \xi\int_0^1
k(\xi x, \xi t)
f(t) \; dt .$$ Clearly $S_\xi$ is invertible if and only if $\tilde{S_{\xi}}$ is invertible. Write $$\tilde{S_{\xi}}=I+T_{\xi}.$$ The assumptions of the theorem allow us to define an operator $T(z)$ on $L^2(0,1)$ by $$T(z)f=z \int_0^1
k(zx,zt)
f(t) \; dt .$$ The operator $T(z)$ is compact and depends holomorphically on $z$, and $T(z)$ agrees with the operator $T(\xi)$ defined by (10.4) when $z = \xi$ is a point of $(0,\infty)$. Since $I +
T(\xi)$ is invertible for small positive $\xi$, $I+T(z)$ is invertible except at isolated points of $G$ (see Kato \[9\] Theorem 1.9 on p. 370) in which $[I+T(z)]^{-1}$ has the poles. Hence the function $([I+T(z)]^{-1}x^{m},x^{n})_{1}$ is meromorphic if $m$ and $n$ are non-negative integers. The assertion of the theorem follows from the relation $$(S_{\xi}^{-1}x^{m},x^{n})_{\xi}=\xi^{m+n+1}({\tilde{S}}^{-1}_{\xi}x^{m},x^{n})_{1}.$$ **Remark 10.1.** The arguments close to Theorem 10.1 are contained in the article \[13\]\
The following kernels satisfy the conditions of Theorem 10.1:\
$$k_{1}(x,t)=\gamma\frac{\mathrm{sin}\pi(x-t)}{\pi(x-t)},\qquad
\gamma=\overline{\gamma},$$ $$k_{2}(x,t)=\gamma\frac{Ai(x)Ai^{\prime}(t)-Ai(t)Ai^{\prime}(t)}{x-t},\qquad
\gamma=\overline{\gamma},$$where $Ai(x)$ is the Airy function.\
Let us introduce the functions $\phi(x)=J_{\alpha}(\sqrt{x}),\quad \psi(x)=x\phi^{\prime},\quad
x{\geq}0$ and the kernel $$k_{3}(x,t)=\gamma\frac{\phi(x)\psi(t)-\phi(t)\psi(x)}{x-t},\qquad
\gamma=\overline{\gamma},$$ where $J_{\alpha}(x)$ is the Bessel function of order $\alpha\quad (\alpha>-1)$.\
**Remark 10.2.** The sine-kernel $k_{1}(x,t)$, the Airy-kernel $k_{2}(x,t)$ and the Bessel-kernel $k_{3}(x,t)$ play an important role in the random matrix theory (see \[4\], \[12\], \[17-19\].)\
**Remark 10.3.** The region $G$ in the cases $k_{1}(x,t)$ and $k_{2}(x,t)$ is the complex plane. The region $G$ in the case $k_{3}(x,t)$ is the complex plane cut by the half-axis $[0,\infty)$.\
2. **Example 10.1 ( fifth Painleve transcendent)**\
Let us consider the operator$$S_{t}f=f(x)+\gamma\int_{-t}^{t}k(x-u)f(u)du,\quad
f(u){\in}L^{2}(-a,a),$$ where $|t|{\leq}a, \quad \gamma=\overline{\gamma} $ and $$k(x)=\frac{\sin{x\pi}}{x\pi}.$$The operator $S_{t}$ is invertible (see \[4\],p.167), when $|\gamma|{\leq}1$. Hence we have $$S_{t}^{-1}f=f(x)+\int_{-t}^{t}\Gamma_{t}(x,u,\gamma)f(u)du,\quad
f(u){\in}L^{2}(-t,t),$$where the kernel $\Gamma_{t}(x,u,\gamma)$ is jointly continuous to the variables $x,t,u, \gamma$. Together with the operator $S_{t}$ we shall consider the operator $$\tilde{S}_{2t}f=f(x)+\gamma\int_{0}^{2t}k(x-v)f(v)dv,\quad
f(u){\in}L^{2}(0,2t).$$ The operator $$U_{t}f(x)=f(u+t)$$ maps unitarily the space $L^{2}(0,2t)$ onto $L^{2}(-t,t)$. It is easy to see that $$U_{t}^{-1}S_{t}U_{t}f=
\tilde{S}_{2t}f.$$ In view of (10.12) and (10.15) we have $$\tilde{S}_{2t}^{-1}f=f(x)+\int_{0}^{2t}\tilde{\Gamma}_{2t}(x,u,\gamma)f(u)du,\quad
f(u){\in}L^{2}(0,2t),$$where $$\tilde{\Gamma}_{2t}(x,y,\gamma)=\Gamma_{t}(x-t,y-t,\gamma).$$It follows from (10.17) that $$\tilde{\Gamma}_{2t}(2t,2t,\gamma)=\Gamma_{t}(t,t,\gamma),\quad
\tilde{\Gamma}_{2t}(2t,0,\gamma)=\Gamma_{t}(t,-t,\gamma).$$Now we consider the case when $\gamma=-1$. For brevity we omit the parameter $\gamma=-1$ in the notation $\Gamma_{t}(x,u,-1)$. Following C.Trace and H.Widom \[17\] we introduce the functions $$r(t)=e^{it\pi}+\int_{-t}^{t}\Gamma_{t}(t,u)e^{iu\pi}du$$ and $$q(t)=e^{it\pi}+\int_{0}^{t}\tilde{\Gamma}_{t}(t,u)e^{iu\pi}du$$ Relations (10.17) and (10.19), (10.20) imply that $$q(2t)=r(t)e^{it\pi}.$$ We use the following relation (see \[17\]) $$\frac{d}{dt}[tR(t,t)]=|r(t)|^{2},$$ where $R(t,t)=\Gamma_{t}(t,t)$. From (10.21) and (10.22) we have $$tR(t,t)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{2t}|q(v)|^{2}dv.$$ To prove the relation $$tR(t,t)=\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{S}_{2t}^{-1}e^{u\pi},e^{u\pi})_{2t}$$ we use the notion of the triangular factorization (see\[7\], Ch.4; \[14\]).\
**Definition 10.1.** The positive operator $S$ acting in $L^{2}(0,a)$ admits the *triangular factorization* if it can be represented in the form $$S=S_{-}S_{-}^{\star}.$$Here $Q_{\xi}S_{-}^{\pm1}=Q_{\xi}S_{-}^{\pm1}Q_{\xi} ,$ where $Q_{\xi}=I-P_{\xi},\quad P_{\xi}f=f(x) ,\quad 0{\leq}x<\xi$ and $P_{\xi}f=0 ,\quad \xi{\leq}x{\leq}a,\quad f(x)\in L_{k}^{2}(0,a)$.\
Using M.G.Krein result (see \[7\], Ch.4) on the triangular factorization of the operator $S$ with continuous kernel we obtain the assertion.\
**Theorem 10.2.** *The operator* $$Sf=f(x)-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{0}^{a}\frac{{\mathrm{sin}}\pi(x-t)}{x-t}f(t)dt$$ *admits triangular factorization $(10.25)$ and* $$S_{-}^{-1}f=f(v)+\int_{0}^{v}\tilde{\Gamma}_{v}(v,u)f(u)du.$$ Hence formula (10.20) can be written in the form $$q(x)=S_{-}^{-1}e^{iu\pi}.$$ **Remark 10.4.** Representation (10.28) of $q(x)$ which contains the factorizing operator $S_{-}$ plays an essential role in our approach.\
We use the notations $$D(\xi)=\mathrm{det}\,\tilde{S}_{\xi},$$ $$\sigma(x)=\frac{x}{\pi}D^{\prime}(\frac{x}{\pi})/D(\frac{x}{\pi}).$$ It is known (see\[17\]) that $$\sigma(x)=-2tR(t,t),\quad x=2{\pi}t.$$ Relations (10.24) and (10.31) imply that $$\sigma(x)=-(\tilde{S}_{2t}^{-1}e^{iu\pi},e^{iu\pi})_{2t},\quad
x= 2{\pi}t.$$ We note that the function $\sigma(x)$ is the fifth Painleve transcendent (see \[17\]).Using Proposition 10.1 and relation (10.31) we have obtained the new proof of the following well-known fact (see\[6\]).\
**Corollary 10.1.** *The fifth Painleve transcendent $\sigma(\xi)$ can be extended to the meromorphic function $\sigma(z)$.*\
The function $\sigma(\xi)$ is a solution of the Painleve equation ($P_{5}$ in the sigma form, see \[17\]) $$(\xi\sigma^{\prime\prime})^{2}+4(\xi\sigma^{\prime}-\sigma)(\xi\sigma^{\prime}-\sigma+{\sigma^{\prime}}^{2})
=0.$$ **Proposition 10.1.** *All the poles $z_{k}$ of $\sigma(z)$ are simple with residues $z_{k}.$*\
*Proof.* Looking at the Laurent expansion of $\sigma(z)$ at the poles $z_{k}$ we observe by (10.33) that the principal term of $\sigma(z)$has to be $z_{k}/(z-z_{k})$. The proposition is proved.\
According to (10.4) and (10.5) the function $D(\xi)$ can be extended to the entire function $D(z)$. From Proposition 10.1. and relation (10.29) we obtain the assertions.\
**Corollary 10.2.** *All the zeroes of $D(z)$ are simple.*\
**Corollary 10.3.** *All the eigenvalues of $T(z)$ are simple.*\
3. **Example 10.2. (Painleve type functions)**\
Let us consider the operator $S_{\xi}$ of form (10.1), where $k(x,t)=k_{1}(x,t)$. We introduce the functions $$\sigma_{1}(\xi,\gamma,\lambda)=(S_{\xi}^{-1}f,g)_{\xi},$$ where $f(x)=g(x)=e^{ix\lambda},\quad \lambda=\overline{\lambda}.$ Using Theorem 10.1 and Corollary 10.3 we obtain the following assertion.\
**Proposition 10.2.** *The function $\sigma_{1}(\xi,\gamma,\lambda)$ can be extended to the meromorphic function $\sigma_{1}(z,\gamma,\lambda)$, all the poles of $\sigma_{1}(z,\gamma,\lambda)$ are simple.*\
**Definition 10.2.** We call the functions $\sigma_{1}(z,\gamma,\lambda)$ *the Painleve type functions.*\
We note that the fifth Painleve transcendent $\sigma(z)$ is connected with the functions of form (10.34) by the relation $$\sigma(z)=-\sigma_{1}(z/\pi,-1,\pi).$$ 4. We separately consider the function $$\sigma_{2}(z,\gamma)=\sigma_{1}(z,\gamma,0).$$ It follows from (10.34) and (10.36) that $$\sigma_{2}(z)=(S_{\xi}^{-1}1,1)_{\xi},\quad
\xi>0,$$where the operator $S_{\xi}$ and the kernel $k(x,y)$ are defined by relations (10.1) and (10.7) respectively. We introduce the operators of form (10.10) with the kernels $k(x,y)$ and $$k_{\pm}(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}[k(x,y){\pm}k(-x,y)].$$ Let us denote the Fredholm determinants corresponding to $k(x,y),\quad k_{+}(x,y)$ and $k_{-}(x,y)$ by $D(\gamma,t),\quad D_{+}(\gamma,t)$ and $D_{-}(\gamma,t)$ respectively. We use the following relations (see \[12\], Ch.21.) $$D(\gamma,t)=D_{+}(\gamma,t)D_{-}(\gamma,t),$$ $$\frac{D_{-}(\gamma,t)}{D_{+}(\gamma,t)}=1+\int_{-t}^{t}\Gamma_{t}(t,y,\gamma)dy.$$ It follows from (10.17) and (10.40) that $$\frac{D_{-}(\gamma,t)}{D_{+}(\gamma,t)}=1+\int_{0}^{2t}\tilde{\Gamma}_{2t}(t,y,\gamma)dy.$$ In view of (7.14) and (10.40)the relation $$\frac{D_{-}(\gamma,t)}{D_{+}(\gamma,t)}=h_{2}(2t)$$is true. Using formulas (10.3)-(10.5) we deduce the assertion\
**Proposition 10.3.** *The functions $D_{-}(x,t)$ and $D_{-}(x,t)$ can be extended to the entire functions $D_{-}(z,t)$ and $D_{-}(z,t)$ respectively*.\
Hence we have\
**Corollary 10.4.** *The function $h_{2}(2t)$ can be extended to the meromorphic function* $$h_{2}(2z)=\frac{D_{-}(\gamma,z)}{D_{+}(\gamma,z)}.$$According to representation (7.9) and Theorem 10.1 equations (1.12) and (1.13) have the strong regular solutions $u_{1}(x,\rho)$ and $u_{2}(x,\rho)$ respectively when $$r^{-2}(x)=2h_{2}^{2}(2x).$$ From Theorem 6.1, Corollary 10.4 and relation (10.44) we obtain\
**Corollary 10.5.** *The function $$r(z)=\frac{D_{-}(\gamma,z)}{D_{+}(\gamma,z)}$$ satisfies conditions $(6.3),(6.4)$.*\
4. **Example 10.3. (third Painleve function).**\
Let us consider the operator (10.1), where $k(x,t)$ is the Bessel kernel.\
**Proposition 10.4.** *The operator $S_{\xi}$ defined by relations $(10.1)$ and $(10.9)$ is invertible on $L^{2}(0,\xi)$, when $|\gamma|{\leq}1$.*\
*Proof.* The kernel $k(x,t)$ has the form $k(x,t)={\gamma}K(x,t),$ where $$K(x,t)=\frac{1}{4}\int_{0}^{1}\phi(xs)\phi(ts)ds, \quad
\phi(x)=J_{\alpha}(\sqrt{x}).$$ The operator $T_{\xi}=S_{\xi}-I$ has the kernel $k(x,t)$ and is self-adjoint. It follows from (10.1) and (10.46) that $$(T_{\xi}f,f)=\frac{\gamma}{4}\int_{0}^{1}|\int_{0}^{\xi}J_{\alpha}(\sqrt{xs})f(x)dx|^{2}ds.$$ The last relation can be written in the form $$(T_{\xi}f,f)={\gamma}\int_{0}^{1}|F(s)^{2}ds,$$where $$F(s)=\int_{0}^{\sqrt{\xi}}\sqrt{xs}J_{\alpha}(sx)f(x^{2})\sqrt{2x}dx=$$The Hankel transformation (10.49) is unitary. So we have $$|(T_{\xi}f,f)|{\leq}|\gamma|\int_{0}^{\infty}|F(s)|^{2}ds=
|\gamma|\int_{0}^{\xi}|f(x)|^{2}dx.$$Hence $||T_{\xi}||{\leq}|\gamma|$. If $|\gamma|<1$ then the operator $S_{\xi}$ is invertible. We shall consider separately the case when $\gamma={\pm}1$. Let us assume that $||T_{\xi}||=1.$ In this case we have for some $f$ the equality $$T_{\xi}f={\pm}f,\quad ||f||{\ne}0.$$From relations (10.48), (10.50) and (10.51) we deduce that $$F(s)=0,\quad s>1.$$But the function $F(s)$ is analytic when $Res>0$. Hence the equality $F(s)=0, (s>0)$ is true. It means that $||f(x)||=0$ . We have obtained a contradiction, i.e. $||T_{\xi}||<1$. The proposition is proved.\
The operator $S_{\xi}^{-1}$ has the form $$S_{\xi}^{-1}f=f(x)+\int_{0}^{\xi}\Gamma_{\xi}(x,t)f(t)dt.$$ We consider the functions $$q(\xi)=\phi(\xi)+\int_{0}^{\xi}\Gamma_{\xi}(\xi,t)\phi(t)dt,$$ We shall use the following relations (see \[18\]) $$^{\prime}=\frac{1}{4}q^{2}(s)$$ $$R(t)=-\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{logdet}S_{t}.$$ Using M.G.Krein result (see \[7\], Ch.4) on the triangular factorization of the operator $S$ with continuous kernel we obtain the assertion.\
**Theorem 10.3.** *The operator $S_{a}$ defined by $(10.1),(10.9)$ when $\alpha{\geq}0$ admits triangular factorization $(10.25)$ and* $$S_{-}^{-1}f=f(v)+\int_{0}^{v}\Gamma_{v}(v,u)f(u)du.$$ Formula (10.54) can be written in the form $$q(x)=S_{-}^{-1}\phi.$$We introduce the notation $$\sigma(s)=sR(s,s).$$ Relations (10.55) and (10.58) imply that $$\sigma(x)=\frac{1}{4}(S_{\xi}^{-1}\phi,\phi)_{\xi}.$$Further we consider only the important case when $\gamma=-1,
\alpha{\geq}0$.\
We note that in this case the function $\sigma(x)$ is the third Painleve transcendent (see \[17\]). Using Proposition 10.1 and relation (10.60) we obtain the following fact (see\[7\]).\
**Corollary 10.6.** *The third Painleve transcendent $\sigma(\xi)$ can be extended to the function $\sigma(z)$ which is analytic in $G$ except at isolated points. All finite singular points in $G$ are poles. (The domain $G$ is defined in Remark 10.3.)*\
The function $\sigma(\xi)$ is a solution of the Painleve equation ($P_{3}$) $$(\xi\sigma^{\prime\prime})^{2}+\sigma^{\prime}(\sigma -
\xi\sigma^{\prime})(4\sigma^{\prime}-1)-{\alpha}^{2}{\sigma^{\prime}}^{2}
=0.$$ **Proposition 10.5.** *All the poles $z_{k}$ of $\sigma(z)$ are simple with residues $z_{k}.$*\
*Proof.* Looking at the Laurent expansion of $\sigma(z)$ at the poles $z_{k}$ we observe by (10.61) that the principal term of $\sigma(z)$ has to be $z_{k}/(z-z_{k})$. The proposition is proved.\
**References**
1\. Bieberbach L.,Theorie der Gewönliche Differentialgleichungen, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1965.\
2.Coddington E.A.,Levinson N.,Theory of Ordinary Differential Equations, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York , 1955.\
3.Coleman C.F., McLaughlin J.R., Solution of the Inverse Spectral Problem for an impedance with integrable derivative, Comm.Pure Appl.Math.56,145-184, 1993\
4.Deift P.A.,Its A.R., Zhou X., A Riemann-Hilbert Approach to Asymptotic Problems Arising in the Theory of Random Matrix Models, and also in the Theory of Integrable Statistical Mechanics, Annals of Math.146, 149-235, 1997.\
5.Dym H., Sakhnovich L.,On dual Canonical Systems and Dual Matrix String Equations,Operator Theory,v.123,207-228,2001.\
6.Gohberg I.,Krein M.G., Theory and Applications of Volterra Operators in Hilbert Space,Amer. Math.Soc.Providence, 1970.\
7.Gromak V.I., I.Laine, S. Shimomura, Painleve Differential Equations in the Complex Plane, de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, 28, Berlin, New York, 2002.\
8.Kac I.S., Krein M.G.,On the Spectral Function of the String,Amer.Math. Soc. Translation 103,1-18,1974.\
9.Kato T.,Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators,Springer- Verlag,Berlin,1976.\
10.Katsnelson V. and Volok D., Rational Solutions of theSchlesinger System and Isoprincipal Deformations of Rational Matrix Functions II. Preprint, 2004.\
11.Krein M.G. On Main Approximation Problem of Extrapolation Theory and Filtration of Stationary Stochastic Processes, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 94,No.1,13-16,1954\
12.Mehta M.L., Random Matrices,Academic press, Boston,1991.\
13.Rovnyak J. and Sakhnovich L.A., Inverse Problems for Canonical Differential Systems with Singulariries, Preprint, 2005.\
14.Sakhnovich L.A., Factorization of Operators in $L^{2}(a,b)$, Functional Anal. Appl.13,187-192 (Russian) 1979.\
15. Sakhnovich L.A., Spectral Theory of Canonical Differential Systems. Method of Operator Identities, Operator Theory Advances and Appl., Birkhäuser, v.107, 1999.\
16. Sakhnovich L.A., On Reducing the Canonical System to the Two Dual Differential Systems, J. Math. Anal. Appl.255 ,No.2,499-509, 2001.\
17.Tracy C.A. and Widom H.,Introduction to Random Matrices,Springer Lecture Notes in Physics 424,103-130,1993.\
18.Tracy C.A. and Widom H.,Level spacing distribution and the Bessel kernel, Common. Math. Phys. 161,289-309,1994.\
19.Tracy C.A. and Widom H.,Level spacing distribution and the Airy kernel, Common. Math. Phys. 159,151-174,1994.\
20. Wasow W.,Asymptotic Expansions for Ordinary Differential Equations, Pure and Appl. Math., v.14, 1965.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Jörg Fischera
bibliography:
- 'fischerareference.bib'
title: On the probability distribution function of the mass surface density of molecular clouds I
---
Introduction
============
Observations of the structure of molecular clouds provide insights about the physical processes in the cold dense phase of the interstellar medium and will give us a better understanding how they evolve and eventually form stars. They are furthermore essential to test theoretical models of the origin of the stellar mass function [@Padoan1997a; @Elmegreen2001; @Padoan2002; @Hennebelle2008; @Elmegreen2011; @Hopkins2013a] and the star formation rate [@Krumholz2005; @Padoan2011; @Hennebelle2011; @Federrath2012] which are both thought to be related to the density structure of a turbulent molecular gas.
The high resolution and sensitivity of modern telescopes allows a detailed analysis of the 1-point statistic or probability distribution function (PDF) of the mass surface density of molecular cloud gas. They are obtained using either the reddening of stars [@Kainulainen2009; @Froebrich2010; @Lombardi2010; @Kainulainen2013; @Alves2014] or more recently the infrared emission of dust grains [@Hill2011; @Hill2012; @Schneider2012; @Schneider2013a; @Schneider2013b; @Russeil2013].
Despite the complexity of the molecular clouds the observed PDFs of the mass surface density show very similar properties. They all are characterized by a broad peak and a tail at high mass surface densities approximately given by a power law. The PDF at low mass surface densities around the broad peak is attributed to randomly moving gas commonly referred to as ’turbulence’ while the tail is attributed to self-gravitating cloud structures. The relative amount of the two different components seems to be related to the star formation activity in the cloud as discussed by @Kainulainen2009. While non-star forming clouds as the ’Coalsack’ or the ’Lupus V’ region show only a very low or no evidence of a tail the PDFs of star forming clouds as ’Taurus’ or ’Orion’ are characterized by a strong tail with no clear separation between the two components.
The observations seem to be broadly consistent with current simulations of turbulent molecular clouds. Turbulence would naturally create a wide range of densities and simulations of driven isothermal turbulence have shown that the corresponding PDF has a log-normal form [@Vazquez1994; @Padoan1997b; @Passot1998], a result which has been confirmed analytically [@Nordlund1999]. The projection of the density of those simulations has also been found to be closely log-normal in shape [@Ostriker2001; @Vazquez2001; @Federrath2010; @Brunt2010c]. Deviations are expected for non isothermal turbulence which produces higher probabilities at low or high densities [@Scalo1998; @Passot1998; @Li2003]. More recent simulations of forced turbulence also show depending on the assumed forcing for the PDF of the volume density a deviation from the log-normal function with enhanced probabilities at low densities [@Federrath2008b; @Konstandin2012; @Federrath2013b]. The functional form is as shown by @Federrath2013b approximately described by a statistical function proposed by @Hopkins2013b.
Simulations of the time evolution of molecular clouds have shown that at late stage the PDF of the volume density would develop a tail-like structure at high density values [@Klessen2000; @Dib2005; @Vazquez2008]. The same behavior is also seen in the PDF of the mass surface density [@Ballesteros2011; @Kritsuk2011; @Federrath2013a].
Currently, observed PDFs are analyzed using a log-normal function for the peak and a simple power law for the tail, respectively. The log-normal function allows a first estimate of the density contrast of the volume density in a turbulent medium based on the fundamental relation of the statistical properties of the mass surface density and the ones of the volume density as provided by @Fischera2004a and also by @Brunt2010b [@Brunt2010c]. The interpretation of the tail is frequently based upon a simple power law density profile $\rho(r)\propto r^{-n}$ of spheres where the PDF of the mass surface density is also a power law. In case of the logarithmic PDF ($\Sigma P(\Sigma)=P(\ln \Sigma)$)[^1] the corresponding power law would be $\Sigma^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma=2/(n-1)$ [@Kritsuk2011; @Federrath2013a]. Applying this relation the slope of the tail of the PDF of a number of star forming molecular clouds indicates a radial density profile with a power index $n\sim 2$ [@Schneider2013b] as expected for collapsing clouds. A different approach has been chosen by @Kainulainen2013 who also applied a log-normal function to the tail.
However, the analytical functions show partly strong deviations to the observed curves. Most of the PDFs published by @Kainulainen2009 reveal a tail at low mass surface densities below the peak which cannot be explained in terms of the simple analytical function. The tail at high mass surface densities has several features which are not expected using simple power law profiles of the radial density. Foremost, the tail is restricted to a certain range of mass surface densities. For a number of PDFs published by @Kainulainen2009 the tail indicates a strong cutoff or a strong change of the slope around $A_V=6-10~{\rm mag}$. The interpretation of the tail is further complicated by the observational facts that condensed clouds are generally located on a certain background level and that they are restricted to small regions within the cloud complex as e.g. in case of the Rosette molecular cloud [@Schneider2012]. The tail is therefore not necessarily a simple power law nor directly related to the radial density profile. Furthermore, the analytical functions do not provide a physical explanation for the peak position of the PDF which occurs in case of a number of molecular clouds around $A_V\sim 1~{\rm mag}$.
In this and the following papers an analytical [physical]{} model of the [global]{} PDF of molecular clouds is [developed]{} which resembles the [main]{} observed features [and is meant to derive basic physical parameters of star forming molecular clouds as the pressure and the density contrast in the turbulent gas.]{} This paper focuses on the 1-point statistical properties of individual condensed structures, assumed to be spheres and cylinders. In Sect. 2 an analytical solution of the mass surface density and the corresponding PDFs for the considered shapes is presented which is based on a truncated analytical density profile widely used in astrophysical problems. In Sect. 3 the properties of the PDFs [are]{} discussed and asymptotes for low and high mass surface densities are provided. Also studied is the location of the maximum position of the logarithmic and linear PDF. A summary is given in Sect. 4. The technical details can be found in the appendices.
Model of the PDF of the mass surface density of condensed structures
====================================================================
\[sect\_densityprofile\]Radial density profiles
-----------------------------------------------
Let us assume for the condensed structures a simple analytical density profile given by $$\label{eq_densityprofile}
\rho(r) = \frac{\rho_{\rm c}}{(1+(r/r_{0})^2)^{n/2}},$$ where $\rho_{\rm c}$ is the density in the cloud center and $r_{\rm 0}$ the inner radius. The density profile has a flat part in the inner region $(r\ll r_0)$ which approaches asymptotically a power law $\rho\propto r^{-n}$ at large radii $(r\gg r_0)$. In studies of stellar clusters this inner radius is frequently referred to as ‘core radius’ [@King1962; @King1966a; @King1966b]. The analytical profile is used in astrophysics for its convenience and as generalization of physical density profiles to model the stellar surface brightness of Globular clusters (e. g. @Elson1987 [@Elson1992]) and more recently the dust emission of dense filaments (e. g. @Arzoumanian2011 [@Malinen2012; @Juvela2012]).
We make another reasonable assumption that the profile is truncated at radius $r_{\rm cl}$ as expected if the clouds are cold structures embedded in warmer gas. In case of pressure equilibrium the gas pressure at the outer boundary of the condensed structure would be equal to the pressure $p_{\rm ext}$ in the surrounding medium. We refer to the inverse of the density ratio $\rho(r_{\rm cl})/\rho_{\rm c}=q$ of the density at cloud radius and cloud center as ‘overdensity’. In case of isothermal clouds this ratio is identical with the term [’overpressure’]{} used to characterize the gravitational state of self-gravitating structures in previous studies of pressurized clouds [@Fischera2008; @Fischera2011; @Fischera2012a; @Fischera2012b].
Specific profiles with certain values of the power $n$ are known solutions for the physical problem of self-gravitating gaseous clouds. The profile for $n=5$ is valid for a gaseous sphere where the temperature of the gas is regulated by the adiabatic law with a ratio 1.2 of the two specific heats [@Schuster1883; @Jeans1916]. This density profile has been applied to describe the surface brightness profiles of globular clusters and is known as Plummer-model [@Plummer1911; @Plummer1915]. The density profiles which correspond to the power indices $n=2$, $3$, and $4$ are related to profiles of isothermal self-gravitating clouds.
The profile with $n=4$ is the exact solution for a self-gravitating isothermal cylinder [@Stodolkiewicz1963; @Ostriker1964]. The radial density profile of pressurized isothermal self-gravitating spheres, referred to as Bonnor-Ebert sphere [@Ebert1955; @Bonnor1956], cannot be expressed through a simple analytical formula. However, the profile for spherical clouds up to an overdensity $\sim 100$ is in excellent agreement with the analytical profile with $n=3$. The profile with $n=3$ is also identical with the well known King model without truncation [@King1962; @King1966a]. The radial density profile of spheres with higher overdensity might be approximated with a profile where $n=2$. The statistical properties of isothermal clouds are analyzed in more detail in a forthcoming paper [@Fischera2014b].
\[sect\_msurfprofile\]Mass surface density profiles
---------------------------------------------------
The mass surface density profile of a truncated analytical density profile (Eq. \[eq\_densityprofile\]) [of a sphere or a cylinder seen at inclination angle $i$ where $i=0^\circ$ refers to a cylinder seen edge-on]{} is given by $$\Sigma_n (r) = \frac{2}{\cos^\beta i}\int\limits_0^{r_{\rm cl}\sqrt{1-(r/r_{\rm cl})^2}} {\rm d}l
\frac{\rho_{\rm c}}{(1+(r^2+l^2)/r_{\rm 0}^2)^{n/2}}.$$ where $\beta=0$ for spheres and $\beta=1$ for cylinders. In the following it is convenient to define a parameter $$y_n = (1-q^{2/n})(1-x^2),$$ where $x=0\le r/r_{\rm cl}\le1$ is the normalized impact parameter where $r$ is the projected radius and $r_{\rm cl}$ the cloud radius. The profile of the mass surface density can then be written as $$\label{eq_profile}
\Sigma_{n} (x) = \frac{2}{\cos^\beta i} r_0\rho_c q^{\frac{n-1}{n}}(1-y_n)^{\frac{1-n}{2}}
\int\limits_0^{u_{\rm max}} \frac{{\rm d}u}{(1+u^2)^{n/2}},$$ where $$u_{\rm max} = \sqrt{\frac{y_n}{1-y_n}}.$$ In case of isothermal self-gravitating pressurized clouds the product of inner radius and central density is proportional to $\sqrt{p_{\rm ext}}$ and is given by $$r_0 \rho_c = \sqrt{\frac{\xi_n p_{\rm ext}}{4\pi G}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}} ,$$ where $p_{\rm ext}$ is the external pressure, $G$ the gravitational constant and where $\xi_2=2$, $\xi_3=8.63$, and $\xi_4 = 8$ [@Fischera2014b].
It is convenient to consider the normalized mass surface density $$\label{eq_xndef}
X_n = \Sigma_n \cos^\beta i \,(2\rho_{\rm c}r_0)^{-1}q^{-\frac{n-1}{n}},$$ which depends only on the parameter $y_n$. The functional dependence is shown in Fig. \[fig\_xnyn\].
![\[fig\_xnyn\]Normalized mass surface density $X_n$ as function of $1-y_n$ for truncated density profiles as given in Eq. \[eq\_densityprofile\] for various power indices $n$ ranging from 0 to 10. The thicker lines correspond to $n=0$, 1, and 3. For a fixed pressure ratio $q$ the mass surface densities for a given power index $n$ vary from the central value at $1-y_n=q^{2/n}$ to zero at the edge of the cloud where $1-y_n=1$. The central values of the normalized mass surface density for various pressure ratios $q$ are shown as thin gray lines. ](fischera_fig01.eps){width="\hsize"}
Profiles of the normalized mass surface density for a number of different assumptions for the power index $n$ of a truncated density profile are shown in Fig. \[fig\_cloudprofile\]. The method used to derive the profiles is described in Sects. \[sect\_msurf\_ngt1\] and \[sect\_msurf\_nlt1\]. The profiles for $n=1$, 2, 3, and 4 are simple analytical functions given in App. \[app\_msurfanalytical\]. At an overdensity of 10 the inner part of the profiles of cylinders and spheres closely resembles a Gaussian approximation with a width as given in Sect. \[sect\_gaussapprox\].
![\[fig\_cloudprofile\]Profiles of the normalized mass surface density $X_n$ of a truncated density profile as given in Eq. \[eq\_densityprofile\] for [three]{} assumptions of the pressure ratio $q=p_{\rm ext}/p_{\rm c}$. The maxima or the curves are labeled with the corresponding power index $n$. The profiles for $n=1$ and $n=3$ are enhanced with a thicker line. The dashed lines are Gaussian approximations (Eq. \[eq\_gaussapprox\]) where the variance is obtained using Eq. \[eq\_gaussvariance\]. The profile for $n=0$ need to be considered as an asymptote.](fischera_fig02a.eps){width="\hsize"}
![\[fig\_cloudprofile\]Profiles of the normalized mass surface density $X_n$ of a truncated density profile as given in Eq. \[eq\_densityprofile\] for [three]{} assumptions of the pressure ratio $q=p_{\rm ext}/p_{\rm c}$. The maxima or the curves are labeled with the corresponding power index $n$. The profiles for $n=1$ and $n=3$ are enhanced with a thicker line. The dashed lines are Gaussian approximations (Eq. \[eq\_gaussapprox\]) where the variance is obtained using Eq. \[eq\_gaussvariance\]. The profile for $n=0$ need to be considered as an asymptote.](fischera_fig02b.eps){width="0.98\hsize"}
![\[fig\_cloudprofile\]Profiles of the normalized mass surface density $X_n$ of a truncated density profile as given in Eq. \[eq\_densityprofile\] for [three]{} assumptions of the pressure ratio $q=p_{\rm ext}/p_{\rm c}$. The maxima or the curves are labeled with the corresponding power index $n$. The profiles for $n=1$ and $n=3$ are enhanced with a thicker line. The dashed lines are Gaussian approximations (Eq. \[eq\_gaussapprox\]) where the variance is obtained using Eq. \[eq\_gaussvariance\]. The profile for $n=0$ need to be considered as an asymptote.](fischera_fig02c.eps){width="\hsize"}
PDF of the mass surface density
-------------------------------
The PDF of the mass surface density can be given as an implicit function of $y_n$. In the limit $y_n \rightarrow 1$ and $y_n \rightarrow 0$ also explicit expressions of the asymptotic behavior of the PDF can be given and are discussed.
The PDF for the mass surface density is given by $$\label{eq_probability}
P( \Sigma_{n} (x)) = \frac{{\rm d}P}{{\rm d} \Sigma_{n} }
= - P(r) \left(\frac{{\rm d} \Sigma_{n} }{{\rm d}r}\right)^{-1},$$ where $P(r)$ is the probability to measure a mass surface density at impact radius $r$. For a sphere this is given by $P(r) = 2\pi r / (\pi r_{\rm sph}^2)=2x/r_{\rm sph}$ and for a cylinder $P(r) = 1/r_{\rm cyl}$. [It is convenient to consider the PDF of the normalized mass surface density as defined in Eq. \[eq\_xndef\] which is given by $$\label{eq_pdfxndef}
P(X_n) = P(\Sigma_n)\frac{1}{\cos^\beta i}( 2 r_0 \rho_{\rm c}) q^{\frac{n-1}{n}}.$$ with $\beta=0$ for spheres and $\beta=1$ for cylinders.]{}
By taking the derivative of Eq. \[eq\_profile\] it is straightforward to show that $$\frac{{\rm d} X_n }{{\rm d}r} = -(1-q^{2/n})\frac{x}{r_{\rm cl}} \frac{1+ (n-1)\sqrt{y_n}X_n}{\sqrt{y_n}(1-y_n)}.$$ For spheres we obtain the implicit function $$\label{eq_pdfsphere}
P_{\rm sph}(X_n) = \frac{2}{1-q^{2/n}}\frac{\sqrt{y_n}(1-y_n)}{1+(n-1) \sqrt{y_n} X_n(y_n)}.$$ As we see the normalized PDF $(1-q^{2/n})P_{\rm sph}(X_n)$ is an implicit function of the parameter $y_n$ alone. The corresponding PDF for cylinders is $$\label{eq_pdfcylinder1}
P_{\rm cyl}(X_n) = \frac{1}{2x}P_{\rm sph}(X_n),%\frac{1}{1-q^{2/n}}\frac{\sqrt{y_n}(1-y_n)}{1+\frac{n-1}{2}X_n(y_n)}$$ where the normalized impact parameter can be expressed through $$\label{eq_impactparameter}
x = \sqrt{\frac{1-y_n-q^{2/n}}{1-q^{2/n}}}.$$ The PDF has a pole at the maximum mass surface density ($x=0$) or where $y_n = 1-q^{2/n}$ (Fig. \[fig\_pdfcyl\]).
[Because of the pole for]{} cylinders we have therefore not a generalized form of the PDF that depends only on the [parameter]{} $y_n$. However, to obtain an expression which allows a similar discussion in the following section for spheres and cylinders we can consider the asymptotic PDF for infinitely high overdensity. In the limit $1-y_n\gg q^{2/n}$ the impact parameter behaves as $$x \approx \sqrt{1-y_n}.$$ We consider therefore the following asymptotic PDF $$\label{eq_pdfcylinder}
P^{(a)}_{\rm cyl}(X_n) = \frac{1}{1-q^{2/n}}\frac{\sqrt{y_n}\sqrt{1-y_n}}{1+(n-1) \sqrt{y_n} X_n(y_n)}.$$ As shown in App. \[app\_pdfasymptotes\] the asymptotic PDF provides for all $q$ the correct asymptote in the limit of small mass surface densities and the correct asymptotic behavior at large mass surface densities for $q\rightarrow 0$.
\[sect\_properties\]Characteristics of the PDF
==============================================
The PDFs of spheres and the asymptotic PDFs of cylinders with a truncated analytical density profile for various different assumptions for the power $n$ and the pressure ratio $q$ are shown in Fig. \[fig\_pdf\]. They are truncated at the highest mass surface density.
The exact asymptotes for high and low mass surface densities also shown in the figure are derived in Sect. \[app\_pdfasymptotes\]. The maximum position is discussed in more detail in Sect. \[app\_pdfmaxima\].
The curves have a functional form that depends only on the power $n$ of the radial density profile. They are truncated at the central mass surface density.
Asymptotes at high and low mass surface densities
-------------------------------------------------
At low mass surface densities the PDF approaches asymptotically a power law $P(\Sigma)\propto \Sigma$. The asymptotic behavior at high mass surface densities depends on the steepness of the radial density profile. For $n>1$ the PDF approaches asymptotically a power law given by $$P_{\rm sph}(X_n) \propto X_n^{-\frac{n+1}{n-1}},\quad P_{\rm cyl}^{(a)}(X_n)\propto X_n^{-\frac{n}{n-1}}.$$ As can be seen in the figure the asymptote is a better representation of the PDF at high mass surface densities for steeper density profiles. In the limit of large power $n$ the PDF at high mass surface densities becomes $P(X_n)\propto X_n^{-1}$ as expected for a source with a Gaussian density profile (Sect. \[sect\_pdfgauss\]). For $n=1$ the PDF at high mass surface density is an exponential function $$P_{\rm sph}(X_n)\propto e^{-2 X_1}, \quad P_{\rm cyl}^{(a)}(X_n) \propto e^{-X_1}.$$ For clouds with $n<1$ the PDF is limited to a maximum mass surface density given by $X_n=1/(1-n)$. In the neighborhood of this maximum value the PDF varies strongly with mass surface density. In the limit of $n=0$ the PDF becomes identical to the PDF of a homogeneous sphere or cylinder.
The power law asymptote at high mass surface densities may be used to infer the power $n$ of the radial density profile. For spheres a power law $P_{\rm sph}\propto \Sigma^{-\alpha}$ would indicate a power index $n=(\alpha+1)/(\alpha-1)$ of the radial density profile as can be derived for simple power law density profiles [@Kritsuk2011; @Federrath2013a]. As shown in Fig. \[fig\_pdfcyl\] the asymptotic behavior at large mass surface densities in case of cylinders is only established for sufficiently high overdensities. For example, a profile with $n=4$ which is consistent with the density profile of self-gravitating isothermal cylinders the PDF for overdensities as high as 100 has no apparent power law at high mass surface densities. For cylinders with high overpressure the PDF at the pole is approximately given by $P_{\rm cyl}(X_n)\propto X_n^{-\frac{n}{n-1}}/\sqrt{1-(X_n/X_n(0))^{2/(n-1)}}$ A power law is only established for the range $[X_n]_{\rm max}\ll X_n\ll X_n(0)$ where $[X_n]_{\rm max}$ is the mass surface density at the PDF maximum (Sect. \[sect\_pdfmaxima\]).
![\[fig\_pdfcyl\] PDF of the normalized mass surface density $X_n$ of cylindrical clouds having a density distribution with $n=1$ (gray lines) and $n=4$ (black lines). The clouds have an overdensity ($1/q$) of either 10 or 100. The long dashed curves show the asymptote for infinite high overdensity. The dotted lines mark the asymptotic value at the poles. The short dashed lines give the asymptotic values in the limit of high and low values of $X_n$.](fischera_fig03.eps){width="\hsize"}
{width="0.9\hsize"}\
{width="0.9\hsize"}
\[sect\_pdfmaxima\]The maxima of the asymptotic PDF
---------------------------------------------------
[As we see in Fig. \[fig\_pdf\] the PDF of spheres and the asymptotic PDF of cylinders with the analytical density profile have well defined maxima at $[X_n]_{\rm max}$ which depend only on the power $n$. This allows a simple interpretation of the observed mass surface density at the peak position in terms of the normalization factor $2r_0\rho_{\rm c}q^{(n-1)/n}$ for given $n$ using the definition Eq. \[eq\_xndef\]. In case of isothermal clouds the maximum position can be used to infer the pressure in the ambient medium.]{}
--- -------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------- -------------------------------------------
n PDF $[y_n]_{\rm max}$ $[X_n]_{\rm max}$ $[y_n]_{\rm max}$ $[X_n]_{\rm max}$
1 $P(X_n)$ $\frac{1}{3}$ $\ln \frac{\sqrt{3}+1}{\sqrt{2}}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\ln [1+\sqrt{2}]$
2 $P(X_n)$ 0.2110 0.5373 0.2723 0.7277
3 $P(X_n)$ $\frac{2-\sqrt{3}}{\sqrt{3}}$ $\frac{\sqrt{2\sqrt{3}-3}}{2\sqrt{3}-2}$ $\frac{\sqrt{33}-5}{4}$ $2\frac{\sqrt{\sqrt{33}-5}}{9-\sqrt{33}}$
4 $P(X_n)$ 0.1222 0.4162 0.1413 0.4609
1 $X_n P(X_n)$ 0.5861 1.0096 0.8069 1.4633
2 $X_n P(X_n)$ 0.4780 1.0566 0.6547 1.6041
3 $X_n P(X_n)$ $\sqrt{2}-1$ $\frac{\sqrt{2\sqrt{2}-2}}{2\sqrt{2}-2}$ $\frac{\sqrt{17}-3}{2}$ $\frac{\sqrt{2\sqrt{17}-6}}{5-\sqrt{17}}$
4 $X_n P(X_n)$ 0.3700 1.1367 0.4970 1.7974
--- -------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------- -------------------------------------------
: \[table\_pdfmaxima\]Maxima positions of the linear and logarithmic PDF
{width="0.46\hsize"} {width="0.46\hsize"}\
{width="0.46\hsize"} {width="0.46\hsize"}
[Related to the maximum position is a parameter $[y_n]_{\rm max}$. The functional dependence of the maximum position $[y_n]_{\rm max}$ and $[X_n]_{\rm max}$ of the linear and logarithmic asymptotic PDF on the power $n$ is shown in Fig. \[fig\_pdfmaxima\]. The curves are derived by solving the conditional equations given in App. \[app\_pdfmaxima\]. Selected values are given in Tab. \[table\_pdfmaxima\].]{}
As shown in Sect. \[sect\_approx\_n0\], in the limit $n\rightarrow 0$ the PDFs become the ones of homogeneous spheres and cylinders where the maximum value is related to the central mass surface density. In this limit we have therefore $[y_n]_{\rm max}\rightarrow 1$
and $[X_n ]_{\rm max}=1$. In case of cylinders the normalized mass surface density at PDF maximum in the limit of flat density profiles is approximately given by $[X_n]_{\rm max}=1/(1-n)$. The parameter $[y_n]_{\rm max}$ provides for given power $n$ an estimate of the corresponding impact parameter as function of the pressure ratio $q$ based on Eq. \[eq\_impactparameter\]. Below a minimum overpressure $(1-[y_n]_{\rm max})^{-n/2}$ the maximum coincides with the central mass surface density. At higher overpressures the impact parameter moves outwards and reaches asymptotically a maximum value $x = \sqrt{1-[y_n]_{\rm max}}$. If we consider for example the logarithmic PDF of a sphere with $n=3$ the minimum overdensity with $x=0$ is $$q^{-1} = \left(1-\left[\sqrt{2}-1\right]\right)^{-3/2} \approx 2.23,$$ where the parameter $[y_n]_{\rm max}$ is taken from Tab. \[table\_pdfmaxima\]. In the limit $q\rightarrow 0$ the impact parameter at the PDF maximum becomes $$x = \sqrt{1-\left[\sqrt{2}-1\right]} \approx 0.765.$$
As the maximum position $[y_n]_{\rm max}$ decreases with $n$ the impact parameter related to the PDF maximum is larger for steeper density profiles and reaches $x=1$ for $n\rightarrow \infty$. In case of the logarithmic PDF the mass surface density related to the PDF maximum is larger in respect to the linear PDF and corresponds to a smaller impact parameter.
[The]{} dependence of the maxima of the linear PDF in the limit $n\rightarrow \infty$ can be described by simple power laws as shown in App. \[app\_maxasymptote\]. The asymptotes for $[y_n]_{\rm max}$ and $[X_n]_{\rm max}$ provide as shown in Fig. \[fig\_pdfmaxima\] good results for spheres above $n\approx 3$ and for cylinders above $n\approx 1$.
[ccccccccc]{} &$a_1$& $a_2$& $a_3$ & $a_4$ & $a_5$ & $a_6$ &$n_{\rm min}$ & $n_{\rm max}$\
\
$[y_n]_{\rm max}$ & -1.099 & -0.5883 & -0.1071 & 0.004447 & 0.002598 & -0.0003259 & 0.1 & 100.0\
$[X_n]_{\rm max}$ & -0.4181 & -0.2544 & -0.05889 & 0.0008424 & 0.001723 & -0.0001919 & 0.1 & 100.0\
\
$[y_n]_{\rm max}$ & -0.5338 & -0.2590 & -0.04989 & -0.002858 & 0.0004857 & —& 0.1 & 100.0\
$[X_n]_{\rm max}$ & 0.008622 & 0.04882 & 0.02353 & 0.003190 & -0.0003657 & — & 0.1 & 100.0\
\
$[y_n]_{\rm max}$ & -0.6920 & -0.8029 & -0.1382 & 0.05612 & -0.01153 & 0.0009113 & 0.3 & 100.0\
$[X_n]_{\rm max}$ & -0.1243 & -0.4190 & -0.07131 & 0.03418 & -0.007760 & 0.0006513 & 0.3 & 100.0\
\
$[y_n]_{\rm max}$ & -0.2146 & -0.2506 & -0.07477 & 0.002226 & 0.0001414 & — & 0.3 & 100.0\
$[X_n]_{\rm max}$ & 0.3806 & 0.1235 & 0.01110 & 0.006071 & -0.0007028 & — & 0.2 & 100.0\
The ratio $$\frac{[\Sigma_n]_{\rm cut}}{[\Sigma_n]_{\rm max}}=\frac{[X_n]_{\rm cut}}{[X_n]_{\rm max}}$$ between the central mass surface density $[X_n]_{\rm cut}$ and the mass surface at the PDF maximum can be used to infer the pressure ratio $q$ for given power $n$. [As an example we consider a critical stable sphere which radial density profile is close to the analytical profile with $n=3$. The critical stable sphere has a density ratio of $q\approx 1/14.04$ Applying Eq. \[eq\_msurfisosphere\] we find that the corresponding central mass surface density is given by $$[X_3]_{\rm cut} = q_{\rm crit}^{-\frac{2}{3}}\sqrt{1-q_{\rm crit}^{2/3}} \approx 5.296.$$ For critical stable spheres the ratio between the cutoff and the maximum of the logarithmic PDF is therefore given by $$\frac{[X_3]_{\rm cut}}{[X_3]_{\rm max}} = q_{\rm crit}^{-\frac{2}{3}}\sqrt{1-q_{\rm crit}^{2/3}}\frac{2\sqrt{2}-2}{\sqrt{2\sqrt{2}-2}}\approx 4.821,$$ where the maximum position is taken from Tab. \[table\_pdfmaxima\]. ]{}
The functional dependence of the maximum position on the power $n$ can over a large range be well fitted by a polynomial function $$\begin{aligned}
[y_n]_{\rm max} &=& \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm max}} a_i (\ln n)^i, \\\
[X_n]_{\rm max} &=& \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm max}} a_i (\ln n)^i,\end{aligned}$$ where $N_{\rm max}=6$ for spheres and $N_{\rm max}=5$ for cylinders. The coefficients are listed in Tab. \[table\_pdfmaximafit\].
Summary and conclusion
======================
The study summarizes a series of properties of the PDF of the mass surface density of spherical and cylindrical structures [having an analytical radial density profile $\rho =\rho_{\rm c}/(1+(r/r_0)^2)^{n/2}$ where $\rho_c$ is the central density and $r_0$ the inner radius.]{} The profiles are assumed to be truncated at a cloud radius $r_{\rm cl}$ as expected for cold structures embedded in a considerably warmer medium. The results are therefore applicable to individual condensed structures in star forming molecular clouds.
[The PDF for given geometry is determined by the power $n$, the density ratio $q=\rho(r_{\rm cl})/\rho_{\rm c}$, the product $\rho_{\rm c}r_{0}$, and, in case of a cylinder, the inclination angle $i$. It is convenient to describe the properties of the PDF in terms of the unit free mass surface density defined by $$X_n = \Sigma_n \frac{\cos^\beta i}{2\rho_{\rm c} r_0}q^{-\frac{n-1}{n}},$$ where $\beta=0$ for spheres and $\beta=1$ for cylinders. The properties are:]{}
1. [For given geometry and power index $n$ the normalized PDF $(1-q^{2/n})P(X_n)$ is a unique curve expressed through a simple implicit function of the parameter $y_n = (1-q^{2/n})(1-x^2)$ where $x = r/r_{\rm cl}$ is the normalized impact parameter.]{}
2. At the central mass surface density $X_n(0)$ the PDF of spheres has a sharp cut-off while the PDF of cylinders has a pole.
3. [At high overdensities the PDF has a well defined maximum at fixed $[X_n]_{\rm max}$.]{}
4. At mass surface densities which are small relative to the maximum [position]{} the asymptotic PDF approaches asymptotically a power law $P(X_{\rm n})\propto X_n$.
5. [In the limit of high overdensities the PDFs approach for $n>1$ at mass surface densities above the peak]{} asymptotically power laws. They are given by $P(X_n)\propto X_n^{-\frac{n+1}{n-1}}$ [in case of spheres and, with the exception of the pole, by $P(X_n)\propto X^{-\frac{n}{n-1}}$ in case of cylinders. For given overdensity the asymptote is a better approximation for steeper density profiles (larger $n$).]{}
6. [For $n<1$ the PDF has a strong cutoff and is limited to a maximum mass surface density $X_n\le 1/(1-n)$.]{}
The slope [of the PDF]{} at high mass surface densities can also be obtained assuming a simple power law profile for spherical clouds [(e.g. @Kritsuk2011 [@Federrath2013a]).]{} But it should be considered that this profile only is an asymptotic behavior [in]{} the limit of high overdensities and seems more appropriate for collapsing clouds while most condensations might not be in such a state. As shown in the paper in general the [shape of the PDF]{} is not a power law. Further, the profile would produce a nonphysical high probability at low mass surface densities.
The derived properties are related to background subtracted structures within molecular clouds. They are therefore not directly applicable to measurements of the global PDF of molecular clouds which is a statistical mean of different properties not only of the condensed structures but the surrounding medium as well. For instance the tail at high mass surface densities seen in the PDF of star forming molecular clouds may have different physical explanations. It also need to be considered that the functional form of the PDF is affected by an additional background. In case of filaments the situation is furthermore complicated through a possible variation of the inclination angle. Those problems are addressed in a following paper [@Fischera2014b] based on isothermal [self-gravitating]{} pressurized spheres and cylinders.
This work was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Space Agency. The author likes to thank Prof. P. G. Martin and Dr. Richard Tuffs for his support, Quang Nguyen Luong for reading the manuscript and his helpful comments, and the unknown referee for the suggestions.
Solution for the mass surface density profile
=============================================
\[sect\_msurf\_ngt1\]Case $n\ge 1$
----------------------------------
In case $n>1$ the integral can be expressed through the incomplete and complete beta function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_integralbeta}
\int\limits_0^{u_{\rm max}} \frac{{\rm d}u}{(1+u^2)^{\frac{n}{2}}} &=& \frac{1}{2}{\rm B}\left(\frac{n}{2}-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\times\bigg\{1-I_{1-y_n}\left(\frac{n}{2}-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)\bigg\},\end{aligned}$$ with the condition $a,b>0$ where the normalized incomplete beta function is given by $$I_\xi(a,b) = \frac{1}{B(a,b)}\int_0^\xi{\rm d}t\,t^{a-1}(1-t)^{b-1}.$$ The beta function is equal to $${\rm B} (a,b) = \frac{\Gamma(a)\Gamma(b)}{\Gamma(a+b)},$$ where $\Gamma(x)$ is the $\Gamma$-function given by $$\Gamma(x) = \int_0^{\infty}{\rm d}t\,t^{x-1} e^{-t}.$$ In Sect. \[sect\_incompletebeta\] the asymptotic behavior of $I_\xi(a,b)$ with $a=(n-1)/2$ and $b=0.5$ is discussed. In general the asymptotic behavior is better for higher powers of $a$.
The mass surface density for given external pressure and overdensity through the cloud center for $n>1$ is $$\Sigma_n(0) = \frac{r_0\rho_c}{\cos^\beta i} \,
{\rm B}\left(\frac{n-1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)\left\{1-I_{q^{2/n}}\left(\frac{n-1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)\right\}.$$ In the limit of high overdensity ($q\rightarrow 0$) the central mass surface density becomes the asymptotic value $$\label{eq_msurf0approx}
\Sigma_n (0) \approx \frac{r_0\rho_c}{\cos^\beta i} \frac{\Gamma(\frac{n-1}{2})\Gamma(\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}.$$
\[sect\_msurf\_nlt1\]Case $n<1$
-------------------------------
To estimate the profile for $n<1$ we can transform the integral to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_integraltransform}
\int\limits_0^{u_{\rm max}}\frac{{\rm d}u}{(1+u^2)^{\frac{n}{2}}} &=& \frac{1}{n-1} \Bigg\{n \int\limits_0^{u_{\rm max}}\frac{{\rm d}u}{(1+u^2)^{\frac{n}{2}+1}}\nonumber\\
&&- \frac{u_{\rm max}}{(1+u_{\rm max}^2)^{\frac{n}{2}}}\Bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ The integral can then be calculated using the complete and incomplete beta function as in Eq. \[eq\_integralbeta\]. The mass surface density profile becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_profile2}
\Sigma_{n} (x) &=& \frac{2}{\cos^\beta i} r_0\rho_c q^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\frac{1}{1-n}\Bigg\{ \sqrt{y_n}\nonumber\\
&&
-n (1-y_n)^{\frac{1-n}{2}} \int\limits_0^{u_{\rm max}} \frac{{\rm d}u}{(1+u^2)^{\frac{n}{2}+1}}\Bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$
In the limit of high overdensity the central mass surface density approaches asymptotically a maximum value given by $$\Sigma_n (0) = \frac{2}{\cos^\beta i} r_0\rho_c q^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\frac{1}{1-n}.$$
\[app\_msurfanalytical\]Analytical profiles of the mass surface densities
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mass surface density profiles of the truncated analytical density profile for any natural number $n=1,2,...$ can be expressed through simple analytical functions. For $n=1$, $2$, $3$, and $4$ the profiles are for example given by $$\begin{aligned}
% \label{eq_msurfsphere}
% \Sigma_{2} (x) = 2\sqrt{\frac{\xi_2 p_{\rm ext}}{4\pi G}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-y_{2}}}\tan^{-1}\sqrt{\frac{y_2}{1-y_2}},
\Sigma_1 (x) &=& \frac{2}{\cos^\beta i}(r_0\rho_c) \ln\left[\frac{1+\sqrt{y_1}}{\sqrt{1-y_1}}\right],\\
\Sigma_{2} (x) &=& \frac{2}{\cos^\beta i} \rho_c r_0 q^{\frac{1}{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-y_{2}}}\tan^{-1}\sqrt{\frac{y_2}{1-y_2}},\\
\label{eq_msurfisosphere}
\Sigma_{3} (x) &=& \frac{2}{\cos^\beta i} \rho_c r_0 q^{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{1}{1-y_3}\sqrt{y_3},\\
\Sigma_{4} (x) &=& \frac{2}{\cos^\beta i}\rho_c r_0 q^{\frac{3}{4}}\frac{1}{(1-y_4)^{3/2}}\frac{1}{2}\nonumber\\
&&\times \Bigg\{
\sqrt{y_4}\sqrt{1-y_4} + \tan^{-1}\sqrt{\frac{y_4}{1-y_4}}\Bigg\},\end{aligned}$$ where $y_n = (1-x^2)(1-q^{2/n})$. The profiles of higher orders can be derived by applying successively the integral transform Eq. \[eq\_integraltransform\].
The profile $n=4$ applies for isothermal self-gravitating pressurized cylinders. For cylinders exist a maximum mass line density given by $[M/l]_{\rm max}=2K/G$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant. $K$ is a constant given by $K= kT / (\mu m_{\rm H})$ where $T$ is the effective temperature, $k$ the Boltzmann constant, $\mu$ the mean molecular weight and $m_{\rm H}$ is the atomic mass of hydrogen. If we replace the pressure ratio with $q = (1-f)^2$ where $f=(M/l)/[M/l]_{\rm max}\le 1$ is the normalized mass line density we obtain the expression given in the work of @Fischera2012b. The profile for $n=3$ closely describes the profile of Bonnor-Ebert spheres with overdensities less than $\sim 100$ [@Fischera2014b].
\[sect\_gaussapprox\]Gaussian approximation ($n\rightarrow \infty$)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Under certain circumstances the inner region of the profile can be approximated by a Gaussian function as will be shown in the following where the width is related to physical parameters as the overdensity $q^{-1}$ and the inner radius $r_0$.
The density profile can in general be expressed through $$\rho(x) = \rho_{\rm c} e^{-\frac{n}{2}\ln\left[1+(x r_{\rm cl}/r_0)^2\right]},$$ where $$\frac{r^2_{\rm cl}}{r^2_0} = q^{-\frac{2}{n}}\left(1-q^{\frac{2}{n}}\right).$$ Where $(x r_{\rm cl}/r_0)^2\ll 1$ we can linearize the logarithm using $\ln [1+(x r_{\rm cl}/r_0)^2]\approx (x r_{\rm cl}/r_0)^2$ and we obtain a Gaussian density profile $$\rho(x) = \rho_{\rm c} e^{-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{x}{\sigma_\rho}\right)^2},$$ where the variance is given by $$\sigma_{\rho}^2 = \frac{1}{n}\frac{r^2_{0}}{r^2_{\rm cl}} = \frac{1}{n}\frac{q^{\frac{2}{n}}}{1-q^{\frac{2}{n}}}.$$ The approximation improves with power $n$. In case of a pressure ratio $q$ the density profile becomes approximately a Gaussian function for all impact parameters if $n\gg-2\ln q / \ln 2$ or $q^{\frac{2}{n}}\gg \frac{1}{2}$. For large $n$ the variance becomes $$\sigma_\rho^2 \rightarrow -\frac{1}{2 \ln q},$$ which decreases slowly with overdensity.
In a similar approach we can derive the asymptotic profile of the mass surface density. Considering the same condition for $n$ as above we obtain for example for $$(1-y_n)^{\frac{1-n}{2}} = q^{\frac{1-n}{n}} e^{-\frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{x}{\sigma_{\Sigma}}\right)^{2}},$$ also a Gaussian form where the variance of the mass surface density is given by $$\label{eq_gaussvariance}
\sigma^2_{\Sigma} = \frac{1}{{n-1}}\frac{r_{0}^2}{r_{\rm cl}^2}=\frac{1}{n-1}\frac{q^{\frac{2}{n}}}{1-q^{\frac{2}{n}}},$$ where $\sigma_{\Sigma}\approx \sigma_\rho=\sigma$ for large $n$.
The central region ($x\ll r_0/r_{\rm cl}$) of the profile is therefore approximately given by a Gaussian function $$\label{eq_gaussapprox}
\Sigma_n \approx \rho_{\rm c}r_0
e^{-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{x}{\sigma}\right)^2} {\rm B}\left(\frac{n-1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(1-I_{q^{\frac{2}{n}}}\left(\frac{n-1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)\right).$$ The approximation provides the exact central mass surface density.
We want to consider the case of high overdensity and large power $n$ so that the contribution of the incomplete beta function in the central region of the cloud becomes negligible (see Sect. \[sect\_incompletebeta\]). In the limit of large $n$ the beta function becomes $$\label{eq_betaapprox}
\frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{n-1}{2}\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)}\rightarrow \sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{n}}.$$ Replacing $n$ through the variance of the density profile we obtain for the asymptotic profile for given overdensity $$\label{eq_approxgauss}
\Sigma_\infty(x) \rightarrow \rho_{\rm c} \sqrt{2\pi}\sigma r_{\rm cl}\,
e^{-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{x}{\sigma}\right)^2} = \Sigma_\infty(0) e^{-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{x}{\sigma}\right)^2}.$$
\[app\_pdfasymptotes\]Asymptotes of the PDF
===========================================
\[sect\_pdfapproxsmall\]Asymptotes in the limit $y_n\rightarrow 0$ (low $X_n$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the limit of large impact parameters ($x\rightarrow 1$) it follows that $y_n\rightarrow 0$ and consequently $u_{\rm max} \approx \sqrt{y_n}\ll 1$. The integrand in Eq. \[eq\_profile\] is approximately a constant so that the unit-free mass surface density becomes $$X_n \approx \sqrt{y_n}.$$ From Eq. \[eq\_pdfsphere\] we find directly the corresponding asymptotic behavior for spheres which is given by $$\label{eq_pdfsphapproxsmall}
P_{\rm sph}(X_n) \approx \frac{2}{1-q^{2/n}} X_n.$$ For cylinders we find from Eq. \[eq\_pdfcylinder\] $$P_{\rm cyl}(X_n)\approx P_{\rm cyl}^{(a)}(X_n) \approx \frac{1}{1-q^{2/n}}X_n.$$ For $q^{2/n}\rightarrow 0$ we obtain [the asymptote of]{} the probability function of homogeneous spheres or cylinders.
\[sect\_pdfapproxlarge\]Asymptotes in the limit $y_n \rightarrow 1$ (high $X_n$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Asymptotes for $n>1$
In the limit of low impact parameter ($x\rightarrow 0$) and high overdensity ($q\ll 1$) we have $y_n\rightarrow 1-q^{2/n}\sim 1$. The normalized mass surface density is then approximately given by $$\label{eq_pdfasymptotelarge}
X_n \sim (1-y_n)^{\frac{1-n}{2}} \zeta_n\gg 1,$$ where $\zeta_n=0.5 \,{\rm B}((n-1)/2,1/2)$. We can use this relation to replace $1-y_n$ to obtain an expression of the PDF as function of the mass surface density. For the PDF of spheres we find that at high mass surface densities the PDF approaches asymptotically a power law given by $$\label{eq_approxlargesph}
P_{\rm sph}(X_n) \sim \frac{1}{n-1}\frac{2}{1-q^{2/n}}
X_n^{-\frac{n+1}{n-1}} \zeta_{n}^{\frac{2}{n-1}}.$$ For the asymptotic PDF of cylinders we find $$\label{eq_approxlargecyl}
P^{(a)}_{\rm cyl}(X_n) \sim \frac{1}{n-1}\frac{1}{1-q^{2/n}}
X_n^{-\frac{n}{n-1}} \zeta_{n}^{\frac{1}{n-1}}.$$
[Replacing $1-y_n$ in the Eq. \[eq\_pdfcylinder1\] with the above expression for the mass surface density provides the asymptotic behavior of the PDF of cylinders at the pole given by $$P_{\rm cyl}(X_n) \sim \frac{1}{n-1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-q^{2/n}}} \frac{X_n^{-\frac{n}{n-1}}\zeta^{\frac{1}{n-1}}}
{\sqrt{1-(X_n/X_n(0))^{\frac{2}{n-1}}}},$$ where $X_n(0) = q^{\frac{1-n}{n}}\zeta_n$ is the central mass surface density. A power law is only established for cylinders with sufficiently high overpressure so that $(X_n/ X_n(0))^{2/(n-1)}\ll 1$. ]{}
### Asymptotes for $n=1$
In the limit of large $y_1$ the mass surface density behaves as $$X_1 \sim \ln\frac{2}{\sqrt{1-y_1}}.$$ Replacing $$1-y_1 \approx 4 \,e^{-2 X_1}$$ in Eq. \[eq\_pdfsphere\] and in Eq. \[eq\_pdfcylinder\] provides the [asymptotes $$P_{\rm sph}(X_1) \approx \frac{2}{1-q^2}(1-y_n) \sim \frac{8}{1-q^2} e^{-2 X_1}$$ for and ]{} $$P^{(a)}_{\rm cyl}(X_1) \approx \frac{1}{1-q^2}\sqrt{1-y_n} \sim \frac{2}{1-q^2} e^{-X_1}.$$ For the special case $n=1$ the PDF at high mass surface densities is therefore approximately described by a simple exponential function. The asymptotic behavior of the PDF for a cylinder including the region at the pole is $$P_{\rm cyl}(X_1) \approx \frac{2}{\sqrt{1-q^2}}\frac{e^{-X_1}}{\sqrt{1-e^{-2(X_1(0)-X_1)}}},$$ where $X_1(0) = \ln (2 q^{-1})$.
### Asymptotes for $n<1$
As pointed out in Sect. \[sect\_msurf\_nlt1\] for $n<1$ the mass surface density has a maximum possible value. In the limit $y_n\rightarrow 1$ we have $$X_n \approx \frac{1}{1-n}\sqrt{y_n}\le \frac{1}{1-n}.$$ As can be shown we have $P_{\rm sph}(X_n)\rightarrow 0$ and $P_{\rm cyl}^{(a)}(X_n)\rightarrow 0$ for $X_n\rightarrow 1/(1-n)$.
Asymptote of the PDF for high/low $n$
-------------------------------------
### \[sect\_pdfgauss\]Asymptote in the limit $n\rightarrow \infty$
As we have seen in the previous section in the limit of high $n$ the power law slope at high mass surface densities approaches asymptotically $\alpha=1$. The corresponding PDF can be directly obtained from Eq. \[eq\_approxlargesph\]. Replacing $n-1$ by the standard deviation of the Gaussian approximation we get for spheres with high overdensity in the limit of $n\rightarrow \infty$ $$P_{\rm sph}(X_n) \sim 2 \sigma^2 X_{n}^{-1}.$$ The same result is obtained from Eq. \[eq\_approxgauss\] by deriving the corresponding derivative and using Eq. \[eq\_probability\]. For the asymptotic PDF of cylinders Eq. \[eq\_approxlargecyl\] $$P^{(a)}_{\rm cyl}(X_n) \sim \sigma^2 X_{n}^{-1}.$$
### \[sect\_approx\_n0\]Asymptote in the limit $n\rightarrow 0$
In the limit $n\rightarrow 0$ it follows from Eq. \[eq\_profile2\] for the mass surface density $$X_n \rightarrow \frac{1}{1-n} \sqrt{y_n}.$$ In case of spheres the PDF of the mass surface density becomes $$P_{\rm sph}(X_n) \approx \frac{2}{1-q^{2/n}}\sqrt{y_n}\rightarrow 2\sqrt{1-x^2},$$ which is the PDF of homogeneous spheres. Likewise, we find for the asymptotic PDF of cylindrical clouds in the limit $n\rightarrow 0$ that $$P^{(a)}_{\rm cyl}(X_n) \approx P_{\rm cyl}(X_n)\rightarrow \frac{\sqrt{1-x^2}}{x},$$ which is the PDF of a homogeneous cylinder.
\[app\_pdfmaxima\]Condition for PDF maxima
==========================================
The maxima position were derived for both linear and logarithmic PDFs of spheres and cylinders. For cylinders the asymptotic PDF as defined in Eq. \[eq\_pdfcylinder\] was considered.
For linear values ($P(\Sigma_n)$)
---------------------------------
The condition for maxima of the linear PDF is given by $$\frac{{\rm d}P}{{\rm d}y_n}(X_n) = 0.$$ This leads to $$X_n y_n^{\frac{3}{2}}(n^2-1)+ y_n (n+2) - 1 = 0$$ in case spheres and to $$X_n y_n^{\frac{3}{2}}n (n-1) +y_n (n+1)-1 = 0$$ for cylinders. For $n=1$ and $n=3$ the maxima are simple analytical expressions listed in Tab. \[table\_pdfmaxima\].
### \[app\_maxasymptote\]Approximation for $n\gg 1$
In the limit $n\gg 1$ the condition for maxima of the linear PDF is equal for spheres and cylinders and is given by $$X_n y_n^{\frac{3}{2}} n^2 + y_n n -1 = 0.$$ As $y_n\rightarrow 0$ for $n\rightarrow \infty$ it follows from Eq. \[eq\_sigmaapprox\] and Eq. \[eq\_betaapprox\] that the mass surface density behaves approximately as $$X_n \sim e^{\frac{n}{2}y_n}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{n}} P(\chi^2,1),$$ where $P(\chi^2,1)$ is the PDF of the $\chi^2$-distribution and where $$\chi^2 \rightarrow n y_n.$$ In the limit of $n\gg 1$ the condition for maxima becomes a function of $n y_n=C$ where $C$ is a constant. Solving $$\label{eq_approx2}
e^{C/2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} P(C,1) C^{\frac{3}{2}}+C-1 = 0$$ provides $C\approx 0.58404$. The maxima position is therefore approximately given by $$\begin{aligned}
[y_n]_{\rm max} &=& C/n, \\
{[X_{n}]}_{\rm max} &=& e^{C/2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2n}}P(C,1).\end{aligned}$$
For logarithmic values ($\Sigma_n P(\Sigma_n)$)
-----------------------------------------------
The maxima of the PDF of logarithm values are given by the condition $$\frac{{\rm d} }{{\rm d}y_n}[X_n P(X_n)] =0.$$ This leads to $$2X_n^2 y_n (n-1) - X_n \left((n-1) \sqrt{y_n}+\frac{1-3 y_n}{\sqrt{y_n}}\right) = 1$$ in case of spheres and to $$X_n^2 y_n (n-1) - X_n\left((n-1)\sqrt{y_n}+\frac{1-2 y_n}{\sqrt{y_n}}\right) =1$$ in case of cylinders. For $n=3$ the maxima positions are again simple analytical expressions given in Tab. \[table\_pdfmaxima\].
\[sect\_incompletebeta\]Asymptotic behavior of the incomplete beta function
===========================================================================
To derive the asymptotic behavior of the incomplete beta function in Eq. \[eq\_profile\] for the mass surface density in the limit $n\gg 1$ we consider the approximation (Eq. 26.5.20, of @Abramowitz1972) $$\begin{aligned}
I_\xi(a,b) &\sim& 1 - P(\chi^2,\nu), \nonumber\\
&=& \left(2^{\frac{\nu}{2}}\Gamma\left(\frac{\nu}{2}\right)\right)^{-1}
\int\limits_{\chi^2}^{\infty}{\rm d}t\,t^{\frac{\nu}{2}-1}\,e^{-\frac{t}{2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $P(\chi^2,\nu)$ is the $\chi^2$ distribution function of $\nu$ events where $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^2 & = & (a+b-1)(1-\xi)(3-\xi) - (1-\xi)(b-1),\\
\nu&=&2 b.\end{aligned}$$ In our case we have $a=(n-1)/2$ and $b=1/2$. The incomplete beta function is then approximately given by $$\label{eq_approxibeta}
I_{1-y_n}\left(\frac{n-1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right) \sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int\limits_{\chi^2}^{\infty}{\rm d}t\,t^{-\frac{1}{2}} e^{-\frac{t}{2}},$$ where $$\chi^2 =\left(\frac{n-2}{2}\right)y_n (2+y_n) + y_n\frac{1}{2}.$$ For given power $n$ the approximation improves with increasing $\xi$. In the limit $y_n\rightarrow 0$ we can use the replacement $$(1-y_n)^{\frac{1-n}{2}} \sim e^{\frac{n-1}{2}y_n},$$ so that the mass surface density becomes $$\label{eq_sigmaapprox}
\Sigma_n \sim 2 r_0\rho_{\rm c} q^{\frac{n-1}{n}}e^{-\frac{1-n}{2}y_n}\frac{1}{2}{\rm B}\left(\frac{n-1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right)P(\chi^2,1).$$ In the limit $n\rightarrow \infty$ we have $$\chi^2 \approx n y_n \rightarrow - 2 \,(1-x^2)\,\ln q,$$ so that the beta function becomes independent of $n$.
Incomplete beta function for $b=1/2$
------------------------------------
The power law approximation of the PDF at large mass surface densities for $n>1$ as presented in Sect. \[app\_pdfasymptotes\] are valid for negligible contribution of the incomplete beta function to the mass surface density. We have seen in Fig. \[fig\_pdf\] that the power law is only a good representation for large mass surface densities and that the approximation of the PDF improves for larger $n$.
Fig. \[fig\_incompletebeta2\] shows the value of the incomplete beta function as given in Eq. \[eq\_profile\] for different assumptions for the powers $n$ and the density ratio $q$. As we see the value of the incomplete beta function for given $q$ decreases for larger $n$. In the limit $n\rightarrow \infty$ for given $q$ we obtain the asymptotic value of the incomplete beta function given in the previous section. In the limit $n\rightarrow 1$ we have $$I_{1-y_n}\left(\frac{n-1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right) \rightarrow 1.$$
![\[fig\_incompletebeta2\] Incomplete beta function $I_\xi(a,b)$ (black contours) for $a=(n-1)/2$ and $b=1/2$ as function of $\xi=1-y_n$. The lines are labeled with the corresponding power $n$. The line for a power $n=3$ is emphasized through a thick line. The gray lines correspond to $\xi=q^{2/n}$ for fixed density ratio $q$ and varying power $n$. The lines are labeled with $\log_{10} q$. The gray dashed lines are obtained using the approximation of the incomplete beta function (Eq. \[eq\_approxibeta\]). The asymptotic value of the incomplete beta function for given $q$ in the limit $n\rightarrow \infty$ is indicated through dotted lines. The filled circle corresponds to a power $n=3$ and an overdensity $q_{\rm crit}^{-1} = 14.04$ of a critical stable sphere. ](fischera_fig06.eps){width="\hsize"}
[^1]: The PDF of the logarithmic values of the mass surface density is referred to as logarithmic PDF while the PDF of the absolute values of the mass surface density as linear PDF.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The contribution of the tensor meson $K_2^*(1430)$ exchange in the process $\gamma p\to K^+\Lambda(\Sigma^0)$ is investigated within the Regge framework. Inclusion of the $K_2^*$ exchange in the $K(494)+K^*(892)$ exchanges with the coupling constants chosen from the SU(3) symmetry leads to a better description of the production mechanism without referring to any fitting procedure. This shows the significance of the role of the tensor meson exchange to have the Regge theory basically free of parameters with the SU(3) symmetry a good approximation for the meson-baryon couplings.'
author:
- Byung Geel Yu
- Tae Keun Choi
- 'W. Kim'
title: Evidence for the tensor meson exchange in the kaon photoproduction
---
Introduction
============
It is believed that the Regge pole model could be an effective theory for high-energy hadron reactions induced by electromagnetic and mesonic probes [@word; @storrow]. The Regge models formulated in the $s$-channel helicity amplitude (SCHA) [@walk] are favorable to the analysis of photoproduction of pseudoscalar meson since they share essentially the same production amplitude with that of the effective Lagrangian approach except for the simple [*reggeization*]{} of the $t$-channel meson poles [@levy; @guid]. It is, therefore, advantageous to work with the Regge poles in the SCHA in that one exploits the effective Lagrangians to estimate the coupling constants of the exchanged meson from the decay width or from the symmetry consideration. The application of these models to physical processes is, however, limited by the large ambiguity in the coupling of meson trajectory due to the fitting of the experimental data with few meson exchanges. Within the framework of the $K+K^*$ Regge poles for kaon photoproduction, to be specific, the coupling constants of the $K^*$ to baryons were given too large as compared to those either from the SU(3) symmetry prediction [@work] or from other independent process such as the Nijmegen soft core potential for the NN interaction [@nsc]. This large discrepancy, as shown in Table \[cc1\] below, demonstrates that the $K+K^*$ exchanges in current models are not enough to describe the process up to $-t\approx 2$ GeV$^2$. In this work we study the processes $\gamma p\to K^+\Lambda$ and $\gamma p\to K^+\Sigma^0$ at forward angles within the Regge framework and discuss the possibility of the model prediction without fit parameters for the meson-baryon couplings. From our previous analysis of the pion photoproduction [@bgyu], we recall, the inclusion of the tensor meson $a_2(1320)$ exchange in the $\pi(140)+\rho(770)$ Regge poles led us to choose a rather moderate value for the $\rho$-meson coupling constants for the better description of the experimental data. (See the values compared in Table \[cc1\] below.) It is, then, natural to extend the model of $K+K^*$ exchanges to obtain the parameter-free prediction for the production mechanism by introducing the tensor meson $K_2^*$.
tensor meson exchange at forward angles
=======================================
In the photoproduction amplitude for $\gamma(k)+ p(p)\to
K^+(q)+\Lambda(p')$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{amp}
{\cal M}={\cal M}_K+{\cal M}_{K^*}+{\cal M}_{K_2^*}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the amplitudes relevant to the $K$ and $K^*$ Regge-pole exchanges are given in Refs. [@guid; @bgyu], the exchange of the $K^*_2$ Regge pole in the $t$-channel is written as [@bgyu; @giac; @ysoh] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tensor}
&&{\cal M}_{K_2^*}
=\bar{u}'(p')\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}\,\epsilon^\mu k^\nu
q^\alpha q_\rho\Pi^{\beta\rho;\lambda\sigma}(q-k)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left[G^{(1)}_{K_2^*}(\gamma_\lambda
P_\sigma+\gamma_\sigma P_\lambda)+G^{(2)}_{K_2^*} P_\lambda
P_\sigma\right] {\cal
P}^{K_2^*}(s,t) u(p)%\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ with the coupling constants $G^{(1)}_{K_2^*}$=$\frac{2g_{\gamma
KK^*_2}}{m^2_0}\frac{2g^{(1)}_{K^*_2NY}}{M}$, $G^{(2)}_{K_2^*}$=$-\frac{2g_{\gamma
KK^*_2}}{m^2_0}\frac{4g^{(2)}_{{K^*_2}NY}}{M^2}$, and the momentum $P$=$\frac{1}{2}(p+p')$. The mass parameter $m_0=1$ GeV is taken for the dimensionless decay constant and $M$ is the nucleon mass. The quantity $\Pi_{\mu\nu;\rho\sigma}(q-k)=\frac{1}{2}(\eta_{\mu\rho}\eta_{\nu\sigma}
+\eta_{\mu\sigma}\eta_{\nu\rho})-\frac{1}{3}\eta_{\mu\nu}\eta_{\rho\sigma}
$ with $\eta_{\mu\nu}=-g^{\mu\nu} +
(q-k)^{\mu}(q-k)^{\nu}/m_{K^*_2}^2$ is the polarization tensor of the $K^*_2$ meson.\
According to the duality expressed as the finite energy sum rule between the $s$-channel resonances and the $t$-channel Regge poles [@fesr], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fesr}
\int_{s_0}^{\bar{s}}ds\,s^n\, {\rm Im\,}{\cal
A}_{res}(s,t)=\sum_{j=K^*,K_2^*,
\cdots}\gamma_j(t)\frac{\bar{s}^{\,\alpha_j+n+1}}{{\alpha_j}+n+1}\
,\label{fesr}\end{aligned}$$ that the imaginary part of the resonance amplitude does not vanish by the optical theorem in the left hand side of Eq.(\[fesr\]) is in effect equivalent to imply $\gamma_{K^*}\neq
\gamma_{K_2^*}$, $\cdots$, in the right hand side, i.e., the violation of the exchange degeneracy (EXD) by the different residues between the $K^*$ and $K_2^*$ in the leading $K^*$ trajectory [@storrow; @word; @bgyu]. This proves that the weak EXD of the pair $K^*$-$K_2^*$ is a good approximation, and hence, both the two contribute independently with the different residues (different coupling vertices in the present scheme), but share the same phase of the signature factor with each other. Thus, we use the $K_2^*$ Regge pole of the spin-2 $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pi-regge}
&&{\cal
P}^{K_2^*}(s,t)=\frac{\pi\alpha'_{K_2^*}}{\Gamma(\alpha_{K_2^*}(t)-1)}
\frac{e^{-i\pi\alpha_{K_2^*}(t)}}{\sin\pi\alpha_{K_2^*}(t)}
\left(\frac{s}{s_0}\right)^{\alpha_{K_2^*}(t)-2}\end{aligned}$$ with the rotating phase for the nonzero imaginary part of the amplitude. Here the trajectory $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tensor-traj}
\alpha_{K_2^*}(t)=0.83\,(t-m^2_{K^*_2})+2\end{aligned}$$ is taken for the $K_2^*$ with the slope the same as that of the $K^*$ [@guid] and the scale factor $s_0$ is chosen as $1$ GeV$^2$.
Avoiding fit parameters for the coupling constants of all exchanged mesons considered here we use the SU(3) relations to determine their values. We begin with the estimate of the $K^*NY$ coupling, while the relatively well-established coupling constant $g_{KNY}$ and radiative decay constant $g_{\gamma K^\pm
K^*}=0.254$ are taken the same as those in Ref. [@guid] for comparison. We estimate the coupling constants of the vector meson $g^{v(t)}_{K^*NY}$ by using the SU(3) relations in which case $g^v_{\rho NN}=2.6$ is taken from the universality of $\rho$ meson coupling with the ratio $\alpha^v=1$. For the tensor coupling of the $\rho$ meson, $g^t_{\rho NN}$, we use $\kappa_\rho=6.2$ with the ratio $\alpha^t=0.4$ from the SU(6) quark model prediction [@work].
The radiative decay, $K^*_2\to \gamma K$, is empirically known and the width reported in the Particle Data Group is, $\Gamma_{K^*_2\to K\gamma}=0.24\pm 0.05$ MeV. The decay width corresponding to the $K^*_2 K\gamma$ vertex in Eq.(\[tensor\]) is given by [@giac] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ten-decay}
\Gamma_{K^*_2\to K\gamma}=\frac{1}{10\pi}\, \left(\frac{g_{\gamma
KK^*_2}}{m^2_0}\right)^2
\left(\frac{m_{K^*_2}^2-m^2_K}{2m_{K^*_2}}\right)^5\,,\end{aligned}$$ from which $g_{\gamma K K^*_2}=0.276$ is obtained. Since there are no informations currently available for the $K_2^*NY$ couplings except for those $a_2NN$ and $f_2(1270)NN$, we resume the SU(3) symmetry for the tensor meson nonet coupling to baryons where the $K^*_2NY$ coupling constants are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tensor-k}
&&g^{(1,2)}_{K^*_2N\Lambda}=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1+2\alpha_{(1,2)})
g^{(1,2)}_{a_2
NN}\,,\nonumber\\
&&g^{(1,2)}_{K^*_2N\Sigma}=(1-2\alpha_{(1,2)})g^{(1,2)}_{a_2
NN}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and estimate the $K_2^*NY$ coupling constants from the knowledge of the $a_2NN$ couplings in existing estimates. In order for the above SU(3) predictions to be reliable, it is, therefore, of importance to choose the $a_2NN$ coupling constants on the firm ground as well as the ratio $F/D$.
A B C $(\frac{F}{D})_{\rm exp}=-1.8\pm 0.2$
------------------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------------------------------------- -- --
$g_{f_2NN}^{(1)}$ 3.38$^a$ 5.26$^b$ 6.45$^c$
$g_{a_2NN}^{(1)}$ 0.6 0.94 1.15 $\alpha_{(1)}=2.67$, $\frac{F}{D}=-1.6$
$g^{(1)}_{K_2^{*}p\Lambda}$ -2.20 -3.44 -4.21
$g^{(1)}_{K_2^{*}p\Sigma^0}$ -2.60 -4.08 -4.99
$g_{a_2NN}^{(1)}$ 0.73 1.14 1.4 $\alpha_{(1)}=2.25$, $\frac{F}{D}=-1.8$
$g^{(1)}_{K_2^{*}p\Lambda}$ -2.32 -3.62 -4.45
$g^{(1)}_{K_2^{*}p\Sigma^0}$ -2.56 -3.99 -4.9
$g_{a_2NN}^{(1)}$ 0.84 1.3 1.6 $\alpha_{(1)}=2.0$, $\frac{F}{D}=-2.0$
$g^{(1)}_{K_2^{*}p\Lambda}$ -2.42 -3.75 -4.62
$g^{(1)}_{K_2^{*}p\Sigma^0}$ -2.52 -3.9 -4.8
: SU(3) predictions for the coupling constants of the $a_2NN$, and $K_2^*NY$ from the given $f_2NN$ coupling constant. []{data-label="tb5"}
For verification we will check the consistency of the chosen $a_2NN$ coupling constants by using the SU(3) relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{su3}
g_{f_2NN}^{(1,2)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(4\alpha_{(1,2)}-1)\,g_{a_2
NN}^{(1,2)}\,,\end{aligned}$$ with the ratio and the $f_2NN$ coupling constants which were given in more detail in the literature [@renn; @gold; @borie; @engels].
Based on the dispersion relation and on the tensor meson dominance (TMD) [@renn] the $f_2NN$ coupling constants were investigated in the analysis of the backward $\pi N$ scattering [@gold] and the $\pi\pi\to N\bar{N}$ partial-wave amplitudes [@borie; @engels]. In these analyses we first note that $g^{(2)}_{f_2NN}\approx0$ was obtained in common and we adopt this in Eq. (\[su3\]) together with $g^{(2)}_{a_2NN}\approx 0$ in accordance with our previous result [@bgyu]. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that $g^{(2)}_{K^*_2NY}$ is small enough to be neglected in Eq. (\[tensor-k\]). We now focus on the estimate of $g^{(1)}_{f_2NN}$ coupling constants from these analyses to summarize the results in the first raw of Table \[tb5\]. (In the convention of Refs. [@renn; @gold; @engels; @klei; @klei1], $G^{(1,2)}_{f_2NN}=M\gamma^{(1,2)}_{f_2NN}=4g^{(1,2)}_{f_2NN}$ in Eq. (\[tensor\]) and $G_{f_2\pi\pi}=2m_{f_2}\gamma_{f_2\pi\pi}=4g_{f_2\pi\pi}$ in Eq. (\[tmd\]) below.) The value with the superscript $a$ in the column A is obtained from the quantity $\gamma_{f_2\pi\pi}\gamma^{(1)}_{f_2NN}/4\pi=10.4$ GeV$^{-2}$ which was extracted from the $\pi N$ scattering [@gold]. In the column B the value with the $b$ is from $g^{(1)\
2}_{f_2NN}/4\pi=2.2\pm0.9$ which was obtained in the dispersion analysis of the $\pi\pi\to N\bar{N}$ [@borie]. The value with the $c$ in the last column is from $G^{(1)\
2}_{f_2NN}/4\pi=53\pm10$ using the Regge model for the backward $\pi N$ scattering [@engels], which also agrees with that obtained from other independent processes [@klei; @klei1]. In each column in Table \[tb5\] we display the SU(3) predictions from Eqs. (\[tensor-k\]) and (\[su3\]) for the $g^{(1)}_{a_2NN}$ and $g^{(1)}_{K^*_2NY}$ with the ratio $F/D=-1.8\pm 0.2$, which was determined to agree with the Regge-pole fit to the high energy experiments based on the SU(3) symmetry for the residues of the tensor meson nonet coupling to baryons [@sarma; @gross]. On the other hand, we find that, among these values, the choices of $g_{f_2NN}^{(1)}=6.45$ and $g_{a_2NN}^{(1)}=1.4$ or $1.6$ in the column C with the ratio $\alpha_{(1)}=2.0$ or 2.25 are in fair agreement with $G^{(1)\ 2}_{a_2NN}/4\pi\approx3$ and $|G^{(1)}_{a_2NN}|\approx 6$ obtained from the analyses of pion photoproduction [@klei] and the Compton scattering [@klei1], respectively. Thus, we favor to choose the SU(3) value $g^{(1)}_{a_2NN}=1.4$ as a median value together with $g^{(1)}_{f_2NN}=6.45$ for the estimate of the $g^{(1)}_{K_2^*NY}$ in Eq.(\[tensor-k\]).
NSC97a LMR GLV Present work
---------------------------------------------------------- -------- ----------------- ------- -------------- -- --
$g_{\pi NN}/\sqrt{4\pi}$ 3.71 3.82 3.81 3.81
$g^v_{\rho NN} $ 2.97 2.8 3.4 2.6
$g^t_{\rho NN}$ 12.52 40.88 20.74 16.12
$g^{(1)}_{a_2NN}(g^{(2)}_{a_2NN})$ - - 1.4 (0)
$g_{Kp\Lambda}/\sqrt{4\pi}$ -3.82 -3.87 -3.26 -3.26
$g_{Kp\Sigma^0}/\sqrt{4\pi}$ 1.16 0.76 1.26 1.26
$g^v_{K^*p\Lambda}$ -4.26 -7.29$\lambda$ -23 -4.5
$g^t_{K^*p\Lambda}$ -11.31 -31.72$\lambda$ 57.5 -16.7
$g^v_{K^*p\Sigma^0}$ -2.46 -7.02$\lambda$ -25 -2.6
$g^t_{K^*p\Sigma^0}$ 1.15 26.82$\lambda$ 25 3.2
$g^{(1)}_{K_2^{*}p\Lambda}(g^{(2)}_{K_2^{*}p\Lambda})$ - - -4.45 (0)
$g^{(1)}_{K_2^{*}p\Sigma^0}(g^{(2)}_{K_2^{*}p\Sigma^0})$ - - -4.9 (0)
: \[cc1\] Meson-baryon coupling constants for the exchanged mesons in the $\gamma p\to \pi^+n$ [@bgyu] and $\gamma p\to K^+\Lambda(\Sigma^0)$ processes. The models LMR and GLV refer to Refs. [@levy; @guid], respectively. An overall factor $\lambda=2.18$ is taken for the absorption correction in the LMR model.
We present in Table \[cc1\] the meson-baryon coupling constants of the exchanged mesons in the Regge models for the pion and kaon photoproduction. The corresponding values from Nijmegen soft core potential (NSC97a) is listed for comparison [@nsc]. The pseudoscalar meson coupling constants in the NSC97a are deduced by using the proportional expressions of the given pseudovector ones in Ref. [@esc04]. Note that the $K^*NY$ coupling constants determined from the SU(3) relations in the present work are the same order of the magnitude with those obtained from the NSC97a. The tensor meson couplings are obtained from SU(3) relations with $\alpha_{(1)}=2.25$.
Before closing this section let us comment on the TMD in relation with the determination of the $f_2NN$ coupling constants [@renn; @bgyu]. The TMD with the $f_2$-pole dominance in the $\pi N$ scattering process leads to the following identity, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tmd}
\frac{2}{M}(g^{(1)}_{f_2NN}+g^{(2)}_{f_2NN})=\frac{g_{f_2\pi\pi
}}{m_{f_2}}\end{aligned}$$ which estimates $g^{(1)}_{f_2NN}=2.13$ and $g^{(2)}_{f_2NN}=0$ with the known coupling constant $g_{f_2\pi\pi}=5.76$. The coupling constant $g^{(1)}_{f_2NN}$ predicted by the TMD is small and inconsistent with those discussed above. Since the validity of the TMD in such a simple $f_2$-pole description is questionable and needs further test [@raman; @suzuki], we disregard the TMD prediction in this work, though a viable hypothesis analogous to the VMD.
Results and discussion
======================
![(Color online) Differential cross sections $\frac{d\sigma}{dt}$ for $\gamma p\to K^+\Lambda$ at photon energies $E_\gamma=5,\,8,\,11,\,16$ GeV, respectively. Solid lines (black) result from the gauge invariant $K+K^*+K^*_2$ exchanges in the present model. Dash-dotted lines (green) represent the $K+K^*$ exchanges in the present model. Dashed ones (blue) denote the $K^*_2$ contributions. Dotted lines (red) are from the GLV model. Data are taken from Ref.[@boyar].[]{data-label="fig:fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="0.95\linewidth"}
Figures \[fig:fig1\] and \[fig:fig2\] show the differential cross sections for $\gamma p\to K^+\Lambda$ and $\gamma p\to
K^+\Sigma^0$ at photon energies $E_\gamma=5,\,8,\,11$, and $16$ GeV, respectively. It is clear that the $K+K^*$ exchanges with the SU(3) coupling constants (the green dash-dotted line) can hardly reproduce the cross section at any photon energy but the $K_2^*$ exchange replaces the role that has been attributed to the $K^*$ in Refs. [@levy; @guid], instead. This feature of the production mechanism should be different from that of the $K+K^*$ exchanges (the red dotted lines) in the GLV model, even if it yields the cross sections comparable to the solid ones with very large $K^*$ coupling constants as shown in Table \[cc1\]. This tendency continues to the $\gamma p\to K^+\Sigma^0$ case, though the cross section in Fig. \[fig:fig2\] is in less agreement with data at the photon energy $E_\gamma=5$ GeV due to the small couplings of $KN\Sigma$ and $K^*N\Sigma$. In conclusion, the features of the production mechanism in the present work result from the $K+K_2^*$ exchanges, but not from those of the $K+K^*$ as described in previous studies. In both processes the $K^*_2$ interferes constructively with the sum total of $K+K^*$ to reproduce the solid line. To a change of the $K^*_2$ coupling constant within the uncertainty of the $F/D$ ratio, the cross section shows sensitivity to some degree. But in any cases we find that the $K^*_2$ plays the key role to reproduce the whole structure of the cross section.
![(Color online) Differential cross sections $\frac{d\sigma}{dt}$ for $\gamma p\to K^+\Sigma^0$ at photon energies $E_\gamma=5,\,8,\,11,\,16$ GeV, respectively. Notations are the same with Fig.\[fig:fig1\]. Data are taken from Ref. [@quinn].[]{data-label="fig:fig2"}](fig2.eps){width="0.95\linewidth"}
The recoil polarization $P$ is analyzed in Fig. \[fig:fig3\]. The negative value of the $P$ observed in the experiment indicates a spin-down of the recoiled $\Lambda$, supporting our SU(3) predictions for the negative signs of the $K^*_2NY$ and $K^*NY$ couplings as well. Note that the inclusion of the $K_2^*$ makes improved the model prediction from that of $K+K^*$ to the experimental data closely. For the photon polarization in the $\gamma p\to K^+\Lambda$, we obtain exactly the same result at $E_\gamma=16$ GeV as presented in Ref. [@guid] which shows the rapid approach to unity by the dominance of the natural parity exchanges, $K^*+K^*_2$ over the unnatural parity $K$.
![(Color online) Recoil polarization asymmetry for $\gamma p\to K^+\Lambda$ at $E_\gamma=5$ GeV. Notations are the same with Fig.\[fig:fig1\]. Data are taken from Ref.[@vogel].[]{data-label="fig:fig3"}](fig3.eps){width="0.95\linewidth"}
Finally, we should remark upon the effect of the $K_2^*$ exchange on the lower energy region. Figure \[fig:fig4\] shows the total cross section measured at the SAPHIR/ELSA [@saph98; @saph03] and the CLAS/JLab experiments in the resonance region [@clas05]. The size of the cross section largely depends on the magnitude of the leading coupling constant $g_{KN\Lambda}$, as can be expected from the significance of the nucleon Born term in this region. The destructive interference between the $K$ and $K^*$ exchange leads to a sizable reduction of the total cross section, while the $K_2^*$ gives the additive contribution to the $K+K^*$, and we obtain a good agreement with the experimental data by using the same $g_{KN\Lambda}$ as that of the GLV model. It is understood that the overestimation of the cross section (the red dotted line) by the latter model is, therefore, another evidence for the inadequacy of such a large $K^*$ coupling constants as fitted to the high-energy data.
![(Color online) Total cross section for $\gamma p\to
K^+\Lambda$ up to $E_\gamma=3$ GeV. Notations are the same with Fig.\[fig:fig1\]. Data are taken from [@saph98; @saph03; @clas05].[]{data-label="fig:fig4"}](fig4.eps){width="0.95\linewidth"}
In this letter, with such compelling evidences as shown, we have clarified two points that have been obscure as concerns the Regge approach to kaon photoproduction based on the $s$-channel helicity amplitude [@levy; @guid; @cort]; one is our current misunderstanding of the large $K^*$ contribution due to the fitting procedure without the $K^*_2$. The other is the possibility of the Regge theory to be basically free of parameters with the SU(3) symmetry quite a good approximation for the meson-baryon couplings by considering the tensor meson $K^*_2$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology(2010-0013279).
[99]{}
A. C. Irving, and R. P. Worden, Phys. Rept. [**34**]{}, 117 (1977).
J. K. Storrow, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**50**]{}, 1229 (1987).
R. L. Walker, Phys. Rev. [**182**]{}, 1729 (1969).
N. Levy, W. Majerotto, and B. J. Read, Nucl. Phys. B [**55**]{}, 493 (1973). M. Guidal, J.-M. Laget, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Nucl. Phys. A [**627**]{}, 645 (1997).
R. L. Workman and Harold W. Fearing, Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{}, 3117 (1988).
Th. A. Rijken, V. G. J. Stoks, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. C [**59**]{}, 21 (1999); V. G. J. Stoks and Th. A. Rijken, Phys. Rev. C [**59**]{}, 3009 (1999).
B. G. Yu, T. K. Choi, and W. Kim, Phys. Rev. C [**83**]{}, 025208 (2011); arXiv:1103.1203.
F. Giacosa, Th. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, and Amand Faessler, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 114021 (2005).
Yong-seok Oh and T.-S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C [**69**]{}, 025201 (2004).
H. Harari, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**20**]{}, 1395 (1968).
B. Renner, Phys. Lett. B [**33**]{}, 599 (1970).
Hyman Goldberg, Phys. Rev. [**171**]{}, 1485 (1968).
E. Borie and F. Kaiser, Nucl. Phys. B [**126**]{}, 173 (1977).
J. Engels and H$\ddot{e}$hler, Nucl. Phys. B [**25**]{}, 141 (1970).
H. Kleinert and P. H. Weisz, Lett. Nuo. Cim. [**2**]{}, 459 (1971).
J. Baacke and H. Kleinert, Nuo. Cim. A [**12**]{}, 21 (1972).
V. Barger, M. Olsson, and K. V. L. Sarma, Phys. Rev. [**147**]{}, 1115 (1966).
David J. Gross and Heinz Pagels, Phys. Rev. [**172**]{}, 1381 (1968).
Th. A. Rijken, Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. C [**73**]{}, 044008 (2006).
M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{}, 1043 (1993).
K. Raman, Phys. Rev. D [**3**]{}, 2900 (1971).
A. M. Boyarski [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**22**]{}, 1131 (1969).
D. J. Quinn [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. D [**20**]{}, 1553 (1979).
G. Vogel [*et al*]{}., Phys. Lett. B [**40**]{}, 513 (1972).
M. Q. Tran [*et al*]{}., Phys. Lett. B [**445**]{}, 20 (1998).
K.-H. Glander [*et al*]{}., Eur. Phys. J. A [**19**]{}, 251 (2004).
R. Bradford [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. C [**73**]{}, 035202 (2006).
T. Corthals, D. G. Ireland, T. Van Cauteren and J. Ryckebusch, Phys. Rev. C [**75**]{}, 045204 (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider two-player non-zero-sum stopping games in discrete time. Unlike Dynkin games, in our games the payoff of each player is revealed after both players stop. Moreover, each player can adjust her own stopping strategy according to the other player’s action. In the first part of the paper, we consider the game where players act simultaneously at each stage. We show that there exists a Nash equilibrium in mixed stopping strategies. In the second part, we assume that one player has to act first at each stage. In this case, we show the existence of a Nash equilibrium in pure stopping strategies.'
address: 'Institute for Mathematics and its Applications, University of Minnesota'
author:
- Zhou Zhou
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
date: 'August 23, 2015'
title: 'Non-zero-sum stopping games in discrete time'
---
Introduction
============
As a classical model of stopping games, Dynkin game has attracted a lot of research. We refer to [@Dynkin; @Zhang3; @Solan; @Hamadene; @Kifer; @Solan1; @Solan2; @Ko3; @Lepeltier; @Solan3; @Solan4; @Touzi; @Neveu; @Bismut; @Ferenstein] and the references therein. In a Dynkin game, each player chooses a stopping strategy, and the payoffs are revealed when one player stops. In other words, the game ends at the minimum of the stopping strategies. In practice, it is more often that, even if a player has made the decision first, her payoff can still be affected by other players’ decisions later on. Therefore, it is more reasonable to let the game end at the maximum of the stopping strategies. Moreover, a wise player would adjust her strategy after she observes other players’ actions. Based on these two points, recently [@ZZ6; @ZZ7; @ZZ9] study the stopping games with these features. In particular, [@ZZ6; @ZZ7] consider the zero-sum case, and [@ZZ7] investigates the non-zero-sum case in continuous time.
In this paper, given a filtered probability space $(\Omega,{\mathcal{F}},({\mathcal{F}})_{t=0,\dotso,T},{\mathbb{P}})$, we consider a non-zero-sum stopping game in discrete time $$u^i(\rho,\tau)={\mathbb{E}}[U^i(\rho,\tau)],\quad i=1,2,$$ where the first (resp. second) player chooses $\rho$ (resp. $\tau$) to maximize the payoff $u^1$ (resp. $u^2$). Here $U^i(s,t)$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{s\vee t}$-measurable instead of ${\mathcal{F}}_{s\wedge t}$-measurable as is assumed in Dynkin games. That is, the game ends at the maximum of $\rho$ and $\tau$. Moreover, here $\rho$ and $\tau$ are not (randomized) stopping times, they are strategies that can be adjusted according to each other.
In the first part of the paper, we consider the case when the two players act simultaneously at each stage (here both “stop” and “not stop” are actions). We show that there exists a perfect Nash equilibrium in mixed stopping strategies. The main idea to prove the result is to convert the original problem to a non-zero-sum Dynkin game with randomized stopping times.
In the second part of the paper, we consider the game where one player acts first at each stage. In this case, we show that there always exists a perfect Nash equilibrium in pure stopping strategies. We use the idea in [@ZZ9] to prove this result. That is, we first construct saddle points for some related zero-sum stopping games, and then using these saddle points we construct a Nash equilibrium for the non-zero-sum games.
This paper extends the result in [@ZZ9] to the discrete time case. It has a broad range of applications, e.g., when companies choose times to enter the market, or when investors who both long and short American options choose times to exercise the options.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we consider the non-zero-sum stopping game when two players act simultaneously at each stage. In Section 3, we study the case when one player acts first at each stage. In Section 4, we make a comparison between our discrete-time results in this paper and the continuous-time result in [@ZZ9].
Stopping games where players act simultaneously at each stage
=============================================================
In this section, we consider the non-zero-sum stopping game where players act simultaneously at each stage. We will consider mixed stopping strategies for the game. [Theorem ]{}[t1]{} is the main result of this section.
Let $(\Omega,{\mathcal{F}},({\mathcal{F}}_t)_{t=0,\dotso,T},{\mathbb{P}})$ be a filtered probability space, where $\Omega$ is countably generated, and $T\in\mathbb{N}$ is the finite time horizon. Let ${\mathcal{T}}$ be the set of stopping times taking values in $\{0,\dotso,T\}$. For any $\sigma\in{\mathcal{T}}$, let ${\mathcal{T}}_\sigma:=\{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}},\ \rho\geq\tau\}$, and ${\mathcal{T}}_{\sigma+}:=\{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}},\ \rho\geq(\tau+1)\wedge T\}$. Define $${\mathbb{T}}^a:=\{\phi:\{0,\dotso,T\}\times\Omega\mapsto\{0,\dotso,T\}:\ \phi(t,\cdot)\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t+},\ t=0,\dotso,T\}.$$ Let ${\mathcal{T}}^r$ be the set of randomized stopping times. That is, for any $\alpha\in{\mathcal{T}}^r$, $\alpha:[0,1]\times\Omega\mapsto\{0,\dotso,T\}$ is $\mathcal{B}([0,1])\otimes{\mathcal{F}}$-measurable, and $\alpha(p,\cdot)\in{\mathcal{T}}$ for any $p\in[0,1]$.
$(\rho_0,\rho_1)$ is said to be a (pure) stopping strategy of type A, if $\rho_0\in{\mathcal{T}}$ and $\rho_1\in{\mathbb{T}}^a$. Denote ${\mathfrak{T}}^a$ as the set of (pure) stopping strategies of type A.
For $(\rho_0,\rho_1)\in{\mathbb{T}}^a$, $\rho_0$ represents a player’s initial (pure) stopping strategy, and $\rho_1(t,\cdot)$ represents the strategy adjusted by the player after she observes the other player’s stopping at time $t$. For $\rho=(\rho_0,\rho_1),\tau=(\tau_0,\tau_1)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^a$, denote $$\rho[\tau]:=\rho_0 1_{\{\rho_0\leq\tau_0\}}+\rho_1(\tau_0) 1_{\{\rho_0>\tau_0\}}.$$
$(\alpha,\rho_1)$ is said to be a mixed stopping strategy of type A, if $\alpha\in{\mathcal{T}}^r$ and $\rho_1\in{\mathbb{T}}^a$. Denote ${\mathfrak{T}}^{ar}$ as the set of mixed stopping strategies of type A.
One can also randomize the strategies in ${\mathfrak{T}}^i$. However, it turns out that we only need to randomize players’ initial stopping times (i.e., the first component of $(\rho_0,\rho_1)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^a)$), in order to get the existence of a Nash equilibrium for the stopping game introduced below.
For $i=1,2$, let $U^i:\ \{0,\dotso,T\}\times \{0,\dotso,T\}\times\Omega\mapsto{\mathbb{R}}$, such that $U^i(s,t,\cdot)$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{s\vee t}$-measurable. For simplicity, we assume that $U^i$ is bounded for $i=1,2$. Consider the non-zero-sum stopping game $$\label{e1}
u^i(\rho,\tau)=\int_{[0,1]^2}\Gamma^i\left(\rho(p,\cdot),\tau(q,\cdot)\right)dpdq,\quad\rho,\tau\in{\mathfrak{T}}^{ar},\quad i=1,2,$$ where for $i=1,2$ and $\zeta=(\zeta_0,\zeta_1),\eta=(\eta_0,\eta_1)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^a$, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag \Gamma^i(\zeta,\eta)&=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[U^i(\zeta[\eta],\eta[\zeta])\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[U^i(\zeta_0,\eta_1(\zeta_0)) 1_{\{\zeta_0<\eta_0\}}+U^i(\zeta_1(\eta_0),\eta_0) 1_{\{\zeta_0>\eta_0\}}+U^i(\zeta_0,\zeta_0) 1_{\zeta_0=\eta_0\}}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Here the first player chooses $\rho$ to maximize $u^1$ and the second player chooses $\tau$ to maximize $u^2$.
Recall the definition of a Nash equilibrium.
$(\rho^*,\tau^*)\in({\mathfrak{T}}^{ar})^2$ is said to be a Nash equilibrium in ${\mathfrak{T}}^{ar}$ for the game , if for any $\rho,\tau\in{\mathfrak{T}}^{ar}$, $$u^1(\rho,\tau^*)\leq u^1(\rho^*,\tau^*)\quad\text{and}\quad u^2(\rho^*,\tau)\leq u^2(\rho^*,\tau^*).$$
Below is the main result of this section.
\[t1\] There exists a Nash equilibrium in ${\mathfrak{T}}^{ar}$ for the game .
We cannot guarantee the existence of a Nash equilibrium for the game if players only use pure stopping strategies of type A (i.e., ${\mathfrak{T}}^a$). Consider the following deterministic one-period example. Let $T=1$ and $u^1(s,t)=-u^2(s,t)=1_{\{s=t\}}$ for $s,t=0,1$. Then it is easy to see that ${\mathfrak{T}}^a=\{0,1\}$. Obviously there is no Nash equilibrium for in ${\mathfrak{T}}^a$.
For $t=0,\dotso,T$, let $$Y_t^1:=\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\sigma\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t+}}{\mathbb{E}}_t[U^1(\sigma,t)]\quad\text{and}\quad X_t^2:=\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\sigma\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t+}}{\mathbb{E}}_t[U^2(t,\sigma)],$$ where ${\mathbb{E}}_\theta[\cdot]:={\mathbb{E}}[\cdot|{\mathcal{F}}_\theta]$ for $\theta\in{\mathcal{T}}$. For $t=0,\dotso,T$, let $\rho_1^*(t,\cdot)\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t+}$ and $\tau_1^*(t,\cdot)\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t+}$ be optimizers for $Y_t^1$ and $X_t^2$ respectively. That is, $${\mathbb{E}}_t[U^1(\rho_1^*(t),t)]=Y_t^1\quad\text{and}\quad{\mathbb{E}}_t[U^2(t,\tau_1^*(t))]=X_t^2,\quad\text{a.s.}.$$ Obviously $\rho_1^*(\cdot,\cdot),\tau_1^*(\cdot,\cdot)\in{\mathbb{T}}^a$. For $t=0,\dotso,T$, define $$X_t^1:={\mathbb{E}}_t[U^1(t,\tau_1^*(t))],\quad Y_t^2:={\mathbb{E}}_t[U^2(\rho_1^*(t),t)],\quad\text{and}\quad Z_t^i=U^i(t,t),\ i=1,2.$$
Now consider the non-zero-sum Dynkin game with randomized stopping times $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e2}
\tilde u^i(\alpha,\beta)=\int_{[0,1]^2}\left({\mathbb{E}}\left[X_\alpha^i 1_{\{\alpha<\beta\}}+Y_\beta^i 1_{\{\alpha>\beta\}}+Z_\alpha^i 1_{\{\alpha=\beta\}}\right]\right)dpdq,\quad i=1,2,\end{aligned}$$ for $\alpha,\beta\in{\mathcal{T}}^r$. By [@Ferenstein Theorem 2.1], there exists a Nash equilibrium $(\alpha^*,\beta^*)\in({\mathcal{T}}^r)^2$ for the Dynkin game . That is, for any $\alpha,\beta\in{\mathcal{T}}^r$, $$\label{e3}
\tilde u^1(\alpha,\beta^*)\leq\tilde u^1(\alpha^*,\beta^*)\quad\text{and}\quad\tilde u^2(\alpha^*,\beta)\leq\tilde u^2(\alpha^*,\beta^*).$$
Let $\rho_m^*:=(\alpha^*,\rho_1^*)$ and $\tau_m^*:=(\beta^*,\tau_1^*)$. Now let us show that $(\rho_m^*,\tau_m^*)\in({\mathfrak{T}}^{ar})^2$ is a Nash equilibrium for the game . Take $\rho=(\alpha,\rho_1)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^{ar}$. We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag u^1(\rho,\tau_m^*)&=&\int_{[0,1]^2}\left({\mathbb{E}}\left[U^1(\alpha,\tau_1^*(\alpha)) 1_{\{\alpha<\beta^*\}}+U^1(\rho_1(\beta^*),\beta^*) 1_{\{\alpha>\beta^*\}}+U^i(\alpha,\alpha) 1_{\{\alpha=\beta^*\}}\right]\right)dpdq\\
\notag &=&\int_{[0,1]^2}\left({\mathbb{E}}\left[{\mathbb{E}}_\alpha[U^1(\alpha,\tau_1^*(\alpha))] 1_{\{\alpha<\beta^*\}}+{\mathbb{E}}_{\beta^*}[U^1(\rho_1(\beta^*),\beta^*)] 1_{\{\alpha>\beta^*\}}+U^i(\alpha,\alpha) 1_{\{\alpha=\beta^*\}}\right]\right)dpdq\\
\notag &\leq&\int_{[0,1]^2}\left({\mathbb{E}}\left[X_\alpha^1 1_{\{\alpha<\beta^*\}}+Y_{\beta^*}^1 1_{\{\alpha>\beta^*\}}+Z_\alpha^1 1_{\{\alpha=\beta^*\}}\right]\right)dpdq\\
\notag &\leq&\int_{[0,1]^2}\left({\mathbb{E}}\left[X_{\alpha^*}^1 1_{\{\alpha^*<\beta^*\}}+Y_{\beta^*}^1 1_{\{\alpha^*>\beta^*\}}+Z_{\alpha^*}^1 1_{\{\alpha^*=\beta^*\}}\right]\right)dpdq\\
\notag &=&\int_{[0,1]^2}\left({\mathbb{E}}\left[U^1(\alpha^*,\tau_1^*(\alpha)) 1_{\{\alpha^*<\beta^*\}}+U^1(\rho_1^*(\beta^*),\beta^*) 1_{\{\alpha^*>\beta^*\}}+U^i(\alpha^*,\alpha^*) 1_{\{\alpha^*=\beta^*\}}\right]\right)dpdq\\
\notag &=& u^1(\rho_m^*,\tau_m^*),\end{aligned}$$ where we use for the fourth (in)equality. Similarly, we can show that for any $\tau\in{\mathfrak{T}}^{ar}$, $$u^2(\rho_m^*,\tau)\leq u^2(\rho_m^*,\tau_m^*).$$ This completes the proof of the result.
Stopping games where one player acts first at each stage
========================================================
In this section, we consider the stopping games in which one player acts first at each stage. We show that there always exists a Nash equilibrium in pure stopping strategies. [Theorem ]{}[t2]{} is the main result of this section.
Let $${\mathbb{T}}^b:=\{\psi:\{0,\dotso,T\}\times\Omega\mapsto\{0,\dotso,T\}:\ \psi(t,\cdot)\in{\mathcal{T}}_t\}.$$ Here $\psi\in{\mathbb{T}}^b$ represents a player’s (player 2) strategy adjusted at the time when the other player (player 1) stops. In other words, player 1 acts first at each stage. (Compare ${\mathbb{T}}^b$ with ${\mathbb{T}}^a$.)
$(\tau_0,\tau_1)$ is said to be a (pure) stopping strategy of type B, if $\tau_0\in{\mathcal{T}}$ and $\tau_1\in{\mathbb{T}}^b$. Denote ${\mathfrak{T}}^b$ as the set of (pure) stopping strategies of type B.
For any $\rho=(\rho_0,\rho_1)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^a,\tau=(\tau_0,\tau_1)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^b$, $$\rho\langle\tau\rangle:=\rho_0 1_{\{\rho_0\leq\tau_0\}}+\rho_1(\tau_0) 1_{\{\rho_0>\tau_0\}}\quad\text{and}\quad\tau\langle\rho\rangle:=\tau_0 1_{\{\tau_0<\rho_0\}}+\tau_1(\rho_0) 1_{\{\tau_0\geq\rho_0\}}.$$
Consider the non-zero-sum stopping game $$\label{e6}
w^i(\rho,\tau):={\mathbb{E}}\left[U^i(\rho\langle\tau\rangle,\tau\langle\rho\rangle)\right]={\mathbb{E}}\left[U^i(\rho_0,\tau_1(\rho_0))1_{\{\rho_0\leq\tau_0\}}+U^i(\rho_1(\tau_0),\tau_0)1_{\{\rho_0>\tau_0\}}\right],$$ for $\rho=(\rho_0,\rho_1)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^a$, $\tau=(\tau_0,\tau_1)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^b$ and $i=1,2$.
$(\rho^*,\tau^*)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^a\times{\mathfrak{T}}^b$ is said to be a Nash equilibrium for the game , if for any $\rho\in{\mathfrak{T}}^a$ and $\tau\in{\mathfrak{T}}^b$, $$w^1(\rho,\tau^*)\leq w^1(\rho^*,\tau^*)\quad\text{and}\quad w^2(\rho^*,\tau)\leq w^2(\rho^*,\tau^*).$$
Below is the main result of this section.
\[t2\] There exists a Nash equilibrium for the game .
We will use the idea in [@ZZ9] to prove [Theorem ]{}[t2]{}. To be more specific, we will use the saddle points of some zero-sum stopping games to construct a Nash equilibrium for the non-zero-sum game . We will first provide some results in the zero-sum case in Section 3.1. Then we prove [Theorem ]{}[t2]{} in Section 3.2.
Zero-sum case
-------------
We consider the stopping game in the zero-sum case, i.e., when $U^1=-U^2=U$. We will construct a saddle point for the zero-sum game. (The results in this section are essentially provided in [@ZZ6]. We present them for the completeness of this paper.)
For any $\sigma\in{\mathcal{T}}$, consider the zero-sum stopping game $$\label{e8}
\underline v_\sigma:=\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\rho\in{\mathfrak{T}}_\sigma^a}\operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{\tau\in{\mathfrak{T}}_\sigma^b}{\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[U(\rho\langle\tau\rangle,\tau\langle\rho\rangle)\right],$$ and $$\label{e9}
\overline v_\sigma:=\operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{\tau\in{\mathfrak{T}}_\sigma^b}\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\rho\in{\mathfrak{T}}_\sigma^a}{\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[U(\rho\langle\tau\rangle,\tau\langle\rho\rangle)\right],$$ where $${\mathfrak{T}}_\sigma^a:=\{(\rho_0,\rho_1)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^a:\ \rho_0\geq\sigma\}\quad\text{and}\quad{\mathfrak{T}}_\sigma^b:=\{(\rho_0,\rho_1)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^b:\ \rho_0\geq\sigma\}.$$
For $t=0,\dotso,T$, let $$F_t:=\operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{\xi\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t[U(t,\xi)]\quad\text{and}\quad G_t:=\left(\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\xi\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t+}}{\mathbb{E}}_t[U(\xi,t)]\right)\vee F_t,$$ and $\tilde\rho(t,\cdot)\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t+}$ and $\tilde\tau(t,\cdot)\in{\mathcal{T}}$ be optimizers for $\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\xi\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t+}}{\mathbb{E}}_t[U(\xi,t)]$ and $F_t$ respectively. Since $F\leq G$, we have that $$\label{e7}
v_\sigma:=\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_\sigma}\operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_\sigma}{\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[F_\rho 1_{\{\rho\leq\tau\}}+G_\tau 1_{\{\rho>\tau\}}\right]=\operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_\sigma}\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_\sigma}{\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[F_\rho 1_{\{\rho\leq\tau\}}+G_\tau 1_{\{\rho>\tau\}}\right],$$ and $(\rho_\sigma,\tau_\sigma)$ is a saddle point for the Dynkin game , where $$\rho_\sigma:=\inf\{t\geq\sigma:\ v_t=F_t\}\quad\text{and}\quad\tau_\sigma:=\inf\{t\geq\sigma:\ v_t=G_t\}.$$ That is, for any $\rho,\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_\sigma$, $${\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[F_\rho 1_{\{\rho\leq\tau_\sigma\}}+G_{\tau_\sigma} 1_{\{\rho>\tau_\sigma\}}\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[F_{\rho_\sigma} 1_{\{\rho_\sigma\leq\tau_\sigma\}}+G_{\tau_\sigma} 1_{\{\rho_\sigma>\tau_\sigma\}}\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[F_{\rho_\sigma} 1_{\{\rho_\sigma\leq\tau\}}+G_\tau 1_{\{\rho_\sigma>\tau\}}\right].$$ Let $\rho_\sigma^*:=(\rho_\sigma,\tilde\rho)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^a$ and $\tau_\sigma^*:=(\tau_\sigma,\tilde\tau)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^b$.
We have $\overline v_\sigma=\underline v_\sigma=v_\sigma$. Moreover, $(\rho_\sigma^*,\tau_\sigma^*)$ is a saddle point of the game and .
Take $\tau=(\tau_0,\tau_1)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^b$. We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[U(\rho_\sigma^*\langle\tau\rangle,\tau\langle\rho_\sigma^*\rangle)\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[U(\rho_\sigma,\tau_1(\rho_\sigma))1_{\{\rho_\sigma\leq\tau_0\}}+U(\tilde\rho(\tau_0),\tau_0)1_{\{\rho_\sigma>\tau_0\}}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\rho_\sigma}[U(\rho_\sigma,\tau_1(\rho_\sigma))]1_{\{\rho_\sigma\leq\tau_0\}}+{\mathbb{E}}_{\tau_0}[U(\tilde\rho(\tau_0),\tau_0)]1_{\{\rho_\sigma>\tau_0\}}\right]\\
\notag &\geq&{\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[F_{\rho_\sigma} 1_{\{\rho_\sigma\leq\tau_0\}}+G_{\tau_0} 1_{\{\rho_\sigma>\tau_0\}}\right]\\
\notag &\geq&{\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[F_{\rho_\sigma} 1_{\{\rho_\sigma\leq\tau_\sigma\}}+G_{\tau_\sigma} 1_{\{\rho_\sigma>\tau_\sigma\}}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[U(\rho_\sigma,\tilde\tau(\rho_\sigma))1_{\{\rho_\sigma\leq\tau_\sigma\}}+U(\tilde\rho(\tau_\sigma),\tau_\sigma)1_{\{\rho_\sigma>\tau_\sigma\}}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[U(\rho_\sigma^*\langle\tau_\sigma^*\rangle,\tau_\sigma^*\langle\rho_\sigma^*\rangle)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where for the third and sixth (in)equalities we use the fact that, on $\{t<\rho_\sigma\}$, $G_t\geq v_t>F_t$, and thus $G_t=\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\xi\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t+}}{\mathbb{E}}_t[U(\xi,t)]={\mathbb{E}}_t[U(\tilde\rho(t),t)]$.
Similarly, we can show that for any $\rho\in{\mathfrak{T}}^a$, $${\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[U(\rho\langle\tau_\sigma^*\rangle,\tau_\sigma^*\langle\rho\rangle)\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}_\sigma\left[U(\rho_\sigma^*\langle\tau_\sigma^*\rangle,\tau_\sigma^*\langle\rho_\sigma^*\rangle)\right].$$ This completes the proof of the result.
Proof of [Theorem ]{}[t2]{}
---------------------------
We will use the saddle points of some related zero-sum stopping games to construct a Nash equilibrium for the non-zero-sum game .
For $t=0,\dotso,T$, let $$F_t^1:=\operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{\xi\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t[U^1(t,\xi)]\quad\text{and}\quad G_t^1:=\left(\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\xi\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t+}}{\mathbb{E}}_t[U^1(\xi,t)]\right)\vee F_t^1,$$ $$F_t^2:=\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\xi\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t[U^2(t,\xi)]\quad\text{and}\quad G_t^2:=\left(\operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{\xi\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t+}}{\mathbb{E}}_t[U^2(\xi,t)]\right)\wedge F_t^2,$$ and $$\label{e11}
v_t^1:=\operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[F_t^1 1_{\{\rho\leq\tau\}}+G_t^1 1_{\{\rho>\tau\}}\right]=\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}\operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[F_t^1 1_{\{\rho\leq\tau\}}+G_t^1 1_{\{\rho>\tau\}}\right],$$ $$\label{e12}
v_t^2:=\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}\operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[F_t^2 1_{\{\rho\leq\tau\}}+G_t^2 1_{\{\rho>\tau\}}\right]=\operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[F_t^2 1_{\{\rho\leq\tau\}}+G_t^2 1_{\{\rho>\tau\}}\right].$$ Let $\tilde\tau^1(t), \tilde\rho^1(t),\tilde\tau^2(t),\tilde\rho^2(t)$ be optimizers for $F_t^1,\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\xi\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t+}}{\mathbb{E}}_t[U^1(\xi,t)],F_t^2,\operatorname*{ess\,inf}_{\xi\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t+}}{\mathbb{E}}_t[U^2(\xi,t)]$ respectively. Let $$H_t^1:={\mathbb{E}}_t[U^1(t,\tilde\tau^2(t)]\quad\text{and}\quad H_t^2:={\mathbb{E}}_t[U^2(\tilde\rho^1(t),t)]$$ for $t=0,\dotso,T$, and $$\mu^1:=\inf\{t\geq 0:\ v_t^1\leq H_t^1\}\quad\text{and}\quad\mu^2:=\inf\{t\geq 0:\ v_t^2\leq H_t^2\wedge F_t^2\},$$ and $$\label{e15}
\rho_{\mu^2}^2:=\inf\{t\geq\mu^2:\ v_t^2=F_t^2\}\quad\text{and}\quad\tau_{\mu^1}^1:=\inf\{t\geq\mu^1:\ v_t^1=G_t^1\}.$$ Define $$\rho_0^* = \begin{cases}
\mu^1, & \text{if }\mu^1\leq\mu^2,\\
\rho_{\mu^2}^2, & \text{if }\mu^1>\mu^2,\\
\end{cases}
\quad\quad
\rho_1^*(t) = \begin{cases}
\tilde\rho^2(t), & \text{if }t\geq\mu^2+1\text{ and }\mu^1>\mu^2,\\
\tilde\rho^1(t), & \text{otherwise},\\
\end{cases}$$ $$\tau_0^* = \begin{cases}
\tau_{\mu^1}^1, & \text{if }\mu^1\leq\mu^2,\\
\mu^2, & \text{if }\mu^1>\mu^2,\\
\end{cases}
\quad\quad
\tau_1^*(t) = \begin{cases}
\tilde\tau^1(t), & \text{if }t\geq\mu^1+1\text{ and }\mu^1\leq\mu^2,\\
\tilde\tau^2(t), & \text{otherwise},\\
\end{cases}$$ for $t=0,\dotso,T$, and $$\rho^*:=(\rho_0^*,\rho_1^*)\quad\text{and}\quad\tau^*:=(\tau_0^*,\tau_1^*).$$ It can be shown that $\rho^*\in{\mathfrak{T}}^a$ and $\tau^*\in{\mathfrak{T}}^b$.
$(\rho^*,\tau^*)$ is a Nash equilibrium for the game . Therefore, [Theorem ]{}[t2]{} holds.
**Part 1**: We will show that $$\label{e14}
w^1(\rho,\tau^*)\leq w^1(\rho^*,\tau^*)$$ for any $\rho\in{\mathfrak{T}}^a$. As $F^1\leq H^1$, $$\label{e13}
\mu^1\leq\rho_0^1:=\inf\{t\geq 0:\ v_t^1=F_t^1\}.$$ Hence, on $\{t<\mu^1\}$ we have that $G_t^1\geq v_t^1>F_t^1$, and thus $G_t^1=\operatorname*{ess\,sup}_{\xi\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t+}}{\mathbb{E}}_t[U^1(\xi,t)]={\mathbb{E}}_t[U^1(\tilde\rho^1(t),t)]$. Then $$w^1(\rho^*,\tau^*)={\mathbb{E}}\left[U^1(\mu^1,\tilde\tau^2(\mu^1))1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+U^1(\tilde\rho^1(\mu^2),\mu^2)1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right]={\mathbb{E}}\left[H_{\mu^1}^1 1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+G_{\mu^2}^1 1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right].$$ Now take $\rho=(\rho_0,\rho_1)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^a$ and consider $w^1(\rho,\tau^*)$. We will consider four cases.
**Case 1.1**: $A_1:=\{\rho_0<\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\}$. Since $\mu^1\leq\rho_0^1$ by , the process $(v_{t\wedge\mu^1})_{t=0,\dotso,T}$ is a sub-martingale. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}\left[U^1(\rho\langle\tau^*\rangle,\tau^*\langle\rho\rangle)1_{A_1}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[U^1(\rho_0,\tilde\tau^2(\rho_0))1_{A_1}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[H_{\rho_0}^11_{A_1}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}\left[v_{\rho_0}^11_{A_1}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[v_{\rho_0\wedge\mu^1\wedge\mu^2}^11_{A_1}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\rho_0\wedge\mu^1\wedge\mu^2}\left[v_{\mu^1\wedge\mu^2}^1\right]1_{A_1}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(v_{\mu^1}^1 1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+v_{\mu^2}^1 1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right)1_{A_1}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(H_{\mu^1}^1 1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+G_{\mu^2}^1 1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right)1_{A_1}\right].\end{aligned}$$
**Case 1.2**: $A_2:=\{\rho_0=\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\}$. We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}\left[U^1(\rho\langle\tau^*\rangle,\tau^*\langle\rho\rangle)1_{A_2}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[U^1(\rho_0,\tilde\tau^2(\rho_0))1_{A_2}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[H_{\rho_0}^1 1_{A_2}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(H_{\mu^1}^1 1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+H_{\mu^2}^1 1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right) 1_{A_2}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(H_{\mu^1}^1 1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+v_{\mu^2}^1 1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right) 1_{A_2}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(H_{\mu^1}^1 1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+G_{\mu^2}^1 1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right) 1_{A_2}\right].\end{aligned}$$
**Case 1.3**: $A_3:=\{\rho_0>\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\}\cap\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}$. Let $\hat\tau^*:=(\tau_{\mu^1}^1,\tilde\tau^1)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^b$. We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}\left[U^1(\rho\langle\tau^*\rangle,\tau^*\langle\rho\rangle)1_{A_3}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[U^1(\rho\langle\hat\tau^*\rangle,\hat\tau^*\langle\rho\rangle)1_{A_3}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\mu^1}\left[U^1(\rho\langle\hat\tau^*\rangle,\hat\tau^*\langle\rho\rangle)\right]1_{A_3}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}\left[v_{\mu^1}^1 1_{A_3}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}\left[H_{\mu^1}^1 1_{A_3}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(H_{\mu^1}^1 1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+G_{\mu^2}^1 1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right) 1_{A_3}\right].\end{aligned}$$
**Case 1.4**: $A_4:=\{\rho_0>\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\}\cap\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}\left[U^1(\rho\langle\tau^*\rangle,\tau^*\langle\rho\rangle)1_{A_4}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[U^1(\rho_1(\mu^2),\mu^2)1_{A_4}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}\left[G_{\mu^2}^1 1_{A_4}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(H_{\mu^1}^1 1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+G_{\mu^2}^1 1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right) 1_{A_4}\right].\end{aligned}$$
By cases 1.1-1.4, we have holds.
**Part 2**: We will show that $$\label{e14}
w^2(\rho^*,\tau)\leq w^2(\rho^*,\tau^*)$$ for any $\tau\in{\mathfrak{T}}^b$. We have that $$w^2(\rho^*,\tau^*)={\mathbb{E}}\left[U^2(\mu^1,\tilde\tau^2(\mu^1))1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+U^1(\tilde\rho^1(\mu^2),\mu^2)1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right]={\mathbb{E}}\left[F_{\mu^1}^2 1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+H_{\mu^2}^2 1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right].$$ Take $\tau=(\tau_0,\tau_1)\in{\mathfrak{T}}^b$ and consider $w^2(\rho^*,\tau)$. We will consider five cases.
**Case 2.1**: $B_1:=\{\tau_0<\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\}$. On $\{t<\mu^2\}$, $F_t^2\geq v_t^2>H_t^2\wedge F_t^2$, and thus $v_t^2>H_t^2\wedge F_t^2=H_t^2$. Moreover, since $H^2\wedge F^2\geq G^2$, $$\mu^2\leq\inf\{t\geq 0:\ v_t^2= G_t^2\}.$$ Hence, the process $(v_{t\wedge\mu^2}^2)_{t=0,\dotso,T}$ is a sub-martingale. Then following the argument in the case 1.1, we can show that $${\mathbb{E}}\left[U^2(\rho^*\langle\tau\rangle,\tau\langle\rho^*\rangle)1_{B_1}\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(F_{\mu^1}^2 1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+H_{\mu^2}^2 1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right)1_{B_1}\right].$$
**Case 2.2**: $B_2:=\{\tau_0=\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\}\cap\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}\cap\{\rho_{\mu^2}^2=\mu^2\}$. We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}\left[U^2(\rho^*\langle\tau\rangle,\tau\langle\rho^*\rangle)1_{B_2}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[U^2(\mu^2,\tau_1(\mu^2))1_{B_2}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}\left[F_{\mu^2}^2 1_{B_2}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[v_{\mu^2}^2 1_{B_2}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}\left[H_{\mu^2}^2 1_{B_2}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(F_{\mu^1}^2 1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+H_{\mu^2}^2 1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right)1_{B_2}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where the third (in)equality follows from the definition of $\rho_{\mu^2}^2$ in .
**Case 2.3**: $B_3:=\{\tau_0=\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\}\setminus(\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}\cap\{\rho_{\mu^2}^2=\mu^2\})$. We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}\left[U^2(\rho^*\langle\tau\rangle,\tau\langle\rho^*\rangle)1_{B_3}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(U^2(\mu^1,\tau_1(\mu^1))1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+U^2(\tilde\rho^1(\mu^2),\mu^2)1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right)1_{B_2}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(F_{\mu^1}^2 1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+H_{\mu^2}^2 1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right)1_{B_3}\right].\end{aligned}$$
**Case 2.4**: $B_4:=\{\tau_0>\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\}\cap\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}$. Following the argument in case 1.4, we can show that $${\mathbb{E}}\left[U^2(\rho^*\langle\tau\rangle,\tau\langle\rho^*\rangle)1_{B_4}\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(F_{\mu^1}^2 1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+H_{\mu^2}^2 1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right)1_{B_4}\right].$$
**Case 2.5**: $B_5:=\{\tau_0>\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\}\cap\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}$. Following the argument in case 1.3, we can show that $${\mathbb{E}}\left[U^2(\rho^*\langle\tau\rangle,\tau\langle\rho^*\rangle)1_{B_5}\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(F_{\mu^1}^2 1_{\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2\}}+H_{\mu^2}^2 1_{\{\mu^1>\mu^2\}}\right)1_{B_5}\right].$$ From cases 2.1-2.5, we have holds.
Comparison with the result in [@ZZ9]
====================================
In this paper, regarding the existence of a Nash equilibrium in pure strategies, it leads to different results whether players act simultaneously or not at each stage.
It can be expected that, in continuous time, as long as we have enough regularity for related processes, we would have the existence of an (${\epsilon}$-) Nash equilibrium for the stopping game where one player acts first at each time. Unlike the case in discrete time, if we impose some (right) continuity assumption of $U^i$ in $(s,t)$, then it would not make too much difference whether players act simultaneously or not. Indeed, in [@ZZ9], by assuming the continuity of $U^i$ in $(s,t)$, we show the existence of an ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium in pure strategies for any ${\epsilon}>0$ for the stopping game in continuous time, where players act simultaneously at each time.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The IceCube neutrino detector is a cubic kilometer TeV to PeV neutrino detector under construction at the geographic South Pole. The dominant population of neutrinos detected in IceCube is due to meson decay in cosmic-ray air showers. These atmospheric neutrinos are relatively well-understood and serve as a calibration and verification tool for the new detector. In 2006, the detector was approximately 10% completed, and we report on data acquired from the detector in this configuration. We observe an atmospheric neutrino signal consistent with expectations, demonstrating that the IceCube detector is capable of identifying neutrino events. In the first 137.4 days of livetime, 234 neutrino candidates were selected with an expectation of $211 \pm 76.1(syst.) \pm 14.5(stat.)$ events from atmospheric neutrinos.'
author:
- 'A. Achterberg'
- 'M. Ackermann'
- 'J. Adams'
- 'J. Ahrens'
- 'K. Andeen'
- 'J. Auffenberg'
- 'J. N. Bahcall'
- 'X. Bai'
- 'B. Baret'
- 'S. W. Barwick'
- 'R. Bay'
- 'K. Beattie'
- 'T. Becka'
- 'J. K. Becker'
- 'K.-H. Becker'
- 'P. Berghaus'
- 'D. Berley'
- 'E. Bernardini'
- 'D. Bertrand'
- 'D. Z. Besson'
- 'M. Beimforde'
- 'E. Blaufuss'
- 'D. J. Boersma'
- 'C. Bohm'
- 'J. Bolmont'
- 'S. Böser'
- 'O. Botner'
- 'A. Bouchta'
- 'J. Braun'
- 'C. Burgess'
- 'T. Burgess'
- 'T. Castermans'
- 'D. Chirkin'
- 'B. Christy'
- 'J. Clem'
- 'D. F. Cowen'
- 'M. V. D’Agostino'
- 'A. Davour'
- 'C. T. Day'
- 'C. De Clercq'
- 'L. Demirörs'
- 'F. Descamps'
- 'P. Desiati'
- 'T. DeYoung'
- 'J. C. Diaz-Velez'
- 'J. Dreyer'
- 'J. P. Dumm'
- 'M. R. Duvoort'
- 'W. R. Edwards'
- 'R. Ehrlich'
- 'J. Eisch'
- 'R. W. Ellsworth'
- 'P. A. Evenson'
- 'O. Fadiran'
- 'A. R. Fazely'
- 'K. Filimonov'
- 'C. Finley'
- 'M. M. Foerster'
- 'B. D. Fox'
- 'A. Franckowiak'
- 'R. Franke'
- 'T. K. Gaisser'
- 'J. Gallagher'
- 'R. Ganugapati'
- 'H. Geenen'
- 'L. Gerhardt'
- 'A. Goldschmidt'
- 'J. A. Goodman'
- 'R. Gozzini'
- 'T. Griesel'
- 'S. Grullon'
- 'A. Gro[ß]{}'
- 'R. M. Gunasingha'
- 'M. Gurtner'
- 'C. Ha'
- 'A. Hallgren'
- 'F. Halzen'
- 'K. Han'
- 'K. Hanson'
- 'D. Hardtke'
- 'R. Hardtke'
- 'J. E. Hart'
- 'Y. Hasegawa'
- 'T. Hauschildt'
- 'D. Hays'
- 'J. Heise'
- 'K. Helbing'
- 'M. Hellwig'
- 'P. Herquet'
- 'G. C. Hill'
- 'J. Hodges'
- 'K. D. Hoffman'
- 'B. Hommez'
- 'K. Hoshina'
- 'D. Hubert'
- 'B. Hughey'
- 'P. O. Hulth'
- 'K. Hultqvist'
- 'J.-P. Hül[ß]{}'
- 'S. Hundertmark'
- 'M. Inaba'
- 'A. Ishihara'
- 'J. Jacobsen'
- 'G. S. Japaridze'
- 'H. Johansson'
- 'A. Jones'
- 'J. M. Joseph'
- 'K.-H. Kampert'
- 'A. Kappes'
- 'T. Karg'
- 'A. Karle'
- 'H. Kawai'
- 'J. L. Kelley'
- 'F. Kislat'
- 'N. Kitamura'
- 'S. R. Klein'
- 'S. Klepser'
- 'G. Kohnen'
- 'H. Kolanoski'
- 'L. Köpke'
- 'M. Kowalski'
- 'T. Kowarik'
- 'M. Krasberg'
- 'K. Kuehn'
- 'M. Labare'
- 'H. Landsman'
- 'R. Lauer'
- 'H. Leich'
- 'D. Leier'
- 'I. Liubarsky'
- 'J. Lundberg'
- 'J. Lünemann'
- 'J. Madsen'
- 'R. Maruyama'
- 'K. Mase'
- 'H. S. Matis'
- 'T. McCauley'
- 'C. P. McParland'
- 'K. Meagher'
- 'A. Meli'
- 'T. Messarius'
- 'P. Mészáros'
- 'H. Miyamoto'
- 'A. Mokhtarani'
- 'T. Montaruli'
- 'A. Morey'
- 'R. Morse'
- 'S. M. Movit'
- 'K. Münich'
- 'R. Nahnhauer'
- 'J. W. Nam'
- 'P. Nie[ß]{}en'
- 'D. R. Nygren'
- 'H. Ögelman'
- 'A. Olivas'
- 'S. Patton'
- 'C. Peña-Garay'
- 'C. Pérez de los Heros'
- 'A. Piegsa'
- 'D. Pieloth'
- 'A. C. Pohl'
- 'R. Porrata'
- 'J. Pretz'
- 'P. B. Price'
- 'G. T. Przybylski'
- 'K. Rawlins'
- 'S. Razzaque'
- 'P. Redl'
- 'E. Resconi'
- 'W. Rhode'
- 'M. Ribordy'
- 'A. Rizzo'
- 'S. Robbins'
- 'P. Roth'
- 'F. Rothmaier'
- 'C. Rott'
- 'D. Rutledge'
- 'D. Ryckbosch'
- 'H.-G. Sander'
- 'S. Sarkar'
- 'K. Satalecka'
- 'S. Schlenstedt'
- 'T. Schmidt'
- 'D. Schneider'
- 'D. Seckel'
- 'B. Semburg'
- 'S. H. Seo'
- 'Y. Sestayo'
- 'S. Seunarine'
- 'A. Silvestri'
- 'A. J. Smith'
- 'C. Song'
- 'J. E. Sopher'
- 'G. M. Spiczak'
- 'C. Spiering'
- 'M. Stamatikos'
- 'T. Stanev'
- 'T. Stezelberger'
- 'R. G. Stokstad'
- 'M. C. Stoufer'
- 'S. Stoyanov'
- 'E. A. Strahler'
- 'T. Straszheim'
- 'K.-H. Sulanke'
- 'G. W. Sullivan'
- 'T. J. Sumner'
- 'I. Taboada'
- 'O. Tarasova'
- 'A. Tepe'
- 'L. Thollander'
- 'S. Tilav'
- 'M. Tluczykont'
- 'P. A. Toale'
- 'D. Tosi'
- 'D. Tur[č]{}an'
- 'N. van Eijndhoven'
- 'J. Vandenbroucke'
- 'A. Van Overloop'
- 'G. de Vries-Uiterweerd'
- 'V. Viscomi'
- 'B. Voigt'
- 'W. Wagner'
- 'C. Walck'
- 'H. Waldmann'
- 'M. Walter'
- 'Y.-R. Wang'
- 'C. Wendt'
- 'C. H. Wiebusch'
- 'G. Wikström'
- 'D. R. Williams'
- 'R. Wischnewski'
- 'H. Wissing'
- 'K. Woschnagg'
- 'X. W. Xu'
- 'G. Yodh'
- 'S. Yoshida'
- 'J. D. Zornoza'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: |
Detection of Atmospheric Muon Neutrinos\
with the IceCube 9-String Detector
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
[^4]
[^5]
[^6]
\[sec:level1\]The IceCube Detector
==================================
The IceCube neutrino detector is being deployed in the deep ice below the geographic South Pole [@icecubeMuonSensitivity]. When completed, the detector will consist of two components. The InIce detector is a cubic kilometer of instrumented ice between 1.5 and 2.5 kilometers below the surface. A cubic-kilometer has been long noted as the required scale to detect astrophysical neutrino sources above the atmospheric neutrino background (see, e.g. [@gaisserHalzenStanev][@waxmanGRBNeutrinos][@agnstuff]). The IceTop detector is a square-kilometer air-shower array at the surface. This analysis concerns data from the InIce detector exclusively. The InIce detector consists of an array of light-sensitive Digital Optical Modules (DOMs) [@firstYearPerfomancePaper], deployed 17 meters apart in strings of 60. Strings are arranged on a hexagonal grid with a spacing of 125 meters. The DOMs house a 10-inch Photomultiplier Tube (PMT) and electronics to acquire, digitize and time stamp pulse waveforms from the PMT. With a waveform fit for fine timing, the timing resolution for individual photon arrivals is expected to be less than 2 nanoseconds [@firstYearPerfomancePaper]. In 2006, the DOMs were operated in Local Coincidence (LC) with their neighbors, meaning that a triggered DOM’s waveform was only transmitted to the surface if an adjacent DOM on the string also triggered within $\pm 1000$ ns. The surface data acquisition system forms triggered detector-wide events if 8 or more DOMs are read out in 5 $\mu s$.
The detector is being deployed in stages during austral summers from 2004 to 2011. After the 2005-2006 season, the InIce detector consisted of 9 strings, termed IC-9. IceCube is optimized for the detection of muon neutrinos in the TeV to PeV energy range. It is sensitive to these muon neutrinos (and muon anti-neutrinos) by detecting Cherenkov light from the secondary muon produced when the neutrino interacts in or near the instrumented volume. Neutrino-induced muons are separated from air-shower-induced muons by looking only for muons moving upward through the detector. Up-going muon events must be the product of a neutrino interaction near the detector, since neutrinos are the only known particles that can traverse the Earth without interacting.
\[sec:level1\]Atmospheric Neutrinos
===================================
Neutrinos produced in cosmic-ray air showers at the Earth are known as atmospheric neutrinos and form the chief background to potential astrophysical neutrino observation. The atmospheric neutrino spectrum is relatively well-understood [@lotsOnAtmosphericNeutrinos][@atmosphericNeutrinoUncertainties] and has been measured up to $10^{5}$ GeV by AMANDA [@amandaAtmosphericNeutrinos]. Atmospheric neutrinos from the decay of charmed mesons can contribute significantly above $10^{4}$ GeV, depending on the model (see e.g. [@costaPromptComponent][@bugaevPromptReference][@Martin:2003us]). This prompt component is not well known due to uncertainties in the charmed meson production, but with the present exposure of IC-9, this prompt component is negligible and it is presently neglected.
\[sec:level1\]Results
=====================
Data acquired from the IC-9 detector in 2006 between June and November has been searched for up-going neutrino candidates. The search proceeds by a series of cut levels intended to remove down-going events as shown in Table \[tab:eventPassingRates\]. Initially, hit cleaning is applied which removes all DOM hits which fall out of a 4 $\mu s$ time window, and all DOM hits without another DOM hit within a radius of 100 meters and within a time of 500 ns. After hit cleaning, we re-trigger, insisting that at least 8 DOM hits survive hit cleaning. Simple first-guess reconstruction algorithms running at the South Pole were used to filter out clearly down-going events. Events with fewer than 11 DOMs hit were also filtered to meet bandwidth constraints from the South Pole. The remaining events were transmitted to the data center in the Northern hemisphere via satellite and constitute the filter level of the analysis. At the data center, we reconstructed the direction of events using a maximum-likelihood technique similar to the AMANDA muon reconstruction [@muonReconstructionNIMPaper]. Events which were reconstructed as down-going were discarded. Despite the fact that remaining events appear up-going, the data is still dominated by misreconstructed down-going events. These down-going events are removed by additional quality cuts. Events which pass these quality cuts constitute the neutrino candidate dataset.
Simulated events fall into the three categories shown in Table \[tab:eventPassingRates\]. “Single shower” events arise from single cosmic-ray air showers in the atmosphere above IceCube and result in a single muon or bundle of collinear muons in IC-9. “Double shower” events come from two uncorrelated air showers which happen to occur within the 5 $\mu s$ event window. The CORSIKA[@corsikaReference] air shower simulation program was used for the simulation of down-going single and double air-shower events. Finally, “atmospheric neutrino” events are muon neutrino events from pion and kaon decay in air showers in the northern hemisphere. The atmospheric neutrino model of [@bartolAtmosphericNeutrino] and its extension up to TeV energies [@teresasCommuncationWithBarr] as well as the cross-section parametrization of [@cteq5Reference] were used to model the up-going muon rates due to atmospheric neutrinos.
Criterion Satisfied Data Single Shower Double Shower Atmospheric Neutrinos
-------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ --------------- --------------- ------------------------------------------
Trigger Level 124.5 124.5 1.5 $6.6\rm{x}10^{-4}$
Filter Level 6.56 4.96 0.45 $3.7\rm{x}10^{-4}$
Up-going ($S_{cut}=0$) 0.80 0.49 0.21 $3.3\rm{x}10^{-4}$
Up-going ($S_{cut}=10$) $1.97\cdot 10^{-5}\pm 0.12\cdot 10^{-5}$ - - $1.77\cdot 10^{-5}\pm 0.63\cdot 10^{-5}$
Up-going ($S_{cut}=10$ and $\theta > 120$) $1.19\cdot 10^{-5}\pm 0.10\cdot 10^{-5}$ - - $1.42\cdot 10^{-5}\pm 0.51\cdot 10^{-5}$
The events which are reconstructed as up-going are completely dominated by down-going muons from single and double-shower cosmic-ray events. Misreconstructed events are typically of low quality as measured by two parameters, the number of direct hits $N_{dir}$, and the direct length $L_{dir}$. A direct hit is a photon arrival in a DOM which is detected between -15 and +75 ns of the time expected from the reconstructed muon with no scattering. $N_{dir}$ is the total number of direct hits in an event. The direct length $L_{dir}$ represents the length of the reconstructed muon track along which direct hits are observed. An event with a large number of direct hits and a large direct length is a better quality event because the long lever arm of many unscattered photon arrivals increases confidence in the event reconstruction. The strength of the quality cuts can be represented by a dimensionless number $S_{cut}$ which corresponds to cuts of $N_{dir} \geq S_{cut}$ and $L_{dir} > 25 \cdot S_{cut}$ meters. In addition to these quality cuts, we impose a cut requiring that events have no more than 46 DOMs hit, which eliminates only about 1% of the final event sample. The purpose of this cut is to leave the high-multiplicity data blinded for an anticipated search for a high-energy diffuse neutrino flux. Figure \[fig:dataVsCutStrength\] shows how many events remain as we turn the cut strength up and increase the signal-to-noise ratio. The accurate simulation of mis-reconstructed down-going events requires excellent modeling of both the depth-dependent ice properties and DOM sensitivity. In this initial study we observe a 60%-80% rate discrepancy for misreconstructed events up to a cut level of about $S_{cut}=8$ or so. Nevertheless, over more than four orders of magnitude, the background simulation tracks the data, the number of wrongly reconstructed tracks is reduced, and for $S_{cut}\geq 10$, the data behaves as expected for atmospheric neutrinos. From simulation, we expect neutrinos with energies between about $10^2$ and $10^4$ GeV, peaked at 1000 GeV, to survive the analysis cuts.
![\[fig:dataVsCutStrength\] Data vs Cut Strength. Shown is the remaining number of events as the cut strength $S_{cut}$ (defined in the text) is varied. Curves are shown for the data and the total simulation prediction. Also shown is the prediction due to atmospheric neutrinos alone. The selection from the text corresponds to a cuts strength of $S_{cut} = 10$, and is denoted by an arrow. At this point, the data are dominated by atmospheric neutrinos. ](dataVsCutStrength.eps)
In 137.4 days of livetime we expect $211 \pm 76.1(syst.) \pm 14.5(stat.)$ atmospheric neutrino events to survive at $S_{cut} = 10$ and 234 events are measured. Above a zenith of 120 degrees, where the background contamination is small, we measure 142 events with an expectation of $169 \pm 60.9(syst.) \pm 13.0(stat)$ due to atmospheric neutrinos. The principal systematic uncertainty in this atmospheric neutrino expectation is due to the approximately $30\%$ theoretical uncertainty in the atmospheric flux normalization [@atmosphericNeutrinoUncertainties]. The other significant systematic error is due to uncertainties introduced by the modeling of light propagation and the detection efficiency of IceCube DOMs. The uncertainty in the atmospheric neutrino rate due to this modeling is estimated at 20% and is obtained in this initial study by examining changes in the neutrino passing rate when varying the cuts to account for the background simulation disagreement in Fig. \[fig:dataVsCutStrength\].
Figure \[fig:zenithDistribution\] shows the measured zenith distribution for the final event sample along with the atmospheric neutrino prediction. The zenith angle distribution agrees well with atmospheric neutrino simulation for vertical events above about 120 degrees. The observed excess is believed to be residual contamination from down-going single and double cosmic-ray muons. This excess disappears if we tighten the cuts beyond $S_{cut}=10$, suggesting that the recorded events at the horizon are of typically lower quality than expected from atmospheric neutrino simulation. This reinforces the belief we are seeing residual background at the horizon. Above about $S_{cut} = 12$, with low statistics, the data at the horizon are consistent with a pure atmospheric neutrino signal. Figure \[fig:azimuthDistribution\] shows the azimuth distribution with the IC-9 geometry in the inset. The azimuth distribution has two strong peaks corresponding to the long horizontal axis of the IC-9 detector. The cut of 250 meters on event length constrains near-horizontal events that can be accepted along the short axis of IC-9 since the string spacing is 125 meters. We expect more uniform azimuthal acceptance in future seasons as the detector grows and becomes more symmetric.
We can characterize the response of the detector to neutrinos with an effective area $A_{\it eff}$ which is a function of neutrino energy $E$ and neutrino zenith angle $\theta$. The function $A_{\it eff}(E,\theta)$ is defined as the function which satisfies $$R = \int dE \int d\Omega \cdot \Phi(E,\theta) \cdot A_{\it eff}(E,\theta)$$ where $\Phi(E,\theta)$ is an arbitrary diffuse neutrino flux and $R$ is the corresponding rate of events surviving analysis cuts. Figure \[fig:effectiveArea\] shows the effective area of IC-9 to neutrinos with the event selection of $S_{cut} = 10$, both for neutrinos near the horizon and for nearly vertical neutrinos. The effective area to neutrinos is much smaller than the geometrical area of the detector, due to the smallness of the neutrino cross-section. Above $10^{5}$ GeV, the Earth starts to become opaque to neutrinos, and the highest energy up-going neutrinos can only be detected at the horizon.
![\[fig:effectiveArea\] The effective area of IC-9 to a diffuse source of muon neutrinos. The event selection from the text was used, except that there was no multiplicity requirement imposed on the simulated events. The effective area to muon neutrinos and muon antineutrinos have been averaged to produce the figure. The effective area is shown as a function of neutrino energy, both for vertical and horizontal neutrino events. Horizontal events have a zenith of 90 degrees and vertical up-going events have a zenith of 180 degrees. ](effectiveAreaFinalCuts.eps)
\[sec:level1\]Conclusions
=========================
In 2006, IceCube was approximately 10% deployed and acquiring physics-quality data. Atmospheric neutrinos serve as an irreducible background to astrophysical neutrino observation, as a guaranteed source of neutrinos for calibration and verification of the detector, and may be studied as a probe of hadronic interactions at energies inaccessible to terrestrial labs. In the first 137.4 days of livetime we have identified 234 neutrino candidates with the IC-9 detector. For events above 120 degrees, this neutrino sample is consistent with with expectations for a pure atmospheric neutrino sample. Selection of events was done within six months of the beginning of data acquisition, demonstrating the viability of the full data acquisition chain, from PMT waveform capture at the DOM with nanosecond timing, to event selection at the South Pole and transmission of that selected data via satellite to the North. During the 2006-2007 season, 13 more strings were deployed, bringing the total number of strings for the InIce detector to 22. The deployment of IceCube will continue during austral summers until 2010-2011, while the integrated exposure of IceCube will reach a $\rm{km^3} \cdot \rm{year}$ sometime in 2009.
We acknowledge the support from the following agencies: National Science Foundation-Office of Polar Program, National Science Foundation-Physics Division, University of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Department of Energy, and National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (supported by the Office of Energy Research of the Department of Energy), the NSF-supported TeraGrid system at the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC), and the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA); Swedish Research Council, Swedish Polar Research Secretariat, and Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; German Ministry for Education and Research, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Germany; Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS-FWO), Flanders Institute to encourage scientific and technological research in industry (IWT), Belgian Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural affairs (OSTC); the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO); M. Ribordy acknowledges the support of the SNF (Switzerland); A. Kappes and J. D. Zornoza acknowledge support by the EU Marie Curie OIF Program.
[^1]: Deceased
[^2]: on leave of absence from Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Physikalisches Institut, D-91058, Erlangen, Germany
[^3]: on leave of absence from Università di Bari, Dipartimento di Fisica, I-70126, Bari, Italy
[^4]: affiliated with Dept. of Chemistry and Biomedical Sciences, Kalmar University, S-39182 Kalmar, Sweden
[^5]: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
[^6]: affiliated with IFIC (CSIC-Universitat de València), A. C. 22085, 46071 Valencia, Spain
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The collapse and fragmentation of initially prolate and oblate, magnetic molecular clouds is calculated in three dimensions with a gravitational, radiative hydrodynamics code. The code includes magnetic field effects in an approximate manner: magnetic pressure, tension, braking, and ambipolar diffusion are all modelled. The parameters varied for both the initially prolate and oblate clouds are the initial degree of central concentration of the radial density profile, the initial angular velocity, and the efficiency of magnetic braking (represented by a factor $f_{mb} = 10^{-4}$ or $10^{-3}$). The oblate cores all collapse to form rings that might be susceptible to fragmentation into multiple systems. The outcome of the collapse of the prolate cores depends strongly on the initial density profile. Prolate cores with central densities 20 times higher than their boundary densities collapse and fragment into binary or quadruple systems, whereas cores with central densities 100 times higher collapse to form single protostars embedded in bars. The inclusion of magnetic braking is able to stifle protostellar fragmentation in the latter set of models, as when identical models were calculated without magnetic braking (Boss 2002), those cores fragmented into binary protostars. These models demonstrate the importance of including magnetic fields in studies of protostellar collapse and fragmentation, and suggest that even when magnetic fields are included, fragmentation into binary and multiple systems remains as a possible outcome of protostellar collapse.'
author:
- 'Alan P. Boss'
title: 'Collapse and Fragmentation of Molecular Cloud Cores. X. Magnetic Braking of Prolate and Oblate Cores.'
---
Introduction
============
Fragmentation during protostellar collapse is widely accepted to be the primary mechanism for the formation of binary and multiple star systems (e.g., Lafrenière et al. 2008; Chen et al. 2008). While it is clear that the overall form of the initial mass function for stars is directly tied to the initial conditions for protostellar collapse, i.e., the mass function of dense cloud cores (e.g., Dib et al. 2008; Swift & Williams 2008), fragmentation is necessary for producing binary star systems within these individual dense cores (Lafrenière et al. 2008; Chen et al. 2008).
Three dimensional calculations of the collapse of centrally condensed, rotating cloud cores have been computed for quite some time (e.g., Boss 1993) and continue to attract theoretical attention (e.g., Saigo et al. 2008; Machida 2008; Commercon et al. 2008). These calculations neglected the effects of magnetic fields. However, observations of OH Zeeman splitting in dark cloud cores have shown that magnetic fields are often an important contributer to cloud support against collapse for densities in the range of $10^3 -10^4$ cm$^{-3}$ (Troland & Crutcher 2008). Given this observational constraint, it is clear that three dimensional hydrodynamical collapse calculations should include magnetic field effects as well as self-gravity and radiative transfer (e.g., Boss 1997, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2007). Magnetic fields are now being included in other three dimensional collapse models as well (e.g., Machida et al. 2004, 2005a,b, 2007, 2008; Kudoh et al. 2007; Price & Bate 2007, 2008). In particular, Price & Bate (2007) found that while magnetic pressure acts to resist fragmentation during collapse, magnetic tension can actually aid fragmentation, confirming the results found by Boss (2002). Machida et al. (2004, 2005a,b, 2007, 2008) generally found that binary fragmentation could still occur provided that the initial magnetic cloud core rotated fast enough.
Magnetic braking is effective at reducing cloud rotation rates during the pre-collapse cloud phase, but has relatively little effect during the collapse phase, according to the two dimensional magnetohydrodynamics models of Basu & Mouschovias (1994, 1995a,b). However, Hosking & Whitworth (2004) found that rotationally-driven fragmentation could be halted by magnetic braking during the collapse phase. Boss (2004) argued that the thermodynamical treatment employed by Hosking & Whitworth (2004) could have been more important for stifling fragmentation than magnetic braking, but did not offer any models of magnetic braking to support this assertion.
Price & Bate (2007) presented models of the collapse of magnetic cloud cores, finding that magnetic pressure was more important for inhibiting fragmentation than either magnetic tension or braking, contrary to the results presented by Hosking & Whitworth (2004) and Fromang et al. (2006), who found no evidence at all for the fragmentation of magnetic clouds. Fromang et al. (2006) assumed ideal magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), i.e., without ambipolar diffusion, a fact that is likely to stifle fragmentation, whereas Hosking & Whitworh (2004), Boss (2004), and Price & Bate (2007) included ambipolar diffusion. However, subsequent ideal MHD collapse calculations by Hennebelle & Fromang (2008) and Hennebelle & Teyssier (2008) found that magnetic clouds could fragment if the initial density perturbation was large enough, and they speculated on what would happen if ambipolar diffusion was included in their models. These fundamental differences in the results of magnetic cloud collapse calculations results highlight the need to compare models where only one parameter at a time is being changed, so that the true effect of changing that one parameter can be discerned. Such a comparison is the major goal of the present study.
Banerjee & Pudritz (2006) considered the collapse of magnetized cloud cores, finding that even though considerable angular momentum was lost from the cloud core by magnetic outflows from the disk’s surface, the cloud was still able to collapse and fragment into a close binary protostar system.
Price & Bate (2007) and Hennebelle & Teyssier (2008) both considered the collapse of spherical, magnetic cloud cores with initially uniform density and uniform magnetic field strengths. Machida et al. (2004, 2005a,b) studied the collapse of initially cylindrical cloud cores in hydrostatic equilibrium. Machida et al. (2008) considered the collapse of cloud cores with density profiles appropriate for Bonnor-Ebert isothermal spheres, similar to the Gaussian radial density profile clouds studied by Boss (1997, 2002) and by this paper. Such centrally-condensed density profiles represent the best guesses as to the radial structure of pre-collapse molecular cloud cores (e.g., Myers et al. 1991; Ward-Thompson, Motte, & André 1999).
Boss (2002) modelled the collapse of initially prolate and oblate cores, including several magnetic field effects, but ignoring magnetic braking. Prolate and oblate cloud shapes have been inferred from observations of suspected pre-collapse molecular cloud cores (e.g., Jones, Basu, & Dubinski 2001; Curry & Stahler 2001). Here we use the magnetic braking approximation developed by Boss (2007), originally applied to filamentary clouds, to examine the importance of magnetic braking for the same prolate and oblate models as those calculated by Boss (2002), allowing a direct comparison between identical protostellar collapse models with and without magnetic braking. These models thus directly address the different outcomes of the models with magnetic braking but without detailed thermodynamics by Hosking & Whitworth (2004) compared to those without magnetic braking but with detailed thermodynamics of Boss (2004): the present models include both effects.
Numerical Methods
=================
The numerical models are calculated with a three-dimensional hydrodynamics code that calculates finite-difference solutions of the equations of radiative transfer, hydrodynamics, and gravitation for a compressible fluid (Boss & Myhill 1992). The hydrodynamic equations are solved in conservation law form on a contracting spherical coordinate grid, subject to constant volume boundary conditions on the spherical boundary. The code is second-order-accurate in both space and time, with the van Leer-type hydrodynamical fluxes having been modified to improve stability (Boss 1997). Artificial viscosity is not employed. Radiative transfer is handled in the Eddington approximation, including detailed equations of state and dust grain opacities (e.g., Pollack et al. 1994). The code has been tested on a variety of test problems (Boss & Myhill 1992; Myhill & Boss 1993).
The Poisson equation for the cloud’s gravitational potential is solved by a spherical harmonic expansion ($Y_{lm}$) including terms up to $N_{lm} = 32$. The computational grid consists of a spherical coordinate grid with $N_r = 200$, $N_{\theta} = 22$ for $\pi/2 \ge \theta > 0$ (symmetry through the midplane is assumed for $\pi \ge \theta > \pi/2$), and $N_{\phi} = 256$ for $2 \pi \ge \phi \ge 0$, i.e., with no symmetry assumed in $\phi$. The radial grid contracts to follow the collapsing inner regions and to provide sufficient spatial resolution to ensure satisfaction of the four Jeans conditions for a spherical coordinate grid (Truelove et al. 1997; Boss et al. 2000). The innermost 50 radial grid points are kept uniformly spaced during grid contraction, while the outermost 150 are non-uniformly spaced, in order to provide an inner region with uniform spatial resolution in the radial coordinate. The $\phi$ grid is uniformly spaced, whereas the $\theta$ grid is compressed toward the midplane, where the minimum grid spacing is $0.3$ degrees.
Initial Conditions
==================
Tables 1 and 2 list the initial conditions for the models. The initial models have Gaussian radial density profiles (Boss 1997) of the form
$$\rho_i(x,y,z) = \rho_o \ exp\biggl(
- \biggl( {x \over r_a} \biggr)^2
- \biggl( {y \over r_b} \biggr)^2
- \biggl( {z \over r_c} \biggr)^2
\biggr),$$
where $\rho_0 = 2.0 \times 10^{-18}$ g cm$^{-3}$ is the initial central density. The prolate clouds with central densities 20 times higher than a reference boundary density have $r_a = 1.16 R$ and $r_b = r_c = 0.580 R$, where $R$ is the cloud radius, yielding a axis ratio of 2 to 1. The oblate clouds with the same degree of central concentration have $r_a = r_b = 1.16 R$ and $r_c = 0.580 R$. For 100 to 1 density contrasts, the prolate clouds have $r_a = 0.932 R$ and $r_b = r_c = 0.466 R$, while the oblate clouds have $r_a = r_b = 0.932 R$ and $r_c = 0.466 R$. Random numbers ($ran(x,y,z)$) in the range \[0,1\] are used to add noise to these initial density distributions by multiplying $\rho_i$ from the above equation by the factor $[1 + 0.1 \ ran(x,y,z)]$. The cloud radius is $R = 1.0 \times 10^{17}$ cm $\approx$ 0.032 pc for all models.
The cloud masses are 1.5 $M_\odot$ and 2.1 $M_\odot$, respectively, for the prolate and oblate clouds with a 20:1 density ratio, and 0.96 $M_\odot$ and 1.5 $M_\odot$, for the prolate and oblate clouds with a 100:1 density ratio. With an initial temperature of 10 K, the initial ratio of thermal to gravitational energy is $\alpha_i = 0.39$ for the prolate clouds and 0.30 for the oblate clouds with the 20:1 initial density ratio, while $\alpha_i = 0.55$ for the prolate clouds and 0.39 for the oblate clouds with the 100:1 initial density ratio.
Solid body rotation is assumed, with the angular velocity about the $\hat z$ axis (short axis) taken to be $\Omega_i$ = $10^{-14}$, $3.2 \times 10^{-14}$, or $10^{-13}$ rad s$^{-1}$. These choices of $\Omega_i$ result in initial ratios of rotational to gravitational energy varying from $\beta_i = 1.2 \times 10^{-4}$ to 0.015 for the prolate clouds and $\beta_i = 1.1 \times 10^{-4}$ to 0.013 for the oblate clouds. These choices are all consistent with observational constraints on the densities, shapes, and rotation rates of dense cloud cores (e.g., Myers et al. 1991; Goodman et al. 1993; Ward-Thompson, Motte, & André 1999; Jones, Basu, & Dubinski 2001; Curry and Stahler 2001).
As in the previous three-dimensional models (Boss 1997, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2007), the effects of magnetic fields are approximated through the use of several simplifying approximations regarding magnetic pressure, tension, braking, and ambipolar diffusion (see Boss 2007 for a derivation of these approximations). All models assumed an ambipolar diffusion time scale $t_{ad}$ = 10 $t_{ff}$, where the free fall time $t_{ff} = (3\pi/32 G \rho_0)^{1/2} = 4.7 \times 10^4$ yr for a central density $\rho_0 = 2.0 \times 10^{-18}$ g cm$^{-3}$. The reference magnetic field strength is assumed to be $B_{oi} = 200 \mu$G. The magnetic braking factor $f_{mb}$ is taken to be either 0.0001 or 0.001. Based on the models of Basu & Mouschovias (1994), Boss (2007) estimated that $f_{mb} \sim 0.0001$. The models with $f_{mb} = 0.001$ are thus intended to attempt to overestimate the effects of magnetic braking.
Note, however, that the calculations of Basu & Mouschovias (1994) stopped at central densities of $3 \times 10^9$ cm$^{-3}$, i.e., before the clouds became optically thick, whereas the present models are continued well in the optically thick regime. Hence the implicit assumption that the trends found in the Basu & Mouschovias (1994) models and used by Boss (2007) to derive the $f_{mb}$ approximation should continue indefinitely may not be warranted, though the trends do persist over the previous six orders of magnitude increase in central density of their models (see Figure 7 of Basu & Mouschovias 1994). The magnetic braking studied by Basu & Mouschovias (1994) is similar to the magnetic braking produced by disk jets and outflows in the models by Banerjee & Pudritz (2006), Hennebelle & Fromang (2008), and Hennebelle & Teyssier (2008). A superior treatment of magnetic braking beyond the $f_{mb}$ approximation of Boss (2007) will require a true MHD code.
With the field strength $B_{oi} = 200 \mu$G, the prolate or oblate clouds with 20:1 density contrasts have initial ratios of magnetic to gravitational energy of $\gamma_i = 0.58$ or 0.43, respectively. For density ratios of 100:1, $\gamma_i = 0.81$ for the prolate clouds and 0.57 for the oblate clouds. The mass to flux ratio of these clouds is less than the critical mass to flux ratio, making all the clouds formally magnetostatically stable and hence magnetically subcritical. Protostellar collapse cannot occur until ambipolar diffusion leads to sufficient loss of magnetic field support for sustained contraction to begin.
Results
=======
Tables 1 and 2 list the initial conditions as well as the basic outcome of each model, namely the final time to which the cloud was advanced $t_f$ (in units of the initial cloud free fall time) and whether the cloud collapsed to form a quadruple system (Q), binary (B), binary-bar (BB), single-bar (SB), ring (R), or did not collapse (NC). For convenience, the results of the corresponding models by Boss (2002) without magnetic braking are shown as well.
Figure 1 shows the initial equatorial density distribution for the prolate cores with a 20:1 density contrast. Given the stability of the initial models, evolutions consist of the clouds oscillating about the initial configurations, waiting for sufficient time to elapse for ambipolar diffusion to reduce the magnetic field support enough to allow collapse to proceed, as in the previous magnetic cloud models (e.g., Boss 1997). Figure 2 shows the result for model P2BB, which collapsed to form a quadruple protostellar system, though in this case with an additional central density maximum. Without magnetic braking, this core collapsed to form a binary protostar system, so in this case magnetic braking has led to an increased degree of fragmentation. The off-axis clump evident in Figure 2 at 9 o’clock has a maximum density of $2.5 \times 10^{-12}$ g cm$^{-3}$ and an average temperature of 20 K. Considering regions with a density at least 0.1 that of this maximum density, the clump’s mass is 2.6 Jupiter masses, greater than the Jeans mass at that density and temperature of 1.9 Jupiter masses. The ratio of thermal to gravitational energy for the clump is 0.49, showing that it is gravitationally bound. The ratio of rotational to gravitational energy is 0.39, so the clump is in rapid rotation. These fragment properties are quite similar to those found in the Boss (2002) models.
Model P2BA behaved in much the same way as P2BB, even with stronger magnetic braking ($f_{mb} = 0.001$ for P2BA compared to $f_{mb} = 0.0001$ for P2BB).
Figure 3 shows the outcome of model P2BD, which started with a lower initial angular velocity than model P2BB but was otherwise identical. In this case, a well-defined binary protostar system forms. A similar outcome resulted for model P2BC with a higher degree of magnetic braking. With even lower initial angular velocity than P2BC and P2BD, model P2BE collapsed to form a binary-bar system (Figure 4), i.e., a binary with its members connected by a bar of rotating gas. In the case of model P2BE, there are two density maxima in the bar near the center of the system, possible evidence for further fragments, though none of the density maxima are as well-defined as those of the binary in Figure 3. In contrast, when magnetic braking was neglected (Boss 2002), a core identical to model P2BE fragmented into a well-defined binary system, so in this case magnetic braking has reduced the degree of fragmentation.
The prolate core models with 100:1 initial density contrasts all behaved in the same manner and formed single central protostars embedded in bar-like structures. Figure 5 shows the result for model P1BB, termed a single-bar. Figure 6 shows the equatorial temperature contours for this model, emphasizing the highly non-uniform temperature distribution that results from including radiative transfer effects (e.g., Boss et al. 2000). The temperature field is strongest in regions where the infalling gas is forming shock-like density corrugations, yielding an x-shaped pattern in the cloud’s midplane. The formation of single-bars in all five of the prolate 100:1 models compared to the formation of binaries in the corresponding Boss (2002) models shows that when the initial cores are highly centrally condensed, magnetic braking is able to frustrate fragmentation.
Figure 7 shows the initial conditions for the oblate cores with 20:1 initial density contrasts, while Figure 8 depicts the outcome of model O2BB: a well-defined ring. While the ring shows no particular tendency to fragment over the time scale of the calculation, such a configuration is expected to fragment eventually. With the exception of model O2BA, which did not collapse significantly, all of the oblate cores collapsed to form rings, for both 20:1 and 100:1 density contrasts, though the rings were more pronounced for the cores with higher initial rotation rates, such as O2BB in Figure 8. In comparison, the corresponding Boss (2002) models formed a combination of rings or rings which showed a tendency to fragment into quadruple systems. Hence the oblate cloud models indicate that the inclusion of magnetic braking had only a mild tendency to inhibit their fragmentation.
Tables 1 and 2 show that the prolate clouds tended to take considerably longer to undergo collapse than the oblate clouds, implying a considerably longer period in the pre-collapse, quasi-equilibrium phase where thermal and magnetic support dominate. As a result, the effect of magnetic braking through the $f_{mb}$ approximation should be stronger in the models which took the longest time to collapse, i.e., the models in Table 1 with $\rho_0/\rho_R = 100:1$ and $t_f/t_{ff} \sim 9$. Prolonged magnetic braking will tend to suppress rotationally-driven fragmentation, consistent with the formation of single-bars for the prolate models in Table 1 with $t_f/t_{ff} \sim 9$. Model P2bb, for example, lost about 0.4% of its total angular momentum during its evolution to $t_f/t_{ff} = 4.683$, compared to a loss of about 1% for model P1Bb within $t_f/t_{ff} = 9.071$. Note though that for the oblate models in Table 2, no such effect is evident, perhaps because all of those models collapsed within $t_f/t_{ff} < 5$. In fact, a comparision of the corresponding oblate models shows that model O2bb lost about 0.4% of its total angular momentum during its evolution to $t_f/t_{ff} = 2.456$, compared to a loss of about 1% for model O1Bb within $t_f/t_{ff} = 4.636$. Both models O2BB and O1BB collapse to form rings. Their percentage angular momentum losses are identical to those for models P2BB and P1BB, which formed a quadruple and single-bar, respectively, implying that the initial cloud shape and degree of central concentration do have an important effect on the fragmentation process of magnetic clouds.
Conclusions
===========
These pseudo-magnetohydrodynamics calculations have explored the possibly deleterious effects of magnetic braking on protostellar fragmentation, an issue explored by Hosking & Whitworth (2004). A degree of inhibition of fragmentation caused by magnetic braking of both prolate and oblate, dense cloud cores has been identified in these models through a direct comparison with otherwise identical models calculated by Boss (2002) without magnetic braking. Nevertheless, a cursory examination of the figures and tables reveals that there is a still a large portion of initial conditions space that appears to be permissive of fragmentation of magnetic clouds when the approximate effects of magnetic pressure, tension, and braking are all included. The present models thus suggest that binary and multiple stars may well form from the collapse and fragmentation of magnetic, as well as non-magnetic, dense cloud cores, though perhaps not quite so readily.
Given the approximate nature of the present calculations (Boss 2007), it will be important to try to confirm these results with a true magnetohydrodynamics code. This could be accomplished by adding a numerical solution of the magnetic induction equation to the Boss & Myhill (1992) code. Alternatively, these calculations could be repeated using publically available MHD codes, such as the FLASH adaptive mesh refinement code (e.g., Duffin & Pudritz 2008), though FLASH does not at present include Eddington approximation radiative transfer, unlike the Boss & Myhill (1992) code. Attempting such true MHD calculations stands as a challenge for future work on the question of protostellar collapse and fragmentation.
The numerical calculations were performed on the Carnegie Alpha Cluster, the purchase of which was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under grant MRI-9976645. I thank Sandy Keiser for system management of the cluster, and the referee for numerous helpful suggestions.
Banerjee, R., & Pudritz, R. E. 2006, ApJ, 641, 949
Basu, S., & Mouschovias, T. Ch. 1994, ApJ, 432, 720
——. 1995a, , 452, 386
——. 1995b, , 453, 271
Boss, A. P. 1993, ApJ, 410, 157
——. 1997, ApJ, 483, 309
——. 1999, ApJ, 520, 744
——. 2002, ApJ, 568, 743
——. 2004, MNRAS, 350, L57
——. 2005, ApJ, 622, 393
——. 2007, ApJ, 658, 1136
Boss, A. P., Fisher, R. T., Klein, R. I., & McKee, C. F. 2000, ApJ, 528, 325
Boss, A. P., & Myhill, E. A. 1992, ApJS, 83, 311
Chen, X., Launhardt, R., Bourke, T., Henning, T., & Barnes, P. J. 2008, ApJ, 683, 862
Commercon, B., Hennebelle, P., Audit, E., Chabrier, G., & Teyssier, R. 2008, A&A, 482, 371
Curry, C. L., & Stahler, S. W. 2001, ApJ, 555, 160
Dib, S., Brandenburg, A., Kim, J., Gopinathan, M., & André, P. 2008, ApJ, 678, L105
Duffin, D. F., & Pudritz, R. E. 2008, MNRAS, in press
Fromang, S., Hennebelle, P., & Teyssier, R. 2006, A&A, 457, 371
Goodman, A. A., Benson, P. J., Fuller, G. A., & Myers, P. C. 1993, ApJ, 406, 528
Hennebelle, P., & Fromang, S. 2008, A&A, 477, 9
Hennebelle, P., & Teyssier, R. 2008, A&A, 477, 25
Hosking, J. G., & Whitworth, A. P. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 1001
Jones, C. E., Basu, S., & Dubinski, J. 2001, ApJ, 551, 387
Kudoh, T., Basu, S., Ogata, Y., & Yabe, T. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 499
Lafrenière, D., Jayawardhana, R., Brandeker, A., Ahmic, M., & van Kerkwijk, M. H. 2008, ApJ, 683, 844
Machida, M. N. 2008, ApJ, 682, L1
Machida, M. N., Tomisaka, K., & Matsumoto, T. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L1
Machida, M. N., Matsumoto, T., Tomisaka, K., & Hanawa, T. 2005a, MNRAS, 362, 369
Machida, M. N., Matsumoto, T., Hanawa, T., & Tomisaka, K. 2005b, MNRAS, 362, 382
Machida, M. N., Inutsuka, S.-I, & Matsumoto, T. 2007, ApJ, 670, 1198
Machida, M. N., Tomisaka, K., Matsumoto, T., & Inutsuka, S.-I 2008, ApJ, 677, 327
Myers, P. C., Fuller, G. A., Goodman, A. A., & Benson, P. J. 1991, ApJ, 376, 561
Myhill, E. A., & Boss, A. P. 1993, , 89, 345
Pollack, J. B., Hollenbach, D., Beckwith, S., Simonelli, D. P., Roush, T., & Fong, W. 1994, ApJ, 421, 615
Price, D. J., & Bate M. R. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 77
——. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1820
Saigo, K., Tomisaka, K., & Matsumoto, T. 2008, ApJ, 674, 997
Swift, J. J., & Williams, J. P. 2008, ApJ, 679, 552
Troland, T. H., & Crutcher, R. M. 2008, ApJ, 680, 457
Truelove, J. K., Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., Holliman, J. H., Howell, L. H., & Greenough, J. A. 1997, ApJ, 489, L179
Ward-Thompson, D., Motte, F., & André, P. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 143
[ccccccc]{}
P2BA & 20:1 & $1.0 \times 10^{-13}$ & 0.001 & 4.649 & Q & B\
P2BB & 20:1 & $1.0 \times 10^{-13}$ & 0.0001 & 4.683 & Q & B\
P2BC & 20:1 & $3.2 \times 10^{-14}$ & 0.001 & 4.602 & B & B\
P2BD & 20:1 & $3.2 \times 10^{-14}$ & 0.0001 & 4.603 & B & B\
P2BE & 20:1 & $1.0 \times 10^{-14}$ & 0.001 & 4.833 & BB & B\
P1BA & 100:1 & $1.0 \times 10^{-13}$ & 0.001 & 9.065 & SB & B\
P1BB & 100:1 & $1.0 \times 10^{-13}$ & 0.0001 & 9.071 & SB & B\
P1BC & 100:1 & $3.2 \times 10^{-14}$ & 0.001 & 8.942 & SB & B\
P1BD & 100:1 & $3.2 \times 10^{-14}$ & 0.0001 & 8.945 & SB & B\
P1BE & 100:1 & $1.0 \times 10^{-14}$ & 0.001 & 8.918 & SB & B\
[ccccccc]{}
O2BA & 20:1 & $1.0 \times 10^{-13}$ & 0.001 & 4.565 & NC & R\
O2BB & 20:1 & $1.0 \times 10^{-13}$ & 0.0001 & 2.456 & R & R\
O2BC & 20:1 & $3.2 \times 10^{-14}$ & 0.001 & 2.127 & R & Q\
O2BD & 20:1 & $3.2 \times 10^{-14}$ & 0.0001 & 2.134 & R & Q\
O2BE & 20:1 & $1.0 \times 10^{-14}$ & 0.001 & 2.109 & R & Q\
O1BA & 100:1 & $1.0 \times 10^{-13}$ & 0.001 & 4.656 & R & R\
O1BB & 100:1 & $1.0 \times 10^{-13}$ & 0.0001 & 4.636 & R & R\
O1BC & 100:1 & $3.2 \times 10^{-14}$ & 0.001 & 4.521 & R & R\
O1BD & 100:1 & $3.2 \times 10^{-14}$ & 0.0001 & 4.495 & R & R\
O1BE & 100:1 & $1.0 \times 10^{-14}$ & 0.001 & 4.422 & R & Q\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This paper investigates sufficient conditions for a Feynman-Kac functional up to an exit time to be the generalized viscosity solution of a Dirichlet problem. The key ingredient is to find out the continuity of exit operator under Skorokhod topology, which reveals the intrinsic connection between overfitting Dirichlet boundary and fine topology. As an application, we establish the sub and supersolutions for a class of non-stationary HJB (Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman) equations with fractional Laplacian operator via Feynman-Kac functionals associated to $\alpha$-stable processes, which help verify the solvability of the original HJB equation.
[**Keywords**]{} Stochastic control problem, HJB equation, Dirichlet boundary, Generalized viscosity solution, $\alpha$-stable process, Fractional Laplacian operator, Fine topology.
author:
- 'Yuecai Han, [^1]'
- '[Qingshuo Song, [^2] ]{}'
- '[Gu Wang [^3]]{}'
title: Exit problems as the generalized solutions of Dirichlet problems
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In this paper we investigate the solvability of a Dirichlet partial differential equation (PDE) given by $$\label{eq:pde01}
- \mathcal L u(x) + \lambda u(x) - \ell(x) = 0 \hbox{ on } O, \hbox{ with }
u = g \hbox{ on } O^{c},$$ where $\mathcal L$ is the infinitesimal generator associated to some Feller semigroup $\{P_{t}: t\ge 0\}$ and $O$ is a connected bounded open set in $\mathbb R^{d}$ for some positive integer $d$ (see Assumption \[assumption\] below for more detail). We will adopt the “verification” approach and characterize the solution to by the associated stochastic representation $v(x)$ given by the Feynman-Kac functional: $$\label{eq:fk01}
v(x) :=
\mathbb E^{x} \left[\int_{0}^{\zeta} e^{-\lambda s} \ell(X_s) ds + e^{-\lambda \zeta}
g( X_\zeta) \right],$$ where $X$ is Càdlàg Feller with generator $\mathcal L$, denoted by $X\sim \mathcal L$, and $\zeta$ is the exit time from the closure of the domain $\bar O$, denoted by $\zeta = \tau_{\bar O}(X)$.
The scope of a generator $\mathcal L$ associated to a Feller process covers many well known operators. For instance, the gradient operator $\nabla$ corresponds to a uniform motion, the Laplacian $\Delta$ corresponds to a Brownian motion, the fractional Laplacian $-(-\Delta)^{\alpha/2}$ corresponds to a symmetric $\alpha$-stable process, and any linear combinations of the above operators corresponds to a Feller process.
Due to this versatility of the operators, the study of an elliptic or parabolic PDE and its interplay with the corresponding stochastic representation has a wide range of applications and many successful connections to other disciplines outside of mathematics. For instance in mathematical finance, the general approach to the derivative pricing is either given by the solution of a Cauchy problem or derived via the so called martingale approach (see [@KS98]). The most well-known and practical tool in this direction is the Feynman-Kac formula (see Chapter 8 of [@Oks03]). However, a rigorous verification that connects the PDE and the stochastic representation is a difficult task in general, due to the subtle boundary behavior of the underlying random process. In the case of Laplacian operator $\mathcal L = \Delta$, [@CW05] (Sections 4.4 and 4.7) shows that the Feynman-Kac functional $v$ of solves . With $\mathcal L$ being a second order differential operator, and thus almost surely continuous $X\sim \mathcal L$, the relation between the Feynman-Kac functional and the Dirichlet problem is discussed in [@BSY11; @FP15; @FS06; @GW16; @KO02; @HS00] and the references therein.
If $\mathcal L$ is a non-local operator corresponding to a Lévy jump diffusions, which have become popular in the recent development in financial modeling, see [@CT04; @NOP09; @OS05], the discontinuity of the random path $X\sim \mathcal L$ brings extra difficulty in studying the boundary behavior (see [@BL84; @GMS17; @Ron97; @ZYB15]). To the best of our knowledge, the verification for a Feynman-Kac functionals to be a solution, or even a generalized viscosity solution (as discussed in this paper) of the Dirichlet PDE, has not been thoroughly studied for jump diffusion in the extant literature. A few closely related papers, such as [@CV05] for one dimensional non-stationary problem and [@BS18] for multi-dimensional stationary problem, provide the following partial answer: $v$ of is the (strong hence a generalized) viscosity solution of , if [*all points on the boundary $\partial O$ are regular*]{} (see definition of the regularity in Section \[sec:main\]).
However, this sufficient condition is not always satisfied, and a simple example below (see Section \[sec:e01\] with $\epsilon = 0$) provides an explicit calculation for a Feynman-Kac functional, which is not a (strong) viscosity solution but only a generalized viscosity solution. In this paper we focus on the sufficient conditions for $v$ of to be a generalized solution of , which turn out to be much more involved than that for a strong viscosity solution (see Theorem \[t:main01\] for details).
Next in Section \[sec:setup\], we present the precise setup, definition of the (strong) viscosity solution and generalized viscosity solution, and the main result. To avoid unnecessary confusion, we emphasize that “strong” v.s. “generalized” are in contrast for the classification of viscosity solution according to its boundary behavior[^4], see Definitions \[d:vis02\] and \[d:vis04\], and in this paper, we only focus on the generalized viscosity solution. Section \[sec:anal\] provides the analysis leading to the sufficient conditions for the existence of the generalized viscosity solution for a class of Dirichlet problems, which proves the main theorem.
As part of the motivation for this paper, the study of the solvability of is also closely related to the solvability of a class nonlinear PDEs, for example, Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equations. One of the major existing analytical approaches to solving HJB equations, in the sense of generalized solutions, is a combination of comparison principle (CP) and Perron’s method (PM) (see [@CIL92] and [@BCI08], and the references therein). Such an approach successfully establishes the unique solvability under the assumption that [*there exists a supersolution and a subsolution*]{}. In other words, it reduces the solvability question of nonlinear PDE into that of a class of linear PDEs of the type . However, the answer to the latter is not trivial and was proposed as an open question for the general case in Example 4.6 of [@CIL92]. In Section \[sec:app\], by applying the main result (Theorem \[t:main01\]) in this paper, we are able to prove the solvability of a class of linear equations, which serve as sub- and supersolutions to nonlinear equations with fractional Laplacian operators, and help establish the existence of solutions to the latter. At the end, we include a brief summary and some technical results are relegated to appendices.
Problem setup and definitions {#sec:setup}
=============================
In this section, we start from the definition of an appropriate filtration, under which $v$ in can be characterized in terms of a stochastic exit problem. Then we formally define the generalized viscosity solution to the Dirichlet problem and state the main result of this paper - a sufficient condition for $v$ of to be a generalized viscosity solution of , which is proved in the next section. To motivate the analysis of the generalized solution, we first provide an example of a Dirichlet problem, for which the associated Feynman-Kac functional is not its solution, but only a generalized solution.
An example {#sec:e01}
----------
For illustration purpose, consider a Dirichlet problem of with the following simplified setup, parameterized by $\epsilon\geq 0$: $$\label{eq:sete}
O = (0, 1), \ \ell \equiv 1, \
\mathcal L^{\epsilon} u = \frac 1 2 \epsilon^{2}
u'' + u', \
\lambda =1, g\equiv 0.$$ Then, becomes a second order ordinary differential equation (ODE) $$\label{eq:pde02}
- u' - \frac 1 2 \epsilon^{2} u'' + u - 1 = 0 \hbox{ on } (0, 1), \hbox{ and } u(x) = 0 \text{ for } x\geq 1 \text{ and } x\leq 0.$$ If $\epsilon >0$, then there exists unique $C^{2}(O) \cap C(\bar O)$ solution[^5] $$u (x) = 1 +
\frac{(1 - e^{\lambda_{1}}) e^{\lambda_{2} x} + (e^{\lambda_{2}}-1) e^{\lambda_{1} x}}
{e^{\lambda_{1}} - e^{\lambda_{2}}},\label{eq:ode}$$ where $$\lambda_{1} = \frac{\sqrt{1 + 2 \epsilon^{2}} - 1}{\epsilon^{2}}, \
\hbox{ and }
\lambda_{2} = \frac{- \sqrt{1 + 2\epsilon^{2}} - 1}{\epsilon^{2}}.$$
If $\epsilon =0$, then PDE has no solution. However, if one removes the boundary condition imposed to $0$, PDE has a unique solution $u(x) = - e^{-1+ x} +1$.
On the other hand, from probabilistic perspective: Let $\left(\hat\Omega, \hat{\mathcal F},\hat{\mathbb P}, \{\hat{\mathcal F_{t}}: t\ge 0\}\right)$ be a filtered probability space satisfying the usual conditions with a standard Brownian motion $W$, and $X$ be a stochastic process defined by $$X_{t} = x + t + \epsilon W_{t},$$ of which the generator is $\mathcal L^{\epsilon}$ above. The corresponding Feynman-Kac functional of the form is $$\label{eq:fk02}
v_{\epsilon}(x) :=
\hat {\mathbb E} \left[\int_{0}^{\zeta} e^{- s} ds \Big| X_{0} =x\right]$$ with $\zeta$ being the exit time from the closure of the domain $\bar O$, of which the distribution can be explicitly computed, and $\mathbb E$ being the expectation under $\mathbb P$. Note that
- If $\epsilon >0$, then $v_{\epsilon}$ of coincides with , and is the unique solution of .
- If $\epsilon = 0$, then $v_{0}(x) = - e^{-1+ x} +1$ is not a solution of , because it does meet the boundary condition at $x = 0$.
However, if $\epsilon =0$ and the boundary condition imposed on the point $0$ is dropped, then $v_{0}$ is identical to the solution of the new ODE, and is called the generalized solution to the original equation . In this paper, we investigate the sufficient conditions under which the associated Feynman-Kac is a solution to the Dirichlet PDE in the above general sense (by relaxing the boundary condition). As we will show in the following, $v_{0}$ is a generalized viscosity solution of according to Definition \[d:vis04\].
Setup
-----
Let $\Omega = \mathbb D^{d}$ be the space of Càdlàg functions from $[0, \infty)$ to $\mathbb R^{d}$ with Skorokhod metric $d_o$. $X$ is the coordinate mapping process, i.e. $$X_{t}(\omega) = \omega(t), \ \forall \omega \in \Omega.$$ Denote the natural filtration generated by $X$ as $$\mathcal F_{t}^{0} = \sigma\{X_{s}: s\le t\}, \ \forall t\ge 0,
\hbox{ and }
\mathcal F^{0} = \sigma(X_{s}: 0 \le s < \infty\}.$$ Denote as $C^m_{0}(\mathbb R^{d})$ and $C^{m,\alpha}_{0}(\mathbb R^{d})$ the space of functions on $\mathbb R^{d}$ with continuous and locally $\alpha$-Hölder continuous derivatives, respectively, up to $m^{th}$ order, which vanish at infinity, and for $C^m_{0}(\mathbb R^{d})$, the superscript is dropped if $m=0$. Let $\{P_{t}: t\ge 0\}$ be a Feller semi-group on $C_{0}(\mathbb R^{d})$ (see Definition III.2.1 of [@RY99]). With $\mathcal P(\mathbb R^{d})$ being the collection of probability measures on $\mathbb R^{d}$, by Daniell-Kolmogorov theorem and standard path regularization, for any $\nu\in \mathcal P(\mathbb R^{d})$, there exists probability measure $\mathbb P^{\nu}$ on $(\Omega, \mathcal F^{0})$ with its transition function identical to the given Feller semi-group $\{P_{t}:t\geq 0\}$ and initial distribution $X_{0}\sim \nu$ (see Section III.7 of [@RW00]). Denote as $\mathbb E^\nu$ the expectation under $\mathbb P^\nu$ for $\nu\in \mathcal P(\mathbb R^{d})$, and $\mathbb E^x = \mathbb E^{\delta_x}$ for the Dirac measure $\delta_x$ with $x\in \mathbb R^{d}$. We make the following assumptions for the rest of the paper without further mentioning:
\[assumption\]
1. $\{P_t: t\ge 0\}$ is a Feller semi-group with its infinitesimal generator $\mathcal L$ satisfying $C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^d) \subset \mathcal D(\mathcal L)$, where $\mathcal D(\mathcal L)$ the domain of $\mathcal L$;
2. $(\Omega, \mathcal F, \{X_t: t\ge 0\}, \{\mathbb P^\nu: \nu\in \mathcal P(\mathbb R^d)\})$ is the canonical setup of Feller process associated to the Feller semi-group $\{P_{t}, t\ge 0\}$, denoted by $X\sim \mathcal L$;
3. $O$ is a connected bounded open set in $\mathbb R^{d}$;
4. $g$ and $\ell$ are Lipschitz continuous functions vanishing at infinity.
5. $\lambda >0$.
Given a Borel set $B$ in $\mathbb R^{d}$ and a sample path $\omega \in \mathbb D^{d}$, define the exit time $\tau_{B}(\omega)$ and the exit point $\Pi_{B}(\omega)$ as: $$\label{eq:tau11}
\tau_{B} (\omega) = \inf\{t > 0, \omega_{t} \notin B\}, \quad \Pi_{B} (\omega)
= \omega({\tau_{B}(\omega)}) = X_{\tau_{B}(\omega)}(\omega), \quad \forall \omega\in \mathbb D^{d},$$ and for notational convenience, denote $$\label{eq:zeta00}
\zeta := \tau_{\bar O}, \ \Pi := \Pi_{\bar O} \hbox{ and }
\hat \zeta := \tau_{O}, \ \hat\Pi := \Pi_{O}.$$
In general, $\tau_{B}$ is not necessarily an $\mathcal F_{t}^{0}$-stopping time, because the set $\{\tau_{B} \le t\} \in \mathcal F^{0}_{t+} = \cap_{s>t} \mathcal F^{0}_{t}$, and the natural filtration is not always right continuous, i.e. $\mathcal F^0_{t+} \neq \mathcal F^0_{t}$. Thus we modify the natural filtration, based on the following observation: the natural filtration does not depend on any probability - $\mathcal F^{0}_0$ contains only deterministic events, and therefore $\mathcal F^{0}_{0} \neq \mathcal F^{0}_{0+}$. But their difference are only those “almost deterministic events". For example, if we focus on canonical Wiener measure on the path space, then Blumenthal 0-1 law implies that any event of $A\in \mathcal F^{0}_{0+} \setminus \mathcal F^{0}_{0}$ happens only with probability one or zero. This motivates us to reshuffle the natural filtration by moving the “almost deterministic" sets to the past information set, i.e. the $\sigma$-algebra at $t=0$.
\[filtration\] For each $\nu\in \mathcal P(\mathbb R^{d})$, denote as $\{\mathcal F_{t}^{\nu}: t\ge 0\}$ the $\mathbb P^{\nu}$-completion of natural filtration, i.e. $\mathcal F_{t}^{\nu} = \sigma(\mathcal F_{t}^{0}, \mathcal N^{\nu})$, where $\mathcal N^{\nu}$ is the collection of all $\mathbb P^{\nu}$-null sets. Let $\mathcal F_{t} = \bigcap_{\nu \in \mathcal P(\mathbb R^{d})} \mathcal F_{t}^{\nu}$ for each $t\geq 0$.
In the above definition, we adopt the usual augmentation by manipulating negligible sets, and move the [*universally almost deterministic sets*]{} (deterministic with respect all probability measures in $\mathcal P(\mathbb R^d)$) to $\mathcal F_0$, without changing the value of $\mathbb E^{x} [F|\mathcal F_{t}^{0}]$ for any $\mathcal F^0$-measurable random variable $F$. Furthermore, the Feller property asserts that, (a) the filtration $\{\mathcal F_{t}: t\ge 0\}$ (also $\{\mathcal F_{t}^{\nu}: t\ge 0\}$ for each $\nu$) is right continuous, (b) Blumenthal’s zero-one law holds, and (c) $\tau_{B}$ is an $\mathcal F_{t}$-stopping time (the Debut theorem, see Proposition III.2.10 and Theorems III.2.15 and III.2.17 of [@RY99]). Last but not least, the strong Markov property holds with the filtration $\{\mathcal F_{t}: t\ge 0\}$ (see Theorem III.3.1 of [@RY99]).
For the rest of the paper, we work with the filtration $\{\mathcal F_{t}: t\ge 0\}$ defined above, and then $v$ of in the stochastic exit problem can be written as $v(x) := \mathbb E^{x} [F]$, where $F: \mathbb D^{d} \mapsto \mathbb R$ is $$F(\omega) = \int_{0}^{\zeta(\omega)} e^{-\lambda s} \ell(\omega_{s}) ds
+ e^{-\lambda \zeta(\omega)} g \circ \Pi(\omega),
\ \forall \omega \in \mathbb D^{d}.$$
Finally, recall the simplified setup in \[sec:e01\], where the associated process $X$ is defined as a function of a Brownian motion in a filtered probability space $\left(\hat \Omega, \hat{\mathcal F}, \hat {\mathbb P}, \{\hat{\mathcal F_{t}}: t\ge 0\}\right)$. To see the equivalence between this setup and the above definition with coordinate mapping process, for $X$ in Section \[sec:e01\], one can first induce a family of probabilities $\mathbb P^{\nu}$ on space $\mathbb D^{d}$ associated to initial distribution $\nu\in \mathcal P(\mathbb R^{d})$, i.e. $\mathbb P^{\nu}(A)
= \hat {\mathbb P}(X\in A | X_{0} \sim \nu)$ for any Borel set $A \in \mathbb D^{d}$. The distribution of coordinate mapping is identical to the distribution of $X$ (see Section II.28 of [@RW00]). Then starting from a natural filtration $\{\mathcal F_{t}^{0}:t\geq 0\}$ of coordinate mapping, one can generate a family of $\{\mathcal F_{t}^{\nu}: t\ge 0\}$ with $\nu\in\mathcal P(\mathbb R^d)$, and $\{\mathcal F_{t}: t\ge 0\}$ as defined in Definition \[filtration\] above.
Dirichlet problems and Viscosity Solutions {#sec:def}
------------------------------------------
In this section, we give the definition of the generalized viscosity solution. For simplicity, denote $$\label{eq:G}
G(\phi, x) = - \mathcal L \phi(x) + \lambda \phi(x) - \ell(x),$$ and becomes $$\label{eq:pde55}
G(u, x) = 0, \hbox{ on } O \hbox{ and } u = g \hbox{ on } O^{c}.$$ Note that the Dirichlet boundary data $g$ is given to the entire $O^{c}$. The reason is that, if the generator $\mathcal L$ is non-local, $X_{\zeta}$ may fall in anywhere in $O^{c}$, and the above definition of $G$ makes sure that for $(u, x) \in C_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb R^{d}) \times \mathbb R^{d}$, the value $G(u, x)$ is well-defined. To generalize the definition of to a possibly non-smooth function with domain $\bar O$, we use the following test functions in place of $u$:[^6]
1. For a given $u \in USC (\bar O)$ and $x\in \bar O$, the space of supertest functions is $$J^{+} (u, x) = \{\phi \in C_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb R^{d}),
\hbox{ s.t. } \phi \ge (u I_{\bar O} + g I_{{\bar O}^{c}})^{*} \hbox{ and } \phi(x) = u(x)\}.$$
2. For a given $u \in LSC (\bar O)$ and $x\in \bar O$, the space of subtest functions is $$J^{-} (u, x) = \{\phi \in C_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb R^{d}),
\hbox{ s.t. } \phi \le (u I_{\bar O} + g I_{{\bar O}^{c}})_{*} \hbox{ and } \phi(x) = u(x)\}.$$
We say that a function $u \in USC(\bar O)$ satisfies the viscosity subsolution property at some $x\in \bar O$, if the following inequality holds for all $\phi \in J^{+} (u,x)$, $$\label{eq:sub11}
G(\phi, x) \le 0.$$
Similarly, a function $u \in LSC(\bar O)$ satisfies the viscosity supersolution property at some $x\in \bar O$, if the following inequality holds for all $\phi \in J^{-} (u,x)$, $$\label{eq:sup11}
G(\phi, x) \ge 0.$$
In the following we define the (strong) viscosity solution of . Note that it does not require the viscosity property at any point $x\in \partial O$. However, the viscosity solution property at $x\in \partial O$ will be needed in the definition of the generalized viscosity solution introduced later.
\[d:vis02\]
1. $u \in USC(\bar O)$ is a viscosity subsolution of , if (a) $u$ satisfies the viscosity subsolution property at each $x\in O$ and (b) $u(x) \le g(x)$ at each $x\in \partial O$.
2. $u \in LSC(\bar O)$ is a viscosity supersolution of , if (a) $u$ satisfies the viscosity supersolution property at each $x\in O$ and (b) $u(x) \ge g(x)$ at each $x\in \partial O$.
3. $u\in C(\bar O)$ is a viscosity solution of , if it is a viscosity subsolution and supersolution simultaneously.
Recalling the setup above, the associated stochastic representation $v_{\epsilon}$ of is the viscosity (indeed a classical) solution of equation if $\epsilon >0$. It is not anymore for $\epsilon = 0$ due to the loss of the boundary $v_{0}(0) >0$. The next is the definition of generalized viscosity solution, as discussed in, for instance [@BCI08].
\[d:vis04\]
1. $u \in USC(\bar O)$ is a generalized viscosity subsolution of , if (a) $u$ satisfies the viscosity subsolution property at each $x\in O$ and (b) $u$ satisfies at the boundary $$\min\{-\mathcal L \phi(x) + \lambda \phi(x) - \ell(x), u(x) - g(x)\} \le 0,
\ \forall x\in \partial O \text{ and } \forall \phi \in J^{+}(u, x).$$
2. $u \in LSC(\bar O)$ is a generalized viscosity supersolution of , if (a) $u$ satisfies the viscosity supersolution property at each $x\in O$ and (b) $u$ satisfies at the boundary $$\max\{-\mathcal L \phi(x) + \lambda \phi(x) - \ell(x), u(x) - g(x)\}
\ge 0,
\ \forall x\in \partial O \text{ and } \forall \phi \in J^{-}(u, x).$$
3. $u\in C(\bar O)$ is a generalized viscosity solution of , if it is the viscosity subsolution and supersolution simultaneously.
Main result {#sec:main}
-----------
Our main objective is to identify the sufficient condition which guarantees that $v$ of is a generalized viscosity solution of , and the results are summarized in Theorem \[t:main01\] below. As a preparation, we briefly recall some basic definitions on regular points, and the induced fine topology (see more details in Section 3.4 of [@CW05]).
1. A point $x$ is said to be regular (with respect to $\mathcal L$) for the set $B$ if and only if $\mathbb P^{x} (\tau_{B^{c}} = 0) = 1.$ Let $$\partial_0 O = \left\{x\in \partial O: x \text{ is regular for } \bar O^c\right\},$$ and $\partial_1 O = \partial O \setminus \partial_0 O$.
2. For any set $B$, the set of all regular points for $B$ is be denoted by $B^{r}$ and $B^{*} = B \cup B^{r}$ is called the fine closure of $B$. A set $B$ is finely closed if $B = B^{*}$, and $B^{c}$ is said to be finely open. The collection of all finely open sets generates the fine topology.
By the above definition, if $x$ is not regular for $\bar O^c$, then $\mathbb P^{x} (\tau_{\bar O} = 0) < 1$, which implies that $\mathbb P^{x} (\tau_{\bar O} = 0) = 0$ due to Blumenthal 0-1 law. In addition, since the process $X$ has right continuous paths and $O$ is an open set, any point $x \in \bar O^{c}$ is regular for $\bar O^{c}$ and any point $x\in O$ is not regular for $\bar O^{c}$. Thus, $\bar O^{c,r}$, the set of all regular points to $\bar O^{c}$, satisfies $ \bar O^{c} \subset \bar O^{c,r} = \bar O^{c, *} \subset O^{c}$. Therefore, $\partial_{0} O = \bar O \cap \bar O^{c,*}$ and $\partial_{1} O = \bar O\setminus \bar O^{c,*}$.
\[t:main01\] If there exists a neighborhood[^7] $N_1$ of $\partial_1 O$ such that $\mathbb P^x \left(\hat\Pi\in \bar N_1\right) = 0$ for all $x\in \bar O$, then $v$ of is a generalized viscosity solution of . Moreover[^8], $$\partial_{0} O \subset \{x\in \partial O: v = g\} := \Gamma_{out} .$$
Before the proof of Theorem \[t:main01\] in the next section, the following are some immediate applications. Further applications of Theorem \[t:main01\] on non-stationary problem is provided in Section \[sec:app\].
According to Theorem \[t:main01\], the sufficient condition is closely related to the distribution of $X(\hat \zeta)$, the exit point of $X$ from $O$. Consider a special case where every $\partial O$ is regular for $\bar O^{c}$ with respect to $\mathcal L$, for example, $\mathcal L = - (-\Delta)^{\alpha/2}$ with $\alpha \ge 1$. Then $\partial_{0} O = \partial O$ and $\partial_{1} O = \emptyset$. Hence, one can simply take $N_1 = \emptyset$ as the neighborhood of $\partial_{1} O = \emptyset$, which fulfills the condition of Theorem \[t:main01\], because $X(\hat \tau)$ does not fall in the empty set $\bar N_1$. Furthermore, $v(x) = g(x)$ for every $x\in\partial O = \partial O_0$, which recovers the result of [@BS18]:
\[c:01\] If every $x\in \partial O$ is regular to $\bar O^{c}$, then $v$ of is a strong viscosity solution of .
As an example, in the setup , if $\epsilon > 0$, then $\partial O = \partial_{0} O = \{0, 1\}$, and $v_{\epsilon}$ is the strong solution by Corollary \[c:01\]. If $\epsilon = 0$, then $\mathbb P^{x}$ is the probability induced from the uniform motion $X(t) = x + t$. Thus $\partial_{1} O = \{0\}$ and $\partial_{0} O= \{1\}$. By taking that $N_{1} = (-1/2, 1/2)$, $N_{1}$ satisfies the assumptions in Theorem \[t:main01\] and $v_{0}$ is a generalized solution.
The existence of generalized viscosity solution {#sec:anal}
===============================================
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[t:main01\]. As the first step, we show that generalized viscosity solution property requires that on the boundary points, either the boundary condition, or the viscosity solution property is satisfied.
The set of points losing the boundary condition
-----------------------------------------------
In Section \[sec:e01\], $v_{0}$ of the setup of with $\epsilon = 0$ is not a viscosity solution of due to the loss of the boundary at $x = 0$. One can actually directly verify that $v_{0}$ is the generalized solution according to Definition \[d:vis04\] by checking its viscosity solution property at $x = 0$ (the argument for other points on \[0,1\] is straight forward):
1. the space of supertest functions satisfies $$J^{+}(v_{0}, 0) \subset \{ \phi \in C_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb R): \phi(0) = v_{0}(0) = 1 - e^{-1}, \ \phi'(0) \ge v'_{0}(0+) = - e^{-1}\}.$$ Thus, $v_{0}$ satisfies subsolution property at $x = 0$ according to , and therefore, the inequality of Definition \[d:vis04\] (1) holds;
2. the space of subtest functions $J^{-}(v_{0}, 0)$ is an empty set, because $v_{0}(0) >0$ and $(v_{0} I_{\bar O})_*(0) = 0$, and it automatically implies its supersolution property at $x=0$.
The above argument shows that although $v_{0}$ violates the boundary condition at $x = 0$, it satisfies the viscosity solution property according to the definitions - at $x = 0$. The next proposition generalizes the above observation: A generalized solution shall satisfy either viscosity solution property or boundary condition at every boundary point.
\[p:def01\] A function $u \in C(\bar O)$ is a generalized viscosity solution of if and only if $u$ satisfies the viscosity solution property at each $x\in \bar O \setminus \Gamma_{out}$.
The sufficiency is straight forward by checking Definition \[d:vis04\]. For necessity, if $u$ is a generalized viscosity solution, then according to Definition \[d:vis04\], it satisfies the viscosity solution property at every $x\in O$. For $x\in \partial O\setminus \Gamma_{out}$, if $u(x) < g(x)$, then since $u\in USC(\bar O)$ and $J^{+}(u, x) = \emptyset$, it implies the viscosity subsolution property at $x$. On the other hand, since $u\in LSC(\bar O)$, and therefore $\max\{-\mathcal L \phi(x) + \lambda \phi(x) - \ell(x), u(x) - g(x)\} \ge 0$ for every $\phi\in J^-(u,x)$, it implies that the viscosity supersolution property is satisfied. The case of $u(x) > g(x)$ follows similar arguments.
Concerning whether $v$ of a generalized viscosity solution of , this question can now be divided into the following two subquestions, of which the answers are provided in the next sections:
1. Does $v$ of satisfies the condition in Proposition \[p:def01\]?
2. If yes, where does $v$ meet its boundary? i.e. what is $\Gamma_{out}$?
Sufficient conditions - I
-------------------------
In general, Assumptions \[assumption\] can not guarantee the conditions in Proposition \[p:def01\], and thus $v$ of may not be a generalized solution of , as shown in Example \[exm:15\] below. In this subsection, Lemmas \[l:gvis01\] and \[l:v01\] point out a sufficient condition:
- $\zeta: \mathbb D^{d} \mapsto \mathbb R$ and $\Pi: \mathbb D^{d} \mapsto \mathbb R^{d}$ are continuous almost surely under $\mathbb P^{x}$
Notice that it is standard, by using Ito’s formula on test functions, that an interior point $x$ of the domain $\bar O$ satisfies the viscosity solution property given that $v$ of is continuous. Next, Lemma \[l:gvis01\] shows that the same statement holds as long as $x$ is an interior point of $\bar O$ in the fine topology, i.e. $x$ is not regular for $\bar O^{c}$.
\[l:gvis01\] If $v\in C(\bar O)$, then $v$ of is a generalized viscosity solution of , with $$\Gamma_{out} \supset \partial_{0} O.$$
We dicuss the interior point and boundary point separately (recall that $G(\phi, x) = - \mathcal L \phi(x) + \lambda \phi(x) - \ell(x)$).
1\. $v$’s interior viscosity solution property. First, fixing an arbitrary $x \in O$, we show $v$ satisfies the viscosity supersolution property, i.e. $$\label{eq:exi01}
G(\phi, x) \ge 0, \text{ for every } \phi \in
J^{-}(v, x).$$ To the contrary, assume $G(\phi, x) < 0$ for some $\phi \in J^{-}(v, x)$. By the continuity of $x \mapsto G(\phi, x)$, for any $\epsilon >0$, there exists $\delta >0$ such that $$\label{eq:exi21}
\sup_{|y-x|< \delta} G(\phi, y) < - \epsilon/2.$$ Since $X$ is a Càdlàg process and $x\in O$, $\mathbb P^{x}\left(\zeta >0\right) = 1$. By the strong Markov property of $X$, we can rewrite the function $v$ as, for any stopping time $h \in (0, \zeta]$, $$v(x) = \mathbb E^{x} \Big[ e^{- \lambda h} v (X_{h}) + \int_{0}^{h} e^{- \lambda s}\ell(X_{s})ds \Big],$$ which, with the fact of $\phi \in J^{-} (v, x)$, implies that, $$\phi(x) \ge \mathbb E^{x} \Big[ e^{- \lambda h} \phi(X_{h}) + \int_{0}^{h} e^{-\lambda s}\ell(X_{s})ds \Big].$$ Moreover, Dynkin’s formula on $\phi$ gives $$\mathbb E^{x} [e^{-\lambda h} \phi(X_{h})] =
\phi(x) +
\mathbb E^{x}
\Big [\int_{0}^{h}
e^{-\lambda s} ( \mathcal L \phi(X_{s}) - \lambda \phi(X_{s})) ds
\Big].$$ Adding up the above two (in)equalities, it yields $$\mathbb E^{x}
\Big [\int_{0}^{h} e^{- \lambda s} G(\phi, X_{s}) ds \Big] \ge 0.$$ Then, take $h = \inf\{t >0: X(t) \notin \bar B_{\delta}(x)\} \wedge \zeta$, where[^9] $B_r(x)$ denotes the open ball with radius $r$ centered at $x$. Since $h> 0$ almost surely under $\mathbb P^{x}$, it leads to a contradiction to and implies the supersolution property at $x$. The interior subsolution property can be similarly obtained.
2\. $v$’s generalized boundary condition. For any $x\in \partial O$, by Blumenthal 0-1 law, either $\mathbb P^{x} (\zeta = 0) = 1$ or $\mathbb P^{x} (\zeta >0) = 1$. If $\mathbb P^{x} (\zeta = 0) = 1$, then $v(x) = g(x)$ by its definition and hence $\Gamma_{out} \supset \partial_{0} O$ holds. On the other hand, if $\mathbb P^{x} (\zeta >0) = 1$, then we shall examine its viscosity solution property.
For the viscosity supersolution property, assume holds for some $\phi \in J^{-}(v, x)$. Since $\mathbb P^{x} (\zeta >0) = 1$, we can follow exactly the same argument above for interior viscosity solution property to find a contradiction, which justifies the supersolution property. The subsolution property can be obtained in the similar way.
From the definition of the generalized solution, $\Gamma_{out}$ can be treated as part of solution. Therefore, for characterization of unknown $\Gamma_{out}$, it seems not satisfactory to have “$\supset$” instead of “=” as its conclusion in Theorem \[t:main01\] and Lemma \[l:gvis01\]. However, it is indeed a full characterization by noting that the left hand side $\Gamma_{out}$ depends on the boundary value $g$, while the right hand side $\partial_{0} O$ is invariant of $g$. More precisely, Appendix \[sec:go\] shows that under some mild conditions, $$\cap_{g\in C_{0}^{0,1}(\mathbb R^{d})} \Gamma_{out}[g] = \partial_{0} O.$$
The condition of $v$’s continuity up to the boundary in Lemma \[l:gvis01\] may not be true in general. The next is an example for $v$ of being discontinuous even in the interior of the domain.
\[exm:15\]
Consider a problem on two dimensional domain of $$\label{eq:setting02}
O = (-1, 1) \times (0, 1), \
\mathcal L u(x) = \partial_{x_{1}} u(x) + 2 x_{1} \partial_{x_{2}} u(x), \
\lambda = 1 \text{ and }
\ell \equiv 1, g \equiv 0.$$ Then, PDE becomes $$- \partial_{x_{1}} u(x) - 2 x_{1} \partial_{x_{2}} u(x) +
u (x) - 1 = 0, \hbox{ on } O, \hbox{ and } u (x) = 0 \hbox{ on } O^{c}.$$ In fact, the process $X\sim \mathcal L$ with initial value $x = (x_{1}, x_{2})^{T}$ has the following deterministic parametric representation, $$X_{1t} = x_{1} + t, \ X_{2t}= x_{2} - x_{1}^{2} + X_{1t}^{2}.$$ Therefore, the lifetime $\zeta$ is also a deterministic number depending on its initial state $x$, which will be denoted as $\zeta^{x}$: $$\zeta^{x} = \begin{cases}
- x_{1} + \sqrt{1 - x_{2} + x_{1}^{2}}, &x \in O_{1} :=
\{x_{2} \ge x_{1}^{2}\} \cap \bar O,\\
1 - x_{1},& x \in O_{2} :=
\{x_{2} < x_{1}^{2}, x_{1}>0\} \cap \bar O,\\
- x_{1} - \sqrt{- x_{2} + x_{1}^{2}},& x \in O_{3} :=
\{x_{2} < x_{1}^{2}, x_{1}<0\} \cap \bar O.
\end{cases}$$ The mapping $x\mapsto \zeta^{x}$ is discontinuous at every point on the curve $\partial O_{1} \cap \partial O_{3}$, and so is $v$ of , which can be rewritten as
&&v(x) = \_[0]{}\^[\^[x]{}]{} e\^[-s]{}ds = 1 - e\^[-\^[x]{}]{}. &&
In this example, $$\begin{array}
{ll}
\partial_{0} O = &
\{ (x_{1}, x_{2}): x_{1} = 1, 0 \le x_{2} \le 1\} \cup
\\&
\{ (x_{1}, x_{2}): x_{2} = 1, 0 \le x_{1} \le 1\} \cup
\\&
\{ (x_{1}, x_{2}): x_{2} = 0, -1 \le x_{1} < 0\},
\end{array}$$ and $\partial_1 O = \partial O \setminus \partial_0 O$ is not open relative to $\partial O$. $\Box$
Example \[exm:15\] together with Lemma \[l:gvis01\] lead us to investigate sufficient conditions for the continuity of the function $v$, and the next lemma shows that it depends on the continuity of $\zeta$ and $\Pi$.
For a given function $\phi: \mathbb D^d \mapsto \mathbb R^m$ for some positive integer $m$,
1. $\phi$ is continuous at some $\omega \in \mathbb D^{d}$, if $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\zeta(\omega_{n}) = \zeta(\omega), \hbox{ with } \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}d_{o} (\omega_{n}, \omega) = 0.$
2. Denote as $C_{\phi} = \{\omega\in \mathbb D^{d} : \phi \hbox{ is continuous at } \omega\}$ the continuity set of $\phi$. For a given probability $\mathbb Q$ on a $\sigma$-algebra of $\mathbb D^d$, $\phi$ is said to be continuous almost surely under $\mathbb Q$, if $\mathbb Q(C_{\phi}) = 1$.
Note that if $\phi$ is a Borel measurable mapping, then $C_{\phi}$ is a Borel set in $\mathbb D^{d}$. Example \[exm:15\] implies that $C_{\zeta}$ can be a proper subset of $\mathbb D^{d}$, and thus $\zeta$ may not be continuous everywhere. Lemma \[l:v01\] below indicates that, for the continuity of $v$ at $x$, it suffices that the sets $C_{\zeta}$ and $C_{\Pi}$ are big enough so that $\zeta$ and $\Pi$ are continuous almost surely under $\mathbb P^x$, i.e. $\mathbb P^{x}(C_{\zeta} \cap C_{\Pi}) = 1$.
\[l:v01\] Let $x\in\bar O$. If $\zeta: \mathbb D^{d} \mapsto \mathbb R$ and $\Pi: \mathbb D^{d} \mapsto \mathbb R^{d}$ are continuous in Skorokhod topology almost surely under $\mathbb P^{x}$, then $v$ of is continuous at $x$ relative to $\bar O$, i.e. $\lim_{\bar O \in y \to x} v(y) = v(x).$
If $\bar O \ni y \to x$, then $\mathbb P^{y}$ converges to $\mathbb P^{x}$ weakly by Theorem 17.25 of [@Kal02]. By the continuous mapping theorem (Theorem 2.7 of [@Bil99]), together with uniform boundedness of $F$, $v$ is continuous at $x$ if $F$ is continuous almost surely under $\mathbb P^{x}$, i.e. $\mathbb P^{x} (C_{F}) = 1$ for the continuity set $C_{F}$ of $F: \mathbb D^{d} \mapsto \mathbb R$. Then it suffices to show that $C_{\zeta} \cap C_{\Pi} \subset C_{F}$.
Rewrite $F$ as $F = F_{1} + F_{2}$, where $$F_{1}(\omega) = \int_{0}^{\zeta(\omega)} e^{-\lambda s} \ell(\omega_{s}) ds,
\quad F_{2}(\omega) = e^{-\lambda \zeta(\omega)} g \circ \Pi(\omega).$$ It is straight forward to see that $F_2$ is continuous at a given $\omega$ if $\zeta$ and $\Pi$ are continuous at the same $\omega$. For $F_1$, consider an arbitrary sequence $\omega_{n} \to \omega$ in Skorokhod metric, and $\zeta$ and $\Pi$ are continuous at $\omega$. $|F_{1}(\omega_{n}) - F_{1}(\omega)|$ can be approximated by $$\label{eq:F02}
\begin{array}
{ll}
|F_{1}(\omega_{n}) - F_{1}(\omega)|
& \displaystyle
\le
K \int_{0}^{\zeta(\omega)\wedge
\zeta(\omega_{n})}
e^{-\lambda s}
|\omega_{n}(s) - \omega(s)| ds +
K |\zeta(\omega_{n}) - \zeta(\omega)|,\\
& \displaystyle
\le
K \int_{0}^{\infty}
e^{-\lambda s}
|\omega_{n}(s) - \omega(s)|
I_{(0, \zeta(\omega) \wedge \zeta(\omega_{n}))}(s) ds +
K |\zeta(\omega_{n}) - \zeta(\omega)|,\\
& \displaystyle
:= K \cdot Term1_{n} + K \cdot Term2_{n},
\end{array}$$ where $K = \max_{x\neq y} |\frac{\ell(x) - \ell(y)}{x - y}| +
\max_{\bar O} |\ell(x)|$ is a constant independent to $n$, $Term1_{n} = \int_{0}^{\infty}
e^{-\lambda s}
|\omega_{n}(s) - \omega(s)|
I_{(0, \zeta(\omega) \wedge \zeta(\omega_{n}))}(s) ds$ and $Term2_{n} = |\zeta(\omega_{n}) - \zeta(\omega)|$. Observe that
- $\omega_{n} \to \omega$ in Skorokhod metric implies that $\zeta(\omega_{n}) \to \zeta(\omega)$ due to the continuity of $\zeta$. Therefore, $Term2_{n}$ goes to zero as $n$ goes to infinity.
- $\omega_{n} \to \omega$ in Skorokhod metric implies that $\omega_{n}(t) \to \omega(t)$ holds for all $t\in C_{\omega}$, where $C_{\omega}$ is the continuity set of the function $\omega: [0, \infty) \mapsto \mathbb R^{d}$ (see Page 124 of [@Bil99]). Since there are countably many discontinuities of the mapping $\omega: t \mapsto \mathbb R^{d}$ for any Càdlàg path $\omega$, $$\lim_{n\to \infty} |\omega_{n}(t) - \omega(t)| = 0$$ almost everywhere in Lebesgue measure. Therefore, the integrand in $Term1_{n}$ $$|\omega_{n}(s) - \omega(s)|
I_{(0, \zeta(\omega) \wedge \zeta(\omega_{n}))}(s)$$ converges to zero as $n\to \infty$ for almost every $s$ in Lebesgue measure. Together with its uniform boundedness by $2 \max_{\bar O} |x|$, the Dominated Convergence Theorem implies that $Term1_{n}$ converges to zero as $n$ goes to infinity.
Hence, each term of the right hand side of goes to zero and is uniformly bounded. Therefore, the limit of $|F_{1}(\omega_{n}) - F_{1}(\omega)|$ is also zero and $F$ is continuous at $\omega$.
Sufficient conditions - II
--------------------------
Lemmas \[l:gvis01\] and \[l:v01\] lead us to investigate the continuity of $\zeta$ and $\Pi$, which is not always the case, as illustrated by Example \[exm:15\]. The main results of this section in Proposition \[p:con02\] indicates that, for $x\notin \partial_1 O$, $\zeta$ and $\Pi$ are continuous under $P^x$, i.e. $v$ is a generalized solution of , if the following condition holds ($x\in \partial_1 O$ and the proof of Theorem \[t:main01\] are discussed in Section \[sec:iii\])
(C): $X$ exits from $O$ and $\bar O$ at the same time almost surely;
Note that condition (C) is violated in Example \[exm:15\]: for $(x_1, x_2) \in \bar O_1\cap \bar O_3$, $x_2 = x_1^2$ and $x_1 <0$. Thus $\zeta$ (the exit time of $\bar O$) is $-x_1 + \sqrt{1-x_2 + x_1^2}$, while $\hat\zeta$ (the exit time of $O$) is $-x_1 + \sqrt{-x_2 + x_1^2}$.
To proceed, we introduce the following notions. For a path $\omega \in \mathbb D^{d}$, denote $\omega^{-}$ as a Càglàd version of $\omega$: $$\omega^{-}_{0} = \omega_{0}, \hbox{ and }
\omega_{t}^{-} = \lim_{s\uparrow t^{-}} \omega_{s} \hbox{ for } t >0,$$ and the associated exit time operator: $$\label{eq:taum}
\tau^{-}_{B} (\omega) = \inf\{t > 0, \omega^{-}_{t} \notin B\}.$$
If $\omega$ is continuous, then $\omega = \omega^{-}$ and $\tau_{B}(\omega) = \tau^{-}_{B}(\omega)$. However, we shall not casually expect an equality or even an inequality between $\tau_{B}$ and $\tau_{B}^{-}$ in general, as demonstrated in the following example.
\[exm:14\] Let $B = (0, 3)$ and a Càdlàg path $\omega_{t} = |t - 1| + I_{[0, 1)}(t)$. $$\tau_{B}(\omega) = 1 < \tau_{B}^{-}(\omega) = 4.$$ On the other hand, for another Càdlàg path $\omega_{t} = 1 - t I_{[0, 1)}(t)$,
&&\_[B]{}() = > \^[-]{}\_[B]{}() = 1. &&
To discuss the continuity of the lifetime $\zeta$, define $$\label{eq:zeta02}
\zeta^{-} (\omega) = \tau_{O}^{-}(\omega).$$ By definition, the following inequality holds, $$\label{eq:zeta03}
\max\{\hat \zeta(\omega), \zeta^{-}(\omega)\} \le \zeta(\omega),
\ \forall \omega \in \mathbb D^{d}.$$ Furthermore, though Example \[exm:14\] shows that neither $\hat \zeta \ge \zeta^{-}$ nor $\hat \zeta \le \zeta^{-}$ is generally true. Interestingly, for the Càdlàg Feller process $X$, the inequality $\zeta^{-} \ge \hat \zeta$ holds almost surely under $\mathbb P^x$.
\[p:zeta01\] For any $x\in\bar O$, the following identities hold: $$\mathbb P^{x} \left(\omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \in \partial O,
\omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \neq \omega(\zeta^{-})\right) = 0, \text{ and }\
\mathbb P^{x} \left( \hat \zeta \le \zeta^{-} \le \zeta \right) = 1.$$
Let $\zeta^{-}_{1} (\omega) = \zeta^{-} (\omega)$ if $\omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \in \partial O$, and infinity otherwise. Then, $\zeta_{1}^{-}$ is $\mathcal F_{t-}$-stopping time, and hence a predictable stopping time.
If $\omega$ is discontinuous at $\zeta^{-}$, then $\zeta^{-}$ is a totally inaccessible stopping time due to the jump by Meyer’s theorem (see Theorem III.4 of [@Pro90]). According to Theorem III.3 of [@Pro90], the set of predictable stopping times has no overlap with the set of totally inaccessible stopping times almost surely. Hence, $\mathbb P^{x} \left(\omega^{-}(\zeta_{1}^{-}) \neq \omega(\zeta_{1}^{-}); \zeta_{1}(\omega) < \infty \right) = 0$, which is equivalent to $\mathbb P^{x} \left(\omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \in \partial O,
\omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \neq \omega(\zeta^{-})\right) = 0.$
Thus whenever $\omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \in \partial O$, $\omega(\zeta^{-}) = \omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \in \partial O$ almost surely, and therefore $\hat \zeta \le \zeta^{-}$ by definition, i.e. [^10] $$\mathbb P^{x} \left(\hat \zeta \le \zeta^{-} | \omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \in \partial O\right) = 1.$$
On the other hand, if $\omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \notin \partial O$, then by the left-continuity of $\omega^{-}$, $\omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \in O$. In this case, there must be a jump at $\zeta^-$, and there exists a sequence $t_{n} \downarrow \zeta^{-}$ as $n$ goes to infinity, such that $\omega^{-} (t_{n}) \in O^c$ for every $n$. By the right continuity of $\omega$, $\omega(\zeta^{-}) = \lim\limits_{n\to \infty} \omega^{-} (t_{n}) \in O^{c}$ due to the closedness of $O^{c}$. Hence, $\hat \zeta \le \zeta^{-}$ whenever $\omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \in O$, and therefore $$\mathbb P^{x} \left(\hat \zeta \le \zeta^{-} | \omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \in O\right) = 1.$$ Since $\mathbb P^{x} \left(\{\omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \in \partial O\}
\cup \{\omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \in O\}\right) =1$, $\mathbb P^{x} \left(\hat \zeta \le \zeta^{-}\right) =1$. The other inequality $\zeta^{-} \le \zeta$ holds by the definition.
Next, we establish the almost sure continuity of $\zeta$ and $\Pi$ if it starts from $x \notin \partial_{1} O$.
\[p:con02\] If $x \in \mathbb R^{d} \setminus \partial_{1} O$ and $\mathbb P^{x}(\hat \zeta = \zeta) =1$, then both $\zeta$ and $\Pi$ are almost surely continuous under $\mathbb P^{x}$.
If $x \in \bar O^c$, then any $\omega$ with its initial state $x$ satisfies $\zeta(\omega) \equiv 0$ and $\Pi(\omega) \equiv x$ being constant mappings. $\zeta$ and $\Pi$ are both continuous at $\omega$ with its initial $x \in \bar O^c$.
If $x \in O$. A slight modification of the proof of Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 2.4 of [@BS18] implies that, the mappings $\zeta: \mathbb D^{d} \mapsto \mathbb R$ and $\Pi: \mathbb D^{d} \mapsto \mathbb R^{d}$ are both continuous at any $$\omega \in \Gamma := \{\omega: \omega(0) \in O\} \cap
\Gamma_{1} \setminus \Gamma_{2}$$ in Skorokhod topology, where $\Gamma_{1} = \{\omega: \zeta^{-} = \hat \zeta = \zeta\}$ and $\Gamma_{2} = \{\omega: \omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \in \partial O,
\omega^{-}(\zeta^{-}) \neq \omega(\zeta^{-})\}$. Proposition \[p:zeta01\] and the condition $\mathbb P^{x}(\hat \zeta = \zeta) =1$ imply that $\mathbb P^{x}(\Gamma_{1}) = 1$ and $\mathbb P^{x}(\Gamma_{2}) = 0$. Therefore, $\mathbb P^{x}(\Gamma) = 1$ and we conclude almost sure continuity of $\zeta$ and $\Pi$ for this case. Finally, if $x \in \partial O_0 $, using exactly the same approach of Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 2.4 of [@BS18], we know that the mappings $\zeta: \mathbb D^{d} \mapsto \mathbb R$ and $\Pi: \mathbb D^{d} \mapsto \mathbb R^{d}$ are both continuous at any $$\omega \in \Gamma := \{\omega: \omega(0) \in \partial O, \hat \zeta = \zeta = 0\}$$ in Skorokhod topology. Since $x$ is regular for $\bar O^{c}$, $\mathbb P^{x}(\Gamma) = 1$ and we conclude almost sure continuity of $\zeta$ and $\Pi$ for this case.
Sufficient conditions - III {#sec:iii}
---------------------------
For $x\in \partial_1 O$, the following example shows that $\mathbb P^{x}(\hat \zeta = \zeta) =1$ does not guarantee the almost sure continuity of $\zeta$ and $\Pi$ under $\mathbb P^x$.
\[e:05\] Consider $O = (0, 1)$ and $X_t = t$. In other words, $\mathbb P^{0}(\omega_{0}) = 1$ for $\omega_{0}(t) = t$. Then, $0 \in \partial_1 O$ and $\mathbb P^{0}(\hat \zeta = \zeta =1) =1$. In particular, recall from the definition of $\hat\zeta$ in that $\hat \zeta = 1$ instead of $\hat \zeta = 0$, because it is defined as hitting time $\inf\{t>0: ...\}$ instead of entrance time $\inf\{t\ge 0: ...\}$. However, the sequence of paths $\left\{\omega_n\right\}_{n\geq 1}$ with $$\omega_{n}(t)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
n^{-1} - 2 t, & t\in [0, n^{-1}),\\
t, & t \ge n^{-1},
\end{array}\right.$$ satisfies $\lim_{n\to \infty}d_{o}(\omega_{n}, \omega_{0}) = 0$, while $\lim_{n\to \infty}\zeta(\omega_{n}) \to 0 \neq \zeta(\omega_{0})$, as well as $\mathbb P^{0}\{\omega_{0}\} >0$. Hence, $\zeta$ can not be continuous almost surely in $\mathbb P^{0}$. $\Box$
Example \[e:05\] implies that for $x\in \partial_{1} O$, $\zeta$ is not almost surely continuous under $\mathbb P^{x}$, and we need to pursue other sufficient conditions for the continuity of $v$. In the following discussion, the idea is to consider a larger domain $O_{1}\supset O$ to which Proposition \[p:con02\] applies, and we assume on the regularity structure of $O$, which guarantees that $\mathbb P^{x}(\zeta = \tau_{\bar O_1}) = 1$ and hence $v(x) = v_{1}(x)$ for all $x\in \bar O$, and it turns out that this is the only assumption in addition to Assumption \[assumption\] for the main theorem to hold.
As a preparation, define the shift operator $\theta_{t}: \mathbb D^{d} \mapsto \mathbb D^{d}$ as $$\theta_{t} \omega (s) = \omega(t + s), \forall s\ge 0.$$ This implies that $(X_{s} \circ \theta_{t})(\omega) = X_{s} (\theta_{t}\omega) =
\theta_{t} \omega (s) = \omega(t + s) = X_{t+s}(\omega)$.
\[p:zeta02\] If $h\in [0, \hat \zeta(\omega)]$, then $\zeta \circ \theta_{h}(\omega) = \zeta(\omega) - h$ for all $\omega \in \mathbb D^{d}$.
From the definition of $\theta$, $$\zeta \circ \theta_{h}(\omega) =
\inf\{t > 0: \omega(t + h) \notin \bar O\}
= \inf\{t' > h: \omega(t') \notin \bar O\} - h.$$ Therefore, it suffices to show that $\inf\{t' > h: \omega(t') \notin \bar O\} =
\inf\{t > 0: \omega(t) \notin \bar O\}$. Observe that $\omega(t) \in O$ for all $t \in [0, h)$ due to $h \le \hat \zeta$. Therefore,
1. if $\omega(h) \in \bar O$, then $\inf\{t' > h: \omega(t') \notin \bar O\} =
\inf\{t > 0: \omega(t) \notin \bar O\}$ by the definition of infimum;
2. if $\omega(h) \notin \bar O$, then $\inf\{t > 0: \omega(t) \notin \bar O\} = h$. On the other hand, $\inf\{t' > h: \omega(t') \notin \bar O\} = h$ by the right continuity of $\omega$.
\[l:con01\] Let $x\in \bar O$. If $\mathbb P^{x} \left(\hat\Pi \in \bar O^{c,*}\right) = 1$, then $\mathbb P^{x} \left(\hat \zeta = \zeta\right) =1$.
By Proposition \[p:zeta02\], $\zeta = \hat \zeta + \zeta \circ \theta_{\hat \zeta}$. Furthermore, if $X\left({\hat \zeta}\right) \in \bar O^{c,*}$, then $\mathbb P^{X({\hat \zeta})} (\zeta = 0) = 1$. Therefore, since $\mathbb P^{x} (X({\hat \zeta}) \in \bar O^{c,*}) = 1$, $$\mathbb P^{x} \left(\zeta = \hat\zeta \right) = \mathbb P^{x} \left(\zeta \circ \theta_{\hat \zeta} = 0\right) = \mathbb E^{x} \left[ \mathbb P^{X({\hat \zeta})} (\zeta = 0)\right] = 1.\qedhere$$
\[p:con03\] Suppose there exists a neighborhood $N_1$ of $\partial_1 O$ such that $\mathbb P^x \left( \hat \Pi\in \bar N_1\right) = 0$ for all $x\in \bar O$. Let $O_{1} = N_{1} \cup O$, and accordingly define $\zeta_{1} = \tau_{\bar O_{1}}, \hat \zeta_{1} = \tau_{O_{1}},
\Pi_{1} = X(\zeta_{1}), \hat \Pi_{1} = X(\hat \zeta_{1})$. Then, for all $x\in \bar O$ $$\mathbb P^{x}\left(\Pi = \hat \Pi= \Pi_{1} = \hat \Pi_{1},
\zeta = \hat \zeta = \zeta_{1} = \hat \zeta_{1}\right) = 1$$ and $\zeta_{1}$ and $\Pi_{1}$ are almost surely continuous under $\mathbb P^{x}$.
Since $\bar O_{1} \supset O_{1} \supset \bar O \supset O$, $$\label{eq:123}
\mathbb P^{x} \left(
\hat \zeta \le \zeta \le \hat \zeta_{1} \le \zeta_{1} \right) = 1.$$ We first show that $\mathbb P^{x} \left(\hat \zeta = \zeta_{1} \right) = 1.$ Since $\mathbb P^{x} ( \hat \Pi \in \bar N_{1}) = 0$ and $\mathbb P^{x} ( \hat \Pi \in O) = 0$ due to the right continuity of $X$, the latter can be rewritten as $$\mathbb P^{x} \left(\hat \Pi\in \bar O^{c} \setminus \bar N_{1}\right) +
\mathbb P^{x}\left(\hat \Pi \in \partial_{0} O \setminus \bar N_{1}\right) = 1.$$ Thus it suffices to discuss the following two cases:
- If $\omega \in \left\{\hat \Pi \in \bar O^{c} \setminus \bar N_{1} \right\}$, then since $\bar O^{c} \setminus \bar N_{1} \subset \bar O_{1}^{c}$, $\hat\zeta(\omega) = \zeta_{1} (\omega)$.
- If $ \omega \in \left\{\hat \Pi \in \partial_{0} O \setminus \bar N_{1}\right\}$, then since $\partial_{0} O \setminus \bar N_{1}$ is open relative to $\partial O$, there exists $r>0$ such that $B_{r}(\hat \Pi(\omega)) \cap \bar N_{1} = \emptyset$. In addition, since $\hat \Pi(\omega) \in \partial_{0} O \subset \bar O^{c, *}$, Lemma \[l:con01\] implies that there exists a sequence $h_{n}\downarrow 0$ as $n$ goes to infinity, such that $\omega(\hat \zeta + h_{n}) \notin \bar O$ for all $n$. Together with right continuity of $\omega$, $$\omega\left(\hat \zeta + h_{n}\right) \in B_{r}\left(\hat \Pi(\omega)\right) \setminus \bar O =
B_{r}(\hat\Pi(\omega)) \setminus \bar O_{1}, \hbox{ and }
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\omega\left(\hat\zeta + h_{n}\right) = \hat \Pi\left(\omega\right).$$ Thus, $\hat \zeta(\omega)
= \zeta_{1} (\omega)$ also holds.
Then the above two cases together with imply that $$\mathbb P^{x} \left(\hat \zeta = \zeta = \hat \zeta_1 = \zeta_{1}\right) = 1,$$ and $\mathbb P^{x}(\hat \Pi = \Pi = \Pi_{1} = \hat \Pi_{1}) = 1
$ also holds. Finally, applying Proposition \[p:con02\] on $x\in \bar O$ with respect to the expanded domain $O_{1}$. Since either $x\in \partial_{0} O\subset \partial_{0}O_{1}$ (note that $\mathbb P^x \left( \hat \Pi\in \bar N_1\right) = 0$), or $x\in \bar O \setminus \partial_{0} O \subset O_{1}$, $(\zeta_{1}, \Pi_{1})$ is continuous almost surely in $\mathbb P^{x}$.
By wrapping up all the above outcomes together, we can provide the proof of the main result on the sufficient conditions for the stochastic representation $v = \mathbb E [F]$ in to be a generalized viscosity solution of , stated in Theorem \[t:main01\] in Section \[sec:main\].
(of Theorem \[t:main01\]) As in Proposition \[p:con03\], we expand the domain $O$ into $O_{1}$ and set the corresponding operators $\left(\zeta_{1}, \hat \zeta_{1}, \Pi_{1}, \hat \Pi_{1}\right)$. Consider the $O_{1}$-associated value function $v_{1}$ in the form of , i.e. $$v_{1}(x) :=
\mathbb E^{x} \left[\int_{0}^{\zeta_{1}} e^{-\lambda s} \ell(X_s) ds + e^{-\lambda \zeta_{1}}
g( \Pi_{1}) \right],$$ then $v_{1} = v$ on $\bar O$ because $\mathbb P^{x}\left(\Pi = \hat \Pi= \Pi_{1} = \hat \Pi_{1},
\zeta = \hat \zeta = \zeta_{1} = \hat \zeta_{1}\right) = 1
$. Proposition \[p:con03\] also implies that $(\zeta_{1}, \Pi_{1})$ is continuous under $\mathbb P^{x}$ for all $x\in \bar O$. Therefore, $v_{1}$ is continuous in $\bar O$ due to Lemma \[l:v01\], so is $v$. Finally, Lemma \[l:gvis01\] concludes the main result.
Notice that in the definition of $v$ in , we adopt the random time $\zeta = \tau_{\bar O}$, instead of possible alternative choices $\hat \zeta = \tau_{O}$ or $\bar \zeta (\omega) = \inf \{t\ge 0: \omega_{t} \notin O\}$. All three are stopping times, and the main difference can be summarized as: $\bar \zeta$ is an entrance time to $O^c$, while $\hat \zeta$ and $\zeta$ are hitting time to $O^c$ and $\bar O^c$, respectively. From the proof of Theorem \[t:main01\], under the assumptions made, Proposition \[p:con03\] tells us that $$\mathbb P^{x} \left(\zeta = \hat \zeta, \Pi = \hat \Pi\right) = 1, \ \forall x\in \bar O$$ always holds. Therefore, if we denote as $\hat v$ and $\bar v$ the Feynman-Kac functionals with the random time $\zeta$ being replaced by $\hat \zeta$ and $\bar \zeta$ in , respectively, then $v= \hat v$ on $\bar O$. Hence, Theorem \[t:main01\] still hods with $v$ replaced by $\hat v$ without extra efforts. The main reason to adopt $\zeta$ is for the convenience throughout the presentation.
On the other hand, Theorem \[t:main01\] does not hold anymore, if $v$ is replaced by $\bar v$. Indeed, under the same assumptions of Theorem \[t:main01\], $$\mathbb P^{x} \left(\zeta = \hat \zeta = \bar \zeta, \Pi = \hat \Pi = \bar \Pi\right) = 1,$$ and therefore $v= \hat v = \bar v$, but only for $x\in O \cup \partial_{0} O$. As an example, consider the stochastic exit example with $\epsilon = 0$ given in Section \[sec:e01\]. It is a straight forward calculation that $$v(x)= \hat v(x) = \bar v(x), \ \forall x\in (0, 1],$$ while $$v(0) = \hat v(0) = 1 - e^{-1} \neq \bar v_{0} (0) = 0.$$
The next is an immediate consequence of Theorem \[t:main01\], which prepares us for the non-stationary problems discussed in the following section.
\[cor:01\] Let $O$ be a cylinder set of the form $O = (0, 1) \times A$ for some open set $A$. If (1) $\bar A^{c, *} = A^{c}$ with respect to $X_{-1}:= (X_{2}, \ldots, X_{d})$; and (2) $X_{1}$ is a subordinate process, then $v$ of is a generalized viscosity solution of with $\Gamma_{out} \supset \{1\} \times A$.
Since $X$ is Feller, both $X_{1}$ and $X_{-1}$ are Feller, and $\bar O^{c,*} = \bar O \setminus (\{0\} \times A)$. To apply Theorem \[t:main01\], we can take $N_{1} = \cup_{x\in A} N(x)$, where $N(x)$ is the neighborhood of $(0, x)$ given by $$N(x) = \left(- \frac{\rho_{x}}{2}, \frac{\rho_{x}}{2}\right) \times B_{\frac{\rho_{x}}{2}}\left(x\right)$$ with $\rho_{x} = dist(x, \partial A) \wedge 1$.
Applications to non-stationary problems {#sec:app}
=======================================
In this section, we apply the main results in Theorem \[t:main01\] to solve two non-stationary equations involving fractional Laplacian operators, one being linear and the other non-linear. Given the state space $O$, its non-stationary (parabolic) domain $Q_{T}$ and its non-stationary boundary $\mathcal P Q_{T}$ is defined by $$Q_{T} := (0, T) \times O, \quad
\mathcal P Q_{T} := (0, T] \times \mathbb R^{d} \setminus Q_{T}.$$ Given an operator $G(u,t,x)$, the viscosity solution of non-stationary problem $$G(u, t, x) = 0, \hbox{ on } Q_{T}, \hbox{ and } u = 0 \hbox{ on } \mathcal P Q_{T}.\label{non-liear}$$ can be defined similarly as in Definition \[d:vis04\] for the stationary problem:
\[d:vis05\]
1. Given $u \in USC (\bar Q_{T})$ and $(t, x)\in \bar Q_{T}$, the space of supertest functions is $$J^{+} (u, t, x) = \{\phi \in C_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb R^{d+1}),
\hbox{ s.t. } \phi \ge (u I_{\bar Q_{T}})^{*} \hbox{ and } \phi(t, x) = u(t, x)\}.$$ $u$ satisfies the viscosity subsolution property at $(t,x)$, if $G(\phi, t, x) \le 0$, for $\forall \phi \in J^{+} (u, t, x).$
2. Given $u \in LSC (\bar Q_{T})$ and $(t, x) \in \bar Q_{T}$, the space of subtest functions is, $$J^{-} (u, t, x) = \{\phi \in C_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb R^{d+1}),
\hbox{ s.t. } \phi \le (u I_{\bar Q_{T}} )_{*} \hbox{ and } \phi(t, x) = u(t, x)\}.$$ $u$ satisfies the viscosity supersolution property at $(t,x)$, if $G(\phi, t, x) \ge 0, \ \text{ for }\forall \phi \in J^{-} (u, t, x ).$
3. A function $u\in C(\bar Q_{T})$ is a viscosity solution (of ), if (i) $u$ satisfies both the viscosity subsolution and supersolution properties at each $(t, x) \in Q_{T}$; (ii) $u\equiv 0$ on $\mathcal P Q_{T} \cap \partial Q_{T}$.
The nonlinear equation we are interested in is $$\label{eq:pde19}
- \partial_{t}u -
|\nabla_{x} u|^{\gamma} + (- \Delta_{x})^{\alpha/2} u + 1 = 0 \hbox{ on } Q_{T}, \hbox{ and } u = 0 \hbox{ on } \mathcal PQ_{T}.$$ where for a function $\phi$ on $(t, x) \in \mathbb R \times \mathbb R^{d}$, the fractional Laplacian operator $(-\Delta_{x})^{\alpha/2} \phi(t, x) = (-\Delta)^{\alpha/2} \phi(t, \cdot)(x)$, and for a function $\tilde\phi$ on $x \in \mathbb R^{d}$, $$\label{eq:Delta}
-(-\Delta)^{\alpha/2} \tilde\phi(x) = C_{d} \int_{\mathbb R^{d} \setminus \{0\}} [ \tilde\phi(x + y) - \tilde\phi(x) - y \cdot D \tilde\phi(x) I_{B_{1}}(y)] \frac{dy}{|y|^{d+\alpha}}$$ with some normalization constant $C_{d}$, and the index of the fractional Laplacian operator $\alpha\in (0, 2)$.
Such form of equations naturally arises in many applications. If $\gamma = 1$, then becomes an HJB equation with $- |\nabla_{x} u| = \inf_{b \in B_{1}} (b \cdot \nabla_{x} u)$ (see [@CIL92], and its important roles in stochastic control problems in [@FS06; @Pha09; @YZ99; @Zha17]); If $\gamma >1$, then becomes deterministic KPZ equation (see [@AP18]). It can also be regarded as HJB equation because $- |\nabla_{x} u|^{\gamma} = \inf_{b\in \mathbb R^{d}} ( - b \cdot \nabla_{x} u + L(b))$, with $L(b) = \sup_{p\in \mathbb R^{d}} (p \cdot b - H(p))$ being the Legendre transform of the function $H(p) = |p|^{\gamma}$ (see Section 3.3 of [@Eva98]).
Linear equation
---------------
To analyze the solvability of , first consider a linear equation of a slightly more general form $$\label{eq:pde18}
\partial_{t} u + {\bf b} \cdot \nabla_{x} u - |\sigma|^{\alpha} (- \Delta_{x})^{\alpha/2} u + \ell = 0 \hbox{ on } Q_{T}, \hbox{ and }
u = 0 \hbox{ on } \mathcal P Q_{T}.$$ where $\bb$ is a Lipschitz continuous vector field $\mathbb R^{d} \mapsto \mathbb R^{d}$ known as a drift, $\sigma$ is a constant in $\mathbb R^d \times \mathbb R^d$ known as a volatility and $l$ is Lipschitz continuous function $\mathbb R^{d+1} \mapsto \mathbb R$. Define the associated stochastic process $X$ as $$\label{eq:sdeX}
d X_t = \bb(X_{t}) dt + \sigma d J_{t},$$ where $J$ is an isotropic $\alpha$-stable process for some $\alpha \in (0, 2)$ with its generating triplets (see notions of Levy process in [@Sat13] or [@Ber96]) $$A = 0, \ \nu(d y) = \frac{1}{|y|^{d+\alpha}}dy, \ b = 0.$$ There exists a unique strong solution for , and $X$ is a Feller process. It has a Càdlàg version, with its generator $\mathcal L$ satisfying that its domain $D(\mathcal L) \supset C^{2}(\mathbb R^{d})$. In particular, if $\phi \in C^{2}(\mathbb R^{d})$, then $\mathcal L$ is consistent to the following integro-differential operator, $$\label{eq:L01}
\mathcal L \phi(x) = \bb(x) \cdot \nabla \phi(x) - |\sigma|^{\alpha}(- \Delta)^{\alpha/2} \phi(x).$$ With obvious extension of $\mathcal L\phi(x)$ to partial operator $\mathcal L_{x}\phi(t, x)$ by $\mathcal L_{x} u( t, x) = \mathcal Lu (t, \cdot)(x)$, PDE becomes $$\partial_{t} u + \mathcal L_{x} u + \ell = 0 \hbox{ on }
Q_{T}, \hbox{ and } u = 0 \hbox{ on } \mathcal PQ_{T}.$$
Next, we solve the above non-stationary PDE via the solution of a stationary PDE and its associated random process: if has a smooth solution $u$ in $\bar Q_{T}$, then the change of variable of $$\label{eq:cv01}
y = (t, x) \in \mathbb R^{d+1}, \quad w(y) = e^{\lambda t}u(t, x)$$ with a given constant $\lambda >0$ implies that $w$ satisfies following stationary equation with the domain in $\mathbb R^{d+1}$, $$\label{eq:pde17}
- \mathcal L_{1} w(y) + \lambda w (y) - \ell_{1} (y) = 0 \hbox{ on } Q_{T},
\ \hbox{ and } w(y) = 0 \hbox{ on } \mathcal P Q_{T} \cap \partial Q_{T},$$ where $
\mathcal L_{1} w(y) = (\partial_{t} u + \mathcal L_{x} u) (t, x), \
\ell_{1} (y) = e^{\lambda t} \ell(y_{1}, y_{-1})
$ and $y_{-1} = [y_{2}, \ldots, y_{d+1}]^{T}$ is a $d$-dimensional column vector with elements of the vector $y$ except the first scalar $y_{1}$. In particular, $\mathcal L_{1}$ is the generator of $\mathbb R^{d+1}$-valued Markov process $s \mapsto Y_{s} = (t +s, X_{t+s})$ for $X$ of , which follows the following dynamics $$\label{eq:sdeY}
d Y_s = \bb_{1}(Y_s) dt + \sigma_{1} d J_{t}, \ Y_0 := y = (t, X_t),$$ where $\bb_{1}(y) = \left[
\begin{array}{c}
1\\
\bb(t, x)
\end{array}
\right]$ and $
\sigma_{1} = \left[
\begin{array}{c}
0_{1\times d} \\
I_{d}
\end{array}
\right]\sigma
$, with $d\times d$ identity matrix $I_{d}$ and $d$-dimensional zero row vector $0_{1\times d}$. Theorem \[t:main01\] can be applied to check if the Feynman-Kac functional associated to the random process is a generalized viscosity solution of the stationary PDE .
Furthermore, with additional regularity conditions, we show in the following that the generalized viscosity solution coincide with the viscosity solution in the sense of Definition \[d:vis05\]. As a preparation, we define the exterior cone condition.
For $y \in \mathbb R^{d}\setminus \{0\}$ and $\theta \in (0, \pi)$, define the cone $C(y, \theta)$ with the direction $y$ and aperture $\theta$ as $$C(y, \theta) = \{x\in \mathbb R^{d}: x \cdot y > |x| \cdot |y| \cdot \cos \theta \}.$$ Denote as $C_{r}(y, \theta)$ the truncated cone by $B_{r}$, i.e. $C_{r}(y, \theta) = C(y, \theta) \cap B_{r}$. $O$ satisfies [*exterior cone condition with $C_{r(x)}(\bv_{x}, \theta_{x})$*]{}, if there exists $r(x): \mathbb R^d \rightarrow \mathbb R^+$, $\bv_x: \mathbb{R^d}\rightarrow \mathbb R^d\setminus \{0\}$, and $\theta_x: \mathbb R^d \rightarrow (0,\pi)$, such that for each $x\in \partial O$, its associated truncated exterior cone $x + C_{r(x)}(\bv_{x}, \theta_{x}) \subset O^{c}$.
\[c:plin\] Let $\bb$ be Lipschitz and $\sigma$ be a constant, and $O$ be a bounded open set satisfying exterior cone condition. If $(\bb, \sigma)$ satisfies one of the following conditions ([**A1**]{}) - ([**A3**]{}),
1. $| \sigma | >0$ and $\alpha \ge 1$;
2. $|\sigma| >0$ and $\bb \equiv 0$;
3. $\bb(x) \cdot \bv_{x} > 0$ for all $x\in \partial O$,
then the function $v_{1}$ defined by $$\label{eq:v03}
v_{1}(t, x) = \mathbb E^{t, x} \Big[ \int_{t}^{\zeta \wedge T} \ell(s, X_{s}) ds\Big]$$ is a viscosity solution of , where $\zeta$ is defined as lifetime $\tau_{\bar O} (X)$ for $X$ in .
For $w(t, x) = e^{\lambda t} v_{1} (t, x)$ and $r = s - t$, $$w(t, x)
= e^{\lambda t}\mathbb E^{t, x} \Big[ \int_{t}^{\zeta \wedge T} \ell(s, X_s) ds\Big] = e^{\lambda t}\mathbb E^{t, x} \Big[ \int_{0}^{\zeta \wedge T - t} \ell(r+ t, X_{r + t}) dr\Big]
.$$ With $Y_s = (t+s, X_{t+s})$ as a $d+1$ dimensional process, and $\zeta_{1}$ as the lifetime of $Y$ in the state space $\bar Q_{T}$, $Y$ follows the dynamic of with initial state $Y_0 = (t, X_t)$, and $\zeta_1$ satisfies $$\zeta_{1} := \tau_{\bar Q_{T}} (Y) = \zeta \wedge T - t.$$ Therefore, $w$ can be represented in terms of $Y$: $$w(t, x) = e^{\lambda t}\mathbb E^{t, x} \Big[ \int_{0}^{\zeta_{1}} \ell(Y_r) dr\Big]
.$$ Since $Y_{1}(r) = t +r$, a further substitution of $\ell_{1} (y) = e^{\lambda t} \ell(y)$ leads to $$w(t, x) = \mathbb E^{t, x} \Big[ \int_{0}^{\zeta_{1}} e^{-\lambda r} e^{\lambda (t+r)}\ell(Y_r) dr\Big] = \mathbb E^{y} \Big[ \int_{0}^{\zeta_{1}} e^{-\lambda r} \ell_{1} (Y_r) dr\Big].$$
Since $O$ satisfies exterior cone condition, and one of the conditions ([**A1**]{}) - ([**A3**]{}) holds, Proposition \[p:meyer2\] of Section \[cone\] shows that every point of $\partial O$ is regular to $\bar O^{c}$. Then by Corollary \[cor:01\], $w$ is a generalized viscosity solution of , and $w(t,x) = 0$ if either $t= T$ or $x\in O^c$. Therefore, according to Definition \[d:vis05\], $v_1$ is the viscosity solution of .
Non-stationary nonlinear equation
---------------------------------
Back to the non-linear equation , $$\left\{
\begin{array}
{ll}
- \partial_{t}u -
|\nabla_{x} u|^{\gamma} + (- \Delta_{x})^{\alpha/2} u + 1 = 0, & \hbox{ on } Q_{T};\\
u = 0, & \hbox{ on } \mathcal P Q_{T}.
\end{array}\right.$$ As a starting point, we recall the following result about its sovability (see also [@BCI08; @CIL92]), which will be referred to as (CP + PM) in the rest of this section:
- (CP + PM) Suppose the comparison principle holds and Perron’s method is valid. If there exists sub and supersolution, then is uniquely solvable.
To concentrate on the application of the Feynman-Kac functional as a generalized viscosity solution, we will not pursue the validity of (CP+PM) and take it as granted in the discussion below. The next proposition shows that, our results about the linear equation above help establish the semi-solutions of , as a preparation for (CP+PM) argument.
\[p:nleq\] Let $O$ be a bounded open set satisfying exterior cone condition. If $\gamma\ge 1$ and $\alpha \in (0, 2)$, then there exist viscosity sub- and supersolutions of .
First $u = 0$ is supersolution. On the other hand, Corollary \[c:plin\] confirms that the stochastic representation $v_{1}$ of with $X \sim - (- \Delta_{x})^{\alpha/2}$ is the viscosity solution for $$\left\{
\begin{array}
{ll}
- \partial_{t}u + (- \Delta_{x})^{\alpha/2} u + 1 = 0, & \hbox{ on } Q_{T} := (0, T) \times B_{1};\\
u = 0, & \hbox{ on } \mathcal P Q_{T} := (0, T] \times \mathbb R^{d} \setminus Q_{T}.
\end{array}\right.$$ By non-negativity of $|\nabla_{x} u|^{\gamma}$, $v_{1}$ is also a viscosity subsolution of .
Summary {#sec:sum}
=======
In this paper, we provide the sufficient condition for $v$ of to be the generalized viscosity solution of in Theorem \[t:main01\]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first result for the verification of the Feynman-Kac functional as the generalized viscosity solution of the Dirichlet problem in the presence of jump diffusion. We also provide Example \[exm:15\] where the assumptions in Theorem \[t:main01\] do not hold and the Feynman-Kac functional fails to be continuous. Not to distract the readers from the main idea, we have rather strong assumptions (Assumption \[assumption\]) on $g, \ell$, and $\lambda$. However, these conditions could be appropriately relaxed with some mild integrability conditions.
Although the proof of Theorem \[t:main01\] is mainly probabilistic, it gives an alternative constructive proof for the existence of generalized viscosity solution on Integro-Differential equation with Dirichlet boundary, which could be utilized for the solvability of nonlinear equation together with the comparison principle and Perron’s method. In other words, Theorem \[t:main01\] together with the probabilistic regularity, e.g. as in Proposition \[p:meyer2\], yields a purely analytical result on the solvability of the Dirichlet problem. As an application, we considered an $\mathbb R^{d+1}$-valued process on a cylinder domain $Q_{T} = (0, T) \times O$ (see Corollary \[c:plin\]). If $X_{1}$ is uniform motion in time (i.e., $d X_{1} (t) = dt$) and $X_{-1} = (X_{2}, \ldots, X_{d+1})$ is an $\mathbb R^{d}$-valued process with each point of $\partial O$ regular for $\bar O^{c}$, then the corresponding Feynman-Kac functional is easily verified as the generalized viscosity solution of the stationary problem . Moreover, if one replace the uniform motion $X_{1}$ by a subordinate process, assumptions of Theorem \[t:main01\] can be verified analogously.
It is desirable to check if the value of associated stochastic control problem (or nonlinear Feynman-Kac functional) coincides with the solution of constructed from semi-solutions and Perron’s method. On the other hand, relaxing the assumption of $\lambda >0$ may result in an extension to gauge theory (see [@CR81] and [@Son93]). Both are interesting topics for our future work .
Appendix
========
Characterization of $\Gamma_{out}$ {#sec:go}
----------------------------------
From the definitions of $v$ in and of $\Gamma_{out} = \{x\in \partial O: v = g\}$, $\Gamma_{out}$ depends on the function $g$ via $v$, and we explicitly write it as $\Gamma_{out}[g]$ in this section.
\[l:gvis02\] If $\mathbb P^{x}(\zeta<\infty) = 1$ for every $x$, then $\cap_{g\in C_{0}^{0,1}(\mathbb R^{d})} \Gamma_{out}[g] = \partial_0 O
$.
Lemma \[l:gvis01\] implies that $$\cap_{g\in C_{0}^{0,1}(\mathbb R^{d}, \mathbb R)} \Gamma_{out}[g] \supset \partial_0 O.$$ On the other hand, for any $x_{0} \in \partial_1 O$, take $$g(x) = e^{-|x- x_{0}|} \frac{\|\ell\|_{\infty}/\lambda +1 }{1 - p(x_{0})},$$ where $p(x_0) = \mathbb E^{x_0}[e^{-\lambda \zeta}]$. Since $x_{0} \in \partial_1 O$, $\mathbb P^{x_0}(\zeta > 0 ) >0$, and $\mathbb P^{x_0}(\zeta<\infty) = 1$ by assumption, $p(x_{0}) \in (0, 1)$ and $g$ is a well-defined strictly positive function in $C_{0}^{0,1}(\mathbb R^{d})$. Furthermore, yields an estimate of $v$: $$\begin{aligned}
v(x) <& 1 + \frac{\|\ell\|_{\infty}}{\lambda} + \|g\|_{\infty} p(x_0) = 1 + \frac{\|\ell\|_{\infty}}{\lambda} + \frac{\|\ell\|_{\infty}/\lambda +1 }{1 - p(x_{0})} p(x_0)\\
=& \frac{\|\ell\|_{\infty}/\lambda +1 }{1 - p(x_{0})} = g(x_0).
\end{aligned}$$ Thus $v(x_0)\neq g(x_0)$ and $x_{0} \notin
\cap_{g\in C_{0}^{0,1}(\mathbb R^{d})} \Gamma_{out}[g]$. By arbitrariness of $x_{0}\in\partial_1 O$, $\cap_{g\in C_{0}^{0,1}(\mathbb R^{d})} \Gamma_{out}[g] = \partial_0 O$.
Regularity under the exterior cone condition {#cone}
--------------------------------------------
In this section, we prove the regularity condition used in Corollary \[c:plin\] for the diffusion $X$ satisfying $$d X_t = \bb(X_{t}) dt + \sigma d J_{t}.$$
\[p:meyer2\] Let $\bb$ be Lipschitz and $\sigma$ be a constant, and $O$ be a bounded open set satisfying exterior cone condition with $C_{r(x)}(\bv_{x}, \theta_{x})$. In addition, assume that $(\bb, \sigma)$ satisfies one of the conditions of ([**A1**]{}) - ([**A3**]{}). Then, any $x\in O^{c}$ is regular for the set $\bar O^{c}$ with respect to the process , i.e. $O^{c} = \bar O^{c,r} = \bar O^{c,*}$.
By the right continuity of the sample path, $\bar O^{c} \subset \bar O^{c, r}$ and $O \cap \bar O^{c,r} = \emptyset$. Therefore, it suffices to verify that $\partial O \subset \bar O^{c,r}$.
Fix $x\in \partial O$, and let $Y = X \cdot \bv_{x} $ be the projection of the process $X$ of on the unit vector $\bv_{x}$ pointing the direction of the exterior cone. Then, $Y$ has a representation of $$dY_{t} = \hat \bb(X_{t})dt + \hat \sigma d \hat J_t, \ Y_0 =
x \cdot \bv_{x},$$ where $\hat \bb(x) = \bb(x) \cdot \bv_{x}$, $\hat \sigma = |\bv'_{x} \sigma|$, and $\hat J$ is isotropic one dimensional $\alpha$-stable process with its generating triplets $A = 0, \ \nu(d z) = \frac{1}{|z|^{1+\alpha}} dz, \ b = 0$. To see that $\hat J$ is indeed an $\alpha$-stable process, notice that the characteristic function of $J_1$ is $$\mathbb E [\exp \{i u \cdot J_1\}] = e^{- c_{0} |u|^{\alpha}}, \
\forall u \in \mathbb R^{d},$$ for some normalizing constant $c_{0}$. Therefore, the characteristic function of $\hat J_{1}$ is $$\mathbb E [\exp \{i u \cdot \hat J_{1}\}] =
\mathbb E [\exp \{i u \bv_{x} \cdot J_{1}\}] =
e^{-c_{0} |u\bv_{x}|^{\alpha}} =
e^{-c_{0} |u|^{\alpha}}, \
\forall u \in \mathbb R,$$ and hence $\hat J$ is an $\alpha$-stable process.
By the definition of the exterior cone condition, the regularity of $x$ for $\bar O^{c}$ with respect to process $X$ can be implied by the regularity of $y=x \cdot \bv_{x}$ for the open line segment $(y, y + r_{x})$ with respect to the process $Y$. Moreover, due to the right continuity of the sample path, it is equivalent to check the regularity of $y$ with respect to the half line $(y, \infty)$, i.e. $\mathbb P^{y} \left(\tau_{(-\infty, y]}(Y) = 0\right) = 1$.
- If $|\sigma|>0$ and $\alpha \ge 1$, then consider $$\hat Y_{t} = y - \sup_{x \in \bar O}|\bb(x) | t + \hat \sigma \hat J_t.$$ Note that $\hat Y_{t} \le Y_{t}$, but $\hat Y$ is Type C process by [@Sat13] and $\mathbb P^{y}(\tau_{(-\infty, y]} (\hat Y) = 0) = 1$. Therefore, $\mathbb P^{y} (\tau_{(-\infty, y]}(Y) = 0) = 1.$
- If $|\sigma|>0$ and $\bb \equiv 0$, then $X$ is simply an isotropic Levy process and $\mathbb P^{y} \left(\tau_{(-\infty, y]}(Y) = 0\right) = 1.$
- If $\hat \bb(x) = \bb (x) \cdot \bv_{x} > 0$, then define $h:= \inf\{t \ge 0: \hat \bb(X_{t}) < \frac 1 2 \hat \bb(x)\}$. Due to the right continuity of $t \mapsto \hat \bb(X_{t})$, $h>0$ $\mathbb P^{x}$-almost surely. Consider $$\hat Y_{t} = y + \frac 1 2 \hat \bb(x) t + \hat \sigma \hat J_t,$$ then $Y_{t} \ge \hat Y_{t}$ on $(0, h)$. Moreover, by Theorem 47.5 of [@Sat13], $\hat Y$ is a Type B process with $\frac 1 2 \hat \bb(x)>0$, and $\mathbb P^{y}\left(\tau_{(-\infty, y]} (\hat Y_{t})= 0\right) = 1$. Therefore, $\mathbb P^{y} \left(\tau_{(-\infty, y]}(Y) = 0\right) = 1.\qedhere$
[10]{}
B. Abdellaoui and I. Peral. Towards a deterministic [KPZ]{} equation with fractional diffusion: the stationary problem. , 31(4):1260–1298, 2018.
G. Barles, E. Chasseigne, and C. Imbert. On the [D]{}irichlet problem for second-order elliptic integro-differential equations. , 57(1):213–246, 2008.
E. Bayraktar and Q. Song. Solvability of the nonlinear [D]{}irichlet problem with integro-differential operators. , 56(1):292–315, 2018.
E. Bayraktar, Q. Song, and J. Yang. On the continuity of stochastic exit time control problems. , 29(1):48–60, 2011.
A. Bensoussan and J. Lions. . $\mu $. Gauthier-Villars, Montrouge; Heyden & Son, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, 1984. Translated from the French by J. M. Cole.
J. Bertoin. , volume 121 of [*Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
P. Billingsley. . Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics: Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, second edition, 1999. A Wiley-Interscience Publication.
K. L. Chung and K. M. Rao. Feynman-[K]{}ac functional and the [S]{}chrödinger equation. In [*Seminar on [S]{}tochastic [P]{}rocesses, 1981 ([E]{}vanston, [I]{}ll., 1981)*]{}, volume 1 of [*Progr. Prob. Statist.*]{}, pages 1–29. Birkhäuser, Boston, Mass., 1981.
K. L. Chung and J. B. Walsh. , volume 249 of [*Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften \[Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences\]*]{}. Springer, New York, second edition, 2005.
R. Cont and P. Tankov. . Chapman & Hall/CRC Financial Mathematics Series. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2004.
R. Cont and E. Voltchkova. Integro-differential equations for option prices in exponential [L]{}évy models. , 9(3):299–325, 2005.
M. G. Crandall, H. Ishii, and P.-L. Lions. User’s guide to viscosity solutions of second order partial differential equations. , 27(1):1–67, 1992.
G. Di Nunno, B. Ø ksendal, and F. Proske. . Universitext. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009.
L. C. Evans. , volume 19 of [*Graduate Studies in Mathematics*]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1998.
P. M. N. Feehan and C. A. Pop. Stochastic representation of solutions to degenerate elliptic and parabolic boundary value and obstacle problems with [D]{}irichlet boundary conditions. , 367(2):981–1031, 2015.
W. H. Fleming and H. M. Soner. , volume 25 of [*Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability*]{}. Springer, New York, second edition, 2006.
R. Gong, C. Mou, and A. Swiech. Stochastic representations for solutions to nonlocal bellman equations. 2017. Available at arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.00193.
P. Guasoni and G. Wang. Consumption in incomplete markets. 2016. Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2411236.
D. Heath and M. Schweizer. Martingales versus [PDE]{}s in finance: an equivalence result with examples. , 37(4):947–957, 2000.
O. Kallenberg. . Probability and its Applications (New York). Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 2002.
I. Karatzas and D. Ocone. A leavable bounded-velocity stochastic control problem. , 99(1):31–51, 2002.
I. Karatzas and S. E. Shreve. , volume 39 of [*Applications of Mathematics (New York)*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998.
B. Ø ksendal. . Universitext. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, sixth edition, 2003. An introduction with applications.
B. Ø ksendal and A. Sulem. . Universitext. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005.
H. Pham. , volume 61 of [*Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009.
P. Protter. , volume 21 of [*Applications of Mathematics (New York)*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990. A new approach.
D. Revuz and M. Yor. , volume 293 of [*Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften \[Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences\]*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, third edition, 1999.
L. C. G. Rogers and D. Williams. . Cambridge Mathematical Library. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000. Foundations, Reprint of the second (1994) edition.
S. Rong. On solutions of backward stochastic differential equations with jumps and applications. , 66(2):209–236, 1997.
K. Sato. , volume 68 of [*Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013. Translated from the 1990 Japanese original, Revised edition of the 1999 English translation.
R. M. Song. Probabilistic approach to the [D]{}irichlet problem of perturbed stable processes. , 95(3):371–389, 1993.
J. Yong and X. Y. Zhou. , volume 43 of [*Applications of Mathematics (New York)*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999. Hamiltonian systems and HJB equations.
J. Zhang. , volume 86 of [ *Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling*]{}. Springer, New York, 2017. From linear to fully nonlinear theory.
C. Zhu, G. Yin, and N. A. Baran. Feynman-[K]{}ac formulas for regime-switching jump diffusions and their applications. , 87(6):1000–1032, 2015.
[^1]: School of Mathematics, Jilin University. [email protected].
[^2]: Department of Mathematical Sciences, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and Department of Mathematics, City University of Hong Kong. [email protected].
[^3]: Department of Mathematical Sciences, Worcester Polytechnic Institute. [email protected].
[^4]: Another possible classification is “classical” v.s. “viscosity” or “weak” solution by its smoothness.
[^5]: The explicit solution is obtained by SageMath code implemented by a cloud computing platform [*CoCalc*]{}, see [https://github.com/songqsh/181023PubExit]{} .
[^6]: $f\in USC(\bar O)$ means $f$ is upper semicontinuous in $\bar O$, and $f\in LSC(\bar O)$ means $-f \in USC(\bar O)$. Moreover, $f^{*}$ and $f_{*}$ are USC and LSC envelopes of $f$, respectively. $I_{A}(\cdot)$ is the indicator function of the set $A$.
[^7]: A neighborhood of $\partial_{1}O$ is an open set $N_{1} \in\mathbb R^{d}$ such that $\partial_{1} O \subset N_{1}$.
[^8]: By definition $\Gamma_{out}$ depends on the function $g$, and should be denoted as $\Gamma_{out}[g]$, and the argument $g$ is omitted in the rest of the paper, unless ambiguity arises.
[^9]: The argument $x$ is dropped in the rest of the paper if $x = 0$
[^10]: To avoid ambiguity, let $\mathbb P(A|B) = 1$ whenever $\mathbb P(B) = 0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In 1971 Zel’dovich predicted that quantum fluctuations and classical waves reflected from a rotating absorbing cylinder will gain energy and be amplified. This key conceptual step towards the understanding that black holes may also amplify quantum fluctuations, has not been verified experimentally due to the challenging experimental requirements on the cylinder rotation rate that must be larger than the incoming wave frequency. Here we experimentally demonstrate that these conditions can be satisfied with acoustic waves. We show that low-frequency acoustic modes with orbital angular momentum are transmitted through an absorbing rotating disk and amplified by up to 30% or more when the disk rotation rate satisfies the Zel’dovich condition. These experiments address an outstanding problem in fundamental physics and have implications for future research into the extraction of energy from rotating systems.'
author:
- Marion Cromb
- 'Graham M. Gibson'
- Ermes Toninelli
- 'Miles J. Padgett'
- 'Ewan M. Wright'
- Daniele Faccio
title: Amplification of waves from a rotating body
---
[**[Introduction.]{}**]{} In 1969, Roger Penrose proposed a method to extract the rotational energy of a rotating black hole, now known as Penrose superradiance [@penroseGravitational1969]. Penrose suggested that an advanced civilisation might one day be able to extract energy from a rotating black hole by lowering and then releasing a mass from a structure that is co-rotating with the black hole. Yakov Zel’dovich translated this idea of rotational superradiance from a rotating black hole to that of a rotating absorber such as a metallic cylinder, showing it would amplify incident electromagnetic waves, even vacuum fluctuations, that had angular momentum [@zeldovichGeneration1971; @zeldovichAmplification1972; @zeldovichRotating1986]. These notions involving black holes and vacuum fluctuations converged in Hawking’s 1974 prediction that non-rotating black holes will amplify quantum fluctuations, thus dissipating energy and eventually evaporating. Analogue laboratory experiments have been carried out that confirm these physical ideas: Penrose superradiance, [[or superradiant scattering]{}]{}, in classical hydrodynamical vortices in the form of ‘over-reflection’ [@over; @Silke1] and Hawking’s predictions classically in flowing water [@silke2] and in optics [@Bel; @Leo], plus a quantum analogue in superfluids [@jeff1; @jeff2; @jeff3]. However, experimental verification of Zel’dovich amplification [[in the form of amplification of waves from an absorbing cylinder]{}]{} is still lacking.\
Zel’dovich found the general condition for amplification from an absorbing, rotating body:$$\label{e:Zeldy}
\omega - \ell\Omega < 0$$ where $\omega$ is the incident wave frequency, $\ell$ is the order of (what it is referred to in the current literature as) the orbital angular momentum, OAM [@allenOrbital1992; @andrewsAngular2013; @padgettLight2004] and $\Omega$ is the rotation rate of the absorber. When this is satisfied, the absorption changes sign and the rotating medium acts as an amplifier. Outgoing waves then have an increased amplitude, therefore extracting energy from the rotational energy of the body in the same spirit of Penrose’s proposal.\
Satisfying the condition in Eq. with electromagnetic waves is extremely challenging. For $\ell=1$ we would need rotation speeds $\Omega$ in the GHz to PHz region (microwave to optical frequencies) which is many orders of magnitude faster than the typical 100-1000 Hz rotation speeds available for motor-driven mechanically rotating objects. The highest OAM reported to date in an experiment is of order $\ell\sim10,000$ in the optical domain [@largeOAM], yet still leaves little hope of closing the rotation frequency gap required to satisfy Eq. [@Ewan1; @goodingReinventing2019].\
However, recent work has shown that this condition and the observation of gain is theoretically achievable with acoustic waves [@faccioSuperradiant2019; @Silke_sound; @goodingDynamics2020]. The proposed interaction geometry requires sending an acoustic wave in transmission through a rotating absorbing disk. [[This provides a strong technical advantage compared e.g. to sending the waves radially inwards towards the outer surface of a cylinder, as it allows us to use relatively low frequencies for both the waves and the disk rotation whilst keeping the dimensions sufficiently compact (the disk can be made very thin).]{}]{} An acoustic wave with OAM order $\ell$ will experience a rotational Doppler shift [@courtialRotational1998; @bialynicki-birulaRotational1997] due to the disk rotation, such that the wave frequency is shifted by a quantity $\omega-\ell\Omega$. This implies that the acoustic wave frequency will become negative when the Zel’dovich condition Eq. is satisfied, which is precisely the pre-requisite physical condition outlined by Zel’dovich in his original work. This condition was recently observed by Gibson et al. [@gibsonReversal2018] by measuring the acoustic frequency with a rotating microphone. Although one cannot directly measure negative frequencies, the switch in sign of the acoustic wave frequency manifested itself as a switch in the sign of the wave orbital angular momentum, which was measured by tracking the phase difference between two closely spaced, co-rotating microphones.\
In this work we experimentally demonstrate that Zel’dovich amplification is readily observable with acoustic waves with relatively low OAM ($\ell=3,4,5$) and at low acoustic frequencies of order of 60 Hz, i.e. readily accessible rotation rates for the absorbing disk such that spurious signals (for example, due to noise) are also minimised. Our acoustic measurements are resolved as a spectrogram and analysed as a function of disk rotation frequency, showing an intensity gain of $\sim$30% of acoustic energy over a range of orbital angular momenta. These measurements represent a significant step forward in our understanding of Zel’dovich amplification, a fundamental wave-matter interaction that lies at the heart of a series of physical processes in condensed matter systems, superfluids and black holes.\
![[**[Schematic outline of experiment.]{}**]{} 16 loudspeakers (Visaton; SC 8N) are arranged in a ring (diameter $\approx$0.47m) to create an OAM acoustic field, channelled by acoustic waveguides to a smaller area (diameter $\approx$0.19 m) and incident on a rotating disk of sound-absorbing foam (S). The absorbing disk also carries two closely spaced (2 cm distance) microphones (M). The microphones transmit their data via Bluetooth (Avantree; Saturn Pro), for live data acquisition whilst in rotation. The set-up is adapted from that used by Gibson et. al. [@gibsonReversal2018]. Insets indicate the various configurations used in the experiments for the rotating disk and absorbing foam: (i) supporting disk with microphones and absorber are co-rotating; (ii) absorber is detached and remains static, whilst microphones rotate; (iii) an absorber is placed in front of only one of the two microphones; (iv) absorber is completely removed, microphones rotate.[]{data-label="f:setup"}](layout.png){width="1\columnwidth"}
[**[Model.]{}**]{} An acoustic conical wave carrying OAM $\ell$ is normally incident onto an absorbing material rotating at frequency $\Omega$, and which is surrounded on both sides by non-rotating air. The acoustic wave equation for density variations $\tilde\rho$ in a frame rotating with the medium is [@boyd]: $$\label{start}
{\partial^2 \tilde\rho\over \partial t^2} - \Gamma'\nabla^2 {\partial\tilde\rho\over \partial t} - v^2 \nabla^2 \tilde\rho = 0,$$ where $v$ is the sound velocity and $\Gamma'$ the damping parameter: A similar wave equation applies in the surrounding air with sound velocity $v_0$ and $\Gamma'=0$.
![[**[Spectrally resolved acoustic measurements.]{}**]{} An example of a measured spectrogram showing the measured acoustic frequency ($\omega$) spectrum in the rotating frame for increasing rotation frequencies ($\Omega$). The OAM beam is generated in the lab frame at 60 Hz at a constant volume, with the speaker output phases optimised for the $\ell$=4 mode. For each value of $\Omega$, the data shows an independent spectrum, obtained from the Fourier transform of the measured signal from one of the two microphones on the rotating disk. The data clearly shows the input 60 Hz signal split into multiple components, corresponding to the various OAM modes (indicated in the graph) as a result of a rotational Doppler shift, $\omega-\ell\Omega$, that leads to linearly varying frequency as a function of $\Omega$, for each $\ell$-mode. The microphone response decreases for decreasing measured $\omega$ and below 4 Hz is zero (i.e. below the noise level). The supplementary video shows an animation with the overlaid acoustic signal that is recorded with increasing $\Omega$.[]{data-label="f:spectrogram"}](Figure0_with_gain.png){width="8cm"}
Under the condition that the medium length $L$ is much less than the acoustic wavelength, the transmission of the beam incident from air onto the rotating medium may be solved by treating the effects of the medium absorption term in within the first Born approximation. The details of this model have been worked out previously (supplementary material in [@faccioSuperradiant2019]) and lead to the following expression for the acoustic beam transmittance: $$\label{theory}
T=\left[1-\cfrac{L\omega^2}{k_z v^4}\Gamma' (\omega-\ell\Omega)\right]C(\omega),$$ where $k_z=(\omega/v)\cos\theta$ is the longitudinal component of the sound wavevector and can be controlled through the conical beam focusing angle, $\theta$. We underline that it is the term $(\omega-\ell\Omega)$ in the transmittance that can change the sign of the absorption and lead to gain in correspondence with the Zel’dovich condition in Eq. .\
[[Equation also includes the frequency response of the microphones, $C(\omega)$]{}]{}. Standard microphones exhibit a roll-off in sensitivity starting below $\sim100$ Hz. We model this response with a function $C(\omega)=1-\exp[-(\omega-\ell\Omega)^2/\sigma^2]$, where $\sigma$ determines the rate at which the sensitivity drops as a function of frequency. However the precise form of this function is not critical to our main conclusions, as the experiments described below compare between two microphones with the same frequency response.\
[**[Experiments.]{}**]{} We generate an acoustic wave with orbital angular momentum using a ring of speakers and tubes that guide the sound directly onto the rotating disk, as shown in Fig. \[f:setup\]. The ring of 16 loudspeakers are all driven at the same frequency ($\omega = 60$ Hz), each with a specific phase delay in order to approximate a helical phase front, generating a beam carrying OAM [@gibsonReversal2018]. Depending on the phase delay between adjacent speakers, different OAM states can be produced. For example, a phase delay of $\pi/2$ radians between adjacent speakers creates an OAM beam of topological charge $\ell=4$.\
![[**[The effect of rotation.]{}**]{} A measurement of the acoustic amplitude for $\ell=4$ for the case of a rotating absorber (red curve) and for the case in which the absorber is detached from the rotating disk holding the microphones, and hence is static (blue curve). The rotating absorber case shows a clear increase of the transmitted acoustic amplitude above the Zel’dovich condition ($\omega-\ell\Omega<0$ is satisfied for this case when $\Omega>15$ Hz). []{data-label="f:staticabsorber"}](Figure2.png){width="7cm"}
A motor (RS Components; 536-6046) is used to rotate the disk fitted with two closely spaced microphones. Sound absorbing material can be placed in front of both, one or neither of the microphones (as illustrated in Fig. \[f:setup\] (i), (iii) and (iv) respectively). Test measurements are taken with the two microphones under experimental conditions in order to ensure that they exhibit the same acoustic response, with and without the absorbing material placed in front of them (see Methods). The data from the microphones is communicated via Bluetooth to a computer.\
Fig. \[f:spectrogram\] shows an example of a measured spectrogram. The acoustic frequency is set to 60 Hz on all of the speakers and phase delays are set to generate waves with $\ell=4$ - other $\ell$ modes are expected to also be generated as a result of the imperfections in speaker uniformity and the limited number of speakers used [@gibsonReversal2018]. The Zel’dovich condition and inversion from absorption to gain is therefore expected for a disk rotation of 15 Hz. The disk is therefore rotated in the 0 to 30 Hz range, which also corresponds to the linear response range of our motor (i.e. linear increase of rotation speed with driving voltage). The spectrogram exhibits a series of features: as the disk rotation rate increases, the input 60 Hz frequency splits into a series of signals, depending on the OAM value $\ell$ with a clear signal measured for $\ell=0-5$ (as labelled in the figure). We can also clearly see an additional signal that is due to the noise generated by the rotation and therefore appears at the same frequency as the rotation rate.\
![[**[Evidence of absolute gain.]{}**]{} The measured acoustic amplitude with $\ell=4$ and with the absorber placed on one of the microphones (red curve) but not on the other (blue curve) shows clear differences in the signals. For rotation rates $\Omega<15$ Hz (i.e. such that $\omega-\ell\Omega>0$) absorption is observed in particular at the lowest frequencies (blue shaded area). Conversely, at the highest frequencies (where $\omega-\ell\Omega<0$), a clear gain in the transmitted signal is observed. The $\sim1.3$x higher signal at $\Omega\sim30$ Hz compared to $\Omega\sim0$ Hz highlights the presence of absolute gain of the acoustic signal. Theoretical predictions from Eq. are shown with the damping parameter $\Gamma'=0$ m$^2$/s (no absorber, thick blue curve) and $\Gamma'=8\cdot 10^4$ m$^2$/s (thick red curve) [[The shaded areas show the standard deviation of the measured signals across 7 sets of data (2 seconds of acquisition each)]{}]{}. []{data-label="f:foamnocomp"}](Figure4new.png){width="7cm"}
All of the observed OAM modes shift in frequency due to the rotational Doppler shift ($\Delta\omega = -\ell\Omega$) and after the labelled OAM modes have gone through zero frequency they satisfy their Zel’dovich condition. Beyond zero, the rotational Doppler shift formula predicts negative frequencies, which results in an inversion of the sign of $\ell$ (i.e. positively sloped traces in the spectrogram) when measured in the rotating frame [@gibsonReversal2018]. In order to verify the presence of gain in this Zel’dovich regime, we proceed to extract the amplitude for each $\ell$ value from the spectrograms.\
![[**[Comparison for different OAM beams.]{}**]{} The spectrograms show signals for a range of $\ell$ that can also be analysed and compared. For all $\ell$ that pass through the Zel’dovich condition we see evidence of transmittance greater than 1 as a result of rotation. Comparing the transmission values for the same rotational Doppler shifted frequency (i.e. -30 Hz, corresponding to $\Omega=30$, 22.5 and 18 Hz (indicated as solid circles) for $\ell=3$, 4 and 5, respectively), the gain in transmittance appears, within the experimental error, to be constant, $\sim1.1$ (horizontal dashed line) for all $\ell$ and increases linearly with $\ell$ for a fixed $\Omega$ (compare e.g. at $\Omega=30$ Hz). Both observations confirm the predictions of Eq. . Theoretical fits from Eq. are also shown as dashed lines, with no varying parameters (other than $\ell$). []{data-label="f:multipleOAMamplified"}](Figure1.png){width="7cm"}
[**[Results.]{}**]{} In Fig. \[f:staticabsorber\] we show the effect of rotation on transmitted acoustic signal for the $\ell$=4 mode as the disk rotation rate is increased from 0 to 30 Hz. The two curves indicate two different cases: the absorbing disk is co-rotating with the microphones (red curve) and the absorbing disk is slightly detached from the motor mount so that the microphones rotate whilst the disk remains static (blue curve). As the rotation speed is increased, the modes are Doppler shifted and the measured signal from both microphones decreases due to the lower microphone response at lower acoustic frequencies. As the mode is Doppler shifted through zero frequency (at $\Omega=15$ Hz), the measured acoustic frequency increases again and the transmitted signal increases. In the non-rotating case, no increase is observed in the transmitted signal for the same rotational Doppler shift (i.e. for symmetric points around $\Omega=15$ Hz). Conversely, when the absorber is in rotation with no other changes to the experiment, we observe a clear increase in the transmitted signal at high rotation rates that satisfy the Zel’dovich condition (shaded area).\
In Fig. \[f:foamnocomp\] we show evidence of absolute gain in the acoustic signal, i.e. evidence that the transmitted energy is larger than the incident energy. One microphone (microphone 1, red curve) in the rotating frame has absorbing foam in front of it, the other microphone next to it (microphone 2, blue curve) does not. We observe that at low rotation speeds (2-5 Hz), the transmitted signal is lower compared to microphone 2, as it has been absorbed by the foam. Conversely, rotating faster than $\Omega=15$ Hz and thus satisfying the Zel’dovich condition leads to clear increase in the transmission signal compared to the non-absorbing case. The amplification is such that the signal transmitted through the absorber above $\Omega=25$ Hz is greater by about 30$\%$ than the signal at the slowest rotation speeds that did not pass through the absorber. This indicates absolute gain: we measure more sound with the rotating absorber than without it.\
The thick solid curves in Fig. \[f:foamnocomp\] show the theoretical predictions from Eq. . We first proceed to fit Eq. to the data from microphone 2 that has no absorber present ($\Gamma'=0$) thus obtaining the shape of $C(\omega)$, the frequency response of the microphones. This determines the frequency sensitivity parameter, $\sigma=22$ Hz. We then refer to the data from microphone 1 and use the low rotation frequency (2-5 Hz) data to determine the value of the dissipation parameter, $\Gamma'=8\cdot 10^4$ m$^2$/s. We notice that the same theoretical curve provides a quantitatively accurate prediction of the full behaviour for all $\Omega$, including the 30% gain measured at high rotation frequencies, thus further corroborating the interpretation of the gain originating from the Zel’dovich effect.\
Further analysis shown in Fig. \[f:multipleOAMamplified\] of multiple OAM modes transmitted through the rotating absorber reveals amplification for all the OAM modes analysed that satisfy the Zel’dovich condition, not just the strongest $\ell=4$ mode. In more detail, if we consider in Fig. \[f:multipleOAMamplified\] a fixed Doppler shifted frequency, e.g. $\omega-\ell\Omega=-30$ Hz for all $\ell$ (corresponding to $\Omega=30$, 22.5 and 18 Hz for $\ell=3$, 4 and 5, respectively), we note that all curves within the experimental error show the same gain of $\sim10\%$. If instead we consider a fixed disk rotation frequency, e.g. $\Omega=30$ Hz we see that the gain, i.e. transmitted acoustic energy, increases linearly with $\ell$. Both of these observations are in agreement with the theoretical prediction Eq. .\
[**[Conclusions.]{}**]{} Amplification of waves from a rotating absorber as predicted by Zel’dovich is a foundational prediction in fundamental physics that lies somewhere between the proposition by Penrose that energy can be extracted from rotating black holes and Hawking’s prediction that static black holes will evaporate as a result of the interaction with quantum vacuum. Zel’dovich’s original model indeed referred to amplification of vacuum modes from a rotating metallic cylinder but was also extended to include the amplification of classical waves. Whilst very hard to verify with optical or electromagnetic waves, acoustic waves allow direct measurements of significant amplification of waves due to a rotating absorber. A key step in achieving this result is the use of a geometry where the waves are transmitted through a thin absorbing cylinder [@faccioSuperradiant2019; @Silke_sound; @goodingDynamics2020] rather than in reflection from an extended cylinder. This relaxes the experimental constraints and limitations that arise in the original proposal due to the requirement that the cylinder length be larger than the wavelength, in order to ensure interaction and reflection of the incident waves. For example, this would have required a cylinder with a length of several meters for the conditions used here, which would have been very challenging to rotate at 30 Hz.\
Similar concepts could in principle be extended to electromagnetic waves [@goodingReinventing2019] thus possibly extending our results also to amplification of electromagnetic modes from the quantum vacuum.\
[**[Acknowledgements.]{}**]{} The authors acknowledge financial support from EPSRC (UK Grant No. EP/P006078/2) and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, grant agreement No. 820392.\
[**[Author contributions.]{}**]{} MC, GMG performed the measurements and data analysis. GMG, ET, MC prepared the experiment. EMW, DF and MJP conceived the experiment and theory. All authors contributed to the manuscript.\
[**[Methods.]{}**]{} The rotation speed of the absorber was increased in steps of (approximately) 0.2 Hz. Various forms of sound absorbing foam were tested with varying yet similar porosity [[(e.g. cellular ethylene propylene diene monomer, EPDM, soundproofing rubber, RS Components, 5% absorption at 60 Hz)]{}]{}. All cases showed similar results, in line with our expectation that details in the medium 4-5 orders of magnitude smaller than the sound wavelength will not significantly influence the dynamics.\
[[Figure \[f:photo\] shows a photograph of the sound-absorber interaction region. The acoustic waveguides can be seen on the left, conducting the sound towards and directly on to the rotating absorber. The absorbing foam is held in place with a support structure, which is made of a plastic disk with no air gaps or possibility for sound to reach the microphones (5 mm diameter, embedded in the supporting plastic disk) without passing through the foam. This setup ensures that all sound reaches the microphones only through the foam.]{}]{}\
![[**[Photograph of the setup]{}**]{} showing the detail of the interaction region where the acoustic waveguides conduct the sound directly on to the absorber, supported by a plastic disk. []{data-label="f:photo"}](photo){width="5cm"}
![[**[Microphone calibration:]{}**]{} measurements of response when both microphones have no absorber or both have absorbers placed in front of them, showing that the microphones ar both calibrated and measure, as desired, the same signal. []{data-label="f:compare"}](Figure5.png "fig:"){width="4cm"} ![[**[Microphone calibration:]{}**]{} measurements of response when both microphones have no absorber or both have absorbers placed in front of them, showing that the microphones ar both calibrated and measure, as desired, the same signal. []{data-label="f:compare"}](Figure6.png "fig:"){width="4cm"}
For each rotation speed, sound was recorded for short time intervals, e.g. 2 to 3 seconds. The microphone signal was then Fourier transformed (and )averaged over 2 to 3 separate measurements) so as to decompose the signal into its frequency spectrum. The frequency spectrum for each rotation speed was then used to create a single matrix of the full spectrogram (e.g. Fig. \[f:spectrogram\]). In MATLAB the ‘tfridge’ range of functions was used to extract the signal amplitude (in arbitrary units) along each OAM mode in this spectrogram. The highest neighbouring frequency bin for each rotation speed was added to the signal in order to reduce noise from the discretisation of the Fourier-transformed data.\
We also verified that the two microphones in our setup are calibrated so as to provide the same response for the same incident signal, for all rotation speeds. Fig \[f:compare\] shows two graphs with measurements of the two microphone responses (black and green curves) when both are uncovered (absorber removed) or both have an absorber placed in front of them. Both graphs show a nearly identical response for the two microphones under the operating conditions of our experiments.
[10]{}
Penrose, R. Gravitational Collapse: The Role of General Relativity. [*Rivista del Nuovo Cimento*]{} Numero Speziale I, 257–276 (1969).
Zel’dovich, Ya. B. Generation of Waves by a Rotating Body. [*JETP letters*]{} 14, 180-181 (1971).
Zel’dovich, B. Amplification of Cylindrical Electromagnetic Waves Reflected from a Rotating Body. [*JETP*]{} 35, 1085-1087 (1972).
Zel’dovich, Ya. B., Rozhanskii, L. V. & Starobinskii, A. A. Rotating bodies and electrodynamics in a rotating coordinate system. [*Radiophys. Quantum Electron.*]{} 29, 761–768 (1986).
Acheson, D. J. On over-reflexion. [*Journal of Fluid Mechanics*]{} 77, 433–472 (1976).
Torres, T. et al. Rotational superradiant scattering in a vortex flow. [*Nat. Phys.*]{} 13, 833–836 (2017).
Weinfurtner, S., Tedford, E. W., Penrice, M. C. J., Unruh, W. G. & Lawrence, G. A. Measurement of Stimulated Hawking Emission in an Analogue System. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 106, 021302 (2011).
Belgiorno, F. et al. Hawking Radiation from Ultrashort Laser Pulse Filaments. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 105, 203901 (2010).
Drori, J., Rosenberg, Y., Bermudez, D., Silberberg, Y. & Leonhardt, U. Observation of Stimulated Hawking Radiation in an Optical Analogue. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 122, 010404 (2019).
Steinhauer, J. Observation of self-amplifying Hawking radiation in an analogue black-hole laser. [*Nat. Phys.*]{} 10, 864–869 (2014).
Steinhauer, J. Observation of quantum Hawking radiation and its entanglement in an analogue black hole. [*Nat. Phys.*]{} 12, 959–965 (2016).
Muñoz de Nova, J. R., Golubkov, K., Kolobov, V. I. & Steinhauer, J. Observation of thermal Hawking radiation and its temperature in an analogue black hole. [*Nature*]{} 569, 688–691 (2019).
Allen, L., Beijersbergen, M. W., Spreeuw, R. J. C. & Woerdman, J. P. Orbital angular momentum of light and the transformation of Laguerre-Gaussian laser modes. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} 45, 8185–8189 (1992).
Andrews, D., & Babiker, M. (Eds.). [*The Angular Momentum of Light*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 2013). doi:10.1017/CBO9780511795213
Padgett, M., Courtial, J. & Allen, L. Light’s Orbital Angular Momentum. [*Physics Today*]{} 57, 35-40 (2004).
Fickler, R., Campbell, G., Buchler, B., Lam, P. K. & Zeilinger, A. Quantum entanglement of angular momentum states with quantum numbers up to 10,010. [*Proc Natl Acad Sci USA*]{} 113, 13642–13647 (2016).
Faccio, D. & Wright, E. M. Nonlinear Zel’dovich Effect: Parametric Amplification from Medium Rotation. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 118, 093901 (2017).
Gooding, C., Weinfurtner, S. & Unruh, W. G. Reinventing the Zel’Dovich Wheel. [*arXiv, 1907.08688 \[physics\]*]{} (2019).
Faccio, D. & Wright, E. M. Superradiant Amplification of Acoustic Beams via Medium Rotation. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 123, 044301 (2019).
Gooding, C., Weinfurtner, S. & Unruh, W. G. Superradiant scattering of orbital angular momentum beams. [*arXiv, 1809.08235*]{} (2020).
Gooding, C. Dynamics Landscape for Acoustic Superradiance. [*arXiv, 2002.05605 \[physics\]*]{} (2020).
Courtial, J., Robertson, D. A., Dholakia, K., Allen, L. & Padgett, M. J. Rotational Frequency Shift of a Light Beam. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 81, 4828–4830 (1998).
Bialynicki-Birula, I. & Bialynicka-Birula, Z. Rotational Frequency Shift. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} 78, 2539-2542 (1997).
Gibson, G. M. et al. Reversal of orbital angular momentum arising from an extreme Doppler shift. [*Proc Natl Acad Sci USA*]{} 115, 3800–3803 (2018).
Boyd, R. W. [*Nonlinear Optics*]{} (Academic Press, 2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Shiquan Ren\*, Chengyuan Wu, Jie Wu
Introduction {#s1}
============
Hypergraphs (cf. [@berge]) are higher-dimensional generalizations of graphs. In a graph, an edge is a segment joining two vertices, which is of dimension $1$. While in a hypergraph, an $n$-dimensional hyperedge (or simply an $n$-hyperedge) is a set of $n+1$ vertices.
[@berge; @parks] A [hypergraph]{} is a pair $(V_\mathcal{H},\mathcal{H})$ where $V_\mathcal{H}$ is a set and $\mathcal{H}$ is a subset of the power set of $V_\mathcal{H}$. We call an element of $V_\mathcal{H}$ a [vertex]{} and call an element of $\mathcal{H}$ a [hyperedge]{}. For any $n\geq 0$, we call a hyperedge consisting of $n+1$ vertices an [$n$-hyperedge]{}. We call a nonempty subset of a hyperedge as a face of the hyperedge.
In this paper, we assume that each hyperedge contains at least one vertex. We also assume that each vertex in $V_\mathcal{H}$ appears in at least one hyperedge of $\mathcal{H}$. Then $V_\mathcal{H}$ is the union of all the vertices of the hyperedges of $\mathcal{H}$. Hence we can simply denote the hypergraph $(V_\mathcal{H},\mathcal{H})$ as $\mathcal{H}$.
(Abstract) simplicial complexes can be regarded as special hypergraphs such that all the faces of hyperedges are still hyperedges.
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph. If for any hyperedge $\sigma\in\mathcal{H}$ and any nonempty subset $\tau\subseteq \sigma$, we always have $\tau\in\mathcal{H}$, then $\mathcal{H}$ is called an (abstract) simplicial complex. In this case, $\mathcal{H}$ is denoted as $\mathcal{K}$, and the hyperedges are called simplices.
The graph Laplacian is a self-adjoint operator on graphs defined by the adjacency relations of the vertices (cf. [@chungbook1 Section 1.2]). In 1847, the graph Laplacian was firstly investigated by G. Kirchhoff [@1847] in the study of electrical networks. Since 1970’s, the spectrum of the graph Laplacian has been extensively investigated (cf. [@anderson; @ban; @chungbook1; @cve]).
The Laplacian of simplicial complexes is a generalization of the graph Laplacian to higher dimensions. A simplicial complex $\mathcal{K}$ has an associated chain complex $C_n(\mathcal{K})$, $n\geq 0$, with boundary maps $\partial_n: C_{n}(\mathcal{K})\longrightarrow C_{n-1}(\mathcal{K})$ such that $\partial_{n}\partial_{n+1}=0$. We construct the Laplacian of simplicial complexes as (cf. [@eck], [@duv p. 4314], [@adv1 p. 304]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq001}
L_n=\partial_{n+1}\partial^*_{n+1}+\partial_n^*\partial_n. \end{aligned}$$ Here $\partial_n^*$ (respectively $\partial_{n+1}^*$) is the dual operator of $\partial_n$ (respectively $\partial_{n+1}$) with respect to certain inner product on each $C_*(\mathcal{K})$, $*\geq 0$. In 1944, a discrete version of the Hodge theorem for $L_n$ was proved by Eckmann [@eck] (cf. [@duv Theorem 3.3], [@adv1 Theorem 2.2]). In 2002, the spectrum of the Laplacian $L_n$ was investigated by A.M. Duval and V. Reiner [@duv].
Weighted simplicial complexes are simplicial complexes equipped with certain weight functions on the simplices. In 1990, by twisting the boundary maps using the weights, R.J. MacG. Dawson [@daw] studied the homology of weighted simplicial complexes. In 2013, by twisting the boundary maps in the Laplacians (\[eq001\]) using the weights, and considering the cohomology, D. Horak and J. Jost [@glob1; @adv1] studied the weighted Laplacians of weighted simplicial complexes. Recently, the weight functions on simplicial complexes were generalized to inner products on cochain complexes by C. Wu, S. Ren, J. Wu and K. Xia [@chengyuan]. The properties, classifications and applications of weighted (co)homology and weighted Laplacians of weighted simplicial complexes were studied in [@rocky; @chengyuan2; @chengyuan].
On the other hand, in order to investigate the topology of hypergraphs, some homology groups have been considered. In 1991, by adding all the missing faces of $\mathcal{H}$, the associated simplicial complex $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ of $\mathcal{H}$ was defined by A.D. Parks and S.L. Lipscomb [@parks]. The homology groups of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ were studied to investigate the topology of $\mathcal{H}$. In 2016, homology of simplicial complexes was generalized to the embedded homology of hypergraphs by S. Bressan, J. Li, S. Ren and J. Wu [@h1]. The original idea of the embedded homology was given by A. Grigor’yan, Y. Lin, Y. Muranov and S.T. Yau [@yau1] in the study of paths of digraphs. For a general hypergraph $\mathcal{H}$, the embedded homology of $\mathcal{H}$ and the homology of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ are not isomorphic. They reflect different aspects of the topology of $\mathcal{H}$. Let $\mathbb{F}$ be the real numbers $\mathbb{R}$ or the complex numbers $\mathbb{C}$. The embedded homology of $\mathcal{H}$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{F}$ is denoted by $H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})$, $n\geq 0$.
In this paper, we generalize the weighted (co)homology and the weighted Laplacian studied in [@daw; @glob1; @adv1; @rocky; @chengyuan2; @chengyuan] from weighted simplicial complexes to weighted hypergraphs and prove a Hodge decomposition for weighted hypergraphs. A weighted hypergraph $(\mathcal{H},\phi)$ is a hypergraph $\mathcal{H}$ equipped with a weight $\phi$ on the associated simplicial complex $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ (cf. Definition \[def1\] in Subsection \[subs4.1\]). We denote the weighted Laplacian of the weighted simplicial complex $(\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi)$ as $L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi}$. Then the kernel of $L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi}$ is linearly isomorphic to the weighted homology $H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})$ (cf. [@chengyuan]). We generalize the embedded homology $H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})$ (cf. [@h1 Subsection 3.2]) to the weighted embedded homology $H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})$. We generalize the infimum chain complex $\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})$ and the supremum chain complex $\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})$ (cf. [@h1 Proposition 3.3]) to the weighted infimum chain complex $\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})$ and the weighted supremum chain complex $\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})$. We generalize the weighted Laplacian of weighted simplicial complexes (cf. [@adv1 Definition 2.1]) to the weighted infimum Laplacian $L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}$ and the weighted supremum Laplacian $L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}$. Then both the kernel of $L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}$ and the kernel of $L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}$ are linearly isomorphic to $H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})$ (cf. Theorem \[pr.a.1.w\]). The main result of this paper is the next theorem.
\[th-0.0\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph, $\phi$ a weight on $\mathcal{H}$, and $n\geq 0$. Let $s$ be the canonical inclusion from $\mathcal{H}$ to $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ and $s_*$ be the induced homomorphism from $H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})$ to $H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})$. Then represented by the kernel of the weighted supremum Laplacian $\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})$, $H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})$ is the orthogonal sum of $\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})\cap\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})$ and $\text{Ker}(s_*)$. And represented by the kernel of the weighted Laplacian $\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})$, $H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})$ is the orthogonal sum of $\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})\cap\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})$ and $\text{Coker}(s_*)$.
In Section \[sss2\], we study the Hodge isomorphisms for hypergraphs by using the embedded homology. In Section \[s-a.3\], we study the Hodge decompositions for hypergraphs by using the embedded homology as well as the homology of associated complexes. We prove Theorem \[th-0.0\] (Theorem \[th-4.19\]) for the particular case of hypergraphs (hypergraphs can be regarded as weighted hypergraphs with trivial weight) in Theorem \[th-3.19\]. In Section \[sss4\], we generalize the Hodge isomorphisms in Section \[sss2\] and the Hodge decompositions in Section \[s-a.3\] from hypergraphs to weighted hypergraphs. We generalize Theorem \[th-3.19\] from hypergraphs to weighted hypergraphs and obtain Thteorem \[th-0.0\] (Theorem \[th-4.19\]). In Section \[sec-a\], as a complement for the Hodge decompositions, we study the nonzero eigenvalues of the weighted Laplacians for weighted hypergraphs. In Section \[sec6\], we discuss some relations between hypergraphs and paths on digraphs, which provide a potential motivation for this paper.
Besides the Laplacians on hypergraphs and the weighted Laplacians on weighted hypergraphs considered in this paper, there are other kinds of Laplacians for hypergraphs. For example, in 1983, the graph Laplacian was generalized to certain Laplacians of hypergraphs by F.R.K. Chung [@chung123]. And in 2015, S. Hu and L. Qi [@huqi] constructed certain Laplacians for uniform hypergraphs. Moreover, in [@lio], some $p$-Laplacians were constructed for submodular hypergraphs. Our Laplacians on hypergraphs have an advantage that it gives a natural connection with the embedded homology of hypergraphs and it induces Hodge decomposition theorems. The connections between the embedded homology of hypergraphs and other type Laplacians need to be explored further.
Throughout this paper, we assume that hypergraphs (respectively, simplicial complexes) have finitely many hyperedges (respectively, simplices).
**
Hodge Isomorphisms for Hypergraphs {#sss2}
==================================
In this section, we generalize the Hodge isomorphism from simplicial complexes to hypergraphs.
Proof of Theorem \[pr.a.1\]
---------------------------
In this subsection, we prove the first part of the Hodge isomorphism for hypergraphs in Theorem \[pr.a.1\].
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph. The associated complex $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ of $\mathcal{H}$ is the smallest simplicial complex that $\mathcal{H}$ can be embedded in (cf. [@parks]). It consists of the simplices (cf. [@h1 Section 3.1], [@ev Section 2.1]) $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \mathcal{H}=\{\eta\subseteq\tau\mid \tau\in \mathcal{H}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $n$ be a nonnegative integer. Let $\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$ be the vector space over $\mathbb{F}$ with basis all the $n$-simplices of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$. We have a chain complex $$\begin{aligned}
0\overset{\partial_{1}}{\longleftarrow} \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_1 \overset{\partial_{2}}{\longleftarrow}\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_2\overset{\partial_{3}}{\longleftarrow}\cdots \overset{\partial_{n}}{\longleftarrow}\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n\overset{\partial_{n+1}}{\longleftarrow}\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n+1}\overset{\partial_{n+2}}{\longleftarrow}\cdots \end{aligned}$$ We denote the chain complex as $(\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_*,\partial_*)$. Let $\langle~,~\rangle$ be the canonical real or complex inner product on $\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle \sum_i a_i\sigma_i,\sum_j b_j \tau_j\rangle= \sum_{\sigma_i=\tau_j}a_i\bar b_j. \end{aligned}$$ Here $\sigma_i,\tau_j\in \Delta\mathcal{H}$, $\dim\sigma_i=\dim\tau_j=n$, and $a_i,b_j\in\mathbb{F}$. The number $\bar b_j$ is $b_j$ if $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{R}$, and $\bar b_j$ is the complex conjugate of $b_j$ if $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{C}$. The adjoint of $\partial_n$ is a linear map $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_n^*: \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n-1}\longrightarrow\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n\end{aligned}$$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-1.a}
\langle \partial_n \omega, \omega'\rangle =\langle \omega,\partial^*_n\omega'\rangle\end{aligned}$$ for any $\omega\in \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$ and any $\omega'\in \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n-1}$. Equivalently, (\[eq-1.a\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-2.a}
\langle \partial_n \sigma, \tau\rangle =\langle \sigma,\partial^*_n\tau\rangle\end{aligned}$$ for any $\sigma,\tau\in \Delta\mathcal{H}$ with $\dim\sigma=n$ and $\dim\tau=n-1$. The matrix of $\partial_n^*$ is the conjugate transpose of the matrix of $\partial_n$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
[\partial_n^*]=\overline {[\partial_n]}^{T},
\end{aligned}$$ under any orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$ and any orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n-1}$.
By [@eck], [@duv p. 4314] and [@adv1 p. 304], we define the combinatorial Laplacian of $(\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_*,\partial_*)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}=\partial_{n+1}\partial^*_{n+1}+\partial^*_n\partial_n. \end{aligned}$$ We notice that for any $\omega\in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}} \omega,\omega\rangle &=&\langle\partial_{n+1}\partial_{n+1}^*\omega,\omega\rangle+\langle \partial^*_n\partial_n\omega,\omega\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&\langle \partial^*_{n+1}\omega,\partial^*_{n+1}\omega\rangle+\langle \partial_n\omega,\partial_n\omega\rangle.
\label{eq2.777}\end{aligned}$$ Hence $L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n\omega=0 $ if and only if $\partial_n\omega=\partial^*_{n+1}\omega=0$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-a.2}
\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n=\text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Ker} \partial_{n+1}^*. \end{aligned}$$ By (\[eq-a.2\]) and the Hodge isomorphism of simplicial complexes (cf. [@eck]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-a.91}
H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H})\cong \text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n
\cong \text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Ker} \partial_{n+1}^*.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\text{Ker} \partial_{n+1}^*= (\text{Im}\partial_{n+1})^\perp$, (\[eq-a.91\]) can be written in terms of $\partial_*$ as $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H})\cong \text{Ker}\partial_n \cap (\text{Im}\partial_{n+1})^\perp.
\end{aligned}$$
Let $\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$ be the vector space over $\mathbb{F}$ with basis all the $n$-hyperedges of $\mathcal{H}$. By [@h1 Section 2 and Section 3], the infimum chain complex and the supremum chain complex of $\mathcal{H}$ are respectively $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})&=&\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n \cap \partial^{-1}_{n} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n-1},\\
\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})&=&\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n + \partial^{}_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}.\end{aligned}$$ By restricting $\partial_n$ to $\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})$ and $\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})$ respectively, we obtain the boundary maps $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_n\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})}: \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\longrightarrow \text{Inf}_{n-1}(\mathcal{H})\end{aligned}$$ of the chain complex $\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})$ and the boundary maps $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_n\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})}: \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\longrightarrow \text{Sup}_{n-1}(\mathcal{H})
\end{aligned}$$ of the chain complex $\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})$. We have a commutative diagram of real or complex Euclidean spaces and linear maps $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{
\text{Inf}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H})\ar@/_/[dd]_{\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})}}\ar[rr] &&\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}
\ar[rr] && \text{Sup}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H})\ar[rr] \ar@/_/[dd]_{\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})}}&& \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n+1}\ar@/_/[dd]_{\partial_{n+1}}\\
\\
\text{Inf}_{n }(\mathcal{H}) \ar@/_/[uu]_{{(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*}} \ar[rr] &&\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n } \ar[rr] && \text{Sup}_{n }(\mathcal{H})\ar[rr] \ar@/_/[uu]_{(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*} && \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n }\ar@/_/[uu]_{\partial_{n+1}^*}.
}\end{aligned}$$ Here the horizontal maps are the canonical inclusions.
We define the supremum Laplacian and the infimum Laplacian of $\mathcal{H}$ respectively as $$\begin{aligned}
L_n^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})}&=&(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})^* +(\partial_n\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*(\partial_n\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})}),\\
L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})}&=&(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^* +(\partial_n\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*(\partial_n\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})}). \end{aligned}$$ Then similar to (\[eq-a.2\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})&=&\text{Ker}(\partial_n\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*,\label{eq-a.01}\\
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})&=&\text{Ker}(\partial_n\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*. \label{eq-a.02}\end{aligned}$$ The next theorem proves that the kernels of the Laplacians are isomorphic to the embedded homology of hypergraphs.
\[pr.a.1\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph. For each $n\geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F}) \cong \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})
\cong \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})}). \end{aligned}$$ In other words, $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})&\cong& \text{Ker}(\partial_n\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})^* \\
&\cong& \text{Ker}(\partial_n\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*.\end{aligned}$$
Before proving Theorem \[pr.a.1\], we give the following lemma.
\[le-a.11\] Let $C_*$ be a graded vector space over $\mathbb{F}$. Suppose for each $n\geq 0$, there are maps $d_{n+1}: C_{n+1}\longrightarrow C_{n}$ such that $d_{n+1}d_n=0$. Let $L_n=d_{n+1}d_{n+1}^*+ d_n^* d_n$. Then the homology $H_n(\{C_*,d_*\})$ of the chain complex $\{C_*,d_*\}$ is isomorphic to $\text{Ker} L_n$.
Lemma \[le-a.11\] is an analogue of [@morita Theorem 4.16] for chain complexes. With minor modifications, the proof of [@morita Theorem 4.16] applies.
Now we prove Theorem \[pr.a.1\].
By Lemma \[le-a.11\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H}))&\cong& \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})}), \\
H_n(\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H}))&\cong& \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})}). \end{aligned}$$ By [@h1 Proposition 3.4], the embedded homology of $\mathcal{H}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})\cong H_n(\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H}))\cong H_n(\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})). \end{aligned}$$ The assertion follows.
Proof of Theorem \[th-a.1\]
---------------------------
In this subsection, we prove the second part of the Hodge isomorphism for hypergraphs in Theorem \[th-a.1\].
For a (real or complex) Euclidean space $V$ and a subspace $W$ in $V$, let $\perp(W,V)$ be the orthogonal complement of $W$ in $V$. As graded vector spaces, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\subseteq \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\subseteq \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\subseteq \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n. \end{aligned}$$ Hence we have the orthogonal decompositions $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n&=&\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\oplus A_n,\\
\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})&=&\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\oplus B_n,\\
\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n&=&\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}) \oplus E_n. \end{aligned}$$ Here $A_n$, $B_n$ and $D_n$ are subspaces of $\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
A_n&=&\perp \big(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\cap \partial_n^{-1}\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n-1}, \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\big),\\
B_n&=&\perp \big(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n,\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n+ \partial_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}\big),\\
E_n&=&\perp \big(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}+ \partial_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1},\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n\big). \end{aligned}$$ If we consider the complement hypergraph $\mathcal{H}^c=\Delta\mathcal{H}\setminus \mathcal{H}$ (cf. [@h1 Subsection 3.1]), then $$\begin{aligned}
B_n\oplus E_n= \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H}^c)_n. \end{aligned}$$
\[le-a.1\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-a.3}
\text{Ker} (\partial_n^*\mid _{\text{Inf}_{*}(\mathcal{H})})\subseteq \text{Ker} (\partial_n\mid _{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})^* \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-a.4}
\text{Ker} (\partial_n^*\mid _{\text{Sup}_{*}(\mathcal{H})})\subseteq \text{Ker} (\partial_n\mid _{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover,
1. [If]{} $\partial_n(A_n\oplus B_n\oplus E_n)\subseteq A_{n-1}\oplus B_{n-1}\oplus E_{n-1}$, then $\partial_n^*\mid _{\text{Inf}_{n-1}(\mathcal{H})}=(\partial_n\mid _{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*$, and the equality in (\[eq-a.3\]) holds;
2. [If]{} $\partial_n( E_n)\subseteq E_{n-1}$, then $\partial_n^*\mid _{\text{Sup}_{n-1}(\mathcal{H})} = (\partial_n\mid _{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*$, and the equality in (\[eq-a.4\]) holds.
Before proving Proposition \[le-a.1\], we prove the next lemma.
\[le-linearalg\] Let $W$ and $W'$ be real or complex Euclidean spaces with inner products $\langle~,~\rangle$ and $\langle~,~\rangle'$ respectively. Let $T: W\longrightarrow W'$ be a linear map. Let $V$ and $V'$ be subspaces of $W$ and $W'$ respectively such that $TV\subseteq V'$. Let $\perp(V,W)$ and $\perp(V',W')$ be the orthogonal complements of $V$ in $W$ and of $V'$ in $W'$ respectively. Then the diagram commutes $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{
V'\ar[rr]^{T^*\mid _{V'}}\ar[rrdd]_{(T\mid_V)^*}&& W=V\oplus \perp(V,W)\ar[dd]^{\text{orthogonal proj.}}\\
\\
&& V.
}\end{aligned}$$ Here $(-)^*$ denotes the adjoint of a linear map. In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-a.8}
\text{Ker}(T^*\mid _{V'}) \subseteq\text{Ker}(T\mid_V)^*.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, if $T\big(\perp(V,W)\big)\subseteq \perp(V',W')$, then $T^*\mid _{V'}=(T\mid_V)^*$ and the equality in (\[eq-a.8\]) holds.
Let $e_1,\ldots,e_k$ be an orthonormal basis of $V$. We extend it to be an orthonormal basis $e_1,\ldots,e_k,e_{k+1},\ldots, e_n$ of $W$. Let $e'_1,\ldots,e'_t$ be an orthonormal basis of $V'$. We extend it to be an orthonormal basis $e'_1,\ldots,e'_t, e'_{t+1},\ldots, e'_m$ of $W'$. Let $1\leq j\leq t$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
(T^*\mid _{V'})e'_j&=&\sum_{i=1}^n \langle e_i, (T^*\mid _{V'})e'_j\rangle e_i\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^n \langle e_i, T^* e'_j\rangle e_i\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{i=1}^n \langle Te_i, e'_j\rangle e_i. \label{eq-com.1}\end{aligned}$$ And $$\begin{aligned}
(T\mid _V)^* e'_j &=& \sum_{i=1}^k \langle e_i,(T\mid _V)^* e'_j\rangle e_i\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{i=1}^k \langle (T\mid _V) e_i,e'_j\rangle e_i\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^k \langle T e_i,e'_j\rangle e_i. \label{eq-com.2}\end{aligned}$$ The commutative diagram follows from (\[eq-com.1\]) and (\[eq-com.2\]). For any $v'\in V'$, if $(T^*\mid _{V'})v'=0$, then by the commutative diagram, $(T\mid _V)^* v'=0$. Hence (\[eq-a.8\]) follows.
Suppose $T(\perp(V,W))\subseteq \perp(V',W')$. Then for any $v'\in V'$ and any $v^\perp\in \perp(V,W)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle (T^*\mid_{V'})v',v^\perp\rangle=\langle v',T(v^\perp)\rangle=0. \end{aligned}$$ Hence $(T^*\mid_{V'})v'\in V$. By (\[eq-com.1\]) and (\[eq-com.2\]), we have $(T^*\mid _{V'})v'=(T\mid_V)^*v'$. Hence $T^*\mid _{V'}=(T\mid_V)^* $. Therefore, the equality in (\[eq-a.8\]) holds.
Now we prove Proposition \[le-a.1\].
In Lemma \[le-linearalg\], let $W$ be $\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$ and $W'$ be $\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n-1}$. Let $T$ be $\partial_n$.
(a). Let $V$ be $\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})$ and $V'$ be $\text{Inf}_{n-1}(\mathcal{H})$ in Lemma \[le-linearalg\]. Since $$\begin{aligned}
\perp\big(\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}),\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n\big)&=& A_n\oplus B_n\oplus E_n,\\
\perp\big(\text{Inf}_{n-1}(\mathcal{H}),\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n-1}\big)&=& A_{n-1}\oplus B_{n-1}\oplus E_{n-1},\end{aligned}$$ we have (\[eq-a.3\]). Moreover, if $\partial_n(A_n\oplus B_n\oplus E_n)\subseteq A_{n-1}\oplus B_{n-1}\oplus E_{n-1}$, then $\partial_n^*\mid _{\text{Inf}_{n-1}(\mathcal{H})}=(\partial_n\mid _{\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})})^*$, and the equality in (\[eq-a.3\]) holds.
(b). Let $V$ be $\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})$ and $V'$ be $\text{Sup}_{n-1}(\mathcal{H})$ in Lemma \[le-linearalg\]. Since $$\begin{aligned}
\perp\big(\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}),\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n\big)&=& E_n,\\
\perp\big(\text{Sup}_{n-1}(\mathcal{H}),\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n-1}\big)&=& E_{n-1},\end{aligned}$$ we have (\[eq-a.4\]). Moreover, if $\partial_n (E_n)\subseteq E_{n-1}$, then $\partial_n^*\mid _{\text{Sup}_{n-1}(\mathcal{H})}=(\partial_n\mid _{\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})})^*$, and the equality in (\[eq-a.4\]) holds .
The next corollary follows from Proposition \[le-a.1\] directly.
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$.
1. If $\partial_i(A_i\oplus B_i\oplus E_i)\subseteq A_{i-1}\oplus B_{i-1}\oplus E_{i-1}$ for $i=n+1$ and $n$, then $$\begin{aligned}
L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n\mid _{\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})}=L^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})}_n;\end{aligned}$$
2. If $\partial_i( E_i)\subseteq E_{i-1}$ for $i=n+1$ and $n$, then $$\begin{aligned}
L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n\mid _{\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})}=L^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})}_n.\end{aligned}$$
The next theorem characterizes further properties about the kernels of the Laplacians using the embedded homology of hypergraphs. The proof follows by using Theorem \[pr.a.1\] and Proposition \[le-a.1\].
\[th-a.1\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Then both $\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n\cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})$ and $\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n\cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})$ are subspaces of $H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})$. Moreover, [if]{} $\partial_n(A_n\oplus B_n\oplus E_n)\subseteq A_{n-1}\oplus B_{n-1}\oplus E_{n-1}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n\cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\cong H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F}). \end{aligned}$$ And [if]{} $\partial_n( E_n)\subseteq E_{n-1}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n\cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\cong H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F}). \end{aligned}$$
By (\[eq-a.2\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n\cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})&=& \text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Ker} \partial_{n+1}^* \cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) \nonumber\\
&=&\big(\text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\big)\cap \big(\text{Ker} \partial_{n+1}^* \cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\big)\nonumber\\
&=&\text{Ker}(\partial_n\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap \text{Ker}(\partial^*_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})\label{eq-aa.9}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-aa.8}
\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n\cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})=\text{Ker}(\partial_n\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap \text{Ker}(\partial^*_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})}).\end{aligned}$$ By Proposition \[le-a.1\] and (\[eq-aa.9\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-bb.9}
\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n\cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\subseteq \text{Ker}(\partial_n\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap \text{Ker}(\partial_{n}\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*. \end{aligned}$$ The equality in (\[eq-bb.9\]) holds if $\partial_n(A_n\oplus B_n\oplus E_n)\subseteq A_{n-1}\oplus B_{n-1}\oplus E_{n-1}$. By Theorem \[pr.a.1\] and (\[eq-bb.9\]), $\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n\cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})$ is a subspace of $H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})$. And if $\partial_n(A_n\oplus B_n\oplus E_n)\subseteq A_{n-1}\oplus B_{n-1}\oplus E_{n-1}$, then $\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n\cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})$ is isomorphic to $H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})$.
By Proposition \[le-a.1\] and (\[eq-aa.8\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-bb.8}
\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n\cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\subseteq \text{Ker}(\partial_n\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap \text{Ker}(\partial_{n}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*. \end{aligned}$$ The equality in (\[eq-bb.8\]) holds if $\partial_n( E_n)\subseteq E_{n-1}$. By Theorem \[pr.a.1\] and (\[eq-bb.8\]), $\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n\cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})$ is a subspace of $H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})$. And if $\partial_n( E_n)\subseteq E_{n-1}$, then $\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n\cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})$ is isomorphic to $H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})$.
Hodge Decompositions for Hypergraphs {#s-a.3}
====================================
In this section, we prove some Hodge decompositions for hypergraphs in Theorem \[th-3.19\].
Orthogonal Decompositions for Homologies of Hypergraphs
-------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we prove some orthogonal decompositions for the embedded homology of hypergraphs and the homology of associated simplicial complexes, in Theorem \[th-decomp1\].
Let $n\geq 0$. By Lemma \[le-linearalg\], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-bc-7}
\text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*\cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\subseteq\text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*. \end{aligned}$$ By Theorem \[pr.a.1\] and (\[eq-bc-7\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})&=&\text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*\\
\nonumber
&\supseteq &\text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\\
&=&\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})}) \cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}).
\label{eq-bc-8}\end{aligned}$$ By Theorem \[pr.a.1\], Theorem \[th-a.1\] and (\[eq-bc-8\]), we have a diagram of vector spaces and linear maps $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{
H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})\ar[r]^{\cong} \ar [dd]^{\cong}&\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})&\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}) \\
\\
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})&\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\ar[l]_{i_2}\ar[uu]^{i_3}&\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}) \ar[luu]_{i_6} \ar[uu]^{i_7} \\
\\
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\ar[uu]^{i_1}\ar[r]^{i_4}& \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\ar[ruu]^{i_5}.&
}
\label{diag-1}\end{aligned}$$ Here $i_1$ and $i_6$ are the inclusions given by Theorem \[th-a.1\], $i_3$, $i_4$, $i_5$ and $i_7$ are the canonical inclusions, and $i_2$ is the inclusion given by (\[eq-bc-8\]). The next proposition follows from the above diagram (\[diag-1\]).
\[pr-decomp0\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Then we have
1. the orthogonal decomposition of the embedded homology into four summands $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})&\cong & \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) \big)\\
&&\oplus \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap \perp (\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}), \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n )\big)\\
&&\oplus \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap \perp (\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n,\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}))\big)\\
&&\oplus\perp\big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\big); \end{aligned}$$
2. the orthogonal decomposition of the homology of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ into four summands $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})&\cong & \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) \big)\\
&&\oplus \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap \perp (\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}), \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n )\big)\\
&&\oplus \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap \perp (\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n,\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}))\big)\\
&&\oplus\perp\big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\big). \end{aligned}$$
(a). By the map $i_4$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n&=& \big(\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) \big) \\
&&\oplus \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap \perp (\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}), \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n )\big). \label{eq-x-1}\end{aligned}$$ By the map $i_5$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H}) &=& \big(\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n \big) \\
&&\oplus \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap \perp (\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n,\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}))\big). \label{eq-x-2}\end{aligned}$$ By the map $i_6$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})}) &=& \big(\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})
\big) \\
&&\oplus\perp\big(\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\big). \label{eq-x-3}\end{aligned}$$ Since $H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})=H_n(\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H}))\cong \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})$, the decomposition follows from (\[eq-x-1\]), (\[eq-x-2\]) and (\[eq-x-3\]).
(b). Following from the maps $i_4$, $i_5$ and $i_7$, the proof of (b) is similar with the proof of (a).
We study the summands of the orthogonal decompositions in Proposition \[pr-decomp0\].
1. Let $\alpha\in \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha\in \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})
\end{aligned}$$ if and only if all the following four conditions are satisfied:
1. $\alpha\in \text{Ker}\partial_n$,
2. $\alpha\in \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}^*)$,
3. $\alpha\in\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$,
4. $\alpha\in \partial_n^{-1}\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n-1}$.
Hence the space $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-3.4.097}
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})
\end{aligned}$$ is the collection of all $\alpha \in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$ such that both of the following two conditions are satisfied:
1. $\partial_n\alpha=0$,
2. for any $\beta\in \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n+1}$, $\langle \partial_{n+1}\beta,\alpha\rangle =0$.
2. Let $\alpha\in \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha\in \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap \perp \big(\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}), \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n \big)
\end{aligned}$$ if and only if all the following four conditions are satisfied:
1. $\alpha\in \text{Ker}\partial_n$,
2. $\alpha\in \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}^*)$,
3. $\alpha\in\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$,
4. for any $\gamma\in \text{Inf}_n\mathcal{H}$, $\langle \gamma,\alpha\rangle =0$.
Hence the space $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-3.4.091}
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap \perp \big(\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}), \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n \big)
\end{aligned}$$ is the collection of all $\alpha \in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$ such that all of the following three conditions are satisfied:
1. $\partial_n\alpha=0$,
2. for any $\beta\in \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n+1}$, $\langle \partial_{n+1}\beta,\alpha\rangle =0$,
3. for any $\gamma\in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$, if $\partial_n\gamma\in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n-1}$, then $\langle\gamma,\alpha\rangle=0$.
3. Let $\alpha\in \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha\in \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap \perp \big(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n,\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\big)
\end{aligned}$$ if and only if all the following four conditions are satisfied:
1. $\alpha\in \text{Ker}\partial_n$,
2. $\alpha\in \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}^*)$,
3. $\alpha=\theta_n+\partial_{n+1}\theta_{n+1}$ for some $\theta_n\in\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$ and $\theta_{n+1}\in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}$,
4. for any $\gamma\in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$, $\langle \gamma,\alpha\rangle =0$.
Hence the space $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-3.4.092}
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap \perp \big(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n,\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\big)
\end{aligned}$$ is the collection of all $\theta_n+\partial_{n+1}\theta_{n+1}$, where $\theta_n\in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$ and $\theta_{n+1}\in\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}$, such that all of the following three conditions are satisfied:
1. $\partial_n\theta_n=0$,
2. for any $\beta\in \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n+1}$, $\langle \partial_{n+1}\beta, \theta_n+\partial_{n+1}\theta_{n+1} \rangle =0$,
3. for any $\gamma\in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$, $\langle\gamma, \theta_n+\partial_{n+1}\theta_{n+1}\rangle=0$.
4. Let $\alpha\in \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha\in \perp \big(\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})}) \big)
\end{aligned}$$ if and only if all the following three conditions are satisfied:
1. $\alpha\in \text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})$,
2. $\alpha\in \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*$,
3. for any $\alpha'$ satisfying (i) and (ii), if $\alpha'\in \text{Ker}(\partial_n^*)$, then $\langle\alpha',\alpha\rangle=0$.
Hence the space $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-3.4.098}
\perp \big(\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\big )
\end{aligned}$$ is the collection of all $\theta_n+\partial_{n+1}\theta_{n+1}$, where $\theta_n\in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$ and $\theta_{n+1}\in\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}$, such that all of the following three conditions are satisfied:
1. $\partial_n\theta_n=0$,
2. for any $\gamma\in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n}$, $\langle \partial_{n}\gamma, \theta_n+\partial_{n+1}\theta_{n+1} \rangle =0$,
3. for any $\theta'_n\in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$ and $\theta'_{n+1}\in\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}$ satisfying (i) and (ii), if for any $\beta\in \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n+1}$, $\langle \partial_{n+1}\beta,\theta'_n+\partial_{n+1}\theta'_{n+1}\rangle =0$, then $\langle \theta'_n+\partial_{n+1}\theta'_{n+1}, \theta_n+\partial_{n+1}\theta_{n+1} \rangle=0$.
5. Let $\alpha\in \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha\in\perp \big(\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}) \big)
\end{aligned}$$ if and only if all the following three conditions are satisfied:
1. $\alpha\in \text{Ker}\partial_n$,
2. $\alpha\in \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}^*)$,
3. for any $\alpha'$ satisfying (i) and (ii), if $\alpha'\in \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})$, then $\langle\alpha',\alpha\rangle=0$.
Hence the space $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-3.4.876}
\perp\big (\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\big )
\end{aligned}$$ is the collection of all $\alpha\in \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$ such that all of the following three conditions are satisfied:
1. $\partial_n\alpha=0$,
2. for any $\beta\in \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n+1}$, $\langle \partial_{n+1}\beta,\alpha\rangle =0$,
3. for any for any $\alpha'$ satisfying (i) and (ii), if $\alpha' = \theta_n +\partial_{n+1}\theta_{n+1}$ for some $\theta _n\in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$ and $\theta'_{n+1}\in\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}$, then $\langle \alpha',\alpha \rangle=0$.
It follows from (I)-(i), (I)-(ii), (II)-(i), (II)-(ii) and (II)-(iii) that (\[eq-3.4.091\]) is a subspace of (\[eq-3.4.097\]). Since the two spaces are orthogonal, the space (\[eq-3.4.091\]) is zero. The next proposition follows.
\[pr3.1.a.b.1\] In the diagram (\[diag-1\]), the map $i_4$ is an isomorphism.
By (III)-(iii), we have the following commutative diagram $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{
\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1} \ar[rrdd]_{p\circ \partial_{n+1}}\ar[rr]^{\partial_{n+1}} && \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}) \ar[dd]^{\text{orthogonal proj.}}_p
\\
\\
&&\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n
}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-oct-1}
\theta_n=-p\circ\partial_{n+1} (\theta_{n+1}).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\beta=\theta_{n+1}$ in (III)-(ii). With the help of (\[eq-oct-1\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \partial_{n+1}\theta_{n+1},\partial_{n+1}\theta_{n+1}\rangle = \langle \partial_{n+1}\theta_{n+1}, p(\partial_{n+1} \theta_{n+1})\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $p$ is the identity map on $\partial_{n+1}\theta_{n+1}$, and $\partial_{n+1}\theta_{n+1}\in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$. Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_n+ \partial_{n+1}\theta_{n+1}=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence the space (\[eq-3.4.092\]) is zero. The next proposition follows.
\[pr3.1.a.b.2\] In the diagram (\[diag-1\]), the map $i_5$ is an isomorphism.
The next theorem follows from Proposition \[pr-decomp0\], Proposition \[pr3.1.a.b.1\] and Proposition \[pr3.1.a.b.2\].
\[th-decomp1\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Then we have
1. the orthogonal decomposition of the embedded homology into two summands $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})&\cong & \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) \big)\\
&&\oplus\perp\big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\big); \end{aligned}$$
2. the orthogonal decomposition of the homology of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ into two summands $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})&\cong & \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) \big)\\
&&\oplus\perp\big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\big). \end{aligned}$$
In particular, suppose $\mathcal{H}$ is a simplicial complex. Then the maps $i_6$ and $i_7$ are both isomorphisms. Hence the decompositions in Theorem \[th-decomp1\] are trivial for simplicial complexes.
\[re-81\] By the map $i_1$ in the diagram (\[diag-1\]), we obtain a decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})&\cong & \big(\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) \big)\\
&&\oplus\perp\big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})\big), \end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to Theorem \[th-decomp1\] (a).
The summands of the decompositions in Theorem \[th-decomp1\] are characterized by (I), (IV) and (V).
By the Hodge decomposition of simplicial complexes (cf. [@duv; @eck; @adv1]), we have an orthogonal decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2.8.8.8}
\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n&=& \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\oplus \partial_{n+1}( {\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n+1}})
\oplus\partial^*_{n} (\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n-1})\nonumber\\
&\cong&H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})\oplus \partial_{n+1}( {\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n+1}})
\oplus\partial^*_{n} (\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n-1}).
\end{aligned}$$ In general, we have the Hodge decomposition of chain complexes.
\[lemma2.99999\] Let $C_*$ be a graded Euclidean space over $\mathbb{F}$ with maps $d_{n+1}: C_{n+1}\longrightarrow C_{n}$ such that $d_{n+1}d_n=0$ for each $n\geq 0$. Let $L_n=d_{n+1}d_{n+1}^*+ d_n^* d_n$. Then we have the orthogonal decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2.8.8.8.8}
C_n= \text{Ker}(L_n)\oplus d_{n+1} C_{n+1} \oplus d_{n}^* C_{n-1}. \end{aligned}$$
Lemma \[lemma2.99999\] is an analogue of [@morita Theorem 4.18] for chain complexes. With minor modifications, the proof of [@morita Theorem 4.18] applies.
The next corollary follows from Theorem \[th-decomp1\] (b) and (\[eq2.8.8.8\]).
\[co-3.3.x\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Then we have the orthogonal decomposition of the vector space spanned by the $n$-simplices of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ into four summands $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n&=& \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) \big)\\
&&\oplus\perp\big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\big)\\
&&\oplus \partial_{n+1}\big( {\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n+1}}\big)
\oplus\partial^*_{n} \big(\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n-1}\big). \end{aligned}$$
The next corollary follows from Theorem \[th-decomp1\] (a) and Lemma \[lemma2.99999\].
\[co-decomp2\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Then we have the orthogonal decomposition of the $n$-dimensional space of the supremum chain complex into four summands $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})&=& \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) \big)\\
&&\oplus\perp\big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\big)\\
&&\oplus \partial_{n+1} \text{Sup}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H}) \oplus (\partial_{n}\mid _{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^* \text{Sup}_{n-1}(\mathcal{H}). \end{aligned}$$
Some Examples
-------------
In this subsection, we give some examples of hypergraphs such that the decompositions in Theorem \[th-decomp1\] are non-trivial.
The next example shows that the decomposition of Theorem \[th-decomp1\] (a) is non-trivial.
Let $n\geq 3$. Let $\Delta[n]$ be the simplicial complex consisting of the standard $n$-simplex $\sigma^n$ (with $n+1$ vertices) together with all its faces. We consider the hypergraphs $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}^1&=& \text{Sk}^1(\Delta[n]),\\
\mathcal{H}^2&=& \{\sigma^n\} \sqcup\text{Sk}^1(\Delta[n])\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}^1\sqcup \mathcal{H}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Here $\text{Sk}^1$ denotes the $1$-skeleton and $\sqcup$ denotes the disjoint union. Then $$\begin{aligned}
H_1(\mathcal{H}^1;\mathbb{F})&=&H_1(\mathcal{H}^2;\mathbb{F})\\
&=&H_1(\text{Sk}^1(\Delta[n]);\mathbb{F})\\
&=& \mathbb{F}^{\oplus {{n}\choose{2}}}. \end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
&&\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\cong H_1(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})\\
&=& H_1(\mathcal{H}^1;\mathbb{F})\oplus H_1(\mathcal{H}^2;\mathbb{F})=\mathbb{F}^{\oplus 2{{n}\choose{2}}}. \end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $\Delta\mathcal{H}^1=\Delta[n]$, $\Delta\mathcal{H}^2=\text{Sk}^1(\Delta[n])$ and $\Delta\mathcal{H}=\Delta\mathcal{H}^1\sqcup \Delta\mathcal{H}^2$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}(L_1^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cong H_1(\Delta\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})= \mathbb{F}^{\oplus {{n}\choose{2}}}. \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Inf}_1(\mathcal{H})&=&\text{Sup}_1(\mathcal{H})\\
&=&\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H}^1)_1\oplus \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H}^2)_1\\
&=&\big(\mathbb{F}\big(\text{Sk}^1(\Delta[n])\big)_1\big)^{\oplus 2}. \end{aligned}$$ Thus the two summands of the decomposition of $H_1(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})$ in Theorem \[th-decomp1\] (a) are $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}(L_1^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap \text{Inf}_1(\mathcal{H})&=&\mathbb{F}^{\oplus {{n}\choose{2}}},\\
\perp\big( \text{Ker}(L_1^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap \text{Sup}_1(\mathcal{H}),\text{Ker}(L_1^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\big)&=&\mathbb{F}^{\oplus {{n}\choose{2}}}. \end{aligned}$$ The decomposition of Theorem \[th-decomp1\] (a) is $\mathbb{F}^{\oplus 2{{n}\choose{2}}}=\mathbb{F}^{\oplus {{n}\choose{2}}}\oplus \mathbb{F}^{\oplus {{n}\choose{2}}}$.
The next example shows that the decomposition of Theorem \[th-decomp1\] (b) is non-trivial.
\[ex-3.4.2\] We consider the hypergraphs $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}^1=\big\{\{v_0,v_1,v_3\}, \{v_1,v_2,v_4\},\{v_3,v_4,v_5\}\big\} \end{aligned}$$ and $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}^1\sqcup \Delta\mathcal{H}^1$. Then $\mathcal{H}$ is the hypergraph drawn in Figure \[fig1\].
\(A) at (2/2,0); (B) at (5/2,0); (C) at (8/2,0); (D) at (3.5/2,2/2); (E) at (6.5/2,2/2); (F) at (5/2,4/2);
\(G) at (0.5/2,2/2); (A) – (B); (B) – (C); (D) – (A); (D) – (B); (E) – (C); (E) – (B); (E) – (F); (D) – (F); (D) – (E);
\(A) – (B) – (D) – cycle; (B) – (C) – (E) – cycle; (D) – (E) – (F) – cycle;
\(A) at (1+6,0); (B) at (2.5+6,0); (C) at (4+6,0); (D) at (1.75+6,2/2); (E) at (6.5/2+6,2/2); (F) at (5/2+6,4/2);
\(G) at (0.5/2+6,2/2); (A) – (B); (B) – (C); (D) – (A); (D) – (B); (E) – (C); (E) – (B); (E) – (F); (D) – (F); (D) – (E);
\(A) – (B) – (D) – cycle; (B) – (C) – (E) – cycle; (D) – (E) – (F) – cycle;
(7,0) circle (2.5pt); (8.5,0) circle (2.5pt); (10,0) circle (2.5pt); (7.75,2/2) circle (2.5pt); (6.5/2+6,2/2) circle (2.5pt); (5/2+6,4/2) circle (2.5pt);
Since $\text{Inf}_1(\mathcal{H}^1)=0$ and $\text{Inf}_1(\Delta\mathcal{H}^1)= \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H}^1)_1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}(L_1^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_1(\mathcal{H})&=&\big(\text{Ker}(L_1^{\Delta\mathcal{H}^1})\cap\text{Inf}_1(\mathcal{H}^1)\big)\\
&&\oplus \big( \text{Ker}(L_1^{\Delta\mathcal{H}^1})\cap\text{Inf}_1(\Delta\mathcal{H}^1)\big)\\
&=&\mathbb{F}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}(L_1^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cong H_1(\Delta\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})=\mathbb{F}^{\oplus 2}. \end{aligned}$$ Hence the decomposition of Theorem \[th-decomp1\] (b) is $\mathbb{F}^{\oplus 2}=\mathbb{F}\oplus \mathbb{F}$.
Isomorphisms of The Embedded Homology
-------------------------------------
In this subsection, we prove that the maps $i_2$ and $i_3$ in the diagram (\[diag-1\]) are isomorphisms.
Consider the canonical inclusion $\iota: \text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})\longrightarrow \text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})$. Then $\iota$ is a chain map. For each $n\geq 0$, $\iota$ induces an isomorphism $\iota_*: H_n(\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H}))\longrightarrow H_n(\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H}))$. Hence we have a commutative diagram
$$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{
\text{Ker}\partial_n\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\ar[rr]^\iota\ar[dd]_{q_1}&& \text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\ar[dd]_{q_2}\\
\\
\big(\text{Ker}\partial_n\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\big)\big/ \partial_{n+1} \text{Inf}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H})\ar@{=}[dd]&&\big(\text{Ker}\partial_n\cap\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\big)\big/ \partial_{n+1} \text{Sup}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H})\ar@{=}[dd]\\
\\
H_n(\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H}))\ar[rr]^{\iota_*}_{\cong} &&H_n(\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})).
}
\label{diag-2}\end{aligned}$$
Here $q_1$ and $q_2$ are the canonical quotient maps.
\[pr-3.2.1\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-xyz-3}
\text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})= \text{Ker}\partial_n\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) +\partial_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}. \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-xyz-6}
\text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \perp \big(\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\big)=\perp\big(\partial_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1} \cap \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n, \partial_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}\big). \end{aligned}$$
Let $x\in \text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})$. Since $\iota_*$ is an isomorphism, there exists $y\in \text{Ker}\partial_n\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})$ such that $\iota_*q_1 y=q_2 x$. That is, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-xy-11}
\iota_*(y+ \partial_{n+1}(\text{Inf}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H}))= x+ \partial_{n+1}(\text{Sup}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H})). \end{aligned}$$ Since $\iota$ is the canonical inclusion, it follows from (\[eq-xy-11\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
x-y\in \partial_{n+1}(\text{Sup}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H})). \end{aligned}$$ Hence $x=y+\partial_{n+1}z$ for some $z\in \text{Sup}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H})$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-xyz-1}
\text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\subseteq \text{Ker}\partial_n\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) + \partial_{n+1} \text{Sup}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H}).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, since $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}\partial_n\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\subseteq \text{Ker}\partial_n\cap\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{n+1} \text{Sup}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H}) \subseteq \text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}), \end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-xyz-21}
\text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\supseteq \text{Ker}\partial_n\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) + \partial_{n+1} \text{Sup}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H}).\end{aligned}$$ By (\[eq-xyz-1\]) and (\[eq-xyz-21\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-xyz-22}
\text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})= \text{Ker}\partial_n\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) + \partial_{n+1} \text{Sup}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H}).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{n+1} \text{Sup}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H})&=&\partial_{n+1} \big(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}+\partial_{n+2}\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+2}\big)\nonumber\\
&=&\partial_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}.
\label{eq-xyz-2}\end{aligned}$$ By (\[eq-xyz-22\]) and (\[eq-xyz-2\]), we obtain (\[eq-xyz-3\]). Furthermore, since $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1} \subseteq \text{Ker}\partial_n\subseteq \partial_n^{-1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n-1},\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-xyz-87}
\big(\text{Ker}\partial_n\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\big)\cap\partial_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1} = \partial_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1} \cap \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n. \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by (\[eq-xyz-3\]) and (\[eq-xyz-87\]), we have the orthogonal decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})&=& \big(\text{Ker}\partial_n\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\big) \nonumber\\
&&\oplus\perp\big(\partial_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1} \cap \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n, \partial_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}\big).
\label{eq-xyz-89}\end{aligned}$$ By (\[eq-xyz-89\]), we obtain (\[eq-xyz-6\]).
The next theorem proves that the maps $i_2$ and $i_3$ in the diagram (\[diag-1\]) are isomorphisms.
\[th-3.2-iso\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Then in the diagram (\[diag-1\]), the map $i_3$ is an isomorphism $\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})$. And the map $i_2$ is an isomorphism $\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})$.
Firstly, we study the map $i_3$. By Theorem \[pr.a.1\] and (\[eq-xyz-3\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})&=& \text{Ker}\partial_n\cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\cap \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*\nonumber\\
&=&\text{Ker}\partial_n\cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\cap \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*\nonumber\\
&& + \partial_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}\cap \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*,\label{eq-3.2.1.a}\\
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})&=& \text{Ker}\partial_n\cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\cap \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*. \label{eq-3.2.1.b}\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*&=&\perp \big( \text{Im} (\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})}), \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\big) \nonumber\\
&=&\perp\big( \partial_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}, \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n+ \partial_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}\big),
\label{eq-xyz-8}\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-3.2.1.c}
\partial_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}\cap \text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^*=0. \end{aligned}$$ Hence by (\[eq-3.2.1.a\]), (\[eq-3.2.1.b\]) and (\[eq-3.2.1.c\]), $i_3$ is an isomorphism.
Secondly, we study the map $i_2$. By (\[eq-3.2.1.a\]), (\[eq-3.2.1.b\]) and (\[eq-xyz-8\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-xyz-9}
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})&=& \perp\big(\partial_{n+1}{\text{Sup}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H})},\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\big)
\cap \text{Ker}\partial_n,\\
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})&=& \perp\big(\partial_{n+1}{\text{Sup}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H})},\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\big) \cap \text{Ker}\partial_n\nonumber\\
&& \cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}). \label{eq-xyz-99}\end{aligned}$$ By a similar calculation with (\[eq-xyz-8\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}(\partial_{n+1}\mid _{\text{Inf}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H})})^*=\perp\big(\partial_{n+1}{\text{Inf}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H})},\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\big). \end{aligned}$$ Hence by Theorem \[pr.a.1\], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-xyz-10}
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})=\perp\big(\partial_{n+1}{\text{Inf}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H})},\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\big)
\cap \text{Ker}\partial_n. \end{aligned}$$ We notice that the righthand side of (\[eq-xyz-9\]) is canonically isomorphic to $$\begin{aligned}
\big(\text{Ker}\partial_n \cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\big)\big/ \partial_{n+1} \text{Sup}_{n+1} (\mathcal{H}),\end{aligned}$$ and the righthand side of (\[eq-xyz-10\]) is canonically isomorphic to $$\begin{aligned}
\big(\text{Ker}\partial_n\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\big)\big/ \partial_{n+1} \text{Inf}_{n+1} (\mathcal{H}).
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the righthand side of (\[eq-xyz-99\]) is canonically isomorphic to $$\begin{aligned}
\iota_*\big(\big(\text{Ker}\partial_n\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\big)\big/ \partial_{n+1} \text{Inf}_{n+1} (\mathcal{H})\big).
\end{aligned}$$ By the commutative diagram (\[diag-2\]), we see that $i_2$ in the diagram (\[diag-1\]) is an isomorphism.
The next corollary follows from Theorem \[th-3.2-iso\].
The diagram (\[diag-1\]) commutes.
By Theorem \[th-3.2-iso\], we see that the square $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{
H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})\ar[r]^{\cong} \ar [dd]^{\cong}&\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})}) \\
\\
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})&\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\ar[l]_{i_2\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ }}\ar[uu]^{i_3}
}\end{aligned}$$ commutes. With the help of Proposition \[pr3.1.a.b.1\] and Proposition \[pr3.1.a.b.2\], the diagram (\[diag-1\]) commutes.
Functoriality and The Hodge Decompositions for Hypergraphs
----------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we study the functoriality of the decompositions in Theorem \[th-decomp1\]. We obtain the Hodge decomposition for hypergraphs in Theorem \[th-3.19\].
Let $\mathcal{H}$ and $\mathcal{H}'$ be two hypergraphs and let $\rho: \mathcal{H}\longrightarrow \mathcal{H}'$ be a morphism. Then $\rho$ is a map from the vertex-set of $\mathcal{H}$ to the vertex-set of $\mathcal{H}'$ such that for any hyperedge $\{v_0,\ldots,v_n\}$ of $\mathcal{H}$, $\{\rho(v_0),\ldots,\rho(v_n)\}$ is a hyperedge of $\mathcal{H}'$. We have an induced simplicial map $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\rho: \Delta\mathcal{H}\longrightarrow \Delta\mathcal{H}' \end{aligned}$$ sending a simplex $\{v_0,\ldots,v_k\}$ of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ to a simplex $\{\rho(v_0),\ldots,\rho(v_k)\}$ of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$. We have an induced homomorphism of homology groups $$\begin{aligned}
(\Delta\rho)_*: H_*(\Delta\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})\longrightarrow H_*(\Delta\mathcal{H}';\mathbb{F}). \end{aligned}$$ Let $\overline{\Delta\rho}$ be the map sending $\{v_0,\ldots,v_k\}$ to $\{\rho(v_0),\ldots,\rho(v_k)\}$ if $\rho(v_0)$, $\ldots$, $\rho(v_k)$ are distinct, and sending $\{v_0,\ldots,v_k\}$ to $0$ otherwise. By extending $\overline{\Delta\rho}$ linearly over $\mathbb{F}$, we have a chain map $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{F}(\Delta\rho): \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_*\longrightarrow \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H}')_*. \end{aligned}$$ And we have restricted chain maps $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-3.3.1.x}
\mathbb{F}(\Delta\rho)\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})}:&& \text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})\longrightarrow \text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H}'),\\
\mathbb{F}(\Delta\rho)\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})}:&& \text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})\longrightarrow \text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H}'). \label{eq-3.3.2.x}\end{aligned}$$ By (\[eq-3.3.1.x\]) and (\[eq-3.3.2.x\]), we have a commutative diagram of induced homomorphisms of the homology groups $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{
H_*(\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H}))\ar[rrr]^{(\mathbb{F}(\Delta\rho)\mid_{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})_*}\ar[dd]_{\iota_*}^\cong&&& H_*(\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H}'))\ar[dd]^\cong_{\iota'_*}\\
\\
H_*(\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H}))\ar[rrr]^{(\mathbb{F}(\Delta\rho)\mid_{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})_*}&&& H_*(\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H}')).
}\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, we denote the homomorphism between the embedded homology groups as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_*: H_*(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})\longrightarrow H_*(\mathcal{H}';\mathbb{F}). \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by restricting $\mathbb{F}(\Delta\rho)$ to $\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_*$, we obtain a graded linear map $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{F}(\Delta\rho)\mid_{\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_*}: \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_* \longrightarrow \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H}')_*. \end{aligned}$$ By applying the maps $\rho_*$, $\Delta\rho$, $(\Delta\rho)_*$ and the restrictions of $\mathbb{F}(\Delta\rho)$ on $\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_*$, $\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})$ and $\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})$, we have the next theorem.
\[th-func\] The decompositions in Theorem \[th-decomp1\], Corollary \[co-3.3.x\] and Corollary \[co-decomp2\] are functorial.
Suppose $\mathcal{H}\subseteq\mathcal{H}'$ and $\rho$ is the canonical inclusion of $\mathcal{H}$ into $\mathcal{H}'$. Let $\partial'_*$ be the boundary maps of $\Delta\mathcal{H}'$. Then for $n\geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}(L^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})}_n )
= \text{Ker}\partial'_n \cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) \cap \perp \big(\partial'_{n+1} \text{Inf}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H}), \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\big). \label{eq-3.4.87}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the homomorphism $\rho_*$ sends a chain $\omega$ in (\[eq-3.4.87\]) to itself if $\omega\in \text{Ker}(L^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H}')}_n )$, and sends $\omega$ to zero otherwise.
As a particular case, we let $\mathcal{H}'$ be $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ and let $s: \mathcal{H}\longrightarrow \Delta\mathcal{H}$ be the canonical inclusion. Let $n\geq 0$. Then $s$ induces a graded linear map $$\begin{aligned}
s_\#: \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_*\longrightarrow \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_* \end{aligned}$$ and chain maps $$\begin{aligned}
s_\#^{\text{Inf}}:&& \text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})\longrightarrow \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H}),\\
s_\#^{\text{Sup}}:&& \text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})\longrightarrow \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H}).\end{aligned}$$ The maps $s_\#$, $s_\#^{\text{Inf}}$ and $s_\#^{\text{Sup}}$ are the canonical inclusions of vector spaces. With the help of Theorem \[th-a.1\], the induced homomorphism of the embedded homology satisfies the following commutative diagram $$\begin{aligned}
\label{diag-3.4.1}
\xymatrix{
H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})\ar[dd]_{\cong }\ar[rr]^{s_*}&&H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F}) \ar[dd]^{\cong}\\
\\
\text{Ker}(L^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})}_n ) \ar@{-->}[rr]^{s^{\text{Inf}}_*}&& \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}) \\
\\
&&\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}) \cap \text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\ar[uu]_f\ar[uull]_g.
}\end{aligned}$$ Here $f$ and $g$ are the canonical inclusions. Moreover, we have the following commutative diagram $$\begin{aligned}
\label{diag-3.4.2}
\xymatrix{
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})\ar@/_6.5pc/@{-->}[rrrrrdd]^{s_*^{\text{Sup}}}\ar[rr]\ar[dd]_{\cong} &&\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\ar[rrr]^{s_\#^{\text{Sup}}} &&&\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n\\
&&\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\ar[u]\ar[rrru]^{s_\#}&&
\\
\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})\ar@/_6pc/@{-->}[rrrrr]^{s_*^{\text{Inf}}}\ar[rr]\ar[ddd]_{\cong} &&\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})\ar[u]\ar[rrruu]_{s_\#^{\text{Inf}}}&&&\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\ar[uu]\ar[ddd]^{\cong}\\
\\
\\
H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})\ar[rrrrr]^{s_*}&&&&& H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F}).
}\end{aligned}$$ All the unlabeled arrows in the diagram (\[diag-3.4.2\]) are canonical inclusions. And $s_*^{\text{Inf}}$ and $s_*^{\text{Sup}}$ are the corresponding maps of $s_*$ on the kernels of Laplacians.
Restricting $s_*$ to the two summands of the decomposition of $H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})$ given in Theorem \[th-decomp1\] (a), the next theorem follows.
\[th-3.18\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Then
1. the restriction of $s_*$ to (\[eq-3.4.097\]), denoted as $
s_*^1
$, is injective;
2. the restriction of $s_*$ to (\[eq-3.4.098\]), denoted as $s_*^{2}
$, is zero.
(a). It follows from the commutative diagram (\[diag-3.4.1\]) that $s_*^1=s_*\circ g $ is injective.
(b). Let $\omega\in\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})$. By the top row of the commutative diagram (\[diag-3.4.2\]), $$\begin{aligned}
s_\#^{\text{Sup}} (\omega) \in s_\#\big(\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})\big)=\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}). \end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
s_*^{\text{Sup}}(\omega)=s_\#^{\text{Sup}} (\omega)\in \text{Ker}(L^{\Delta\mathcal{H}}_n)\cap \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}). \end{aligned}$$ In particular, when $\omega$ be a chain in (\[eq-3.4.098\]), $s_*^{\text{Sup}}(\omega)=0$. Therefore, $s_*^2$ is the zero map.
Alternatively, by Remark \[re-81\], we see that as subspaces of $\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$, (\[eq-3.4.098\]) equals to the space $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-3.4.198}
\perp\big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})\big). \end{aligned}$$ Let $\omega$ be a chain in (\[eq-3.4.198\]). Then $\omega\in \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Inf}_*(\mathcal{H})})$ and $\omega\perp \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})$. By the maps $s^{\text{Inf}}_\#$ and $s^{\text{Inf}}_*$ in the diagram (\[diag-3.4.2\]), $s^{\text{Inf}}_*$ sends $\omega$ to zero. We also obtain that $s_*^2$ is the zero map.
Summarizing Theorem \[th-decomp1\] and Theorem \[th-3.18\], we have the Hodge decompositions for hypergraphs.
\[th-3.19\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Let $s$ be the canonical inclusion from $\mathcal{H}$ to $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ and $s_*$ be the induced homomorphism from $H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})$ to $H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})$. Then represented by the kernel of the supremum Laplacian $\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})$, $H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})$ is the orthogonal sum of (\[eq-3.4.097\]) and $\text{Ker}(s_*)$. And represented by the kernel of the Laplacian $\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})$ of the simplicial complex $\Delta\mathcal{H}$, $H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})$ is the orthogonal sum of (\[eq-3.4.097\]) and $\text{Coker}(s_*)$. Moreover, $\text{Ker}(s_*)$ is given by (\[eq-3.4.098\]) and (IV)-(i), (IV)-(ii), (IV)-(iii); and $\text{Coker}(s_*)$ is given by (\[eq-3.4.876\]) and (V)-(i), (V)-(ii), (V)-(iii).
The next corollary follows from Corollary \[co-3.3.x\], Corollary \[co-decomp2\] and Theorem \[th-3.19\].
\[co-3.99\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Then we have the orthogonal decompositions $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n&=& \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) \big)
\oplus \text{Coker}(s_*)\\
&&\oplus \partial_{n+1}\big( {\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n+1}}\big)
\oplus\partial^*_{n} \big(\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n-1}\big) \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})&=& \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H}})\cap\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H}) \big)
\oplus\text{Ker}(s_*)\\
&&\oplus \partial_{n+1} \text{Sup}_{n+1}(\mathcal{H}) \oplus (\partial_{n}\mid _{\text{Sup}_*(\mathcal{H})})^* \text{Sup}_{n-1}(\mathcal{H}). \end{aligned}$$
Hodge Decompositions for Weighted Hypergraphs {#sss4}
=============================================
In this section, we generalize the Hodge decompositions for hypergraphs to the Hodge decompositions for weighted hypergraphs. We generalize Theorem \[th-3.19\] and obtain Theorem \[th-0.0\] (Theorem \[th-4.19\]). We also discuss the relations between the weights on hypergraphs and the weighted embedded homology.
Weighted Hypergraphs, Weighted Embedded Homology, and Weighted Laplacians {#subs4.1}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we introduce the definitions of weighted hypergraphs, weighted embedded homology and weighted Laplacians.
Let $n\geq 0$. Let $\sigma$ be an $n$-simplex of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$. For each $0\leq i\leq n$, let $d_i\sigma$ be the $(n-1)$-face by deleting the $i$-th vertex of $\sigma$. We define weights on $\mathcal{H}$ as the weights on $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ (cf. [@chengyuan Definition 2.1]). The precise definition is given as follows.
\[def1\] A [**weight**]{} on $\mathcal{H}$ is a bilinear map $\phi: \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})\times \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})\longrightarrow \mathbb{F}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-xyz}
\phi(d_i\sigma,d_jd_i\sigma)\phi(\sigma,d_i\sigma)=\phi(d_j\sigma,d_jd_i\sigma)\phi(\sigma,d_j\sigma)\end{aligned}$$ for any simplices $\sigma\in \Delta\mathcal{H}$ and any $j< i$. We call the pair $(\mathcal{H},\phi)$ a weighted hypergraph.
By [@chengyuan Definition 2.3], we have the [**$\phi$-weighted boundary map**]{} of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^\phi_n: \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n\longrightarrow \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n-1}\end{aligned}$$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^\phi_n(\sigma)=\sum_{i=0}^n(-1)^i\phi(\sigma,d_i\sigma)d_i\sigma. \end{aligned}$$ By [@chengyuan Proposition 2.5], $\partial^\phi_{n-1}\partial^\phi_n=0
$. Thus we have a chain complex $$\begin{aligned}
\{\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n, \partial^\phi_n\}_{n\geq 0}. \end{aligned}$$ Let $n\geq 0$. The $\phi$-weighted Laplacian of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
L^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi}_n=\partial^\phi_{n+1}(\partial^\phi_{n+1})^*+(\partial^\phi_n)^*\partial^\phi_n. \end{aligned}$$ The $\phi$-weighted infimum chain complex and the $\phi$-weighted supremum chain complex are respectively $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})&=&\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n \cap (\partial^\phi_{n})^{-1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n-1},\\
\text{Sup}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})&=&\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n + \partial^{\phi}_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}.\end{aligned}$$ We have the orthogonal decompositions $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n&=&\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})\oplus A^\phi_n,\\
\text{Sup}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})&=&\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\oplus B^\phi_n,\\
\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n&=&\text{Sup}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H}) \oplus E^\phi_n \end{aligned}$$ where $A^\phi_n$, $B^\phi_n$ and $D^\phi_n$ are $$\begin{aligned}
A^\phi_n&=&\perp \big(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\cap (\partial^\phi_n)^{-1}\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n-1}, \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\big), \label{eq-4q1}\\
B^\phi_n&=&\perp \big(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n,\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n+ \partial^\phi_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}\big), \label{eq-4q2}\\
E^\phi_n&=&\perp \big(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}+ \partial^\phi_{n+1} \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1},\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n\big). \label{eq-4q3}\end{aligned}$$ The $\phi$-weighted supremum Laplacian and the $\phi$-weighted infimum Laplacian of $\mathcal{H}$ are respectively $$\begin{aligned}
L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}&=&(\partial^\phi_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})(\partial^\phi_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})^* +(\partial^\phi_n\mid_{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})^*(\partial^\phi_n\mid_{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})}),\\
L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}&=&(\partial^\phi_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})(\partial^\phi_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})^* +(\partial^\phi_n\mid_{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})^*(\partial^\phi_n\mid_{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})}). \end{aligned}$$ The [$\phi$-weighted embedded homology]{} of $\mathcal{H}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})&=&H_n(\{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\partial_*^\phi\mid_{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})}\}) \nonumber\\
&\cong& H_n(\{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\partial_*^\phi\mid_{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})}\}).
\label{eq3.1a.999}\end{aligned}$$ The isomorphism in (\[eq3.1a.999\]) is obtained from [@h1 Proposition 2.4].
Some Examples
-------------
In this subsection, we give some examples of weighted hypergraphs and their weighted embedded homology.
The next example shows that weighted simplicial complexes studied in [@chengyuan] is a special family of weighted hypergraphs.
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a simplicial complex. Then (\[eq3.1a.999\]) gives the $\phi$-weighted homology of simplicial complexes. The $\phi$-weighted (co)homology and the $\phi$-weighted Laplacian have been studied in [@chengyuan].
The next three examples give some particular kinds of weights for weighted hypergraphs.
\[ex-con\] Suppose $\phi$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(\sigma,\tau)=1
\end{aligned}$$ for any $\sigma,\tau\in\Delta\mathcal{H}$. Then $H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})$ is the embedded homology of $\mathcal{H}$ studied in [@h1].
\[ex-4.a.3\] Suppose $\phi$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(\sigma,\tau)=0
\end{aligned}$$ for any $\sigma,\tau\in\Delta\mathcal{H}$. Let $n\geq 0$. Then $\partial_n^\phi=(\partial_n^\phi)^*=0$ and $\text{Inf}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H})= \text{Sup}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H})=\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
L^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi}_n=L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}=L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}=0
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})&=&\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n,\\
H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})&=& \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n.
\end{aligned}$$
\[ex3.3.1\] Let $w: \Delta\mathcal{H}\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{+}\subseteq\mathbb{F}
$ be an evaluation function with positive real values on the simplices of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$. For any $\tau,\tau'\in\Delta\mathcal{H}$, let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq3.3.0}
\phi_w(\sigma,\tau)=C\cdot \frac{w(\sigma)}{w(\tau)}. \end{aligned}$$ Here $C$ is a constant positive real number which does not depend on the choices of $\sigma$ and $\tau$. We extend $\phi_w$ bilinearly over $\mathbb{F}$. It is straightforward to verify that $\phi_w$ is a weight on $\mathcal{H}$. In particular, when $\mathcal{H}$ is a simplicial complex, the weight $\phi_w$, the $\phi_w$-weighted (co)homology, and the $\phi_w$-weighted Laplacian have been studied in [@adv1].
The next example gives some concrete weighted hypergraphs and calculations of the weighted embedded homology.
\[ex-4.1\] We consider the hypergraphs $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_0&=&\big\{\{v_0\},\{v_1\},\{v_2\},\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}\big\},\\
\mathcal{H}_1&=&\big\{\{v_0\},\{v_1\},\{v_2\},\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}\big\},\\
\mathcal{H}_2&=&\big\{\{v_0\},\{v_1\},\{v_2\},\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_1,v_2\},\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}\big\},\\
\mathcal{H}_3&=&\big\{\{v_0\},\{v_1\},\{v_2\},\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_1,v_2\},\{v_0,v_2\},\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}\big\}.\end{aligned}$$ For each $\mathcal{H}_i$, $i=0,1,2,3$, its associated simplicial complex is $\mathcal{H}_3$. These hypergraphs are drawn in Figure \[fig2\].
\(A) at (2,0); (B) at (5,0); (F) at (1,1); (A) – (B); (C) at (4,1.5); (B) – (C); (A) – (C); (A) – (B) – (C) – cycle; (A) at (9,0); (B) at (12,0); (F) at (8,1); (A) – (B); (C) at (11,1.5); (C) – (B); (A) – (C); (A) – (B) – (C) – cycle; (2,0) circle (2.5pt) (5,0) circle (2.5pt) (4,1.5) circle (2.5 pt); (9,0) circle (2.5pt) (12,0) circle (2.5pt) (11,1.5) circle (2.5 pt);
\(A) at (2,0); (B) at (5,0); (F) at (1,1); (A) – (B); (C) at (4,1.5); (B) – (C); (A) – (C); (A) – (B) – (C) – cycle; (A) at (9,0); (B) at (12,0); (F) at (8,1); (A) – (B); (C) at (11,1.5); (C) – (B); (A) – (C); (A) – (B) – (C) – cycle; (2,0) circle (2.5pt) (5,0) circle (2.5pt) (4,1.5) circle (2.5 pt); (9,0) circle (2.5pt) (12,0) circle (2.5pt) (11,1.5) circle (2.5 pt);
1. Let $\phi$ be a weight on $\mathcal{H}_3$ given by Definition \[def1\]. Then the $\phi$-weighted boundary map of $ \mathcal{H}_3$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_2^\phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}) &=& \phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\},\{v_1,v_2\}) \{v_1,v_2\}\\
&& - \phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}, \{v_0,v_2\}) \{v_0,v_2\} \\
&&+\phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}, \{v_0,v_1\}) \{v_0,v_1\},\\
\partial_1^\phi(\{v_1,v_2\}) &=& \phi(\{v_1,v_2\}, \{v_2\}) v_2 - \phi(\{v_1,v_2\}, \{v_1\}) v_1,\\
\partial_1^\phi(\{v_0,v_2\}) &=& \phi(\{v_0,v_2\},\{v_2\}) v_2 - \phi(\{v_0,v_2\},\{v_0\}) v_0,\\
\partial_1^\phi(\{v_0,v_1\}) &=& \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_1\}) v_1 - \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_0\}) v_0,
\end{aligned}$$ and $\partial_0^\phi(\{v_0\})=\partial_0^\phi(\{v_1\})=\partial_0^\phi(\{v_2\})=0$. Hence for each $i=0,1,2,3$, $$\begin{aligned}
H_2(\mathcal{H}_i,\phi;\mathbb{F})=
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
0, & \text{\ \ if } \phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}, \{v_1,v_2\}),
\phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}, \{v_0,v_2\}), \\
&\text{ and } \phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}, \{v_0,v_1\})
\text{ are not all zero};\\
\mathbb{F}, & \text{\ \ if } \phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}, \{v_1,v_2\}),
\phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}, \{v_0,v_2\}), \\
&\text{ and } \phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}, \{v_0,v_1\})
\text{ are all zero}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
H_1(\mathcal{H}_i,\phi;\mathbb{F})=\big(\text{Ker}(\partial_1^\phi) \cap \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H}_i)_1\big)\big/\big(\mathbb{F}\big(\partial_2^\phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\})\big) \cap \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H}_i)_1\big).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
H_1(\mathcal{H}_0,\phi;\mathbb{F})=0,
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_1(\mathcal{H}_1,\phi;\mathbb{F})=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
0, &\text{ if } \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_1\}) \text{ and } \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_0\}) \text{ are not both zero};\\
0, &\text{ if both } \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_1\}) \text{ and } \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_0\}) \text{ are zero},\\
& \text{ both }\phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\},\{v_1,v_2\}) \\
& \text{ and } \phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}, \{v_0,v_2\}) \text{ are zero},\\
&\text{ and } \phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}, \{v_0,v_1\}) \text{ is not zero}; \\
\mathbb{F}, & \text{ if both } \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_1\}) \text{ and } \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_0\}) \text{ are zero},\\
& \text{ and } \phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}, \{v_1,v_2\}),
\phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}, \{v_0,v_2\}), \\
&\text{ and } \phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}, \{v_0,v_1\})
\text{ are all zero};\\
\mathbb{F}, & \text{ if both } \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_1\}) \text{ and } \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_0\}) \text{ are zero},\\
&\text{ and }\phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\},\{v_1,v_2\}), \\
&\phi(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}, \{v_0,v_2\}) \text{ are not both zero}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{aligned}$$ The calculations of $H_1(\mathcal{H}_2,\phi;\mathbb{F})$ and $H_1(\mathcal{H}_3,\phi;\mathbb{F})$ are similar to the calculation of $H_1(\mathcal{H}_1,\phi;\mathbb{F})$. For simplicity, we omit the details. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
H_0(\mathcal{H}_i,\phi;\mathbb{F})=\mathbb{F}(\{v_0\},\{v_1\},\{v_2\})/ \partial^\phi_1(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H}_i)_1).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
H_0(\mathcal{H}_0,\phi;\mathbb{F})=\mathbb{F}^{\oplus 3},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_0(\mathcal{H}_1,\phi;\mathbb{F})=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbb{F}^{\oplus 3}, &\text{ if both } \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_1\}) \\
&\text{ and } \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_0\}) \text{ are zero};\\
\mathbb{F}^{\oplus 2}, &\text{ if at least one of } \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_1\})\\
& \text{ and } \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_0\}) \text{ is not zero}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{aligned}$$ The calculations of $H_0(\mathcal{H}_2,\phi;\mathbb{F})$ and $H_0(\mathcal{H}_3,\phi;\mathbb{F})$ are similar to the calculation of $H_0(\mathcal{H}_1,\phi;\mathbb{F})$. We omit the details.
2. Let $w: \mathcal{H}_3\longrightarrow (0, +\infty)$ be a function. Let $\phi_w$ be a weight on $\mathcal{H}_3$ induced from $w$ (cf. Example \[ex3.3.1\]). The $\phi_w$-weighted boundary maps of $\mathcal{H}_3$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_2^{\phi_w}(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}) &=& \frac{w(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\})}{w(\{v_1,v_2\})} \{v_1,v_2\} \\
&&- \frac{w(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\})}{w(\{v_0,v_2\})} \{v_0,v_2\} \\
&&+\frac{w(\{v_0,v_1,v_2\})}{w(\{v_0,v_1\})} \{v_0,v_1\},\\
\partial_1^{\phi_w}(\{v_1,v_2\}) &=& \frac{w(\{v_1,v_2\})}{w(\{v_2\})}v_2 - \frac{w(\{v_1,v_2\})}{w(\{v_1\})}v_1,\\
\partial_1^{\phi_w}(\{v_0,v_2\}) &=& \frac{w(\{v_0,v_2\})}{w(\{v_2\})}v_2 - \frac{w(\{v_0,v_2\})}{w(\{v_0\})}v_0,\\
\partial_1^{\phi_w}(\{v_0,v_1\}) &=& \frac{w(\{v_0,v_1\})}{w(\{v_1\})}v_1 - \frac{w(\{v_0,v_1\})}{w(\{v_0\})}v_0,
\end{aligned}$$ and $\partial_0^{\phi_w}(\{v_0\})=\partial_0^{\phi_w}(\{v_1\})=\partial_0^{\phi_w}(\{v_2\})=0$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
&& H_2(\mathcal{H}_0,\phi_w;\mathbb{F})=H_1(\mathcal{H}_0,\phi_w;\mathbb{F})=0,\\
&& H_0(\mathcal{H}_0,\phi_w;\mathbb{F})=\mathbb{F}^{\oplus 3}; \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&& H_2(\mathcal{H}_1,\phi_w;\mathbb{F})=H_1(\mathcal{H}_1,\phi;\mathbb{F})=0,\\
&& H_0(\mathcal{H}_1,\phi_w;\mathbb{F})=\mathbb{F}^{\oplus 2}; \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&& H_2(\mathcal{H}_2,\phi_w;\mathbb{F})=H_1(\mathcal{H}_2,\phi;\mathbb{F})=0,\\
&& H_0(\mathcal{H}_2,\phi_w;\mathbb{F})=\mathbb{F}; \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&& H_2(\mathcal{H}_3,\phi_w;\mathbb{F})=H_1(\mathcal{H}_3,\phi;\mathbb{F})=0,\\
&& H_0(\mathcal{H}_3,\phi_w;\mathbb{F})=\mathbb{F}. \end{aligned}$$ The $\phi_w$-weighted embedded homology of $\mathcal{H}_0$, $\mathcal{H}_1$, $\mathcal{H}_2$ and $\mathcal{H}_3$ does not depend on $w$.
Relations Between Weights and Homology
--------------------------------------
In this subsection, we study the relations between the weights on hypergraphs and the weighted embedded homology.
\[le-4.3.1\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Suppose $w: \Delta\mathcal{H}\longrightarrow (0,+\infty)$ is an evaluation function on $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ and $\phi_w$ is the weight induced by $w$ in Example \[ex3.3.1\]. Then $$\begin{aligned}
f_{n} : \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\cap \partial_{n+1}\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1} \longrightarrow \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\cap \partial^{\phi_w}_{n+1}\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1} \end{aligned}$$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
f_n\big(\sum_{i=0}^{n+1} (-1)^i d_i\sigma\big)= \sum _{i=0}^{n+1} \frac{w(\sigma)}{w(d_i\sigma)}(-1)^i d_i\sigma\end{aligned}$$ is a linear isomorphism.
The proof is similar with [@chengyuan2 Lemma 5.2].
\[rem-4.3.1\] The linear isomorphism in Lemma \[le-4.3.1\] can be generalized to general weights $\phi$ with nonzero values as follows. Let $\phi$ be a weight on $\mathcal{H}$ such that for any $\sigma\in \Delta\mathcal{H}$ with $\dim \sigma= n+1$, $\phi(\sigma,d_i\sigma)\neq 0$ for $0\leq i\leq n+1$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
f_{n} : \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\cap \partial_{n+1}\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1} \longrightarrow \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\cap \partial^{\phi}_{n+1}\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1} \end{aligned}$$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
f_n\big(\sum_{i=0}^{n+1} (-1)^i d_i\sigma\big)= \sum _{i=0}^{n+1} \phi(\sigma,d_i\sigma) (-1)^i d_i\sigma\end{aligned}$$ is a linear isomorphism.
\[le-4.3.2\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Suppose $w: \Delta\mathcal{H}\longrightarrow (0,+\infty)$ is an evaluation function on $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ and $\phi_w$ is the weight induced by $w$ in Example \[ex3.3.1\]. Then $$\begin{aligned}
g_{n} : \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\cap \text{Ker}\partial_{n} \longrightarrow \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\cap \text{Ker}\partial^{\phi_w}_{n } \end{aligned}$$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
g_n\big(\sum_{k=1}^{m} a_k\sigma_k\big)= \sum _{k=1}^{m} \frac{a_k}{w( \sigma_k)} \sigma_k\end{aligned}$$ is a linear isomorphism.
The proof is similar with [@chengyuan2 Lemma 5.1].
The linear isomorphism in Lemma \[le-4.3.2\] cannot be generalized to general weights $\phi$ with nonzero values or positive values. The following is such an example.
We consider the simplicial complex $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{K} = \big\{\{v_0\},\{v_1\},\{v_2\},\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_1,v_2\},\{v_0,v_2\}\big\}. \end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}\partial_1= \mathbb{F}(\{v_1,v_2\}-\{v_0,v_2\}+\{v_0,v_1\}). \end{aligned}$$ We consider a weight $\phi$ on $\mathcal{K}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_0\}), &\phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_1\}), \\
&\phi(\{v_1,v_2\},\{v_1\}), &\phi(\{v_1,v_2\},\{v_2\}), \\
&\phi(\{v_0,v_2\},\{v_0\}), &\phi(\{v_0,v_2\},\{v_2\}) \end{aligned}$$ are positive and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-4.3.1.c}
\frac{\phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_0\})}{\phi(\{v_0,v_2\},\{v_0\})}\cdot \frac{\phi(\{v_0,v_2\},\{v_2\})}{\phi(\{v_1,v_2\},\{v_2\})}\cdot \frac{\phi(\{v_1,v_2\},\{v_1\})}{\phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_1\})}\neq 1. \end{aligned}$$ We prove that $\text{Ker}\partial_1^\phi=0$. Suppose to the contrary, for some $a,b,c$ which are not all zero, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_1^\phi\big(a\{v_1,v_2\}-b\{v_0,v_2\}+c\{v_0,v_1\}\big) =0. \end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
c \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_0\})&=&b \phi(\{v_0,v_2\},\{v_0\}),\\
a \phi(\{v_1,v_2\},\{v_1\}) &=& c \phi(\{v_0,v_1\},\{v_1\}),\\
b \phi(\{v_0,v_2\},\{v_2\}) &=& a \phi(\{v_1,v_2\},\{v_2\}). \end{aligned}$$ This contradicts with the assumption (\[eq-4.3.1.c\]). Hence $\text{Ker}\partial_1^\phi=0$, which is not isomorphic to $\text{Ker}\partial_1$.
The next proposition follows from Lemma \[le-4.3.1\] and Lemma \[le-4.3.2\].
\[th-iso1\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Suppose $w: \Delta\mathcal{H}\longrightarrow (0,+\infty)$ is an evaluation function on $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ and $\phi_w$ is induced by $w$ in Example \[ex3.3.1\]. Then as vector spaces, $H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi_w;\mathbb{F})\cong H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})$.
By an analogous calculation in [@h1 Proposition 3.4], Lemma \[le-4.3.1\] and Lemma \[le-4.3.2\], $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi_w;\mathbb{F})&=& \big(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\cap \text{Ker}\partial^{\phi_w}_{n} \big)\big/ \big(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\cap \partial^{\phi_w}_{n+1}\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1} \big)\\
&\cong & \big(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\cap \text{Ker}\partial_{n} \big)\big/ \big(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\cap \partial_{n+1}\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1} \big)\\
&=& H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F}). \end{aligned}$$
The next proposition follows from Remark \[rem-4.3.1\] and the proof of Proposition \[th-iso1\].
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Let $\phi$ be a weight on $\mathcal{H}$ such that for any $\sigma\in \Delta\mathcal{H}$ with $\dim \sigma= n+1$, $\phi(\sigma,d_i\sigma)\neq 0$ for $0\leq i\leq n+1$. If as vector spaces, $
\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\cap \text{Ker}\partial^{\phi}_{n} \cong\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n\cap \text{Ker}\partial_{n}
$, then as vector spaces, $H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})\cong H_n(\mathcal{H};\mathbb{F})$.
We consider the weighted infimum chain complex in the next proposition.
\[le-4.3.8\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Suppose $w: \Delta\mathcal{H}\longrightarrow (0,+\infty)$ is an evaluation function on $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ and $\phi_w$ is the weight induced by $w$ in Example \[ex3.3.1\]. Then $\text{Inf}^{\phi_w}_n(\mathcal{H})=\text{Inf}_n(\mathcal{H})$.
By the proof of [@chengyuan2 Lemma 5.1, equations (5.1)-(5.3)], $$\begin{aligned}
&\partial_n\big(\sum_{k=1}^{m} a_k\sigma_k\big)\in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n-1}\\
\Longleftrightarrow& d_j\sigma_k\in \mathcal{H} \text{ and } \dim (d_j\sigma_k)=n-1\\
& \text{ for any } 1\leq k\leq m, 0\leq j\leq n\\
\Longleftrightarrow & \partial_n^{\phi_w} \big(\sum_{k=1}^{m} a_k\sigma_k\big)\in \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-4.3.6}
\partial_n^{-1}\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n-1}= (\partial^{\phi_w}_n)^{-1}\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n-1}.\end{aligned}$$ On both sides of (\[eq-4.3.6\]), taking the intersections with $\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n$, we obtain the assertion.
By the proof of [@chengyuan2 Lemma 5.2], under the conditions of Proposition \[le-4.3.8\], we have a linear isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-4.3.91}
\partial^{\phi_w}_{n+1}(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1})\cong \partial_{n+1}(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1}).
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Sup}_n^{\phi_w}(\mathcal{H})&=&\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n + \partial^{\phi_w}_{n+1}(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1})\nonumber\\
&\cong& \mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_n + \partial_{n+1}(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1})\label{eq-4.3.92}\\
&=& \text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H}). \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ The linear isomorphisms in (\[eq-4.3.91\]) and (\[eq-4.3.92\]) may not be identity maps. That is, as subspaces of $\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$, $\partial^{\phi_w}_{n+1}(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1})$ and $ \partial_{n+1}(\mathbb{F}(\mathcal{H})_{n+1})$ may not be equal; and $\text{Sup}_n^{\phi_w}(\mathcal{H})$ and $\text{Sup}_n(\mathcal{H})$ may not be equal.
The Hodge Decompositions for Weighted Hypergraphs
-------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we study the Hodge decompositions for weighted hypergraphs and prove the main result Theorem \[th-4.19\].
Theorem \[pr.a.1\] can be generalized to weighted hypergraphs in the next theorem.
\[pr.a.1.w\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph. Let $\phi$ be a weight on $\mathcal{H}$. For each $n\geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F}) \cong \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}), \phi})
\cong \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}). \end{aligned}$$ In other words, $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})&\cong& \text{Ker}(\partial^\phi_n\mid_{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap \text{Ker}(\partial^\phi_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})^* \\
&\cong& \text{Ker}(\partial^\phi_n\mid_{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})\cap \text{Ker}(\partial^\phi_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})^*.\end{aligned}$$
Theorem \[th-a.1\] can be generalized to weighted hypergraphs in the next theorem.
\[th-a.1.w\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph, $\phi$ a weight on $\mathcal{H}$, and $n\geq 0$. Then both $\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi}_n\cap \text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})$ and $\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi}_n\cap \text{Sup}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})$ are subspaces of $H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})$. Moreover, [if]{} $\partial_n(A^\phi_n\oplus B^\phi_n\oplus E^\phi_n)\subseteq A^\phi_{n-1}\oplus B^\phi_{n-1}\oplus E^\phi_{n-1}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi}_n\cap \text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})\cong H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F}). \end{aligned}$$ And [if]{} $\partial_n( E^\phi_n)\subseteq E^\phi_{n-1}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Ker}L^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi}_n\cap \text{Sup}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})\cong H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F}). \end{aligned}$$
With the help of Theorem \[pr.a.1.w\] and Theorem \[th-a.1.w\], Theorem \[th-decomp1\] can be generalized to the next theorem.
\[th-decomp123\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph, $\phi$ a weight on $\mathcal{H}$, and $n\geq 0$. Then we have
1. the orthogonal decomposition of the $\phi$-weighted embedded homology into two summands $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})&\cong & \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})\cap\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H}) \big)\\
&&\oplus\perp\big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})\cap\text{Sup}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})\big); \end{aligned}$$
2. the orthogonal decomposition of the homology of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ into two summands $$\begin{aligned}
H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})&\cong & \big( H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})\cap\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H}) \big)\\
&&\oplus\perp\big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})\cap\text{Sup}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})\big). \end{aligned}$$
Generalizing Corollary \[co-3.3.x\] to weighted hypergraphs, the next corollary follows from Theorem \[th-decomp123\] (b).
\[co-3.3.x.a\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph, $\phi$ a weight on $\mathcal{H}$, and $n\geq 0$. Then we have the orthogonal decomposition of the vector space spanned by the $n$-simplices of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ into four summands $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n&=& \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})\cap\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H}) \big)\\
&&\oplus\perp\big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})\cap\text{Sup}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})\big)\\
&&\oplus \partial^\phi_{n+1}( {\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n+1}})
\oplus(\partial^\phi_{n})^* (\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n-1}). \end{aligned}$$
Generalizing Corollary \[co-decomp2\] to weighted hypergraphs, the next corollary follows from Theorem \[th-decomp123\] (a).
\[co-decomp2.a\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph, $\phi$ a weight on $\mathcal{H}$, and $n\geq 0$. Then we have the orthogonal decomposition of the $n$-dimensional space of the $\phi$-weighted supremum chain complex into four summands $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Sup}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})&=& \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})\cap\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H}) \big)\\
&&\oplus\perp\big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})\cap\text{Sup}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H}), \text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})\big)\\
&&\oplus \partial^\phi_{n+1} \text{Sup}^\phi_{n+1}(\mathcal{H}) \oplus (\partial^\phi_{n}\mid _{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})^* \text{Sup}^\phi_{n-1}(\mathcal{H}). \end{aligned}$$
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a simplicial complex. Then Theorem \[pr.a.1.w\] and Corollary \[co-3.3.x.a\] (or equivalently, Corollary \[co-decomp2.a\]) are reduced to the Hodge isomorphisms and Hodge decompositions of weighted simplicial complexes (cf. [@chengyuan]) respectively. And Theorem \[th-a.1.w\] and Theorem \[th-decomp123\] are reduced to the trivial statements.
\[ex-con.ab\] Suppose $\phi$ is given by $ \phi(\sigma,\tau)=1
$ for any $\sigma,\tau\in\Delta\mathcal{H}$. Then Theorem \[pr.a.1.w\], Theorem \[th-a.1.w\], Theorem \[th-decomp123\], Corollary \[co-3.3.x.a\] and Corollary \[co-decomp2.a\] are reduced to Theorem \[pr.a.1\], Theorem \[th-a.1\], Theorem \[th-decomp1\], Corollary \[co-3.3.x\] and Corollary \[co-decomp2\] respectively.
Let $(\mathcal{H},\phi)$ and $(\mathcal{H}',\phi')$ be two weighted hypergraphs. A morphism of weighted hypergraphs is a morphism of hypergraphs $\rho: \mathcal{H}\longrightarrow \mathcal{H}'$ such that for any $n\geq 0$, the following diagram commutes $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{
\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n+1}\ar[rr]^{\mathbb{F}(\Delta\rho)}\ar[dd]^{\partial_n^\phi}&& \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H}')_{n+1}\ar[dd]^{{\partial'}_{n}^{\phi'}}\\
\\
\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n\ar[rr]^{\mathbb{F}(\Delta\rho)}&& \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H}')_n.
}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\partial_n^\phi$ is the $\phi$-weighted boundary map of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ and ${\partial'}_{n}^{\phi'}$ is the $\phi'$-weighted boundary map of $\Delta\mathcal{H}'$.
\[th-func123\] The decompositions in Theorem \[th-decomp123\], Corollary \[co-3.3.x.a\] and Corollary \[co-decomp2.a\] are functorial.
We consider the canonical inclusion $s: \mathcal{H}\longrightarrow \Delta\mathcal{H}$. Then $s$ is a morphism of weighted hypergraphs from $(\mathcal{H},\phi)$ to $(\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi)$.
In particular, when $\mathcal{H}$ is a simplicial complex, $H^*(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})$, the cohomology version of $H_*(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})$, is studied in [@chengyuan].
With the help of Theorem \[th-decomp123\] and Theorem \[th-func123\], Theorem \[th-3.19\] can be generalized to weighted hypergraphs.
\[th-4.19\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph, $\phi$ a weight on $\mathcal{H}$, and $n\geq 0$. Let $s$ be the canonical inclusion from $\mathcal{H}$ to $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ and $s_*$ be the induced homomorphism from $H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})$ to $H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})$. Then represented by the kernel of the weighted supremum Laplacian $\text{Ker}(L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})$, $H_n(\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})$ is the orthogonal sum of $\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})\cap\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})$ and $\text{Ker}(s_*)$. And represented by the kernel of the weighted Laplacian $\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})$, $H_n(\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi;\mathbb{F})$ is the orthogonal sum of $\text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})\cap\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})$ and $\text{Coker}(s_*)$.
The next corollary follows from Corollary \[co-3.3.x.a\], Corollary \[co-decomp2.a\] and Theorem \[th-4.19\].
\[co-4.99\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph, $\phi$ a weight on $\mathcal{H}$, and $n\geq 0$. Then we have the orthogonal decompositions $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n&=& \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})\cap\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H}) \big)
\oplus \text{Coker}(s_*)\\
&&\oplus \partial^\phi_{n+1}\big( {\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n+1}}\big)
\oplus(\partial^\phi_{n})^* \big(\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n-1}\big) \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Sup}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})&=& \big( \text{Ker}(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})\cap\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H}) \big)
\oplus\text{Ker}(s_*)\\
&&\oplus \partial^\phi_{n+1} \text{Sup}^\phi_{n+1}(\mathcal{H}) \oplus (\partial^\phi_{n}\mid _{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})^* \text{Sup}^\phi_{n-1}(\mathcal{H}). \end{aligned}$$
In Theorem \[th-4.19\] and Corollary \[co-4.99\], $s_*$ depends on $\phi$. Hence $\text{Ker}(s_*)$ and $\text{Coker}(s_*)$ depend on $\phi$ as well.
The next theorem follows by applying [@chengyuan2 Theorem 5.3], Proposition \[th-iso1\] and Proposition \[le-4.3.8\] to Theorem \[th-4.19\] and Corollary \[co-4.99\].
\[th-iso11111\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Suppose $w: \Delta\mathcal{H}\longrightarrow (0,+\infty)$ is an evaluation function on $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ and $\phi_w$ is induced by $w$ in Example \[ex3.3.1\]. Then the orthogonal decompositions in Theorem \[th-4.19\] and Corollary \[co-4.99\] are the same as the orthogonal decompositions in Theorem \[th-3.19\] and Corollary \[co-3.99\] respectively.
By Theorem \[th-iso11111\], the kernels of $L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi_w}$, $L_n^{\text{Inf}^{\phi_w}_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi_w}$ and $L_n^{\text{Sup}^{\phi_w}_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi_w}$ do not depend on $\phi_w$. Nevertheless, the eigenvalues of $L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi_w}$, $L_n^{\text{Inf}^{\phi_w}_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi_w}$ and $L_n^{\text{Sup}^{\phi_w}_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi_w}$ may depend on $\phi_w$. In particular, when $\mathcal{H}$ is a simplicial complex, these eigenvalues are studied in [@adv1].
Eigenvalues of The Weighted Laplacians of Weighted Hypergraphs {#sec-a}
===============================================================
In this section, we study the nonzero eigenvalues of the weighted Laplacians for weighted hypergraphs.
Let $(\mathcal{H},\phi)$ be a weighted hypergraph. Let $$\begin{aligned}
(L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^\text{up}&=&(\partial^\phi_n\mid_{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})^*(\partial^\phi_n\mid_{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})}),\\
(L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^\text{down}&=& (\partial^\phi_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})(\partial^\phi_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})^*,\\
(L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^\text{up}&=&(\partial^\phi_n\mid_{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})^*(\partial^\phi_n\mid_{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})}),\\
(L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^\text{down}&=& (\partial^\phi_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})(\partial^\phi_{n+1}\mid_{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})})^*,\\
(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^\text{up}&=& (\partial^\phi_n)^*(\partial^\phi_n),\\
(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^\text{down}&=& (\partial^\phi_{n+1})(\partial^\phi_{n+1})^*.
\end{aligned}$$
For any linear operator $A$ acting on a (finite dimensional) vector space, we denote the weakly increasing rearrangement of its eigenvalues, together with the corresponding multiplicities, by ${\bf{s}}(A)$. We write ${\bf{s}}(A)\overset{\circ}{=}{\bf{s}}(B)$ if the multisets ${\bf{s}}(A)$ and ${\bf{s}}(B)$ differ only in their multiplicities of zero (cf. [@adv1 p. 308]). We write ${\bf{s}}(A) \subseteq {\bf{s}}(B)$ if the multiset ${\bf{s}}(A)$ is contained in ${\bf{s}}(B)$, i.e., each eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $A$ is an eigenvalue of $B$, and the multiplicity of $\lambda$ as an eigenvalue of $A$ is smaller than or equal to the multiplicity of $\lambda$ as an eigenvalue of $B$. Moreover, we write ${\bf{s}}(A)\overset{\circ}{\subseteq}{\bf{s}}(B)$ if ${\bf{s}}(A)$ is contained in ${\bf{s}}(B)$ except for the multiplicities of the eigenvalue zero. We denote the union of multisets by $\overset{\circ}{\cup}$. The next proposition follows by a similar argument of [@adv1 p. 308, (2.5)].
\[pr-5.1\] Let $(\mathcal{H},\phi)$ be a weighted hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Then
1. ${\bf{s}}\big( L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big) \overset{\circ}{=}{\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{up} }\big)\overset{\circ}{\cup} {\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{down} }\big)$,
2. ${\bf{s}}\big( L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big) \overset{\circ}{=}{\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{up} }\big)\overset{\circ}{\cup} {\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{down} }\big)$,
3. ${\bf{s}}\big( L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi}\big) \overset{\circ}{=}{\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }\big)\overset{\circ}{\cup} {\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{down} }\big)$.
Let $T$ be a linear operator on an Euclidean space $W$. Let $W'$ be a subspace of $W$. We use $T||_{W'}$ to denote the restriction of $T$ on $W'$. Then $T||_{W'}$ is a map from $W'$ to $W$. Here we do not require $W'$ to be a $T$-invariant subspace, hence the image of $T||_{W'}$ may not be contained in $W'$. We say that $\lambda$ is an quasi-eigenvalue of $T||_{W'}$ if there exists a nonzero vector $v\in W'$ such that $Tv =\lambda v$. We use the term quasi-eigenvalue for the reason that $T||_{W'}$ is not a self-map on $W'$. The multiplicity of $\lambda$ is the dimension of the space spanned by all the vectors $v\in W'$ such that $Tv=\lambda v$. By an abuse of notation, we use ${\bf{s}}(T||_{W'})$ to denote the weakly increasing rearrangement of the quasi-eigenvalues $\lambda$ of $T||_{W'}$, with their multiplicities.
Let $U$ and $V$ be two (finite dimensional) vector spaces. We consider two linear maps $A: U\longrightarrow V$ and $B: V\longrightarrow U$. Then the nonzero eigenvalues of $AB$ and $BA$ are the same, with same multiplicities (cf. [@adv1 p. 308]). Let $E_\lambda(AB)$ and $E_\lambda(BA)$ denote the eigenspaces of $AB$ and $BA$ respectively, corresponding to a nonzero eigenvalue $\lambda$. The isomorphism between $E_\lambda(AB)$ and $E_\lambda(BA)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&F: E_\lambda(AB)\longrightarrow E_\lambda(BA), \nonumber\\
&F(x)=Bx, ~~~ F^{-1} y = \dfrac{1}{\lambda} Ay. \label{eq-5.888}\end{aligned}$$
The next proposition (a), (b) and (c) follow from a similar argument of [@adv1 p. 308, (2.6)], and (d) and (e) follow with the help of (\[eq-5.888\]).
\[pr-5.2\] Let $(\mathcal{H},\phi)$ be a weighted hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Then
1. $ {\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{up} }\big)\overset{\circ}{=} {\bf{s}}\big( (L_{n-1}^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{down} }\big)$,
2. $ {\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{up} }\big)\overset{\circ}{=} {\bf{s}}\big( (L_{n-1}^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{down} }\big)$,
3. ${\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }\big)\overset{\circ}{=} {\bf{s}}\big( (L_{n-1}^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{down} }\big)$,
4. ${\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\text{Inf}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big)\overset{\circ}{=} {\bf{s}}\big( (L_{n-1}^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{down} }||_{\partial^\phi_n\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})}\big)$,
5. ${\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\text{Sup}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big)\overset{\circ}{=} {\bf{s}}\big( (L_{n-1}^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{down} }||_{\partial_n^\phi\text{Sup}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big)$.
We omit the proofs of (a) - (c). We give the proofs of (d) and (e). Without loss of generality, we assume $n\geq 1$. In (\[eq-5.888\]), we consider the two vector spaces $U=\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$, $V=\mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_{n-1}$ and the two linear maps $A=\partial^\phi_n$, $B= (\partial^\phi_n)^*$. Then $(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }=BA$, $(L_{n-1}^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{down} }=AB$. For any $\lambda\in \mathbb{F}$ and any $v\in \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equiv-5.1}
& \text{\ \ \ \ }& (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} } v=\lambda v\nonumber\\
&\Longleftrightarrow& (L_{n-1}^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{down} } \big(\dfrac{1}{\lambda} \partial_n^\phi v \big)=\lambda \big(\dfrac{1}{\lambda} \partial_n^\phi v \big). \end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, if $ (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} } v=\lambda v$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equiv-5.2}
& \text{\ \ \ \ }& v\in \text{Inf}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H})\nonumber\\
& \Longleftrightarrow & \dfrac{1}{\lambda} \partial_n^\phi v\in \partial_n^\phi \text{Inf}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H}). \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for any $k\geq 1$, if $(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} } v_i=\lambda v_i$ for each $1\leq i\leq k$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equiv-5.3}
&\text{\ \ \ \ }& v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_k
\text{ are linearly independent }\nonumber\\
&\Longleftrightarrow& \dfrac{1}{\lambda} \partial_n^\phi v_1, \dfrac{1}{\lambda} \partial_n^\phi v_2, \ldots, \dfrac{1}{\lambda} \partial_n^\phi v_k
\text{ are linearly independent}. \end{aligned}$$ Hence by (\[equiv-5.1\]) and (\[equiv-5.2\]), for any $\lambda\in \mathbb{F}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{\ \ \ \ }&\lambda \text{ is a quasi-eigenvalue of } (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\text{Inf}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\\
&\Longleftrightarrow& \text{ there exists } v\in \text{Inf}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H}) \text{ such that } (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} } v=\lambda v\\
&\Longleftrightarrow& \text{ there exists } \dfrac{1}{\lambda} \partial_n^\phi v\in \partial_n^\phi \text{Inf}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H}) \text{ such that } \\
&\text{\ \ \ \ }&(L_{n-1}^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{down} } \big(\dfrac{1}{\lambda} \partial_n^\phi v \big)=\lambda \big(\dfrac{1}{\lambda} \partial_n^\phi v \big)\\
&\Longleftrightarrow& \lambda \text{ is a quasi-eigenvalue of } (L_{n-1}^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{down} }||_{\partial^\phi_n\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})}. \end{aligned}$$ By (\[equiv-5.2\]) and (\[equiv-5.3\]), the multiplicity of $\lambda$ as a quasi-eigenvalue of $(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\text{Inf}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H})}$ equals to the multiplicity of $\lambda$ as a quasi-eigenvalue of $(L_{n-1}^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{down} }||_{\partial^\phi_n\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H})}$. Thus (d) follows.
By replacing $\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})$ with $\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})$ in the proof of (d), the assertion (e) can be proved similarly.
With the help of Proposition \[pr-5.2\], we have the two dimensional case of Proposition \[pr-5.1\] in the next corollary.
\[co-5.100\] Let $(\mathcal{H},\phi)$ be a weighted hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Suppose the dimensions of the hyperedges of $\mathcal{H}$ are at most $2$. Then
1. ${\bf{s}}\big( L_1^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big) \overset{\circ}{=}{\bf{s}}\big( L_0^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big)\overset{\circ}{\cup} {\bf{s}}\big( L_2^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big)$,
2. ${\bf{s}}\big( L_1^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big) \overset{\circ}{=}{\bf{s}}\big( L_0^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi} \big)\overset{\circ}{\cup} {\bf{s}}\big( L_2^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi} \big)$,
3. ${\bf{s}}\big( L_1^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi}\big) \overset{\circ}{=}{\bf{s}}\big( L_0^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi} \big)\overset{\circ}{\cup} {\bf{s}}\big( L_2^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi} \big)$.
We notice that $ (L_0^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^\text{up}$, $ (L_0^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^\text{up}$ and $(L_0^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^\text{up}$ are all zero. And $ (L_2^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^\text{down}$, $ (L_2^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^\text{down}$ and $(L_2^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^\text{down}$ are all zero. The assertions (a), (b) and (c) follow from Proposition \[pr-5.1\] (a) and Proposition \[pr-5.2\] (a), Proposition \[pr-5.1\] (b) and Proposition \[pr-5.2\] (b), Proposition \[pr-5.1\] (c) and Proposition \[pr-5.2\] (c) respectively.
The next corollary is a generalization of Corollary \[co-5.100\] (a) and (b).
Let $(\mathcal{H},\phi)$ be a weighted hypergraph and $n\geq 0$.
1. Suppose in $\mathcal{H}$, there are no hyperedges of dimensions $n -1$ or $n+3$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf{s}}\big( L_{n+1}^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big) \overset{\circ}{=}{\bf{s}}\big( L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big)\overset{\circ}{\cup} {\bf{s}}\big( L_{n+2}^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big).
\end{aligned}$$
2. Suppose in $\mathcal{H}$, there are no hyperedges of dimensions $n -1$, $n$, $n+3$ or $n+4$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf{s}}\big( L_{n+1}^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big) \overset{\circ}{=}{\bf{s}}\big( L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big)\overset{\circ}{\cup} {\bf{s}}\big( L_{n+2}^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big).
\end{aligned}$$
(a). We notice that $\text{Inf}_{n-1}^\phi(\mathcal{H})$ and $\text{Inf}^\phi_{n+3}(\mathcal{H})$ are both zero. Hence $ (L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^\text{up}$ and $ (L_{n+2}^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^\text{down}$ are both zero. The corollary follows from Proposition \[pr-5.1\] (a) and Proposition \[pr-5.2\] (a).
(b). By replacing $\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})$ with $\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})$ in the proof of (a), the assertion (b) can be proved similarly using Proposition \[pr-5.1\] (b) and Proposition \[pr-5.2\] (b).
The next proposition is a consequence of Lemma \[le-linearalg\].
\[pr-5.3\] Let $(\mathcal{H},\phi)$ be a weighted hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Then
1. ${\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\text{Inf}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big)\subseteq {\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{up} }\big)$,
2. ${\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\text{Sup}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big)\subseteq {\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_n(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{up} }\big)$.
Without loss of generality, we assume $n\geq 1$. By Lemma \[le-linearalg\], we have the following commutative diagram $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{
\text{Inf}_{n-1}^{\phi}(\mathcal{H}) \ar[rrrdd]_{(\partial_n^\phi\mid_{\text{Inf}_*^\phi(\mathcal{H})})^*~~~~}\ar[rrr]^{(\partial_n^\phi)^*\mid_{\text{Inf}_{n-1}^\phi(\mathcal{H})}} &&& \mathbb{F}(\Delta\mathcal{H})_n\ar[dd]^{\text{orthogonal proj.}}_{p}\\
\\
&&&\text{Inf}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H}).
}\end{aligned}$$ By the commutative diagram, $$\begin{aligned}
(L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{up} } = p\circ \big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\text{Inf}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence for any quasi-eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\text{Inf}_*^\phi(\mathcal{H})}$, $\lambda$ is also an eigenvalue of $(L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{up} } $. And the multiplicity of $\lambda$ as a quasi-eigenvalue of $(L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\text{Inf}_*^\phi(\mathcal{H})}$ is smaller than or equal to the multiplicity of $\lambda$ as an eigenvalue of $(L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{up} } $. Thus (a) follows.
By replacing $\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})$ with $\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})$ in the proof of (a), the assertion (b) can be proved similarly.
The next theorem follows from Proposition \[pr-5.1\], Proposition \[pr-5.2\] and Proposition \[pr-5.3\].
\[th-spec\] Let $(\mathcal{H},\phi)$ be a weighted hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Then
1. ${\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})||_{\partial_{n+1}^\phi\text{Inf}_{n+1}^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big)\overset{\circ}{\subseteq} {\bf{s}}\big(L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big)$,
2. ${\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi}) ||_{\partial_{n+1}^\phi\text{Sup}_{n+1}^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big)\overset{\circ}{\subseteq} {\bf{s}}\big(L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big)$.
The assertion (a) follows from the calculation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-5.0}
{\bf{s}}\big(L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big)&\overset{\circ}{=}& {\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{up} }\big)\overset{\circ}{\cup} {\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{down} }\big)\nonumber\\
&\overset{\circ}{=}& {\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{up} }\big)\overset{\circ}{\cup} {\bf{s}}\big( (L_{n+1}^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{up} }\big) \nonumber\\
&\supseteq&{\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\text{Inf}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big) \overset{\circ}{\cup} {\bf{s}}\big( (L_{n+1}^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\text{Inf}_{n+1}^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big)\nonumber\\
& \overset{\circ}{=}&{\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\text{Inf}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big) \overset{\circ}{\cup} {\bf{s}}\big( (L_{n}^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{down} }||_{\partial^\phi_{n+1}\text{Inf}_{n+1}^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big)\nonumber\\
& \supseteq&{\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\partial_{n+1}^\phi\text{Inf}_{n+1}^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big) \overset{\circ}{\cup} {\bf{s}}\big( (L_{n}^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{down} }||_{\partial^\phi_{n+1}\text{Inf}_{n+1}^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big)\nonumber\\
&=& {\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})||_{\partial^\phi_{n+1}\text{Inf}^\phi_{n+1}(\mathcal{H})}\big). \end{aligned}$$
By replacing $\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})$ with $\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})$ in the proof of (a), the assertion (b) can be proved similarly.
Since $\partial^\phi_{n}\partial^\phi_{n+1}=0$, in the fifth line of (\[eq-5.0\]), $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf{s}}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\partial_{n+1}^\phi\text{Inf}_{n+1}^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big)=\{0,\ldots,0\}. \end{aligned}$$
As special cases of Theorem \[th-spec\], the next corollary follows from Lemma \[le-linearalg\] and the proof of Theorem \[th-spec\].
Let $(\mathcal{H},\phi)$ be a weighted hypergraph and $n\geq 0$. Let the spaces $A_n^\phi$, $B_n^\phi$ and $E_n^\phi$ be given by (\[eq-4q1\]), (\[eq-4q2\]) and (\[eq-4q3\]).
1. If $\partial_n(A^\phi_{n+1}\oplus B^\phi_{n+1}\oplus E^\phi_{n+1})\subseteq A^\phi_{n}\oplus B^\phi_{n}\oplus E^\phi_{n}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf{s}}\big(L_n^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big)\overset{\circ}{=}{\bf s}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\text{Inf}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big) \overset{\circ}{\cup} {\bf{s}}\big( (L_{n}^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{down} }||_{\partial^\phi_{n+1}\text{Inf}_{n+1}^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big);
\end{aligned}$$
2. If $\partial_n( E^\phi_{n+1})\subseteq E^\phi_{n}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf{s}}\big(L_n^{\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi}\big)\overset{\circ}{=}{\bf s}\big( (L_n^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\text{Sup}_n^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big) \overset{\circ}{\cup} {\bf{s}}\big( (L_{n}^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{down} }||_{\partial^\phi_{n+1}\text{Sup}_{n+1}^\phi(\mathcal{H})}\big).
\end{aligned}$$
(a). Suppose $\partial_n(A^\phi_{n+1}\oplus B^\phi_{n+1}\oplus E^\phi_{n+1})\subseteq A^\phi_{n}\oplus B^\phi_{n}\oplus E^\phi_{n}$. Then by Lemma \[le-linearalg\], $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_{n+1}^\phi\mid_{\text{Inf}_*^\phi(\mathcal{H})})^*= (\partial_{n+1}^\phi)^*\mid_{\text{Inf}_{n}^\phi(\mathcal{H})}. \end{aligned}$$ By the proof of Proposition \[pr-5.3\], $$\begin{aligned}
(L_{n+1}^{\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H}),\phi})^{\text{up} } = (L_{n+1}^{\Delta\mathcal{H},\phi})^{\text{up} }||_{\text{Inf}_{n+1}^\phi(\mathcal{H})}.
\end{aligned}$$ With the help of the third and forth line of (\[eq-5.0\]), we obtain (a).
(b). Suppose $\partial_n( E^\phi_{n+1})\subseteq E^\phi_{n}$. Then by Lemma \[le-linearalg\], $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_{n+1}^\phi\mid_{\text{Sup}_*^\phi(\mathcal{H})})^*= (\partial_{n+1}^\phi)^*\mid_{\text{Sup}_{n}^\phi(\mathcal{H})}. \end{aligned}$$ By replacing $\text{Inf}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})$ with $\text{Sup}^\phi_*(\mathcal{H})$ in the proof of (a), the assertion (b) can be proved similarly.
Discussions of Hypergraphs and Paths on Digraphs {#sec6}
================================================
In this section, we discuss the relations between hypergraphs and paths on digraphs.
[@yau1] A digraph $G$ is a pair $(V,E)$ where $V$ is a set (called the vertex set) and $E$ is a subset of $V\times V$. If $(a,b)\in E$, then $(a,b)$ is called a directed edge, and is denoted as $a\to b$.
Let $V$ be a non-empty set and $G=(V,E)$ be a digraph.
[@yau1 Definition 2.1, Example 3.3 and page 19] An elementary $n$-path (or an elementary path of length $n$) on $V$ is a sequence $v_0v_1\ldots v_n$ where $v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_n\in V$. Here $v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_n$ are not required to be distinct. An allowed elementary $n$-path (or an allowed elementary path of length $n$) on $G$ is an elementary $n$-path $v_0 v_1\ldots v_n$ on $V$ such that for each $i\geq 1$, $v_{i-1}\to v_i$ is a directed edge of $G$. An alllowed elementary $n$-path $v_0v_1\ldots v_n$ is called closed if $v_0=v_n$.
- [*A digraph without closed allowed elementary paths gives a hypergraph* ]{}
Let $G$ be a digraph without closed allowed elementary paths. Then for each $a,b\in V$, at most one of $(a,b)$ and $(b,a)$ is a directed edge of $G$. We write $a\prec b$ if either $a\to b$ or there exists $n\geq 0$ and $v_0,v_1\ldots, v_n\in V$ such that $a v_0 v_1\ldots v_n b$ is a path on $G$. Then $a\prec b$ and $b\prec c$ imply $a\prec c$. Hence equipped with the relation $\prec $, the set $V$ is a partially ordered set. For each $n\geq 0$, let $\mathcal{H}_n$ be the set of all allowed elementary $n$-paths on $G$. In particular, $\mathcal{H}_0=V$. Let $\mathcal{H}= \sqcup_{n=0}^\infty \mathcal{H}_n$. For any $\sigma\in \mathcal{H}$, the relation $\prec$ gives a total order on the set of the vertices of $\sigma$. The next lemma follows.
\[le-6.1\] For any $\sigma,\tau\in \mathcal{H}$, $\sigma$ and $\tau$ are distinct allowed elementary paths on $G$ if and only if as subsets of $V$, $\sigma\neq \tau$.
The next proposition follows from Lemma \[le-6.1\].
\[pr-6.1\] Let $G$ be a digraph without closed allowed elementary paths. Then the collection $\mathcal{H}$ of all allowed elementary paths on $G$ is a hypergraph. The boundary map $\partial_*$ of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_n (v_0v_1\ldots v_n) = \sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^i v_0\ldots \hat{v_i}\ldots v_n,
\end{aligned}$$ which coincides with the restriction of the boundary map in [@yau1 Definition 2.3] to $\Delta\mathcal{H}$.
If the digraph $G$ has closed allowed elementary paths, then it may happen that certain vertices repeat in an allowed elementary path on $G$, and two distinct allowed elementary paths on $G$ are the same as subsets of $V$. In this case, Lemma \[le-6.1\] and Proposition \[pr-6.1\] do not hold.
- *A hypergraph gives a weighted digraph*
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a hypergraph. Consider the digraph $G^\mathcal{H}$ whose set of vertices is $\mathcal{H}$, and whose set of edges is defined as follows: for any $\sigma, \tau\in\mathcal{H}$, $\sigma\to \tau$ if and only if $\sigma\supset \tau$ and $\sigma\neq \tau$. In particular, when $\mathcal{H}$ is a simplicial complex, the construction of $G^\mathcal{H}$ is given in [@yau1 Example 3.8].
A weighted digraph $(G,w)$ is obtained by assigning a value $w(a\to b)$ to each directed edge $a\to b$ on a digraph $G$. In the digraph $G^\mathcal{H}$, we assign the value $$\begin{aligned}
w(\sigma\to\tau)=\text{card}(\sigma\setminus \tau)=\dim \sigma-\dim\tau \end{aligned}$$ to each directed edge $\sigma\to \tau$. Then we obtain a weighted digraph.
- *A hypergraph gives a pair of a digraph and a subset of the vertex set of the digraph*
Let $\mathcal{K}$ be a simplicial complex. Let $V$ be the set of all simplices of $\mathcal{K}$. For any $n\geq 0$ and any $n$-simplex $\sigma\in\mathcal{K}$, we let $\sigma\to d_i\sigma$ be a directed edge for each $0\leq i\leq n$. We obtain a digraph $G_\mathcal{K}$. The digraph $G_\mathcal{K}$ has no closed allowed elementary paths. Nevertheless, a digraph with no closed allowed elementary paths may not be able to be realized as $G_\mathcal{K}$.
For a hypergraph $\mathcal{H}$, we consider the digraph $G_{\Delta\mathcal{H}}$. The vertex set of $G_{\Delta\mathcal{H}}$ is the set of simplices of $\Delta\mathcal{H}$. Hence $\mathcal{H}$ is a subset of the vertex set of $G_{\Delta\mathcal{H}}$. Therefore, $\mathcal{H}$ can be represented by a pair $(G_{\Delta\mathcal{H}}, U_\mathcal{H})$, where $U_\mathcal{H}$ is a subset of the vertex set of $G_{\Delta\mathcal{H}}$. The next proposition follows.
A hypergraph $\mathcal{H}$ gives a pair $(G_{\Delta\mathcal{H}}, U_\mathcal{H})$, where $G_{\Delta\mathcal{H}}$ is a digraph and $U_\mathcal{H}$ is a subset of the vertex set of $G_{\Delta\mathcal{H}}$.
[**Acknowledgement**]{}. The project was supported in part by the Singapore Ministry of Education research grant (AcRF Tier 1 WBS No. R-146-000-222-112). The first author was supported by Guangdong Ocean University. The second author was supported in part by the President’s Graduate Fellowship of National University of Singapore. The third author was supported by a grant (No. 11329101) of NSFC of China.
[99]{}
W.N. Anderson and T.D. Morley, *Eigenvalues of the Laplacian of a graph*. Univ. of Maryland Tech. Report, [**TR-71-45**]{} (1971); Linear Multilinear A. [**18**]{} (1985), 141-145.
A. Banerjee and J. Jost, *On the spectrum of the normalized graph Laplacian*. Linear Algebra Appl. [**428**]{} (2008), 3015-3022.
C. Berge, *Graphs and hypergraphs*. North-Holland Mathematical Library, Amsterdam, 1973.
S. Bressan, J. Li, S. Ren and J. Wu, *The embedded homology of hypergraphs and applications*. Asian J. Math. accepted (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00890.
F.R.K. Chung, *The Laplacian of a hypergraph*. DIMACS Ser. in Discrete Math. Theoret. Comput. Sci. [**10**]{} (1983), 21-36. F.R.K. Chung, *Spectral graph theory*. CBMS Reg. Conf. Ser. in Math. [**92**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997.
D.M. Cvetković, M. Doob and H. Sachs, *Spectra of graphs. theory and applications*. 3rd ed., Johann Ambrosius Barthm Heidelberg, 1995.
R.J. MacG. Dawson, *Homology of weighted simplicial complexes*. Cahiers de Topologie et Géométrie Différentielle Catégoriques [**31**]{} (3) (1990), 229-243.
A.M. Duval and V. Reiner, *Shifted simplicial complexes are Laplacian integral*. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**354**]{} (2002), 4313-4344.
B. Eckmann, *Harmonische funktionen und fandwertaufgaben in einem komplex*. Comment. Math. Helv. [**17**]{} (1) (1944), 240-255.
A. Grigor’yan, Y. Lin, Y. Muranov and S.T. Yau, *Homologies of path complexes and digraphs*. arXiv (2012). http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.2834.
D. Horak and J. Jost, *Interlacing inequalities for eigenvalues of discrete Laplace operators*. Ann. Global Anal. Geom. [**43**]{} (2) (2013), 177-207.
D. Horak and J. Jost, *Spectra of combinatorial Laplace operators on simplicial complexes*. Adv. Math. [**244**]{} (2013), 303-336.
S. Hu and L. Qi, *The Laplacian of a uniform hypergraph*. J. Comb. Optim. [**29**]{} (2) (2015), 331-366.
G. Kirchhoff, *Über de Auflösung der Gleichungen auf welche man bei der Untersuchen der linearen Vertheilung galvanischer Ströme gefüht wird*. Ann. der Phys. und Chem. [**72**]{} (1847), 495-508.
P. Li and O. Milenkovic, *Submodular hypergraphs: $p$-Laplacians, Cheeger inequalities and spectral clustering*. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research [**80**]{}.
S. Morita, *Geometry of differential forms*. Translations of Mathematical Monographs [**201**]{}, American Mathematical Society, 2001.
A.D. Parks and S.L. Lipscomb, *Homology and hypergraph acyclicity: a combinatorial invariant for hypergraphs*. Naval Surface Warfare Center, 1991.
S. Ren, C. Wu and J. Wu, *Evolutions of hypergraphs and their embedded homology*. arXiv (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.07132.
S. Ren, C. Wu and J. Wu, *Weighted persistent homology*. Rocky Mountain J. Math. accepted (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.07132.
S. Ren, C. Wu and J. Wu, *Computational tools in weighted persistent homology*. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.09211.
C. Wu, S. Ren, J. Wu and K. Xia, *Weighted cohomology and weighted Laplacian*. arXiv (2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.06990.
Shiquan Ren (for correspondence)
Address: $^a$ School of Mathematics and Computer Science, Guangdong Ocean University. Haida Road 1, Zhanjiang 524088, China. $^b$ Department of Mathematics, National University of Singapore. 119076, Singapore.
e-mail: [email protected]
Chengyuan Wu
Address: Department of Mathematics, National University of Singapore. 119076, Singapore.
e-mail: [email protected]
Jie Wu
Address: Department of Mathematics, National University of Singapore. 119076, Singapore.
e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report direct evidence for asymmetry in the early phases of SN 1987A via optical spectroscopy of five fields of its light echo system. The light echoes allow the first few hundred days of the explosion to be reobserved, with different position angles providing different viewing angles to the supernova. Light echo spectroscopy therefore allows a direct spectroscopic comparison of light originating from different regions of the photosphere during the early phases of SN 1987A. Gemini multi-object spectroscopy of the light echo fields shows fine-structure in the line as a smooth function of position angle on the near-circular light echo rings. profiles originating from the northern hemisphere of SN 1987A show an excess in redshifted emission and a blue knee, while southern hemisphere profiles show an excess of blueshifted emission and a red knee. This fine-structure is reminiscent of the “Bochum event” originally observed for SN 1987A, but in an exaggerated form. Maximum deviation from symmetry in the line is observed at position angles $16^{\circ}$ and $186^{\circ}$, consistent with the major-axis of the expanding elongated ejecta. The asymmetry signature observed in the line smoothly diminishes as a function of viewing angle away from the poles of the elongated ejecta. We propose an asymmetric two-sided distribution of $^{56}$Ni most dominant in the southern far quadrant of SN 1987A as the most probable explanation of the observed light echo spectra. This is evidence that the asymmetry of high-velocity $^{56}$Ni in the first few hundred days after explosion is correlated to the geometry of the ejecta some 25 years later.'
author:
- 'B. Sinnott, D. L. Welch, A. Rest, P. G. Sutherland, M. Bergmann'
bibliography:
- 'sinnott2012\_87a.bib'
title: Asymmetry in the outburst of SN 1987A detected using light echo spectroscopy
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
A light echo (LE) occurs when outburst light from an event is scattered by circumstellar or interstellar dust into the line of sight of the observer. LE imaging has long been used as a powerful tool for studying the three-dimensional dust structure surrounding supernovae (SNe) [@crotts88; @xu95; @sugerman05; @kim08]. In 1988, spectra of the inner and outer LE rings of SN 1987A confirmed the resemblance to a maximum-light spectrum [@gouiffes88; @suntzeff88]. More recently, however, this technique of targeted LE spectroscopy has been used on historical SNe to identify the spectral type of the original outburst. After the serendipitous discovery of LEs from ancient SNe in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) during the SuperMACHO project by @rest05, follow-up spectroscopy by @rest08b identified the type of SN responsible for the remnant SNR 0509-675. The spectral types of the Cas A and Tycho SNe have also been identified using this method of targeted LE spectroscopy [@rest08a; @krause08casa; @krause08tycho]. @casaspec used LE spectroscopy to detect asymmetries in the outburst of the Cas A SN, while @eta recently obtained LE spectroscopy from the “Great Eruption” of $\eta$ Carinae. We refer the reader to @lereview for a review of LE spectroscopy emphasizing these more recent results. Given the acceleration of the field of LE spectroscopy in recent years, a detailed study of spectra of the well-known LE system of SN 1987A can provide a foundation for future studies, as well as provide new insight into the explosion of SN 1987A.
In the case of historical LEs, one has to use the photometric and spectroscopic history of a different SN to model the LE spectrum [see, e.g. @casaspec where the Cas A outburst is modeled with the lightcurve and spectra of SN 1993J and SN 2003bg]. For SN 1987A, however, the exact spectral and photometric history of the LE source is known with high-precision, allowing observed LE spectra to be compared unambiguously to an isotropic scenario. In addition to acting as a test bed for LE spectroscopy theories, the near-circular LE rings of SN 1987A allow the original outburst to be probed for asymmetries in an entirely direct way. Different position angles (PAs) on the LE system probe different viewing angles from which we can view the time-integrated spectrum of the original event.
Observations as well as theoretical simulations indicate that core-collapse SNe are asymmetric in nature. Polarization measurements show deviations from spherical symmetry in all core-collapse SN with sufficient data [@wang08], while recent simulations in two and three spatial dimensions show large deviations from symmetry [e.g., @hammer10; @gawryszczak10; @muller12]. Coupled with the fact that state of the art spherically symmetric core-collapse simulations in one spatial dimension fail at producing an explosion for $>10$M$_{\sun}$ projenitors [@burrows12], multi-dimensional physics such as the standing accretion shock instability [SASI; @blondin03] may play a key role in understanding the explosion mechanism. As a new method for observing asymmetries, LE spectroscopy of SNe may be able to provide new insight into the origin of SN asymmetries and their relation to the core-collapse explosion mechanism.
SN 1987A was a peculiar Type II SN with a blue supergiant progenitor located in the LMC [see, e.g., @arnett89 and references therein for a review of SN 1987A and its progenitor]. SN 1987A was known to be an asymmetric SN. Early polarization measurements [e.g., @jeffery87; @bailey88; @cropper88] and an elongated initial speckle image [@papaliolios89] suggested a non-spherical event. Fine structure in the line (the “Bochum event”) at 20-100 days after the explosion as well as redshifted emission lines at more than 150 days after explosion provide strong evidence for radial-mixing of heavy elements into the upper envelope [@hanuschik87; @phillips89; @spyromilio90]. Updated models of the bolometric lightcurve at early epochs also require radial-mixing of $^{56}$Ni [@shigeyama90; @utrobin04]. Direct HST imaging by [@wang02] showed an elongated remnant ejecta, claimed to be bipolar and showing evidence for a jet-induced explosion. Recent integral field spectroscopy of the ejecta by @kjaer10 showed a prolate structure for the ejecta oriented in the plane of the equatorial ring, arguing against a jet-induced explosion.
Here we present detailed imaging and spectroscopy of the SN 1987A LE system. We infer the relative contributions of the different epochs of the SN to the observed LE spectrum by modeling images of the LE, as demonstrated by @leprofile. We fit the observed LE spectra and use specific examples to illustrate the models ability to correctly interpret the observations. We then use the LE spectra to probe for asymmetries in the explosion of SN 1987A and compare to previous observations of asymmetry.
Observations and Reductions {#sec:observations}
===========================
Imaging {#sec:observations:imaging}
-------
Imaging of the SN 1987A LE system was performed under the SuperMACHO Project microlensing survey [@supermacho] using the CTIO 4m Blanco telescope. The survey monitored the central portion of the LMC for five seasons beginning in 2001 using the 8K $\times$ 8K MOSAIC imager (plus atmospheric dispersion corrector) with the custom “VR” filter ($\lambda_{c}=625$ nm, $\delta \lambda=220$ nm). Exposure times were between 150 and 200 s. We have continued to monitor the field containing SN 1987A and its LEs (field sm77) since the survey ended. Data reduction and difference images were performed using the ESSENCE/SuperMACHO pipeline [*photpipe*]{} [@supermacho; @garg07; @miknaitis07]. A stacked and mosaiced difference image of the LE system is shown in Figure \[fig:slit\_locations\]. The near-circular rings illuminate three general dust structures: a smaller structure $\sim85$ pc in front of SN 1987A, only visible in the south; a near-complete ring at $\sim185$ pc and brightest in the north-east; as well as a larger and fainter near-circular illumination at $\sim400$ pc in front of the SNR. All three of these structures have been mapped previously in detail by @xu95 and can be referred to as three “sheets” of ISM dust roughly in the plane of the sky. However, it is important to note that the LE flux observed in Figure \[fig:slit\_locations\] is due to dense filamentary structure within the general “sheets” of ISM dust. The physical properties of the scattering dust filaments (inclination and thickness) can vary greatly within what appears to be a uniform “sheet” of dust. This distinction is important to make when modeling the LE photometry and spectroscopy.
Gemini Spectroscopy {#sec:observations:gemini}
-------------------
We obtained multi-object optical spectroscopy (MOS) for five fields of the SN 1987A echo system in the 2006B term, using the R400 grating and GG455 blocking filter on the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph (GMOS) on Gemini-South. SuperMACHO or GMOS preimages were differenced with previous SuperMACHO images to establish the precise location of the echo system, allowing the design of GMOS masks. The locations of five MOS fields and the 14 1.0wide LE slitlets are shown in Figure \[fig:slit\_locations\].
The nod and shuffle mode of GMOS was used to best isolate the diffuse LE signal from the nebular sky background. To ensure clear sky in the offset position, the telescope was nodded off-source several degrees every 225 s. On-source integration times for the brightest echo fields were 30 minutes, and 90 minutes for the fainter, more diffuse echoes. During each night of observations, flat field and CuAr spectral calibration images were taken before or after the science images. We also acquired dark images with the same nod and shuffle parameters used during integration. These specialized dark images allow features associated with charge-traps in the GMOS CCDs to be masked out during reduction.
The observations result in LE spectra from SN 1987A with a spectral range of 4500-8500 Å, contaminated by strong emission lines from the nebular region, as well as any stellar continuum entering the slitlets. The P Cygni line seen in the spectra is further degraded due to six strong nebular emission lines (\[NII\] $\lambda$6548, $\lambda$6563, \[NII\] $\lambda$6585, HeI $\lambda$6678, \[SiII\] $\lambda$6717, \[SiII\] $\lambda$6731). Signal from the emission peak of the P Cygni line is therefore lost to nebular emission, and this region of the profile cannot be interpreted with confidence. In particular, the location and flux of the emission peak cannot be determined without interpolations which we found introduced large uncertainties.
The nebular contamination can be greatly reduced since the LE system is expanding superluminally on the sky (as seen in Figure \[fig:slit\_locations\]). We therefore have the unique opportunity in astronomy to observe only the background sky signal at the *same location on the sky* as the initial sky+object observation. Sky-only observations were taken in the 2009A and 2009B semesters for the five MOS fields. The spectroscopy was carried out using the same GMOS configuration as the previous sky+object 2006B observations, with 30 minutes on-source integration times in nod and shuffle mode. The spectrophotometric standard star LTT 3864 was observed during the 2009A observations.
Spectra Reduction {#sec:observations:reductions}
-----------------
All spectra were reduced using IRAF and the Gemini IRAF package, with bias subtraction and trimming done on each CCD individually. Science images were dark subtracted using the special nod and shuffle darks, with each CCD being cleaned of cosmic rays using the Laplacian rejection algorithm LACOSMIC [@vandokkum01]. Nod and shuffle sky subtraction was performed on each science exposure using the *gnsskysub* task. Individual slitlets were automatically cut from the wavelength calibrations frames, however this procedure required manual tweaking to achieve the best cutting possible. A wavelength solution was found for each slitlet in the calibration frame. Science frames were flattened, CCDs mosaiced together, and slitlets cut from the images. The wavelength solution for each slitlet was then applied to the corresponding science spectrum in two dimensions. Since the LE signal is so weak, determining an extraction aperture is very difficult. Instead, we collapsed the entirety of each slitlet to one dimension using a block average.
No suitable spectrophotometric standard star was observed during the 2006B observing semester, nor did a suitable standard star matching our unique instrument configuration exist in the data archive nearby temporally. However, the spectrophotometric standard LTT 3864 was observed during the 2009A observations. We therefore used the 2009A standard to perform the flux calibration for all of the 2006 and 2009 spectra. While this leads to large errors in absolute flux calibration, our analysis is independent of absolute flux levels. Instead, the purpose of the flux calibration used here is to remove the effect of CCD sensitivity from the spectra, which is relatively stable in time. A LE spectrum is a weighted average of many epochs from the outburst. Determining the continuum of such a spectrum is therefore difficult, and the alternative analysis procedure of removing the continuum from all of our spectra would have had a larger error than that of the flux calibration.
The sky-only spectra from 2009 were subtracted in one dimension from the 2006 LE spectra for each MOS slit. This procedure was performed interactively, adjusting the scale and wavelength of the sky spectrum in small increments using the IRAF task *skytweak* to minimize sky subtraction residuals in the final spectra. Since we focus our science analysis on the line, we performed the sky subtraction such that the subtraction residuals in the P Cygni profile of were minimized. All spectra were Doppler-corrected, adopting a LMC radial velocity of 286.5[@meaburn95].
Analysis {#sec:analysis}
========
Light Echo Spectra {#sec:spectra}
------------------
The upper panel of Figure \[fig:lespec\] shows a reduced LE spectrum from the 2006 observations along with the underlying sky-only nebular spectrum from 2009. The high-velocity P Cygni profiles including resemble a Type II SN spectrum at maximum light, confirming the LE spectra probe the original outburst light of SN 1987A. Strong, narrow nebular lines not associated with the SN outburst dominate the spectrum around 5000Å and the line at 6563Å.
The result of performing difference spectroscopy is shown in the lower panel of Figure \[fig:lespec\], where the sky-only signal has been subtracted from the 2006 echo spectrum. Flux from the emission component of the line is recovered that was initially lost to nebular contamination. In the majority of our spectra we are able to resolve the emission peak without loss due to the nebular lines.
Modeled Isotropic Spectrum {#sec:model}
--------------------------
To search for asymmetries in SN 1987A using spectroscopy of its LEs, we need to first consider what defines asymmetry in observed spectra. As shown in @leprofile, multiple LE spectra from the same transient source, with differing line strength ratios, does not necessarily imply an asymmetry in the outburst light. An observed LE spectrum will depend strongly on the physical properties of the scattering dust as well as the instrument configuration and seeing conditions at time of observation. Specifically, the dominant epochs of the original outburst probed by a LE spectrum can change with the above properties. Relative comparisons of LE spectra can therefore easily lead to false-detections of asymmetry if the above factors are not taken into consideration. Each LE spectrum should instead be compared to a single isotropic spectrum modeled for each observation. We define our isotropic model spectrum as the original outburst of SN 1987A, as it would have been spectroscopically observed if scattered by dust corresponding to the observed LE. This provides a direct probe of asymmetry since differences between observed and model spectra represent deviations from the historically observed outburst of SN 1987A.
A LE observed on the sky has a flux profile (flux versus $\rho$, where $\rho$ is the distance on the sky from the SNR, see upper right panel of Figure \[fig:modelsummary\]) that is the projected lightcurve of the source event stretched or compressed depending on the inclination of the scattering dust. The width of the scattering dust and the point spread function (PSF) further distort the observed LE. The dust inclination is measured through imaging the LE at multiple epochs and can be measured prior to spectroscopy. The PSF is also known, allowing the width of the scattering dust filament to be determined through fitting the LE flux profile.
The inclination, $\alpha$, is obtained by monitoring the apparent motion of the LE on the sky. Positive values of $\alpha$ correspond to scattering dust sheets tilted out of the plane of the sky, from the positive $\rho$ axis toward the negative $z$ axis, where $z$ is the distance in front of the remnant. Using the SuperMACHO database of difference images around SN 1987A, we are able to monitor the apparent motion of the echo system over seven years from 2002 to 2008. For each difference image and each slit location in Figure \[fig:slit\_locations\], we measure the one dimensional profile of the difference flux as a function of distance away from the SNR, $\rho$. Carefully monitoring the superluminal apparent motion in this way allows us to determine the inclination of the scattering dust for each slit location, as described in @leprofile (see, e.g., upper left panel of Figure \[fig:modelsummary\]). We find the apparent motion (and therefore inclination) is typically stable over a one year period. We find typical uncertainties in the inclination are less than $5^{\circ}$ for our 14 dust locations. @leprofile showed that, for the case of SN 1987A, changes in inclination on the order of $10^{\circ}$ do not alter the final modeled spectrum in a significant way. With the inclination known, the photometric history of SN 1987A [@87aphoto_hamuy88; @87aphoto_suntzeff88; @87aphoto_hamuy90] can be used to model the one dimensional flux profile and determine the best-fitting scattering dust width. The upper right panel of Figure \[fig:modelsummary\] shows an example fit to the LE profile.
The above procedure determines the properties of the scattering dust for each LE location. We also take into account the location, orientation, and size of the spectroscopic slit to compute a window function that is unique to each LE observation (see, e.g., middle left panel of Figure \[fig:modelsummary\]). This window function is the relative contribution from each epoch of the lightcurve when observed through the slit. The slit offset, $\Delta\rho$, measures the offset between the peak of the LE profile and the location of the slit on the sky. This is an important parameter, as it shifts the window function in time, systematically probing later or early epochs in the spectrum if the slit is positioned closer or further away from the SNR, respectively.
Multiplying the window function with the original lightcurve of SN 1987A, we determine an *effective lightcurve* corresponding to each observed LE spectrum (see, e.g., middle right panel of Figure \[fig:modelsummary\]). The isotropic model spectrum is then the integration of the historical spectra of SN 1987A weighted with the effective lightcurve. We refer the reader to @leprofile where our model is described in detail with SN 1987A examples. To integrate the historical spectra of SN 1987A, we use the integration method described in @rest08b, with the spectral database from SAAO and CTIO observations [@87aspectra1; @87aspectra2; @87aspectra3; @87aspectra4; @87aspectra5; @87aspectra6; @87aspectra7; @phillips88; @phillips90].
The wavelength-dependent effect of scattering by dust grains is taken into account when fitting the isotropic model to our observed LE spectra. We calculate the integrated scattering function for each LE (i.e. scattering angle) using the method described in @lereview, using the *“LMC avg”* carbonaceous-silicate grain model of @weingartner01. We then fit the model spectrum to the observed LE spectrum (see, e.g., lower panel of Figure \[fig:modelsummary\]) varying three parameters: the reddening (E(B-V) assuming R$_v=3.2$), a normalization constant, and a small flux offset (to account for small errors in sky subtraction).
Figure \[fig:modelsummary\] summarizes the modeling procedure outlined above and in @leprofile that occurs for each LE spectrum. The lower panel shows the final isotropic model spectrum in red, which fits the features in the observed LE spectrum very well. To highlight the importance of the modeling procedure, we also attempt to fit the LE spectrum with a spectrum of SN 1987A near maximum light (dashed blue line), and an integrated spectrum obtained by flux-weighting with the original lightcurve of SN 1987A (dotted black line). The maximum light spectrum cannot reproduce the strength of the observed emission. Conversely, the full lightcurve-integrated spectrum has an excess in emission and a lower velocity in the absorption minimum. Only by integrating using the modeled window function (solid red line) are we able to obtain a good fit to the profile. Below we highlight the importance of the LE modeling by considering two scenarios.
### Dust-Dominated Scenario {#sec:mode_f2_example}
Both the physical properties of the scattering dust as well as the configuration of the observation affect the observed LE spectrum. Here we highlight the effect of the scattering dust. Table \[tab:modelresults\] shows the observed inclinations and best-fitting dust widths for the 14 LE locations shown in Figure \[fig:slit\_locations\]. Figure \[fig:dust\_example\_f2\] shows two examples of observed flux profiles, corresponding to the two LEs in Figure \[fig:slit\_locations\] at PA $\sim115^{\circ}$, LE113 and LE117. Note the numbers in the names of the LEs correspond to the PA of the LE with respect to the SNR. Both LEs are at essentially the same PA along the echo system, so probe the same viewing angle onto the SN. However, as shown in Figure \[fig:slit\_locations\] the two slits are placed on physically distinct dust filaments. The bright filament in LE113 is 53 ly closer to the observer along the line of sight than the bright LE117 filament, while both are 3 ly thick. The observed widths and shapes of the LE profiles in Figure \[fig:dust\_example\_f2\] are also different, with LE113 having a larger width on the sky and a more symmetric shape. This is explained entirely by the $\sim50^{\circ}$ difference in the inclinations of the two dust filaments. The highly inclined dust filament for LE113 is within $\sim15^{\circ}$ of the tangential to the scattering ellipsoid and compresses the lightcurve on the sky, causing the LE113 profile to resemble a point-like source with a broad, symmetric profile. The lower inclination of the LE117 dust filament preserves the shape of the lightcurve with a broad increase in flux at small $\rho$ values (the long decay of the SN lightcurve) and a sharp decrease in flux at large $\rho$ values (the short rise of the SN lightcurve). It should be noted that the LE113 profile in the left panel of Figure \[fig:dust\_example\_f2\] shows dust substructure to the left of the main LE peak. The additional contribution from the secondary peak is weak pre-maximum flux and we found the effect on the emission strength in the integrated spectra to be $<4\%$. However, we do take substructure in the dust into account in the extreme case of LE186 as shown in Section \[sec:asymmetry:ha\] below. The effect of dust substructure is considered more formally in the Appendix.
The modeled isotropic spectra are shown in Figure \[fig:spec\_example\_f2\], with the upper left panel showing the observed LE spectrum for the LE117 slit (black), the corresponding LE117 model (thin red), and the non-matching LE113 model (thick cyan) derived using the larger inclination. Since the dust inclination of LE113 compresses the lightcurve on the sky, a much larger range of epochs span the width of the slit resulting in a wide window function compared to the LE117 slit (Table \[tab:modelresults\] lists the approximate range of epochs probed by each LE). The LE113 model therefore has an excess of emission from the inclusion of late-time nebular epochs. The LE117 model is able to correctly match the observed LE117 strength. The lower panel of Figure \[fig:spec\_example\_f2\] shows the same LE113 model with the corresponding LE113 observed LE spectrum, showing good agreement. The fact that two distinct LEs with differing line strengths and differing dust properties show the same result – that the observed LE spectra from this viewing angle can be modeled with an isotropic historical spectrum – shows the interpretation of LE spectroscopy described here and in detail in @leprofile is correct.
[lrrrrrrr]{} LE016 & 15.8 & 428.91 & 17.1 & 22 $\pm$ 6& 4.49 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.35 & 0-180\
LE029 & 29.2 & 473.13 & 16.3 & 28 $\pm$ 2& 4.49 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.19 & 5-200\
LE032 & 31.8 & 483.02 & 16.2 & -46 $\pm$ 2& 2.71 $\pm$ 0.05 & -0.27 &30-180\
LE034 & 33.9 & 486.53 & 16.1 & -16 $\pm$ 2& 3.37 $\pm$ 0.15 & +0.26 &0-140\
LE053 & 53.0 & 505.05 & 15.8 & 38 $\pm$ 7& 5.26 $\pm$ 0.03 & -0.18 &0-215\
LE066 & 66.3 & 590.39 & 14.7 & 11 $\pm$ 2& 4.50 $\pm$ 0.55 & +1.05 &0-80\
LE069 & 69.3 & 624.64 & 14.3 & 66.8 $\pm$ 0.2& 1.80 $\pm$ 0.07 & +0.57 &0-110\
LE076 & 76.4 & 648.50 & 14.0 & 11 $\pm$ 4& 0.60 $\pm$ 0.22 & -0.08 &40-135\
LE113 & 112.5 & 671.04 & 13.8 & 79 $\pm$ 1& 3.06 $\pm$ 0.09 & -0.39 &0-330\
LE117 & 116.8 & 618.40 & 14.3 & 33 $\pm$ 5& 3.10 $\pm$ 0.39 & -0.14 &35-155\
LE180 & 180.2 & 289.69 & 20.7 & -49 $\pm$ 2& 4.53 $\pm$ 0.06 & +0.73 &0-290\
LE186 & 185.6 & 270.34 & 21.3 & 70 $\pm$ 3& 3.52 $\pm$ 0.18 & -1.00 &0-420\
LE325 & 325.3 & 369.67 & 18.4 & -6 $\pm$ 11& 1.13 $\pm$ 0.16 & +0.18 &20-120\
LE326 & 326.1 & 370.33 & 18.4 & 15 $\pm$ 3& 2.24 $\pm$ 0.51 & +0.21 &0-130\
### Observation-Dominated Scenario {#sec:mode_f5_example}
Here we consider a scenario where the properties of the observation (specifically the slit location) are the dominant factors in two very different observed LE spectra that have similar viewing angles onto the photosphere. Figure \[fig:dust\_example\_f5\] shows the LE profiles of LE053 and LE066, corresponding to the slits at PA$\sim60^{\circ}$ in Figure \[fig:slit\_locations\]. The gray shaded region indicates the location of the slit for both profiles. The slit of LE066 was placed $\sim1\arcsec$ farther away from the SNR than the peak of the LE. This was unintentional since the location of the LE peak may not be very well known when making the MOS masks. The offset results in very different observed LE spectra for the two profiles, as shown in Figure \[fig:f5s21\_comparison\]. When compared to the observed LE spectra of Figure \[fig:spec\_example\_f2\] and LE053 in Figure \[fig:f5s21\_comparison\], the spectrum of LE066 looks more like an early-time spectrum with a lower emission-to-absorption ratio and a higher temperature continuum. Since the slit is centered on the pre-maximum light portion of the LE profile, LE066 does not probe epochs $>100$ days after maximum light, while LE053 probes epochs out to $\sim300$ days after maximum light. As in the previous example, both model isotropic spectra are good fits to their observed LE spectra. However, the model of LE053 has a lower absorption velocity and a larger emission-to-absorption ratio, making it a poor fit to the LE066 observed LE spectrum.
The above dust- and observation-dominated examples highlight the danger in comparing LE spectra without sufficient modeling. Without the corresponding models for the LE053 and LE066 observed spectra, one might make a false-detection of asymmetry: the LE066 spectrum has a larger velocity and excess in emission compared to the LE053 spectrum. If the two LEs occurred at opposite PAs this asymmetry claim would be even more tempting to make.
Evidence for Asymmetry in SN 1987A {#sec:asymmetry}
----------------------------------
Each PA on the LE system of SN 1987A represents a distinct viewing angle with which to view the original outburst. LEs originating to the north of SN 1987A probe outburst light originating mainly from the northern portion of the photosphere. Therefore, by observing the LEs as a function of increasing PA, we are able to view the outburst of SN 1987A as a function of north to south lines of sight. The scattering angles probed by the LE ring are listed in Table \[tab:modelresults\] and lead to typical opening angles of $\sim35^{\circ}-40^{\circ}$.
Observed LE spectra and corresponding dust-modeled isotropic spectra are plotted as a function of PA in Figures \[fig:6\]-\[fig:4\], with each figure representing a field as shown in Figure \[fig:slit\_locations\]. Figure \[fig:6\] corresponds to the most northern field. As previously mentioned, we should avoid searching for differences between observed LE spectra. Instead, deviations in asymmetry are defined by deviations from the dust-modeled isotropic spectrum (red line) for each line of sight. A deviation from the model then describes a deviation from the appropriate weighted set of outburst spectra of SN 1987A as it was historically observed along the direct line of sight.
### Profiles {#sec:asymmetry:ha}
Figures \[fig:6\]-\[fig:4\] show that most features and line strengths observed in the optical LE spectra can be fit with the isotropic historical spectrum of SN 1987A, without the need to invoke asymmetry in the outburst. However, the fine-structure and strength of the $\lambda6563$ line show deviations from symmetry as a function of PA (i.e. viewing angle onto the SN).
Figure \[fig:allspecsha\] shows a closeup of the profiles of seven unique viewing angles as a function of increasing PA from top to bottom (the geometry of the viewing angles is shown in Figure \[fig:3d\]). The most northern line of sight LE, LE016, shows a strong blue knee in the profile at $\sim-2000$in addition to a strong excess of emission that is redshifted from the rest wavelength by $\sim+800$(and by $\sim+500$compared to the historical spectrum). The most southern LE, LE186, has a PA almost directly opposite that of LE016. Its profile (second from bottom in Figure \[fig:allspecsha\]) shows a red knee in the fine-structure at $\sim+2200$and an excess in emission shifted towards the blue by $\sim-500$(and by $\sim-1000$compared to the historical spectrum). The qualitative difference in the profile shape between the two extreme viewing angles, LE016 and LE186, is shown in Figure \[fig:plain\_cont\_comparison\]. This figure does not take into account the effects of the LE observations on the integrated spectra and so cannot be used as a direct comparison between the viewing angles. However, it does qualitatively describe the asymmetry in the fine-structure between the two viewing angles.
The two asymmetries in the profile (summarized in Figure \[fig:plain\_cont\_comparison\]) are the fine-structure, with a blue knee in the northern profiles and a red knee in the southern profile, as well as an excess of emission that is redshifted in the north and blueshifted in the south. Both of these asymmetries appear to be physical for a number of reasons. The excess in emission as well as the blue knee feature smoothly diminish in Figure \[fig:allspecsha\] as PA is increased. At PA $\sim110^{\circ}$ in the south-east quadrant, both the strength and fine-structure from LEs LE113 and LE117 can be fit with the historical model spectrum of SN 1987A. The fact that both asymmetries (fine-structure and redshifted emission) smoothly diminish as a function of viewing angle from north to south in the eastern half of the LE ring is strong evidence that these asymmetries are physical.
This fine-structure in the profile is similar to the “Bochum event” (named after the 61 cm Bochum telescope at La Silla, Chile) originally observed in SN 1987A [@hanuschik87; @phillips89], where blue and red satellite emission features were observed 20-100 days after explosion. Figure \[fig:bochum\] shows the profile of a CTIO spectrum taken 34 days after explosion [@phillips88]. The blue and red emission satellites are similar to the blue and red knees observed in the LE016 and LE186 LE spectra, respectively. It is tempting to compare the fine-structure observed in Figure \[fig:bochum\] directly with the fine-structure observed in the LE profiles. *However, LE spectra represent an integration of many epochs of signal and cannot be compared directly to a single epoch spectrum.* Although the “Bochum event” is prominent in Figure \[fig:bochum\], there is no evidence for fine-structure in any of the isotropic model spectra in Figure \[fig:allspecsha\]. That is, the “Bochum event” does not survive the smoothing effect when the historical spectra of SN 1987A are integrated. This can be seen in the lower panel of Figure \[fig:modelsummary\], where the fine-structure from the “Bochum event” is faintly visible in the maximum light spectrum, but entirely nonexistent in the integrated model spectra. The fact that fine-structure similar to the “Bochum event” is present in the observed LE spectra is evidence for underlying fine-structure that is much stronger than that originally observed for SN 1987A. In general, small deviations from symmetry observed in a LE spectrum must represent very large deviations from symmetry in the underlying outburst in order to remain after the integrating effect of the LE phenomenon. This is an important aspect of all LE spectroscopy work that is rarely emphasized.
The excess emission in the north and south from profiles LE016 and LE186, respectively, cannot be explained within uncertainties. To obtain the largest temporal coverage we used both CTIO and SAAO spectra when integrating the model spectrum. There exists known systematic differences between the datasets of the original observations from the two locations [@hamuy90]. Using the two data sets individually in our analysis pipeline can lead to differences in the strength by $5\%-10\%$ in our models, but cannot account for the $30\%-40\%$ excess observed in the LE016 and LE186 spectra. We also stress that our analysis is based on relative flux comparisons only.
The LE profile on the sky for LE016 is very similar to that shown in Figure \[fig:modelsummary\]. Since it is a single peak, the theoretical maximum amount of emission in the model would correspond to integrating the historical spectra with the full lightcurve of SN 1987A out to $t=t_{now}$, rather than an effective lightcurve that is truncated by a window function (i.e. having an infinitely thick dust sheet). However, even this unphysical limit cannot reproduce the emission-to-absorption ratio that is seen in the observed LE profile of LE016. The LE profile on the sky and the slit location for LE186, which has two closely spaced filaments, are shown in Figure \[fig:dust\_example\_f3s32\]. Since the slit was placed on the first peak, there will be late-time nebular emission entering the slit from the second peak at larger $\rho$. In such a case, it is possible to obtain a larger emission-to-absorption ratio. However, we have taken this into account by modeling both LE peaks and determining the relative contributions from each peak entering the slits. This effect, discussed in more detail in the Appendix, cannot account for the excess in emission in LE186. We also stress that the apparent lack of any emission excess in LE180 is due to limitations in our LE fitting algorithrims when dealing with such low signal-to-noise data. LE180 is discussed in more detail in the Appendix. It should be noted, however, that LE180 appears to show the same fine-structure in (blueshifted emission peak and red knee) despite the low signal of the spectrum.
The opening angles probed by the LE lines of sight are $<45\deg$. The fact that large asymmetries are seen in the observed integrated LE spectra for relatively small changes in viewing angle is evidence for a strong asymmetry in the explosion.
### Additional Evidence of Asymmetry {#sec:moreasymmetry}
Although the profile shows the strongest asymmetry signature that is dependent on viewing angle, we note here two additional possible sources of asymmetry from the LE spectra: a velocity shift in the Fe II $\lambda5018$ line that appears to be correlated with the asymmetry, and an unidentified feature near $5265$[Å]{} present in only one direction.
Figure \[fig:f6s15\_FeII\_redshift\] plots the Fe II $\lambda5018$ line for the observed LE spectra of LE016 (black), the asymmetric northern viewing angle. The dust-modeled isotropic spectrum is plotted as solid red. We also plot in dashed blue the same isotropic spectrum redshifted by $+800$, which gives the best fit to the emission peak of the Fe II $\lambda5018$ line (determined by eye). The redshifted spectrum is a better fit to the line and is consistent with the $600-800$redshift observed in the line for the same viewing angle. As with the line asymmetry, the magnitude of the best-fitting redshift for the Fe II $\lambda5018$ line decreases as a function of viewing angle away from the LE016 line of sight. For the case of LE186, the line is weak and heavily contaminated from sky residuals. Although it has the most blueward Fe II $\lambda5018$ line of all observed LE spectra, it is unclear if the line is actually blueshifted with respect to the isotropic model or to zero. The structure is complicated since this line is part of a blend of the Fe II $\lambda\lambda4924$, $5018$, $5169$ features.
Figure \[fig:f2\_feature\] shows an unidentified feature near $5265$[Å]{} in the observed LE spectra for both “equatorial” (i.e. perpendicular to maximum asymmetry axes $16$/$186$) lines of sight at PA $\sim115\arcdeg$. Many LE spectra have signal-to-noise ratios higher than the lower spectrum of Figure \[fig:f2\_feature\], however there is no evidence for the feature in any other line of sight. The fact that the feature is broader in the LE117 (lower) spectrum is consistent with that LE probing a narrower range of early, high-velocity epochs as described in Section \[sec:mode\_f2\_example\]. Considering this wavelength region is populated with many line blends and the fact that the spectra represent a time-integration, it is currently unclear if the feature is due to differences in chemical or velocity properties at this viewing angle.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Ignoring the smaller knee-like fine-structure, the profiles of the LE016 and LE186 viewing angles in Figure \[fig:plain\_cont\_comparison\] argue strongly for a one-sided asymmetry in SN 1987A. An overabundance of $^{56}$Ni in the southern far hemisphere would create an excess in nonthermal excitation of hydrogen. This results in an excess in redshifted emission for the northern LE016 viewing angle. If the overabundance of $^{56}$Ni is inclined close to the plane of the sky (within $21^{\circ}$), the overexcitation would occur in the near hemisphere with respect to the LE186 line of sight, explaining the blueshifted emission in LE186. The question remains if the asymmetry summarized in Figure \[fig:plain\_cont\_comparison\] is strictly a result of this one-sided asymmetry plus time-integration effects, or if an additional asymmetry is the cause of the blue and red knee in the fine-structure of in LE016 and LE186, respectively.
The “Bochum event” (Figure \[fig:bochum\]) has previously been interpreted as an asymmetric distribution of $^{56}$Ni [e.g., @lucy88; @hanuschik90; @chugai91a]. Although both blue and red emission features are observed in Figure \[fig:bochum\], the blue emission feature was only additionally observed in H$\beta$ [@hanuschik90] while the redshifted emission feature was also observed in infrared hydrogen lines [@larson87] and \[Fe II\] lines [@haas90]. @chugai91a proposed a two-sided $^{56}$Ni asymmetry: (1) a dominant $^{56}$Ni cloud in the far hemisphere producing the red emission fine-structure and the redshifted emission peak at later epochs, and (2) a smaller, higher velocity $^{56}$Ni cloud in the near hemisphere producing the blue fine-structure. However, instead of invoking a smaller $^{56}$Ni cloud in the near hemisphere, the more recent explanation for the blue fine-structure is a non-monotonic Sobolev optical depth, $\tau(v)$, for with a minimum near $v\approx5000\kms$ [@chugai91b; @utrobin95; @wang02; @utrobin02; @utrobin05]. This interpretation does not require breaking spherical symmetry to explain the blue fine-structure. Although @utrobin05 favor this scenario, their model cannot successfully produce the optical depth minimum at the required strength. The smooth transition of the profiles in PA from LE016 to LE117 in Figure \[fig:allspecsha\] shows that the blue fine structure is dependent on viewing angle. As such, *some form* of deviation from spherical symmetry must be the root of the blue fine-structure in the LE profiles and presumably directly correlated to the blue fine-structure observed in the “Bochum event.”
The “Bochum event” was observed on days 20-100, while the redshift in lines of hydrogen and other elements was observed after $\sim150$ days. For each LE spectrum, Table \[tab:modelresults\] lists the approximate range of epochs that contribute to the LE spectrum at greater than the $50\%$ level. This relative contribution is based on the window function generated for each LE (Figure \[fig:modelsummary\]), prior to any flux-weighted integration. While the temporal resolution in the LEs is not capable of distinguishing between photospheric and nebular epochs, we can compare LEs with different degrees of nebular emission. It is therefore interesting to note that *both* the fine-structure and the velocity shift of the line appear to be more dominantly a function of viewing angle rather than a function of epoch. LE066 probes the first $\sim80$ days of the explosion only, but does not show fine-structure in considerably different than the nearby LEs probing much later epochs. The fact that the blue fine-structure feature is also present in the early-epoch LE066 spectrum almost certainly links this feature to an exaggerated version of the original “Bochum event.”
Since the P Cygni line is a blend with Ba II $\lambda6497$, it is possible an asymmetry in the Ba II line is causing the observed blue fine-structure in the LE spectra. However, @utrobin95 determined that the inclusion of the Ba II line was not sufficient to explain the blue emission in the “Bochum event.” Additionally, unlike , the Ba II $\lambda6142$ line appears to be fit well with the isotropic model in the LE spectra.
A two-sided $^{56}$Ni model such as @chugai91a could explain the LE observations. A smaller high-velocity cloud blueshifted in the north causing the blue and red fine-structure in the north and south viewing angles, respectively. And a larger cloud redshifted in the south causing the red- and blue-shifted excess in the emission observed in the north and south viewing angles, respectively. The larger cloud could also be responsible for the Fe II asymmetry shown in Figure \[fig:f6s15\_FeII\_redshift\]. The original observations of SN 1987A provided strong evidence for the large cloud being in the far hemisphere as previously stated. This is apparent in the isotropic model spectrum of LE186, where the time-integrated emission peak of is shifted to the red. LE186 probes a larger range of epochs in the explosion (out to $\sim400$ days), so the redshift and integrated line profile asymmetry is most apparent in the LE186 isotropic model. The observed LE spectrum, however, shows a small blueshift with respect to zero velocity, implying the overabundance is inclined within $21^{\circ}$ of the plane of the sky in the southern far hemisphere. If the cloud was $\sim20^{\circ}$ from the plane of the sky, the radial velocities would be a factor of $1.7-1.9$ larger in the north and south viewing angles, more easily altering the profile shape of the integrated LE spectra.
Figure \[fig:plain\_cont\_comparison\] highlights the emission peak redshifted and blueshifted with respect to zero velocity in the northern (LE016) and southern (LE186) viewing angles, respectively. With respect to the isotropic model of SN 1987A, the absolute velocity shift of the peak is twice as large in the south ($-1000$in LE186 compared to $+500$in LE016). This is surprising considering both LEs have nearly equal $\sim20^{\circ}$ north and south lines of sight onto the photosphere. However, LE186 probes over twice the range of epochs in the original explosion compared to LE016. The velocity shift is most likely more apparent at these later nebular epochs as previously discussed, potentially accounting for the larger velocity shift for LE186.
In addition to SN 1987A, a velocity shift in the peak or a Bochum-like event has also been observed for the Type IIP SNe SN 1999em, SN 2000cb, SN 2004dj, and SN 2006ov, as well as the Type II SN 2006bc [@elmhamdi03; @kleiser11; @chugai05; @chornock10; @gallagher12]. The profiles of SN 2004dj are strikingly similar to that of the LE186 profile in Figure \[fig:plain\_cont\_comparison\]. Although LE spectra cannot be compared directly with instantaneous spectra, it appears the lines from @chugai05 would resemble that of LE186 after being smoothed by time-integration. @chugai05 were able to successfully model the SN 2004dj fine-structure using an asymmetric bipolar $^{56}$Ni distribution, including a spherical component with two cylindrical components. They modeled the observer viewing a dominant jet $30^{\circ}$ off-axis, resulting in a larger blueshifted emission peak with a smaller redshifted feature in the profiles of . This describes the LE186 LE profile in Figure \[fig:plain\_cont\_comparison\], suggesting a bipolar $^{56}$Ni distribution as a possible explanation. Since at the opposite PA, LE016, we see the opposite set of features in Figure \[fig:plain\_cont\_comparison\], the two LE viewing angles would have to be looking towards opposite ends of the bipolar distribution in the model of @chugai05. Since the viewing angles only differ by $\sim40^{\circ}$, this would put strict constraints on the orientation of the bipolar distribution. This is, however, consistent with the dominant $^{56}$Ni component being aligned within $\sim20^{\circ}$ to the plane of the sky, as previously suggested.
As noted in the introduction, one of the benefits of LE spectroscopy is it allows the signatures of the explosion in the first few hundred days to be compared directly with the state of the remnant. The PA of the symmetry axis of the elongated ejecta was measured to be $14^{\circ}\pm5^{\circ}$ using HST imaging [@wang02] and $15^{\circ}\pm0.9^{\circ}$ using IFU spectra [@kjaer10]. This PA corresponds to LE016, where we see the maximum deviation from symmetry in in the northern hemisphere. @kjaer10 found the present-day ejecta to be blueshifted in the north and redshifted in the south, inclined out of the plane of the sky by $\sim25^{\circ}$. The bipolar $^{56}$Ni distribution proposed above to explain the LE observations is therefore aligned with the roughly $25$ year-old ejecta both in PA and inclination out of the sky. The inner ring of circumstellar material is inclined $49^{\circ}$ out of the plane of the sky, blueshifted in the north [@sugerman05]. The outer circumstellar rings are similarly inclined, presumably related to the rotation axis of the progenitor. The elongated ejecta and $^{56}$Ni distribution probed by the LE observations are therefore aligned approximately in plane with the equatorial ring, as opposed to sharing a symmetry axis as initially proposed by @wang02. This disfavors the axially symmetric jet-induced explosion model for SN 1987A proposed by @wang02. We illustrate the proposed asymmetry with a schematic in Figure \[fig:schematic\], highlighting the overabundance of $^{56}$Ni close to the plane of the sky and redshifted in the southern hemisphere.
The “mystery spot” of SN 1987A was a bright source observed in speckle interferometry measurements 30, 38, and 50 days after the explosion, separated by only 60 mas from the SN [@nisenson87; @meikle87], and appearing at PA=$194^{\circ}\pm2^{\circ}$. @nisenson99 reprocessed this data, and identified *two* mystery spots in the data: (1) the original bright source at PA=$194^{\circ}\pm3^{\circ}$ separated by $60\pm8$ mas from the SNR, and (2) a fainter source at PA=$14^{\circ}\pm3^{\circ}$ separated by $160\pm8$ mas from the SNR. In order to be associated with the SN, they claimed the mystery spots must be at relativistic speeds with the northern spot blueshifted. A satisfactory explanation of the mystery spot (or spots) has yet to appear, a fact which is often forgotten. Figure \[fig:schematic\] highlights the location of the mystery spots of @nisenson99 with respect to our LEs. Since the PAs for the LE spectra showing maximum asymmetry ($16^{\circ}/186^{\circ}$) match the mystery spot PAs to within $10^{\circ}$, future modeling of the LE lines may aid in an explanation of the mystery spots.
If in fact the blue fine-structure of the “Bochum event” is due to an asymmetrical $^{56}$Ni feature in the northern hemisphere, as the LE spectra here suggest, $^{56}$Ni is transported to even higher velocities than previously considered. The blue feature emerges after 20 days at a radial velocity of $-5000\kms$ in the profile. Since the blue fine-structure is most dominant in LE016 at a scattering angle of $17^{\circ}$, the lower limit of the absolute velocity of the $^{56}$Ni cloud in the near hemisphere is $5200\kms$, a velocity difficult to explain in current neutrino-driven explosion models. Absolute velocities of $>7000\kms$ are required if the cloud is inclined within $45^{\circ}$ to the plane of the sky and upwards of $10000\kms$ if within $30^{\circ}$. Assuming the dominant southern $^{56}$Ni overabundance (and change in peak velocity) is correlated to the red emission feature observed in the “Bochum event” requires absolute velocities of $\sim10000\kms$ for that feature for an inclination of $20^{\circ}$ out of the plane of the sky. For the case of SN 2000cb, @utrobin11 required radial mixing $^{56}$Ni to velocities of $8400\kms$ to reproduce the observed lightcurve of SN 2000cb, although it was a more energetic Type IIP than SN 1987A. Therefore, these unrealistically high velocities of $^{56}$Ni for current neutrino-powered core-collapse explosion models require us to step back and view the asymmetries in Figure \[fig:plain\_cont\_comparison\] at their most basic level: a non-spherical excitation structure in the early ejecta. @dessart11 demonstrated that the P Cygni line profiles from non-spherical Type II ejecta can be altered significantly depending on viewing angle. Only future modeling of the LE spectra, taking into account the effects of time-integration, will allow the ejecta geometry to be determined or further constrained.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We have obtained optical spectra from the LE system of SN 1987A, allowing time-integrated spectra of the first few hundred days of the original explosion to be viewed from multiple lines of sight. We have modeled the LE spectra using the original photometry and spectroscopy of SN 1987A using the model of @leprofile. Using specific examples we have showed the model correctly interprets LE flux profiles and spectra when both scattering dust properties and observational properties are taken into consideration.
Each PA on the LE system represents a unique viewing angle onto the photosphere which can be spectroscopically compared to the isotropic spectrum calculated from the original outburst of SN 1987A. The LE spectra show evidence for asymmetry, demonstrating the technique of targeted LE spectroscopy as a useful probe for observing SN asymmetries. The observed asymmetries can be summarized as follows:
1. Fine-structure in the line stronger than the original “Bochum event” is observed most strongly at PAs $16^{\circ}$ and $186^{\circ}$, with the profiles showing opposite asymmetry features in the north and south viewing angles.
2. At PA $16^{\circ}$ we observed an excess in redshifted emission and a blueshifted knee. At PA $186^{\circ}$ we observed an excess of blueshifted emission and a red knee. This fine-structure diminishes slowly as the PA increases from $16^{\circ}$ to $16^{\circ}+90^{\circ}$, with the LEs perpendicular to the symmetry axis showing no evidence for asymmetry.
3. At PA $16^{\circ}$ we observe a velocity shift in the Fe II $\lambda5018$ line of the same magnitude and direction as the velocity shift in the emission peak at the same viewing angle. As with the fine-structure, this velocity shift appears to diminish as PA increases from $16^{\circ}$.
4. At PA $\sim115^{\circ}$ (roughly perpendicular to symmetry axis defined by $16^{\circ}/186^{\circ}$ viewing angles) we observed an unidentified feature near $\lambda5265$[Å]{} not observed in any other viewing angle.
This symmetry axis defined by the $16^{\circ}/186^{\circ}$ viewing angles is in excellent agreement with the current axis of symmetry in the ejecta geometry, the initial polarization and speckle observations, as well as the location of the “mystery spot.” The lines at PAs $16^{\circ}$ and $186^{\circ}$ are very similar to the lines observed in SN 2004dj and modeled as a two-sided $^{56}$Ni distribution by @chugai05. This same model could describe a two-sided ejection of $^{56}$Ni in SN 1987A as probed by the LE lines. The $^{56}$Ni is blueshifted in the north and redshifted in the south, with the dominant overabundance of $^{56}$Ni being inclined $\sim20^{\circ}$ from the plane of the sky. The indication that high-velocity $^{56}$Ni is not correlated with the inner ring and presumed rotation axis may indicate that the explosion mechanism is independent of rotation. While these observations argue for a two-sided distribution of high-velocity $^{56}$Ni, at their most basic level they probe unequal source functions of the line at different viewing angles. Only future modeling of the LE spectra will be able to constrain the early ejecta geometry with confidence. We thank John Menzies for organizing and providing the original SAAO spectra of SN 1987A. We also thank the anonymous referee for very useful comments. BPS thanks Rollin Thomas and Tomasz Plewa for helpful discussion. DLW acknowledges support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). SuperMACHO was supported by the HST grant GO-10583 and GO-10903.
Effect of Dust Substructure in LE Profiles {#app:substructure}
==========================================
For the observed LE profiles presented in this work, 11/14 show no strong evidence for dust substructure within the profile. These LE profiles can be modeled with one dust sheet effectively. However, LE113, LE180, and LE186 all show significant substructure in the their profiles (Figures \[fig:dust\_example\_f2\] and \[fig:dust\_example\_f3s32\]) and we seek to quantify the effect this can have on the observed LE spectrum. Figures \[fig:f2\_substructure\]-\[fig:f3s33\_substructure\] show the observed LE profiles and the effect of dust substructure on the window functions and effective lightcurves. Figure \[fig:specs\_substructure\] shows the differences in strengths obtained with and without including the effect of the secondary dust structure.
As shown in Figure \[fig:specs\_substructure\], the effect of the secondary substructure on the resulting profile is minimal for LE113 ($<4\%$ difference in strength of emission peak), primarily because the flux contribution from the wing of the LE profile is so small. For LE186, including the secondary LE profile decreases the emission peak by $11\%$. Note, however, that because of the significant offset of the slit from the primary peak, the emission for LE186 is in excess of the full lightcurve-weighted integration of SN 1987A. For the case of LE180, the secondary peak significantly alters the window function and subsequent line, increasing the emission strength by $\sim40\%$.
The Excess of Emission in LE186 {#sec:app:excess}
===============================
The observed LE spectra and isotropic models for LE180 and LE186 in Figure \[fig:3\] show two different results. LE186 shows a clear, high signal-to-noise excess in emission over the isotropic dust-modeled spectrum. LE180, probing essentially the same viewing angle onto the photosphere, does not show such an excess in the profile. In addition to the much lower signal-to-noise of LE180, we can use arguments based on the above dust substructure analysis to show that the excess emission observed in LE186 is physical.
As shown in the middle panel of Figure \[fig:specs\_substructure\], the effect of the secondary LE peak in the LE186 profile is to *reduce* the emission peak of . The maximum amount of emission for LE186 therefore occurs when no secondary substructure is included. Since this gives an excess of only $\sim10\%$, even this scenario is not able to account for the $\sim30\%$ excess in in the observed LE186 spectrum.
For the case of LE180, the effect of the substructure is to *increase* the emission peak substantially ($\sim40\%$ using the profile fits in Figure \[fig:f3s33\_substructure\]). Unlike the case of LE186, where the LE profile fits are well constrained within the data, the fits to the LE180 profile in Figure \[fig:f3s33\_substructure\] are an example of a situation where our profile fitting algorithms cannot extract meaningful results due to the intrinsic complexity and low signal-to-noise ratio. It is most likely the case the secondary substructure in the LE180 profile is actually much wider than shown in Figure \[fig:f3s33\_substructure\], which would result in more late-epoch contribution from the secondary peak and more emission in .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $H$ and $K$ be locally compact groups and also $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ be a continuous homomorphism and $G_\tau=H\ltimes_\tau K$ be the semi-direct product of $H$ and $K$ with respect to the continuous homomorphism $\tau$. This paper presents a novel approach to the Fourier analysis of $G_\tau$, when $K$ is abelian. We define the $\tau$-dual group $G_{\widehat{\tau}}$ of $G_\tau$ as the semi-direct product $H\ltimes_{\widehat{\tau}}\widehat{K}$, where $\widehat{\tau}:H\to Aut(\widehat{K})$ defined via (\[A\]). We prove a Ponterjagin duality Theorem and also we study $\tau$-Fourier transforms on $G_\tau$. As a concrete application we show that how these techniques apply for the affine group and also we compute the $\tau$-dual group of Euclidean groups and the Weyl-Heisenberg groups.'
address: 'Department of Pure Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematical sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM), P. O. Box 1159, Mashhad 91775, Iran.'
author:
- Arash Ghaani Farashahi
title: 'A new approach to the Fourier analysis on semi-direct products of groups'
---
[^1]
**[Introduction]{}**
====================
Theory of Fourier analysis is the basic and fundamental step to extend the approximation theory on algebraic structures. Classical Fourier analysis on $\mathbb{R}^n$ and also it’s standard extension for locally compact abelian groups play an important role in approximation theory and also time-frequency analysis. For more on this topics we refer the readers to [@FollH] or [@FollR]. Passing through the harmonic analysis of abelian groups to the harmonic analysis of non-abelian groups we loose many concepts of Fourier analysis on locally compact abelian groups. If we assume that $G$ is unimodular and type I locally compact group, then still Fourier analysis on $G$ can be used. Theory of Fourier analysis on non-abelian, unimodular and type I groups was completely studied by Lipsman in [@Lip] and also Dixmier in [@Dix] or [@Kir].
Although theory of standard non-abelian Fourier analysis is a strong theory but it is not numerical computable, so it is not an appropriate tools in the view points of time-frequency analysis or physics and engineering applications. This lake persists us to have a new approach to the theory of Fourier analysis on non-abelian groups.
Many non-abelian groups which play important roles in general theory of time-frequency analysis or mathematical physics such as the affine group or Heisenberg group can be considered as a semi-direct products of some locally compact groups $H$ and $K$ with respect to a continuous homomorphism $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ in which $K$ is abelain.
In this paper which contains 5 sections, section 2 devoted to fix notations and also a summary of harmonic analysis on locally compact groups and semi-direct product of locally compact groups $H$ and $K$ with respect to the continuous homomorphism $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$. In section 3 we assume that $K$ is abelian and also we define the $\tau$-dual group $G_{\widehat{\tau}}$ of $G_\tau=H\ltimes_\tau K$ as the semi direct products of $H$ and $\widehat{K}$ with respect to the continuous homomorphism $\widehat{\tau}:H\to Aut(\widehat{K})$, where $\widehat{\tau}_h(\omega):=\omega\circ \tau_{h^{-1}}$. It is also shown that the $\widehat{\tau}$-dual group $G_{\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}}$ of $G_{\widehat{\tau}}=H\ltimes_{\widehat{\tau}}K$ and $G_\tau$ are isomorphic, which can be considered as a generalization of the Ponterjagin duality Theorem.
In the sequel, in section 4 we define $\tau$-Fourier transform of $f\in L^1(G_\tau)$ and we study it’s basic $L^2$-properties such as the Plancherel theorem. We also prove an inversion formula for the $\tau$-Fourier transform.
As well as, finally in section 5 as examples we show that how this extension techniques can be used for various types of semi-direct products of group such as the affine group, the Euclidean groups and the Weyl-Heisenberg groups.
**[Preliminaries and notations]{}**
===================================
Let $H$ and $K$ be locally compact groups with identity elements $e_H$ and $e_K$ respectively and left Haar measures $dh$ and $dk$ respectively and also let $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ be a homomorphism such that the map $(h,k)\mapsto \tau_h(k)$ from $H\times K$ onto $K$ be continuous, where $Aut(K)$ is the group of all topological group automorphisms of $K$ onto $K$. There is a natural topology, sometimes called Braconnier topology, turning $Aut(K)$ into a Hausdorff topological group(not necessarily locally compact), which is defined by the sub-base of identity neighbourhoods $$\mathcal{B}(F,U)= \{ \alpha\in Aut(K): \alpha(k),\alpha^{-1}(k)\in Uk\ \forall k\in F\},$$ where $F\subseteq K$ is compact and $U\subseteq K$ is an identity neighbourhood and also continuity of a homomorphism $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ is equivalent to the continuity of the map $(h,k)\mapsto \tau_h(k)$ from $H\times K$ onto $K$ (see [@HO]). The semi-direct product $G_\tau=H\ltimes_\tau K$ is a locally compact topological group with underlying set $H\times K$ which equipped with product topology and group operation is defined by $$\label{0.1}
(h,k)\ltimes_\tau(h',k'):=(hh',k\tau_h(k'))\hspace{0.5cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.5cm}(h,k)^{-1}:=(h^{-1},\tau_{h^{-1}}(k^{-1})).$$ If $H_1:=\{(h,e_K):h\in H\}$ and $K_1:=\{(e_H,k):k\in K\}$, then $K_1$ is a closed normal subgroup and $H_1$ is a closed subgroup of $G_\tau$. The left Haar measure of $G_\tau$ is $d\mu_{G_\tau}(h,k)=\delta(h)dhdk$ and also $\Delta_{G_\tau}(h,k)=\delta(h)\Delta_H(h)\Delta_K(k)$, where the positive and continuous homomorphism $\delta:H\to(0,\infty)$ is given by (Theorem 15.29 of [@HR1]) $$\label{AA}
dk=\delta(h)d(\tau_h(k)).$$ From now on, for all $p\ge 1$ we denote by $L^p(G_\tau)$ the Banach space $L^p(G_\tau,\mu_{G_\tau})$ and also $L^p(K)$ stands for $L^p(K,dk)$. When $f\in L^p(G_\tau)$, for a.e. $h\in H$ the function $f_h$ defined on $K$ via $f_h(k):=f(h,k)$ belongs to $L^p(K)$ (see [@FollR]).
If $K$ is a locally compact abelian group, due to Corollary 3.6 of [@FollH] all irreducible representations of $K$ are one-dimensional. Thus, if $\pi$ be an irreducible unitary representation of $K$ we have $\mathcal{H}_\pi=\mathbb{C}$ and also according to the Shur’s Lemma, there exists a continuous homomorphism $\omega$ of $K$ into the circle group $\mathbb{T}$ such that for each $k\in K$ and $z\in\mathbb{C}$ we have $\pi(k)(z)=\omega(k)z$. Such continuous homomorphisms are called characters of $K$ and the set of all characters of $K$ denoted by $\widehat{K}$. If $\widehat{K}$ equipped by the topology of compact convergence on $K$ which coincides with the $w^*$-topology that $\widehat{K}$ inherits as a subset of $L^\infty(K)$, then $\widehat{K}$ with respect to the dot product of characters is a locally compact abelian group which is called the dual group of $K$. The linear map $\mathcal{F}_K:L^1(K)\to \mathcal{C}(\widehat{K})$ defined by $v\mapsto \mathcal{F}_K(v)$ via $$\label{SF}
\mathcal{F}_K(v)(\omega)=\widehat{v}(\omega)=\int_Kv(k)\overline{\omega(k)}dk,$$ is called the Fourier transform on $K$. It is a norm-decreasing $*$-homomorphism from $L^1(K)$ to $\mathcal{C}_0(\widehat{K})$ with a uniformly dense range in $\mathcal{C}_0(\widehat{K})$ (Proposition 4.13 of [@FollH]). If $\phi\in L^1(\widehat{K})$, the function defined $a.e.$ on $K$ by $$\label{parseval0}
\breve{\phi}(x)=\int_{\widehat{K}}\phi(\omega)\omega(x)d\omega,$$ belongs to $L^\infty(K)$ and also for all $f\in L^1(K)$ we have the following orthogonality relation (Parseval formula); $$\label{parseval1}
\int_Kf(k)\overline{\breve{\phi}(k)}dk=\int_{\widehat{K}}\widehat{f}(\omega)\overline{\phi(\omega)}d\omega.$$ The Fourier transform (\[SF\]) on $L^1(K)\cap L^2(K)$ is an isometric and it extends uniquely to a unitary isomorphism from $L^2(K)$ to $L^2(\widehat{K})$ (Theorem 4.25 of [@FollH]) and also each $v\in L^1(K)$ with $\widehat{v}\in L^1(\widehat{K})$ satisfies the following Fourier inversion formula (Theorem 4.32 of [@FollH]); $$\label{inv}
v(k)=\int_{\widehat{K}}\widehat{v}(\omega)\omega(k)d\omega\ {\rm for} \ {\rm a.e.}\ k\in K.$$
[**$\tau$-Dual group**]{}
=========================
We recall that for a locally compact non-abelian group $G$, the standard dual space $\widehat{G}$ is defined as the set of all unitary equivalence classes of all irreducible unitary representations of $G$. There is a topology on $\widehat{G}$ called Fell topology. But $\widehat{G}$ with respect to the Fell topology is not a locally compact group in general setting (see [@FollH]). On the other hand elements of $\widehat{G}$ are equivalence classes of irreducible unitary representations of $G$ and so from computational view points there are not numerical applicable. In this section we associate to any semi-direct product group $H\ltimes_\tau K$ with $K$ abelian, a $\tau$-dual structure (group) which is actually a locally compact group.
Let $H$ be a locally compact group and $K$ be a locally compact abelian group also let $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ be a continuous homomorphism and $G_\tau=H\ltimes_\tau K$. For all $h\in H$ and $\omega\in\widehat{K}$ define the action $H\times\widehat{K}\to \widehat{K}$ via $$\label{A}
\omega_h:=\omega\circ\tau_{h^{-1}},$$ where $\omega_h(k)=\omega(\tau_{h^{-1}}(k))$ for all $k\in K$. If $\omega\in\widehat{K}$ and $h\in H$ we have $\omega_h\in\widehat{K}$, because for all $k,s\in K$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_h(ks)&=\omega\circ\tau_{h^{-1}}(ks)
\\&=\omega(\tau_{h^{-1}}(ks))
\\&=\omega(\tau_{h^{-1}}(k)\tau_{h^{-1}}(s))
\\&=\omega(\tau_{h^{-1}}(k))\omega(\tau_{h^{-1}}(s))=\omega_h(k)\omega_h(s).\end{aligned}$$
In the following proposition we find a suitable relation about the Plancherel measure of $\widehat{K}$ and also the action of $H$ on $\widehat{K}$ due to (\[A\]).
\[1.2\] [*Let $K$ be an abelian group and $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ be a continuous homomorphism. The Plancherel measure $d\omega$ on $\widehat{K}$ for all $h\in H$ satisfies $$\label{AA2}
d\omega_h=\delta(h)d\omega,$$ where $\delta:H\to(0,\infty)$ is the positive continuous homomorphism given by $dk=\delta(h)d\tau_h(k)$.* ]{}
Let $h\in H$ and also $v\in L^1(K)$. Using (\[AA\]) we have $v\circ \tau_h\in L^1(K)$ with $\|v\circ \tau_h\|_{L^1(K)}=\delta(h)\|v\|_{L^1(K)}$, because $$\begin{aligned}
\|v\circ \tau_h\|_{L^1(K)}&=\int_K|v\circ \tau_h(k)|dk
\\&=\int_K|v(\tau_h(k))|dk
\\&=\int_K|v(k)|d\tau_{h^{-1}}(k)
\\&=\delta(h)\int_K|v(k)|dk=\delta(h)\|v\|_{L^1(K)}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for all $\omega\in\widehat{K}$ we achieve $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{v\circ\tau_h}(\omega)
&=\int_Kv(\tau_h(k))\overline{\omega(k)}dk
\\&=\int_Kv(k)\overline{\omega_h(k)}d(\tau_{h^{-1}}(k))
\\&=\delta(h)\int_Kv(k)\overline{\omega_h(k)}dk=\delta(h)\widehat{v}(\omega_h).\end{aligned}$$ Now let $v\in L^1(K)\cap L^2(K)$. According to the Plancherel theorem (Theorem 4.25 of [@FollH]) and also preceding calculation, for all $h\in H$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\int_{\widehat{K}}|\widehat{v}(\omega)|^2d\omega_h
&=\int_{\widehat{K}}|\widehat{v}(\omega_{h^{-1}})|^2d\omega
\\&=\delta(h)^2\int_{\widehat{K}}|\widehat{v\circ\tau_{h^{-1}}}(\omega)|^2d\omega
\\&=\delta(h)^2\int_{{K}}|{v\circ\tau_{h^{-1}}}(k)|^2dk
\\&=\delta(h)^2\int_{{K}}|v(k)|^2d(\tau_h(k))
\\&=\delta(h)\int_{{K}}|v(k)|^2dk=\int_{\widehat{K}}|\widehat{v}(\omega)|^2\delta(h)d\omega,\end{aligned}$$ which implies (\[AA2\]).
Now using the action defined in (\[A\]) we define $\widehat{\tau}:H\to Aut(\widehat{K})$ via $h\mapsto \widehat{\tau}_h$, where $$\label{AAA}
\widehat{\tau}_h(\omega):=\omega_h=\omega\circ\tau_{h^{-1}}.$$ According to (\[AAA\]) for all $h\in H$ we have $\widehat{\tau}_h\in Aut(\widehat{K})$. Because, if $k\in K$ and $h\in H$ then for all $\omega,\eta\in\widehat{K}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\tau}_h(\omega.\eta)(k)&=(\omega.\eta)_h(k)
\\&=(\omega.\eta)\circ\tau_{h^{-1}}(k)
\\&=\omega.\eta(\tau_{h^{-1}}(k))
\\&=\omega(\tau_{h^{-1}}(k))\eta(\tau_{h^{-1}}(k))
\\&=\omega_h(k)\eta_h(k)=\widehat{\tau}_h(\omega)(k)\widehat{\tau}_h(\eta)(k).\end{aligned}$$ Also $h\mapsto \widehat{\tau}_h$ is a homomorphism from $H$ into $Aut(\widehat{K})$, cause if $h,t\in H$ then for all $\omega\in\widehat{K}$ and also $k\in K$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\tau}_{th}(\omega)(k)&=\omega_{th}(k)
\\&=\omega(\tau_{(th)^{-1}}(k))
\\&=\omega(\tau_{h^{-1}}\tau_{t^{-1}}(k))
\\&=\omega_h(\tau_{t^{-1}}(k))
\\&=\widehat{\tau}_h(\omega)(\tau_{t^{-1}}(k))=\widehat{\tau}_t[\widehat{\tau}_h(\omega)](k).\end{aligned}$$
Thus, via an algebraic viewpoint we can consider the semi-direct product of $H$ and $\widehat{K}$ with respect to the homomorphism $\widehat{\tau}:H\to Aut(\widehat{K})$. Due to (\[0.1\]), $\widehat{\tau}$-dual group operation for all $(h,\omega),(t,\eta)\in G_{\widehat{\tau}}=H\ltimes_{\widehat{\tau}}\widehat{K}$ is $$(h,\omega)\ltimes_{\widehat{\tau}}(t,\eta)=(ht,\omega.\eta_h).$$
Now we are in the position to prove the following fundamental theorem.
\[DG\] Let $H$ and $K$ be locally compact groups with $K$ abelian, $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ be a continuous homomorphism and also let $\delta:H\to(0,\infty)$ be the positive continuous homomorphism given via $dk=\delta(h)d\tau_h(k)$. The homomorphism $\widehat{\tau}:H\to Aut(\widehat{K})$ defined in (\[A\]) is continuous and so that the semi-direct product $H\ltimes_{\widehat{\tau}}\widehat{K}$ is a locally compact group with the left Haar measure $d\mu_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}(h,\omega)=\delta(h)^{-1}dhd\omega$.
For $\alpha\in Aut(K)$ let $\widehat{\alpha}\in Aut(\widehat{K})$ be given for all $\omega\in\widehat{K}$ by $\widehat{\alpha}(\omega):=\omega\circ\alpha^{-1}$ where for all $k\in K$ we have $\omega\circ\alpha^{-1}(k)=\omega(\alpha^{-1}(k))$. Due to Theorem 26.9 and also Theorem 26.5 of [@HR1] the mapping $\ \widehat{}:Aut(K)\to Aut(\widehat{K})$ defined by $\alpha\mapsto\widehat{\alpha}$ is a topological group isomorphism and so it is continuous. According to the following diagram $$H\stackrel{\tau}{\to}Aut(K)\stackrel{\widehat{}}{\to}Aut(\widehat{K}),$$ the homomorphism $\widehat{\tau}:H\to Aut(\widehat{K})$ defined in (\[A\]) is continuous. Thus, the semi-direct product $H\ltimes_{\widehat{\tau}}\widehat{K}$ is a locally compact group and also Proposition \[1.2\] shows that $\delta(h)^{-1}dhd\omega$ is a left Haar measure for $H\ltimes_{\widehat{\tau}}\widehat{K}$.
The semi-direct product $G_{\widehat{\tau}}=H\ltimes_{\widehat{\tau}}\widehat{K}$ mentioned in Theorem \[DG\], called the [*$\tau$-dual group*]{} of $G_\tau=H\ltimes_\tau K$. The most important advantage of this definition as a kind of a dual space for semi direct product of locally compact groups is that its elements are numerical computable and also this dual space is merely a locally compact group. It is worthwhile to note that, when $H$ is the identity group, the $\tau$-dual group of $G_\tau=K$ coincides with the usual dual group $\widehat{K}$ of $K$. When $K$ is abelian locally compact group and $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ is a continuous homomorphism, we call $K$ as the Fourier factor of the semi-direct product $G_\tau=H\ltimes_\tau K$.
Due to the Pontrjagin duality theorem (Theorem 4.31 of [@FollH]), each $k\in K$ defines a character $\widehat{k}$ on $\widehat{K}$ via $\widehat{k}(\omega)=\omega(k)$ and also the map $k\mapsto\widehat{k}$ is a topological group isomorphism from $K$ onto $\widehat{\widehat{K}}$. Via the same method as introduced in (\[A\]) the $\widehat{\tau}$-dual group operation, for all $(h,\widehat{k})$ and $(t,\widehat{s})$ in $G_{\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}}=H\ltimes_{\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}}\widehat{\widehat{K}}$ is $$\label{DDG1}
(h,\widehat{k})\ltimes_{\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}}(t,\widehat{s})
=(ht,\widehat{k}{\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}}_{h}(\widehat{s})),$$ where $\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}:H\to Aut(\widehat{\widehat{K}})$ is given by $$\label{DDG2}
\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}_h(\widehat{k})(\omega)=\omega_{h^{-1}}(k),$$ for all $\omega\in\widehat{K}$ and $(h,k)\in G_\tau$. Because, due to (\[AAA\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}_h(\widehat{k})(\omega)&=\widehat{k}\circ \widehat{\tau}_{h^{-1}}(\omega)
\\&=\widehat{k}\left(\widehat{\tau}_{h^{-1}}(\omega)\right)
\\&=\widehat{k}(\omega_{h^{-1}})=\omega_{h^{-1}}(k).\end{aligned}$$
In the sequel we prove a type of Pontrjagin duality theorem for $\tau$-dual group of semi direct product of groups. But first we prove a short lemma.
\[BPON\] Let $K$ be an abelian group and $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ be a continuous homomorphism also let $G_\tau=H\ltimes_\tau K$. Then, for all $(h,k)\in G_\tau$ we have $$\label{}
\widehat{\tau_h(k)}=\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}_h(\widehat{k}).$$
Let $(h,k)\in G_\tau$ and also let $\omega\in\widehat{K}$. Using duality notation and also (\[DDG2\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\tau_h(k)}(\omega)&=\omega(\tau_h(k))
\\&=\omega\circ\tau_{h}(k)
\\&=\omega_{h^{-1}}(k)=\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}_h(\widehat{k})(\omega).\end{aligned}$$
Next theorem gives us a subtle topological group isomorphism form $G_\tau$ onto $G_{\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}}$. In fact, the next theorem can be considered as the Pontrjagin duality theorem for $\tau$-dual group of semi-direct product of groups.
\[PON\] Let $H$ be a locally compact group, $K$ be a locally compact abelian group and $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ be a continuous homomorphism also let $G_\tau=H\ltimes_\tau K$. The map $\Theta:G_\tau\to G_{\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}}$ defined by $$\label{PON1}
(h,k)\mapsto\Theta(h,k):=(h,\widehat{k}),$$ is a topological group isomorphism.
First we show that $\Theta$ is a homomorphism. Let $(h,k),(t,s)$ in $G_\tau$. Since the map $k\mapsto\widehat{k}$ is a homomorphism and also using Lemma \[BPON\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta\left((h,k)\ltimes_\tau(t,s)\right)&=\Theta\left(ht,k\tau_h(s)\right)
\\&=\left(ht,\widehat{k\tau_h(s)}\right)
\\&=\left(ht,\widehat{k}\widehat{\tau_h(s)}\right)
\\&=\left(ht,\widehat{k}{\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}}_h(\widehat{s})\right)
\\&=(h,\widehat{k})\ltimes_{\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}}(t,\widehat{s})
=\Theta(h,k)\ltimes_{\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}}\Theta(t,s).\end{aligned}$$ Now using Pontrjagin Theorem (Theorem 4.31 of [@FollH]), the map $k\mapsto \widehat{k}$ is a topological group isomorphism from $K$ onto $\widehat{K}$ which implies that the map $\Theta$ is also a homeomorphism. Thus $\Theta$ is a topological group isomorphism.
From now on due to Theorem \[PON\] we can identify $G_{\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}}$ with $G_\tau$ via the topological group isomorphism $\Theta$ defined in (\[PON1\]). More precisely, we may identify an element $(h,\widehat{k})\in G_{\widehat{\widehat{\tau}}}$ with $(h,k)$.
**[$\tau$-Fourier transform]{}**
================================
In this section we study the $\tau$-Fourier analysis on the semi-direct product $G_\tau$.
We define the [*$\tau$-Fourier transform*]{} of $f\in L^1(G_\tau)$ for a.e. $(h,\omega)\in G_{\widehat{\tau}}$ by $$\label{2.2}
\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)(h,\omega):=\delta(h)\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega)=\delta(h)\int_Kf(h,k)\overline{\omega(k)}dk.$$
In the next theorem we prove a Parseval formula for the $\tau$-Fourier transform.
Let $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ be a continuous homomorphism and $G_\tau=H\ltimes_\tau K$ with $K$ abelian also let $f\in L^1(G_\tau)$ and $\Psi\in L^1(G_{\widehat{\tau}})$. Define the function $g$ for a.e. $(h,k)\in{G_\tau}$ by $$g(h,k):=\int_{\widehat{K}}\Psi(h,\omega)\overline{\omega(k)}d\omega.$$ Then, $\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)_h$ belongs to $L^\infty(\widehat{K})$ and $g_h$ belongs to $L^\infty({K})$ for a.e. $h\in H$ also we have the following orthogonality relations; $$\label{P01}
\int_{G_\tau}\delta(h)^{-1}f(h,k)\overline{g(h,k)}d\mu_{G_\tau}(h,k)
=\int_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)(h,\omega)\overline{\Psi(h,\omega)}d\mu_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}(h,\omega),$$ $$\label{P02}
\int_{G_\tau}f(h,k)\overline{g(h,k)}d\mu_{G_\tau}(h,k)
=\int_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}\delta(h)\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)(h,\omega)\overline{\Psi(h,\omega)}d\mu_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}(h,\omega).$$
Let $f\in L^1(G_\tau)$ and $\Psi\in L^1(G_{\widehat{\tau}})$. It is clear that for a.e. $h\in H$ we have $\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)_h\in L^\infty(\widehat{K})$ and $g_h\in L^\infty(K)$. Using Parseval Theorem (\[parseval1\]), we get $$\label{SPF0}
\int_Kf(h,k)\overline{g(h,k)}dk=\int_{\widehat{K}}\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega)\overline{\Psi(h,\omega)}d\omega.$$ Thus by (\[SPF0\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{G_\tau}\delta(h)^{-1}f(h,k)\overline{g(h,k)}d\mu_{G_\tau}(h,k)
&=\int_H\left(\int_Kf(h,k)\overline{g(h,k)}dk\right)dh
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_{\widehat{K}}\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega)\overline{\Psi(h,\omega)}d\omega\right)dh
=\int_{{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}}\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)(h,\omega)\overline{\Psi(h,\omega)}d\mu_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}(h,\omega).\end{aligned}$$ The same argument and also (\[SPF0\]) implies (\[P02\]).
Due to (\[2.2\]), if $f\in L^2(G_\tau)$ we have $f_h\in L^2(K)$ for a.e. $h\in H$. Thus, according to Theorem 4.25 of [@FollH], $\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)$ is well-defined for a.e. $h\in H$. Now, in the following theorem we show that the $\tau$-Fourier transform (\[2.2\]) is a unitary transform from $L^2(G_\tau)$ onto $L^2({G_{\widehat{\tau}}})$.
The next theorem can be considered as a Plancherel formula for the $\tau$-Fourier transform.
Let $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ be a continuous homomorphism and $G_\tau=H\ltimes_\tau K$ with $K$ abelian. The $\tau$-Fourier transform (\[2.2\]) on $L^2(G_\tau)$ is an isometric transform from $L^2(G_\tau)$ onto $L^2(G_{\widehat{\tau}})$.
Let $f\in L^2(G_\tau)$. Using Fubini’s theorem and also Plancherel theorem (Theorem 4.25 of [@FollH]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)\|_{L^2(G_{\widehat{\tau}})}^2
&=\int_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}|\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)(h,\omega)|^2d\mu_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}(h,\omega)
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_{\widehat{K}}|\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega)|^2d\omega\right)\delta(h)dh
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_K|{f_h}(k)|^2dk\right)\delta(h)dh
\\&=\int_H\int_{{K}}|{f}(h,k)|^2\delta(h)dkdh
\\&=\int_{G_\tau}|f(h,k)|^2d\mu_{G_\tau}(h,k)=\|f\|_{L^2(G_\tau)}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the linear map $f\mapsto \mathcal{F}_\tau{(f)}$ is an isometric in the $L^2$-norm. Now we show that, it is also surjective. Let $\phi\in L^2(G_{\widehat{\tau}})$. Then, for a.e. $h\in H$ we have $\phi_h\in L^2(\widehat{K})$. Again using the Plancherel Theorem, there is a unique $v^h\in L^2(K)$ such that we have $\mathcal{F}_K(v^h)=\phi_h$. Put $f(h,k):=\delta(h)^{-1}v^h(k)$, then we have $f\in L^2(G_\tau)$. Because, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{G_\tau}|f(h,k)|^2d\mu_{G_\tau}(h,k)
&=\int_H\int_K|f(h,k)|^2\delta(h)dhdk
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_K|v^h(k)|^2dk\right)\delta(h)^{-1}dh
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_{\widehat{K}}|\mathcal{F}_K(v^h)(\omega)|^2d\omega\right)\delta(h)^{-1}dh
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_{\widehat{K}}|\phi_h(\omega)|^2d\omega\right)\delta(h)dh
\\&=\int_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}|\phi(h,\omega)|^2d\mu_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}(h,\omega)<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Also, for a.e. $(h,\omega)\in G_{\widehat{\tau}}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)(h,\omega)
&=\delta(h)\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega)
\\&=\mathcal{F}_K(v^h)(\omega)
\\&=\phi_h(\omega)=\phi(h,\omega).\end{aligned}$$
Now we can prove the following Fourier inversion theorem for the $\tau$-Fourier transform defined in (\[2.2\]).
Let $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ be a continuous homomorphism and $G_\tau=H\ltimes_\tau K$ with $K$ abelian also let $f\in L^1(G_\tau)$ with $\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)\in L^1(G_{\widehat{\tau}})$. Then, for a.e. $(h,k)\in G_\tau$ we have the following reconstruction formula; $$\label{RFFTF}
f(h,k)=\delta(h)^{-1}\int_{\widehat{K}}\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)(h,\omega)\omega(k)d\omega.$$
Let $f\in L^1(G_\tau)$ with $\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)\in L^1(G_{\widehat{\tau}})$. Then, for a.e. $h\in H$ we have $f_h\in L^1(K)$ and $\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)\in L^1(\widehat{K})$. Using Theorem 4.32 of [@FollH], for a.e. $(h,k)\in G_\tau$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
f(h,k)&=\int_{\widehat{K}}\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega)\omega(k)d\omega
\\&=\delta(h)^{-1}\int_{\widehat{K}}\delta(h)\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega)\omega(k)d\omega
=\delta(h)^{-1}\int_{\widehat{K}}\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)(h,\omega)\omega(k)d\omega.\end{aligned}$$
We can also define the [*generalized $\tau$-Fourier transform*]{} of $f\in L^1(G_\tau)$ for a.e. $(h,\omega)\in G_{\widehat{\tau}}$ by $$\label{ETF}
\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)(h,\omega):=\delta(h)^{3/2}\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega_h)=\delta(h)^{3/2}\int_Kf(h,k)\overline{\omega_h(k)}dk.$$
The following Parseval formula for the generalized $\tau$-Fourier transform can be also proved.
Let $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ be a continuous homomorphism and $G_\tau=H\ltimes_\tau K$ with $K$ abelian also let $f\in L^1(G_\tau)$ and $\Psi\in L^1(G_{\widehat{\tau}})$. Define the function $g$ for a.e. $(h,k)\in{G_\tau}$ by $$g(h,k):=\int_{\widehat{K}}\Psi(h,\omega)\omega_h(k)d\omega.$$ Then, $\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)_h$ belongs to $L^\infty(\widehat{K})$ and $g_h$ belongs to $L^\infty({K})$ for a.e. $h\in H$ also we have the following orthogonality relations; $$\label{PP1}
\int_{G_\tau}\delta(h)^{-1/2}f(h,k)\overline{g(h,k)}d\mu_{G_\tau}(h,k)
=\int_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)(h,\omega)\overline{\Psi(h,\omega)}d\mu_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}(h,\omega),$$ $$\label{PP2}
\int_{G_\tau}f(h,k)\overline{g(h,k)}d\mu_{G_\tau}(h,k)
=\int_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}\delta(h)^{1/2}\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)(h,\omega)\overline{\Psi(h,\omega)}d\mu_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}(h,\omega).$$
It is easy to check that for a.e. $h\in H$, $\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)_h$ belongs to $L^\infty(\widehat{K})$ and also $g_h$ belongs to $L^\infty({K})$. Using Fubini’s Theorem and also the standard Parseval formula (\[parseval1\]) for a.e. $h\in H$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{K}f(h,k)\overline{g(h,k)}dk&=\int_Kf(h,k)\left(\int_{\widehat{K}}\overline{\Psi(h,\omega)}\overline{\omega_h}(k)d\omega\right)dk
\\&=\int_{\widehat{K}}\left(\int_Kf_h(k)\overline{\omega_h}(k)dk\right)\overline{\Psi(h,\omega)}d\omega
\\&=\int_{\widehat{K}}\widehat{f_h}(\omega_h)\overline{\Psi(h,\omega)}d\omega
=\delta(h)^{-3/2}\int_{\widehat{K}}\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)(h,\omega)\overline{\Psi(h,\omega)}d\omega.\end{aligned}$$ Now, we achieve $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{G_\tau}\delta(h)^{-1/2}f(h,k)\overline{g(h,k)}d\mu_{G_\tau}(h,k)&=\int_H\left(\int_{K}f(h,k)\overline{g(h,k)}dk\right)\delta(h)^{1/2}dh
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_{\widehat{K}}\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)(h,\omega)\overline{\Psi(h,\omega)}d\omega\right)\delta(h)^{-1}dh
=\int_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)(h,\omega)\overline{\Psi(h,\omega)}d\mu_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}(h,\omega).\end{aligned}$$ The same method implies (\[PP2\]).
If we choose $f$ in $L^2(G_\tau)$, then for a.e. $h\in H$ we have $f_h\in L^2(K)$ and so that according to Theorem 4.25 of [@FollH], $\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)$ belongs to $L^2(\widehat{K})$. In the following theorem, we show that the generalized $\tau$-Fourier transform (\[ETF\]) is a unitary transform from $L^2(G_\tau)$ onto $L^2(G_{\widehat{\tau}})$.
\[PTFGTF\] Let $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ be a continuous homomorphism and $G_\tau=H\ltimes_\tau K$ with $K$ abelian. The generalized $\tau$-Fourier transform (\[ETF\]) is an isometric transform from $L^2(G_\tau)$ onto $L^2(G_{\widehat{\tau}})$.
Let $f\in L^2(G_\tau)$. Due to Proposition \[1.2\], Fubini’s theorem and also Plancherel theorem (Theorem 4.25 of [@FollH]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)\|_{L^2(G_{\widehat{\tau}})}^2
&=\int_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}|\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)(h,\omega)|^2d\mu_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}(h,k)
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_{\widehat{K}}|\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)(h,\omega)|^2dk\right)\delta(h)^{-1}dh
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_{\widehat{K}}|\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega_h)|^2d\omega\right)\delta(h)^2dh
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_{\widehat{K}}|\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega)|^2d\omega_{h^{-1}}\right)\delta(h)^2dh
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_{\widehat{K}}|\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega)|^2d\omega\right)\delta(h)dh
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_{K}|f(h,k)|^2dk\right)\delta(h)dh
\\&=\int_{G_\tau}|f(h,k)|^2d\mu_{G_\tau}(h,k)=\|f\|_{L^2(G_\tau)}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Now to show that the generalized $\tau$-Fourier transform (\[ETF\]) maps $L^2(G_\tau)$ onto $L^2(G_{\widehat{\tau}})$, let $\phi\in L^2(G_{\widehat{\tau}})$ be given. Then, for a.e. $h\in H$ we have $\phi_h\in L^2(K)$ and so that there is unique $v^h\in L^2(K)$ with $\mathcal{F}_K(v^h)=\phi_h$. Put $f(h,k)=\delta(h)^{-1/2}v^h\circ \tau_{h^{-1}}(k)$. Then we have $f\in L^2(G_\tau)$, because $$\begin{aligned}
\|f\|_{L^2(G_\tau)}^2
&=\int_{G_\tau}|f(h,k)|^2d\mu_{G_\tau}(h,k)
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_K|f(h,k)|^2dk\right)\delta(h)dh
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_K|v^h\circ\tau_{h^{-1}}(k)|^2dk\right)dh
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_{\widehat{K}}|\mathcal{F}_K(v^h\circ\tau_{h^{-1}})(\omega)|^2d\omega\right)dh
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_{\widehat{K}}|\mathcal{F}_K(v^h)(\omega_{h^{-1}})|^2d\omega\right)\delta(h)^{-2}dh
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_{\widehat{K}}|\mathcal{F}_K(v^h)(\omega)|^2d\omega_h\right)\delta(h)^{-2}dh
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_{\widehat{K}}|\mathcal{F}_K(v^h)(\omega)|^2d\omega\right)\delta(h)^{-1}dh
\\&=\int_H\left(\int_{\widehat{K}}|\phi(h,\omega)|^2d\omega\right)\delta(h)^{-1}dh=\|\phi\|^2_{L^2(G_{\widehat{\tau}})}.\end{aligned}$$ Also, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)&=\delta(h)^{3/2}\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega_h)
\\&=\delta(h)\mathcal{F}_K(v^h\circ\tau_{h^{-1}})(\omega_h)
\\&=\mathcal{F}_K(v^h)(\omega)=\phi(h,\omega).\end{aligned}$$
In the following we prove an inversion formula for the generalized $\tau$-Fourier transform defined in (\[ETF\]).
Let $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ be a continuous homomorphism and $G_\tau=H\ltimes_\tau K$ with $K$ abelian also let $f\in L^1(G_\tau)$ with $\mathcal{F}^\sharp_\tau(f)\in L^1(G_{\widehat{\tau}})$. Then, for a.e. $(h,k)\in G_\tau$ we have the following reconstruction formula; $$\label{RFFETF}
f(h,k)=\delta(h)^{-1/2}\int_{\widehat{K}}\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)(h,\omega)\omega_h(k)d\omega.$$
Let $f\in L^1(G_\tau)$ and also let $\mathcal{F}^\sharp_\tau(f)\in L^1(G_{\widehat{\tau}})$. Due to Proposition \[1.2\], for a.e. $h\in H$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\widehat{K}}|\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega_h)|d\omega
&=\int_{\widehat{K}}|\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega)|d\omega_{h^{-1}}
=\delta(h)^{-1}\int_{\widehat{K}}|\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega)|d\omega.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for a.e. $h\in H$ we get $\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)\in L^1(\widehat{K})$. Now, using Theorem 4.32 of [@FollH] and also Proposition \[1.2\] for a.e. $(h,k)\in G_\tau$ we achieve $$\begin{aligned}
f(h,k)&=\int_{\widehat{K}}\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega)\omega(k)d\omega
\\&=\int_{\widehat{K}}\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega_h)\omega_h(k)d\omega_h
\\&=\delta(h)\int_{\widehat{K}}\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega_h)\omega_h(k)d\omega
\\&=\delta(h)^{-1/2}\int_{\widehat{K}}\delta(h)^{3/2}\mathcal{F}_K(f_h)(\omega_h)\omega_h(k)d\omega
=\delta(h)^{-1/2}\int_{\widehat{K}}\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)(h,\omega)\omega_h(k)d\omega.\end{aligned}$$
**[Examples]{}**
================
As an application we study the theory of $\tau$-Fourier transform for the affine group $\mathbf{a}x+\mathbf{b}$.
Affine group $\mathbf{a}\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{b}$
----------------------------------------------
Let $H=\mathbb{R}^*_+=(0,+\infty)$ and $K=\mathbb{R}$. The affine group $a{\bf x}+b$ is the semi direct product $H\ltimes_\tau K$ with respect to the homomorphism $\tau:H\to Aut(K)$ given by $a\mapsto \tau_a$, where $\tau_a(b)=ab$. Hence the underlying manifold of the affine group is $(0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}$ and also the group law is $$(a,b)\ltimes_\tau(a',b')=(aa',b+ab').$$ The continuous homomorphism $\delta:H\to(0,\infty)$ is given by $\delta(a)=a^{-1}$ and so that the left Haar measure is in fact $d\mu_{G_\tau}(a,b)=a^{-2}dadb$. Due to Theorem 4.5 of [@FollH] we can identify $\widehat{\mathbb{R}}$ with $\mathbb{R}$ via $\omega(b)=\langle b,\omega\rangle=e^{2\pi i\omega b}$ for each $\omega\in\widehat{\mathbb{R}}$ and so we can consider the continuous homomorphism $\widehat{\tau}:H\to Aut(\widehat{K})$ given by $a\mapsto\widehat{\tau}_a$ via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{500}
\langle b,\widehat{\tau}_a(\omega)\rangle&=\langle b,\omega_{a}\rangle
\\&=\langle\tau_{a^{-1}}(b),\omega\rangle
=\langle a^{-1}b,\omega\rangle=e^{2\pi i\omega a^{-1}b}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\tau$-dual group of the affine group again has the underlying manifold $(0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}$, with $\tau$-dual group law given by $$(a,\omega)\ltimes_{\widehat{\tau}}(a',\omega')=(aa',\omega+\omega'_a)=(aa',\omega+a^{-1}\omega').$$ Using Theorem \[DG\], the left Haar measure $d\mu_{G_{\widehat{\tau}}}(a,\omega)$ of $G_{\widehat{\tau}}$ is precisely $dad\omega$. Now we recall that the standard dual space of the affine group which is precisely the set of all unitary irreducible representations of the affine group $a{\bf x}+b$, are described via Theorem 6.42 of [@FollH] and also Theorem 7.50 of [@FollH] guarantee the following Plancherel formula; $$\label{*}
\|\widehat{f}(\pi_+)\|_{\rm HS}^2+\|\widehat{f}(\pi_{-})\|_{\rm HS}^2=\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{|f(a,b)|^2}{a^2}dadb,$$ for all measurable function $f:(0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{C}$ satisfying $$\label{AL2}
\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{|f(a,b)|^2}{a^2}dadb<\infty.$$ Now let $f:(0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{C}$ be a measurable function satisfying $$\label{AL1}
\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{|f(a,b)|}{a^2}dadb<\infty.$$ Then, for a.e. $(a,\omega)\in G_{\widehat{\tau}}=\mathbb{R}_+^*\ltimes_{\widehat{\tau}}\mathbb{R}$ the $\tau$-Fourier transform of $f$ is given by (\[2.2\]) via $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)(a,\omega)&=\delta(a)\widehat{f_a}(\omega)
=a^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(a,b)e^{-2\pi i\omega.b}db,\end{aligned}$$ and also the following Plancherel formula for the $\tau$-Fourier transform holds; $$\label{APTF}
\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}|\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)(a,\omega)|^2dad\omega
=\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{|f(a,b)|^2}{a^2}dadb.$$ Therefore, we have the following proposition.
[*Let $f:(0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{C}$ be a measurable function satisfying (\[AL2\]). Then, $$\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{f(a,b)\overline{f(a,\beta)}}{a^2}e^{-2\pi i\omega(b-\beta)}dbd\beta{dad\omega}
=\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{|f(a,b)|^2}{a^2}dadb.$$* ]{}
Using (\[APTF\]) and also Fubini’s theorem we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{f(a,b)\overline{f(a,\beta)}}{a^2}e^{-2\pi i\omega(b-\beta)}dbd\beta{dad\omega}
&=\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\left|\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(a,b)e^{-2\pi i\omega.b}db\right|^2\frac{dad\omega}{a^2}
\\&=\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}|\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)(a,\omega)|^2dad\omega
=\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{|f(a,b)|^2}{a^2}dadb.\end{aligned}$$
Due to the reconstruction formula (\[RFFTF\]) each measurable function $f:(0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{C}$ satisfying (\[AL1\]) with $$\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}|\mathcal{F}_\tau(f)(a,\omega)|dad\omega<\infty,$$ satisfies the following reconstruction formula; $$\begin{aligned}
f(a,b)&=\delta(a)^{-1}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\widehat{f_a}(\omega)e^{2\pi i\omega.b}d\omega
\\&=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\left(\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(a,\beta)e^{-2\pi i\omega\beta}d\beta\right)e^{2\pi i\omega.b}d\omega
=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(a,\beta)e^{2\pi i\omega(b-\beta)}d\beta d\omega.\end{aligned}$$ For a.e. $(a,\omega)\in G_{\widehat{\tau}}=\mathbb{R}_+^*\ltimes_{\widehat{\tau}}\mathbb{R}$ and also each measurable function $f:(0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{C}$ satisfying (\[AL2\]), the generalized $\tau$-Fourier transform of $f$ is given by (\[ETF\]) via $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)(a,\omega)&=\delta(a)^{3/2}\widehat{f_a}(\omega_a)
\\&=a^{-3/2}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(a,b)e^{-2\pi i\omega_a.b}db
=a^{-3/2}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(a,b)e^{-2\pi i\omega a^{-1}b}db.\end{aligned}$$ According to Theorem \[PTFGTF\] the generalized $\tau$-Fourier transform satisfies the following Plancherel formula; $$\label{APETF}
\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}|\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)(a,\omega)|^2dad\omega
=\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{|f(a,b)|^2}{a^2}dadb.$$
[*Let $f:(0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{C}$ be a measurable function satisfying (\[AL2\]). Then, $$\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{f(a,b)\overline{f(a,\beta)}}{a^3}e^{-2\pi i\omega a^{-1}(b-\beta)}dbd\beta{dad\omega}=
\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{|f(a,b)|^2}{a^2}dadb.$$* ]{}
Using (\[APETF\]) and also Fubini’s theorem we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
\frac{f(a,b)\overline{f(a,\beta)}}{a^3}e^{-2\pi i\omega a^{-1}(b-\beta)}dbd\beta{dad\omega}
&=\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\left|\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(a,b)e^{-2\pi i\omega a^{-1}b}db\right|^2\frac{dad\omega}{a^3}
\\&=\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\left|\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(a,b)e^{-2\pi i\omega_a.b}db\right|^2\frac{dad\omega}{a^3}
\\&=\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}|\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)(a,\omega)|^2dad\omega
=\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{|f(a,b)|^2}{a^2}dadb.\end{aligned}$$
Due to the reconstruction formula (\[RFFETF\]) each measurable function $f:(0,\infty)\times \mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{C}$ satisfying (\[AL1\]) with $$\int_0^\infty\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}|\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)(a,\omega)|dad\omega<\infty,$$ satisfies the following reconstruction formula; $$\begin{aligned}
f(a,b)&=\delta(a)^{-1/2}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\mathcal{F}_\tau^\sharp(f)(a,\omega)\omega_a(b) d\omega
\\&=\delta(a)\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\widehat{f_a}(\omega_a)\omega_a(b) d\omega
\\&=\delta(a)\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\left(\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(a,\beta)e^{-2\pi i\omega_a}d\beta\right)\omega_a(b) d\omega
\\&=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(a,\beta)e^{-2\pi i\omega_a.(\beta-b)}d\beta d\omega
=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}f(a,\beta)e^{-2\pi i\omega a^{-1}(\beta-b)}d\beta d\omega.\end{aligned}$$ In the sequel we find the $\tau$-dual group of some other well-known semi-direct product groups.
Euclidean groups
----------------
Let $E(n)$ be the group of rigid motions of $\mathbb{R}^n$, the group generated by rotations and translations. If we put $H=\SO(n)$ and also $K=\mathbb{R}^n$, then $E(n)$ is the semi direct product of $H$ and $K$ with respect to the continuous homomorphism $\tau:\SO(n)\to Aut(\mathbb{R}^n)$ given by $\sigma\mapsto \tau_\sigma$ via $\tau_\sigma(\bf{x})=\sigma{\mathbf{x}}$ for all $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^n$. The group operation for $E(n)$ is $$(\sigma,\bf{x})\ltimes_{\tau}(\sigma',\bf{x}')=(\sigma\sigma',\bf{x}+\tau_\sigma(\bf{x}'))
=(\sigma\sigma',\bf{x}+\sigma\bf{x}').$$ Identifying $\widehat{K}$ with $\mathbb{R}$, the continuous homomorphism $\widehat{\tau}:\SO(n)\to Aut(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is given by $\sigma\mapsto\widehat{\tau}_\sigma$ via $$\begin{aligned}
\langle{\mathbf{x}},{\bf{w}}_\sigma\rangle&=\langle{\bf{x}},\widehat{\tau}_\sigma({\bf{w}})\rangle
\\&=\langle\tau_{\sigma^{-1}}({\bf{x}}),{\bf{w}}\rangle
=\langle\sigma^{-1}{\bf{x}},{\bf{w}}\rangle=e^{-2\pi i (\sigma^{-1}{\bf{x}},{\bf{w}})}=e^{-2\pi i (\sigma{\bf{x}},{\bf{w}})}.\end{aligned}$$ where $(.,.)$ stands for the standard inner product of $\mathbb{R}^n$. Since $H$ is compact we have $\delta=1$ and so that $d\sigma d{\bf x}$ is a left Haar measure for $E(n)$. Thus, the $\tau$-dual group of $E(n)$ has underlying manifold $\SO(n)\times\mathbb{R}^n$ with the group operation $$(\sigma,\bf{w})\ltimes_{\widehat{\tau}}(\sigma',\bf{w}')=(\sigma\sigma',\bf{w}+\bf{w}'_\sigma).$$
**The Weyl-Heisenberg group**
-----------------------------
Let $K$ be a locally compact abelian (LCA) group with the Haar measure $dk$ and $\widehat{K}$ be the dual group of $K$ with the Haar measure $d\omega$ also $\mathbb{T}$ be the circle group and let the continuous homomorphism $\tau:K\to Aut(\widehat{K}\times\mathbb{T})$ via $s\mapsto \tau_s$ be given by $\tau_s(\omega,z)=(\omega,z.\omega(s))$. The semi-direct product $G_\tau=K\ltimes_\tau(\widehat{K}\times\mathbb{T})$ is called the Weyl-Heisenberg group associated with $K$ which is usually denoted by $\mathbb{H}(K)$. The group operation for all $(k,\omega,z),(k',\omega',z')\in K\ltimes_\tau(\widehat{K}\times\mathbb{T})$ is $$(k,\omega,z)\ltimes_\tau(k',\omega',z')=(k+k',\omega\omega',zz'\omega'(k)).$$ If $dz$ is the Haar measure of the circle group, then $dkd\omega dz$ is a Haar measure for the Weyl-Heisenberg group and also the continuous homomorphism $\delta:K\to (0,\infty)$ given in (\[AA\]) is the constant function $1$. Thus, using Theorem 4.5 and also Proposition 4.6 of [@FollH] and also Theorem \[DG\] we can obtain the continuous homomorphism $\widehat{\tau}:K\to Aut(K\times\mathbb{Z})$ via $s\mapsto\widehat{\tau}_s$, where $\widehat{\tau}_s$ is given by $\widehat{\tau}_s(k,n)=(k,n)\circ \tau_{s^{-1}}$ for all $(k,n)\in K\times\mathbb{Z}$ and $s\in K$. Due to Theorem 4.5 of [@FollH], for each $(k,n)\in K\times \mathbb{Z}$ and also for all $(\omega,z)\in \widehat{K}\times\mathbb{T}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle(\omega,z),(k,n)_s\rangle&=\langle(\omega,z),\widehat{\tau}_s(k,n)\rangle
\\&=\langle\tau_{s^{-1}}(\omega,z),(k,n)\rangle
\\&=\langle(\omega,z\overline{\omega(s)}),(k,n)\rangle
\\&=\langle\omega,k\rangle\langle z\overline{\omega(s)},n\rangle
\\&=\omega(k)z^n\overline{\omega(s)}^n
\\&=\omega(k-ns)z^n
=\langle\omega,k-ns\rangle\langle z,n\rangle=\langle(\omega,z),(k-ns,n)\rangle.
$$ Thus, $(k,n)_s=(k-ns,n)$ for all $k,s\in K$ and $n\in\mathbb{Z}$. Therefore, $G_{\widehat{\tau}}$ has the underlying set $K\times K\times\mathbb{Z}$ with the following group operation; $$\begin{aligned}
(s,k,n)\ltimes_{\widehat{\tau}}(s',k',n')&=\left(s+s',(k,n)\widehat{\tau}_s(k',n')\right)
\\&=\left(s+s',(k,n)(k'-n's,n')\right)=(s+s',k+k'-n's,n+n').\end{aligned}$$
[10]{}
Corwin. L., Greenleaf. F.P., *Representations of nilpotent Lie groups and their applications*, Part 1:basic theory and examples, Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics 18, Cambridge university press, 1990.
Dixmier. J., *$C^{*}$-Algebras*, North-Holland and Publishing company, 1977.
Folland. G.B, *A course in Abstract Harmonic Analysis*, CRC press, 1995.
Folland. G.B, *Real analysis, Modern Techniques and Their Applications*, Wiley-Inter-science publication, 1999.
Hewitt. E. and Ross. K. A., *Abstract Harmonic Analysis*, Springer-Verlag, Vol 1, 1963.
Hewitt. E. and Ross. K. A., *Abstract Harmonic Analysis*, Springer-Verlag, Vol 2, 1969.
Hochschild. G., [*The Structure of Lie Groups ,*]{} Hpolden-day, San Francisco, (1965).
Kirillov. A.A., Neretin. Y. A., *Representation Theory and Non-commutative Harmonic Analysis I: Fundamental Concepts. Representations of Virasoro and Affine Algebras* v.1. (1994).
Lipsman. R., *Non-Abelian Fourier Analysis*, Bull. Sc. Math., $2^e$ series, [**98**]{}, 1974, pp.209-233.
Murphy. G.J., *C\*-Algebras and Operator theory*, Academic Press, INC.
Reiter. H., and Stegeman. J. D., *Classical Harmonic Analysis*, 2nd Ed, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000.
Segal. I.E., *An extension of Plancherel’s formula to separable unimodular groups*, Ann. of Math, [**52**]{}, 1950, pp.272-292.
Taylor. M.E., *Non-commutative harmonic analysis*, Mathematics surveys and Monographs, No 22, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1986.
[^1]: E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Arash Ghaani Farashahi).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present Probabilistic Reciprocal Velocity Obstacle or PRVO as a general algorithm for navigating multiple robots under perception and motion uncertainty. PRVO is defined as the space of velocities that ensures dynamic collision avoidance between a pair of robots with a specified probability. Our approach is based on defining chance constraints over the inequalities defined by the deterministic Reciprocal Velocity Obstacle (RVO). The computational complexity of the proposed probabilistic RVO is comparable to the deterministic counterpart. This is achieved by a series of reformulations where we first substitute the computationally intractable chance constraints with a family of surrogate constraints and then adopt a time scaling based solution methodology to efficiently characterize their solution space. Further, we also show that the solution space of each member of the family of surrogate constraints can be mapped in closed form to the probability with which the original chance constraints are satisfied and thus consequently to probability of collision avoidance. We validate our formulations through numerical simulations where we highlight the importance of incorporating the effect of motion uncertainty and the advantages of PRVO over existing formulations which handles the effect of uncertainty by using conservative bounding volumes.'
author:
- 'Bharath Gopalakrishnan$^{1}$, Arun Kumar Singh$^{2}$, Meha Kaushik$^{1}$, K. Madhava Krishna$^{1}$ and Dinesh Manocha$^{3}$ [^1][^2][^3] [^4]'
title: '**Chance constraint based multi agent navigation under uncertainty** '
---
Introduction
============
Ensuring collision free navigation of multiple robots between given start and goal positions is an important problem in robotics, swarm and crowd simulation. One commonly used approach to solve this problem performs local collision avoidance between multiple robots using velocity obstacles (VO) [@vo], [@rvo], [@mora]. This involves repeatedly solving a set of non-convex inequalities to characterize the space of collision free velocities available to each robot at a given instant. Some faster techniques use a conservative formulation and reduce the local velocity computation to a linear programming problem [@orca].
Most algorithms for multi-robot navigation focus primarily on the deterministic setting where it is assumed that the robot can perfectly estimate the states of the neighbouring robots and execute the computed avoidance maneuver without any errors. However, in reality both motion and state estimation associated with each robot are imprecise and it is important to take the uncertainty in consideration. Thus, for robust implementation of multi robots in a particular task, it is imperative to make the transition to the probabilistic domain, where we explicitly consider the uncertainty in the system while computing the avoidance velocities. As one would expect, the complexity of the probabilistic variant tends to be much higher than the deterministic counterpart, as now the reasoning shifts from just *collision avoidance* to *probability of collision avoidance*. To be more precise, in the probabilistic setting, it is required to map each velocity in a given set to the resulting probability of collision avoidance. Alternatively, one needs to obtain the characterization for the space of velocities for a given probability of collision avoidance.
In this paper, we present a novel algorithm for multi-robot collision avoidance which explicitly takes into account, the perception and motion uncertainty of each robot. Our approach combines ideas from velocity obstacle based multi-robot collision avoidance and robust control specifically robust Model Predictive Control (MPC) . In particular, we borrow the concept of chance constraints which are used in robust control to ensure constraint satisfaction under uncertainty [@mpc1]. These chance constraints ensure that the probability of a constraint being satisfied is greater than a specified threshold. In our approach, we formulate chance constraints over the conditions defined by the deterministic Reciprocal Velocity Obstacle (RVO) [@rvo] and characterize the the resulting set of inequalities as Probabilistic Reciprocal Velocity Obstacle or PRVO.
We also provide a computationally efficient approach for solving these complex set of inequalities. To this end, we build upon our recent series of works [@iros15], [@cdc15], where chance constraints are substituted with a more tractable family of surrogate constraints. The solution space of each member of the family can be mapped in closed form to the probability with each the original chance constraints are satisfied. Finally, a time scaling based methodology can be adopted to efficiently solve the surrogate constraints. In this paper, we extend the approach of [@iros15], [@cdc15] to multiple decision making robots by expanding our model to incorporate the uncertainty that the robot would exhibit while executing the computed avoidance maneuver.
Summary of Main Results
-----------------------
On the computational side, we show that the complexity of the PRVO is comparable to its deterministic counterpart. This is primarily achieved by the use of surrogate constraints and a time scaling based methodology for their solution. Further, we show that the previous developed Cantellis inequality based bounds which relates solution space of surrogate constraints to the probability of collision avoidance performs well in case of maneuvering targets as well. On the practical side, we highlight the importance of explicitly including the uncertainty associated with execution of avoidance maneuvers. Moreover, the advantage of PRVO over existing works which incorporates the effect of uncertainty by enlarging the size of the robot [@hrvo],[@hrvo_prvo], [@calu], [@cocalu] is also presented.
Layout of the Paper
-------------------
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section \[rel\] contrasts the proposed formulation with the existing works. Section \[notation\] summarizes the notations used in the paper. Section \[pre\] presents the collision avoidance conditions as modeled Reciprocal Velocity Obstacle (RVO) in the deterministic setting. Section \[stochastic\] introduces the model of the uncertainty used in the current work followed by the introduction of chance constraints over the inequalities defined by RVO. Section \[timescale\] presents a time scaling based methodology for efficient characterization of the solution space of the surrogate substitution of the chance constraints. Section \[analysis\] presents an analysis of computational complexity, probability bounds and motivations for choosing RVO as the basis for construction of chance constraints as compared to its convex approximation ORCA. The simulation results are presented in section \[res\]
Related Work {#rel}
============
In this section, we contrast our proposed formulation with the existing works in terms of uncertainty model, methodology for formulating and solving dynamic collision avoidance under uncertainty in the context of both single robot and multi-robot navigation.
Uncertainty Model
-----------------
Our methodology of modeling uncertainty in the system is similar to that presented in works like [@Kluge], [@Kim], [@laugier1], [@laugier2], [@likhachev], [@trautman_unfreezing], [@royauro], [@luders], [@hrvo], [@calu], [@cocalu]. in the sense that uncertainty at any time instant is represented as a normal random variable with a particular mean vector and covariance matrix. However, among these, [@Kluge]-[@royauro] consider the case of a single robot moving among non-responsive dynamic obstacles and incorporates the effect of only perception uncertainty while treating the robot’s motion through deterministic models. Algorithms presented in [@luders] considers the effect of both perception and motion uncertainty but only in the context of dynamic collision avoidance of a single robot. In [@hrvo], each robots motion uncertainty is taken into consideration while constructing the RVO. However, it does not consider the uncertainty in the error between the computed and executed avoidance maneuver,or in short the actuation uncertainty.
Dynamic Collision Avoidance Constraints under Uncertainty
---------------------------------------------------------
At a conceptual level, our modeling of dynamic collision avoidance under uncertainty is similar to works like [@Kluge]-[@luders] in the sense that we are also primarily concerned with relating each velocity in some given set to a probability of collision avoidance. The differentiating factor however, with these cited works lies in the technical approach followed and in the fact that we deal with multiple maneuvering robots. [@Kluge]-[@luders] relies on sampling different velocities, using them to construct robot’s trajectory over a short horizon and inferring probability of collision with respect to them. However, such sampling based approaches are difficult to extend for multiple robots due increase in complexity of the search space. In contrast, we propose a systematic decomposition of probabilistic collision avoidance constraints into simpler forms eventually leading to a close form approximation of the solution space.
The probabilistic approach followed in the current proposed work is also very different from those presented in [@hrvo], [@calu], [@cocalu] which account for uncertainty in dynamic collision avoidance by expanding the size of the velocity and radius of the robot, depending on the level of uncertainty in the system. In principle, this is equivalent to drawing a lot of samples from position, size and velocity uncertainty ellipse and writing collision avoidance with respect to each of them. Although very simple, this approach suffers from the drawback that it is blind to the probability of samples drawn and thus, samples which are closer to the mean are given same importance as samples farther from the mean. At the implementation level, one would have the same collision avoidance constraints with respect to both the samples. As we show later, this leads to a very conservative solution space.
Symbols and Notations {#notation}
=====================
We used bold faced small case letters with superscripts to describe vectors associated with a particular robot. For example, the position and velocity of robot $i$ is represented as $\textbf{p}^i=(p_x, p_y)$ and $\textbf{v}^i=(v_x, v_y)$. We use $f^{RVO^i_j}$ to represent the collision avoidance conditions computed through the concept of RVO. The symbol $\textbf{v}^i_{rvo}$ represents collision avoiding velocities computed using the deterministic RVO algorithm. We use $\mu$ and $\sigma^2$ with suitable subscripts and superscripts to represent mean and variance of vectors or functions respectively. In section \[timescale\], we use additional superscript $"s"$ to denote time scaled variants of vectors, functions or constraints.
Pre-Requsitie: Deterministic Velocity and Reciprocal Velocity Obstacle {#pre}
======================================================================
In this section, we briefly review the concept of Reciprocal Velocity Obstacle (RVO). We do not go into details, rather present the general algebraic form for the collision avoidance constraints defined by RVO. For details, the readers are requested to refer to [@rvo]. We consider disk shaped robots each modeled as following single integrator system in 2D Euclidean $X-Y$ space
$$\dot{x}^i = v_x^i \Rightarrow x^i(t+\Delta t) = x^i(t)+v_x^i \Delta t, \dot{y}^i = v_y^i \Rightarrow y^i(t+\Delta t) = y^i(t)+v_y^i \Delta t
\label{evol_stline}$$
In (\[evol\_stline\]), $v_x^i$ and $v_y^i$ respectively represents the $x$ and $y$ component of the velocity of the $i^{th}$ robot. It is clear from (\[evol\_stline\]) that the trajectory of each robot is assumed to be composed of piece-wise straight line segments.
Now, consider a collision scenario where two robots with radius $R^i$ and $R^j$ are moving with constant velocities $\textbf{v}^i$ and $\textbf{v}^j$. The space of such velocities $\textbf{v}^i_{rvo}$ which allow robot $i$ to come out of the collision course with robot $j$ can be characterized by the following set of inequalities derived from the concept of RVO [@rvo].
$$f^{RVO^i_j} (\textbf{p}^j, \textbf{v}^j)\geq 0
\label{RVO_comp}$$
$$\nonumber
f^{RVO^i_j} (\textbf{p}^j, \textbf{v}^j) = \Vert \textbf{r}^{ij} \Vert^2 - \frac{(\textbf{r}^{ij})^T(2\textbf{v}^i_{rvo}-\textbf{v}^i-\textbf{v}^j)}{\Vert 2\textbf{v}^i_{rvo}-\textbf{v}^i-\textbf{v}^j\Vert^2}-R^2$$
It is straightforward to observed that (\[RVO\_comp\]) is a non-convex quadratic with respect to $\textbf{v}^i_{rvo}$ and thus, computing a characterization of collision free velocities automatically becomes a challenging problem.
At this point, it is worth pointing out that the in the deterministic setting it is assumed that each robot can estimate its current state and the state of the other robot perfectly and thus, can construct inequalities (\[RVO\_comp\]) exactly. In the subsequent sections, we relax this assumption thereby extending RVO to the probabilistic domain.
RVO in the Probabilistic Domain {#stochastic}
===============================
Let us start by representing the current trajectory of each robot as the following random variables.
$$\begin{aligned}
\textbf{p}^i \approx N(\mu^i_{\textbf{p}}, (\sigma^i_{\textbf{p}})^2), \hspace{0.2cm} \textbf{p}^j \approx N(\mu^j_{\textbf{p}}, (\sigma^j_{\textbf{p}})^2) \label{pos_uncert}\\
\textbf{v}^i \approx N(\mu^i_{\textbf{v}}, (\sigma^i_{\textbf{v}})^2), \hspace{0.2cm} \textbf{v}^j \approx N(\mu^j_{\textbf{v}}, (\sigma^j_{\textbf{v}})^2),\label{vel_uncert}\end{aligned}$$
where $\mu^i_{\textbf{p}}, (\sigma^i_{\textbf{p}})^2, \mu^i_{\textbf{v}}, (\sigma^i_{\textbf{v}})^2$ and similarly others represents position and velocity level mean and variances, respectively. In the context of two robot collision scenario considered in the previous section, equations (\[pos\_uncert\]) and (\[vel\_uncert\]) model the fact that robot $i$ has some uncertainty in the estimate of its current state and the state of the robot $j$. Although, we have assumed a Gaussian form, our approach can be easily extended to incorporate other representations as well and we discuss that briefly, later on in the paper.
Similarly, let us assume that each robot has an imperfect actuation and thus there is an inherent noise between the commanded and actual velocity. This noise would result in some error between the avoidance maneuver that the robot intends to perform and actually performs. Moreover, this error itself would be a random variable. In the context of RVO, we account for this uncertainty associated with avoidance maneuver by assuming that $\textbf{v}^i_{rvo}$ is drawn from a distribution. In other words, it is modeled as the following Gaussian random variable
$$\textbf{v}^i_{rvo} \approx N({\textbf{v}^i_{rvo}}, (\sigma^i_{\textbf{v}_{rvo}})^2),
\label{motion_uncert}$$
The above equation models the fact that when the robot commands a velocity $\textbf{v}^i_{rvo}$, the executed velocity can correspond to any sample drawn from a Gaussian distribution whose mean is the commanded velocity and the variance is some constant $(\sigma^i_{\textbf{v}_{rvo}})^2$
Now, in light of definitions (\[pos\_uncert\])-(\[motion\_uncert\]), $f^{RVO^i_j}$ becomes a multivariate function of random variables and thus, consequently a random variable itself. Thus, mathematically, (\[RVO\_comp\]) does not make sense. Instead, a more well defined alternative would be to consider the following inequality
$$P(f^{RVO^i_j} (\textbf{p}^j, \textbf{v}^j)\geq 0)\geq \eta .
\label{PRVO}$$
Constraint (\[PRVO\]) ensures that the probability of RVO based collision avoidance condition (\[RVO\_comp\]) being satisfied is greater than some lower bound $\eta$. It is straightforward to note that (\[PRVO\]) infact defines the space of velocities $\textbf{v}^i_{rvo}$ for robot $i$ which ensures satisfaction of RVO constraints with atleast probability $\eta$ for the given robot $j$ trajectory parameters $\textbf{p}^j$ and $\textbf{v}^j$. We define (\[PRVO\]) as probabilistic reciprocal velocity obstacle or PRVO.
Constraints having the general form as that of (\[PRVO\]) are popularly known as “chance constraints” in the robust control literature [@mpc1], and in general are computationally intractable [@chance1]. The primary difficulty lies in computing the analytical form for the chance constraints. One notable exception exists in the case when the random variables in consideration have Gaussian distribution and the chance constraints are defined over affine inequalities [@boyd]. In such cases, efficient convex approximations for the chance constraints can be derived. However, as stated earlier, $f^{RVO^i_j}$ is non-convex quadratic in terms of random variables and thus the techniques proposed in [@boyd] is not applicable in our case. In the next section, we present a novel substitution for (\[PRVO\]), which exploits the fact that although it is intractable to obtain the analytical form for left hand side of (\[PRVO\]), it is relatively straightforward to obtain symbolic expressions for expectation and variance for $f^{RVO^i_j}$.
Expectation and Variance of $f^{RVO^i_j}(.)$
--------------------------------------------
Expectation of a multivariate function $g$ in terms of variables $z_1,z_2...z_n$ is given by the following expression.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{expec}
E[g(z_1,z_2...z_n)]= \\\nonumber \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}...\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}g(z_1,z_2...z_n)h(z_1,z_2...z_n)dz_1dz_2..dz_n
\end{aligned}$$
Using (\[expec\]), the expectation of $f^{RVO^i_j}(.)$ can be obtained in the following manner.
$$E[f^{RVO^i_j}] = \mu_{f^{RVO^i_j}}= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}...\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}f^{RVO^i_j}(.)P(.) dx^idy^idx^jdy^jd{v_x}^id{v_y}^id{v_x}^jd{v_y}^j d({v}^i_{rvo})_x, d({v}^i_{rvo})_y
\label{expec2}$$
In (\[expec2\]) $P(.)$ represents the joint probability distribution of the random variables $(x^i, y^i, x^j, y^j, {v_x}^i, {v_y}^i, {v_x}^j, {v_y}^j, ({v}^i_{rvo})_x, ({v}^i_{rvo})_y)$. Integral (\[expec2\]) can be computed symbolically using packages like MATHEMATICA [@mathematica] and can be eventually reduced to a quadratic polynomial in terms of $\textbf{v}^i_{rvo}$.
We can proceed to use (\[expec2\]) to compute the variance of $f^{RVO^i_j}(.)$ in the following manner. The right hand side of equality (\[var\]), when computed symbolically, reduces to a fourth order polynomial in terms of $\textbf{v}^i_{rvo}$
$$(\sigma_{f^{RVO^i_j}})^2= {E[(f^{RVO^i_j}-E[f^{RVO^i_j}])^2]}
\label{var}$$
Equations having the general form similar to (\[expec2\]) and (\[var\]) were introduced in our earlier work [@iros15]. However, in contrast to our earlier formulations, (\[expec2\]) and (\[var\]) is more complex as they depend on additional random variables pertaining to motion uncertainty of the robot $i$.
Approximations for PRVO
-----------------------
Using (\[expec2\]) and (\[var\]), we can replace (\[PRVO\]) with the following family surrogate constraints.
$$\mu_{f_{RVO^i_j}}-k\sigma_{f_{RVO^i_j}} \geq 0, \hspace{0.2cm}k\geq 0
\label{expecvariance}$$
As shown in our earlier work [@iros15], inequality (\[expecvariance\]) represents a strip of width $\mu_{f_{RVO^i_j}}- k\sigma_{f_{RVO^i_j}}$ from the distribution of $f_{RVO^i_j}$. Thus, solving (\[expecvariance\]) with increasing value of $k$ ensures increasingly larger part of the distribution of $f_{RVO^i_j}$ to be above zero. This in turn leads to increasingly safer velocities. To put it mathematically, satisfaction of (\[expecvariance\]) ensures satisfaction of original chance constraints (\[PRVO\]) with a lower bound probability dependent on the value of $k$, i.e $\eta \geq c(k)$ for some positive monontonic function $c(k)$. In [@iros15], we derived the following mapping based on Cantellis inequality, thus providing a closed form mapping between the solution space of each member of the family of constraints (\[expecvariance\]) and the probability with which the original chance constraints are satisfied.
$$\eta\geq \frac{k^2}{1+k^2}
\label{Cantelli}$$
Time Scaling based solution of Surrogate Constraints {#timescale}
====================================================
As stated earlier, (\[expec2\]) and (\[var\]) are respectively quadratic and quartic in terms of variable $\textbf{v}^i_{rvo}$. Thus, (\[expecvariance\]) represents a non-convex polynomial inequality, which in general is computationally intractable. In this section, we present a time scaling based framework for approximating the solution space of (\[expecvariance\]). The basic idea is simple. We first compute the space of velocities $\textbf{v}^i_{rvo}$ which the robot can reach by just changing the time scale of the current trajectory. Importantly, we show that this solution space can be characterized in closed form to obtain a set of formuale. Further, evaluating these formulae over multiple paths gives a good approximation of the complete solution space of (\[expecvariance\]).
Time Scaled Variant of Surrogate Constraints
--------------------------------------------
Changing the time scale of a trajectory from $t$ to $\tau$ does not alter the geometric path but results in following change in the velocity profile
$$\textbf{v}(\tau) = \textbf{v}(t)s, \hspace{0.2cm} s = \frac{dt}{d\tau}
\label{timedef}$$
In (\[timedef\]), $\frac{dt}{d\tau}$ is called the scaling function and decides the mapping between the time scales. Now, with slight abuse of notation, let us assume that the robot $i$ is moving along a straight line trajectory characterized by a velocity $\textbf{v}^i$. Let us denote by following the space of collision avoiding velocities that the robot can achieve by just changing the time scale of the current trajectory
$$^s\textbf{v}^i_{rvo} = s\textbf{v}^i
\label{solpath}$$
Substituting (\[solpath\]) into (\[expec2\]) and (\[var\]) results in the following time scaled variant of the expectation and variance of $f^{RVO^i_j}$.
$$\mu_{^sf^{RVO^i_j}} = as^2+bs+c
\label{expec4}$$
$$\sigma_{^sf^{RVO^i_j}}= \sqrt{E[(^sf^{RVO^i_j}-E[^sf^{RVO^i_j}])^2]} = \sqrt{ds^4+es^3+fs^2+gs+h}
\label{var4}$$
Where, $a(.), b(.)...h(.)$ are function of parameters of distribution of random variables i. e, $\mu^i_{\textbf{p}}, (\sigma^i_{\textbf{p}})^2, \mu^j_{\textbf{p}}, (\sigma^j_{\textbf{p}})^2, \mu^i_{\textbf{v}}, (\sigma^i_{\textbf{v}})^2$ etc. Please note the additional superscript “$s$” representing that we are now dealing a time scaled variant of $\mu_{f_{RVO^i_j}}$ and $\sigma_{f_{RVO^i_j}}$ derived in (\[expec2\]) and (\[var\])
Now, we perform one final simplification of (\[var4\]) to obtain quadratic approximation based on second order Taylor series expansion around a point $s^*$
$$\sigma_{^sf^{RVO^i_j}}= \sigma_{^s{^*}f^{RVO^i_j}}+ \sigma_{^s{^*}f^{RVO^i_j}}^{'}(s-{s^*})+\sigma_{^s{^*}f^{RVO^i_j}}^{''}\frac{(s{^*}-{s^*})^2}{2}
\label{quadapprox1}$$
Using (\[expec4\]) and (\[quadapprox1\]), the final form of the time scaled variant of (\[expecvariance\]) can be obtained in the following manner.
$$as^2+bs+c - k ( \sigma_{^s{^*}f^{RVO^i_j}}+ \sigma_{^s{^*}f^{RVO^i_j}}^{'}(s-{s^*})+\sigma_{^s{^*}f^{RVO^i_j}}^{''}\frac{(s-{s^*})^2}{2} )\geq 0
\label{timescalevariant}$$
It can be observed that (\[timescalevariant\]) is a single variable quadratic inequality and thus, its solution space can be characterized in closed form [@iros14]. Extending (\[timescalevariant\]) to say $n$ robots is also straightforward as in that case we would have $n$ single variable quadratic inequalities, the solution space of which can again be characterized in closed form. The inequality (\[timescalevariant\]) can be constructed along multiple paths to obtain a good characterization of the complete solution space.
It is worth pointing out that there are various heuristics for choosing the point $s^*$. One of them which has been shown to result in low approximation errors is to choose $s^*$ from the solution space of $\mu_{^sf^{RVO^i_j}} \geq 0$ [@iros15]. It is easy to note that solving it is similar to solving (\[timescalevariant\]).
Analysis of PRVO {#analysis}
================
Computational Complexity of RVO and PRVO
----------------------------------------
. The collision avoidance through deterministic RVO for a pair of robots takes the form of non-convex quadratic inequality (\[RVO\_comp\]). In contrast, the surrogate constraints (\[expecvariance\]) which approximates the PRVO constraints (\[PRVO\]) is a quartic inequality. Thus, on the surface PRVO seems significantly more complicated than RVO. However, the time scaling based reformulations discussed in section \[timescale\] does provide a significant simplification. Essentially as explained in section \[timescale\], solving the surrogate constraints and consequently PRVO has been reduced to generating multiple candidate trajectories and evaluating the solution space of (\[timescalevariant\]). Generating multiple candidate trajectories is simple; during implementation, we randomly generate some velocity samples and then use them to construct straight line trajectories. Solving (\[timescalevariant\]) is straightforward and as explained can be infact done in closed form. Although it is difficult to derive an bounds on the number of samples, we employ some heuristics and often recover a solution space with mostly one or two samples. Thus, it can be concluded that kind of surrogate constraints that we have proposed coupled with time scaling based solution makes computational complexity of PRVO atleast comparable to RVO.
PRVO Vs PORCA
-------------
In the deterministic setting, the collision avoidance conditions modeled through ORCA for a pair of robots can be written as the following linear inequality for some $z_1$ and $z_2$ which are a function of robot $j$ trajectory parameters.
$$f^{ORCA^i_j} = z_1\textbf{v}^i_{orca}-z_2 \geq 0
\label{orca}$$
In (\[orca\]), $\textbf{v}^i_{orca}$ is the collision avoidance velocity as modeled through ORCA. Now, since ORCA is an approximation of RVO, the space of collision avoidance velocities characterized by (\[orca\]) is much smaller than that characterized by RVO (\[RVO\_comp\]). Now let us consider chance constraints defined over (\[orca\]) and its surrogate constraints given by [@boyd]
$$\begin{aligned}
P(f^{ORCA^i_j}\geq 0)\geq \eta, \hspace{0.2cm} z_1 \approx N(\mu_{z_1}, \sigma_{z_1})\label{orca_chance}\\
\Rightarrow z_1\textbf{v}^i_{orca}-z_2 -\eta^{\frac{1}{2}}((\textbf{v}^i_{orca})^2-2z_2\mu_{z_1}+z_2^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\geq 0 \label{orca_surrogate}\end{aligned}$$
Ineqaulity, \[orca\_surrogate\] represents a convex second order cone constraint. Moreover, the first two terms in \[orca\_surrogate\], is conjunction is nothing but the deterministic ORCA (\[orca\]), while the third term is non-negative. It is clear from (\[orca\_surrogate\]) that chance constraints essentially boils down to obtaining a even smaller subset from the already restrictive solution space of deterministic ORCA. Thus, at the implementation level, infeasibility of (\[orca\_surrogate\]) can be of concern.
In light of the above arguments, it obviously makes more sense to start with the larger solution space of RVO such that feasibility can still be ensured when the solution space shrinks because of the application of chance constraints.
Results {#res}
=======
The results presented in this section are grouped into following categories. (1) Validating that solving the surrogate constraints (\[expecvariance\]), with increasing value of $k$ leads to satisfaction of original PRVO constraints (\[PRVO\]) with increasing probability $\eta$. (2) Showing the importance of incorporating the motion uncertainty. (3) Comparing solution space computed through PRVO with that obtained from [@hrvo] and similar approaches.
Validating Mapping between the Surrogate Constraints and the PRVO constraints
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[3rob\_coll\] shows a collision scenario with three robots. In line with the time scaling based methodology described in section \[timescale\], each robot generates multiple candidate trajectories (figure \[candtraj1\]) and then solves time scaled variant of the surrogate constraints (\[timescalevariant\]) along them. Depending on the value of $k$, a particular candidate trajectory and its corresponding time scale is chosen. Figures, \[k1rob1\]-\[k2rob3\] summarizes these results. Consider, figure \[k1rob1\]-\[k1rob3\], where each robot solves (\[expecvariance\]) for $k=1$. According to Canetlli’s based bounds, discussed in section 5.2, this would mean, that PRVO constraints (\[PRVO\]) should be satisfied with atleast probability $0.5$. We validate this by sampling position and velocity samples from the uncertainty ellipses of the robots and evaluating what percentage of these samples satisfy the deterministic RVO constraints (\[RVO\_comp\]). As shown in the figures, the minimum probability observed agrees with Cantelli’s bounds. Figures \[k2rob1\]-\[k2rob3\] solves (\[expecvariance\]) for $k=1.5$ and as shown, the minimum probability with which PRVO is satisfied for each robot increases to 0.75, which is again in accordance with the Cantellis bounds.
Figures \[candtrajrob1\]-(\[candtrajrob3\]) summarizes the avoidance maneuvers for various values of $k$ or in other words for various probabilities $\eta$. As shown, with increase in $k$, the deviation from the current trajectory increases for each robot.
.
Illustrating the need for incorporating motion(ego) uncertainty while computing collision free velocities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we highlight that if self motion uncertainties of robots are ignored, then it is difficult to reliably infer, the probability with which the RVO constraints are actually satisfied with each robot. To put it alternatively, the Cantellis bounds based mapping between the solution space of the surrogate constraints (\[expecvariance\]) and the PRVO (\[PRVO\]) does not hold if self motion uncertainties of the robots are ignored.
We start by deriving a variant of the surrogate constraints (\[expecvariance\]) but without considering equation (\[motion\_uncert\]), i.e, $\textbf{v}^i_{rvo}$ is no longer treated as a random variable. Now for a configuration of robots shown in figure \[2\_robo\_config\_comparision\], consider figures \[robo1\_without\_robos\_uncert\]-\[robo2\_without\_robos\_uncert\], where this variant is solved by each robot for $k=1$. Based on Cantelli’s bounds, this should translate to PRVO being satisfied with $\eta\geq 0.5$. However, as shown, when evaluated through sampling, $\eta$ turns out to be less than 0.5. In contrast, in figures \[robo1\_with\_robos\_uncert\]-(\[robo2\_with\_robos\_uncert\]), where self motion uncertainties are considered, Cantellis bounds hold perfectly.
Advantage of PRVO over existing works
--------------------------------------
One of the simplest approach to model the probabilistic variant of RVO is to grow the radius of the robots by a value corresponding to a particular confidence region of the uncertainty ellipses . This procedure has been illustrated in [@hrvo] and [@hrvo_prvo].Table\[comparision\_agent1\] and Table\[comparision\_agent2\] compares this method with our proposed formulation for two robots for a scenario similar to Figure \[2\_robo\_config\_comparision\]. The solution space of the timescaled variant \[timescalevariant\] of the surrogate functions for a particular value of ’k’ that satisfies a 68 percentage and 80 percentage confidence contour of the uncertainty ellipse in the position space was obtained.This is then compared with the solution space that is obtained by enlarging the robot’s radius by 68 percentage and 80 percentage confidence contours.While we enlarge the radius by the desired confidence region, it is also important to take into consideration the probability of velocities that the robots can take. So the solution spaces presented in tables \[comparision\_agent1\] and \[comparision\_agent2\] were evaluated for the most probable velocities (velocities that are very close to the mean velocities). It is clearly seen that the robots , especially robot $1$ may tend to decelerate a bit higher if the solution space obtained by enlarging the radius is followed.
Formulation 68 $\%$ contour 80 $\%$ contour
------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------- ------------------------
Expanding the radius by a desired confidence contour $[0\hspace{0.1cm}0.59]$ $[0\hspace{0.1cm}0.4]$
Solution space of surrogate functions $[0\hspace{0.1cm}0.67]$ $[0\hspace{0.1cm}0.5]$
\[comparision\_agent1\]
Formulation 68 $\%$ contour 80 $\%$ contour
------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------
Expanding the radius by a desired confidence contour $[0\hspace{0.1cm}0.35]\cup[1.1\hspace{0.1cm}\infty)$ $[0\hspace{0.1cm}0.23]\cup[1.1\hspace{0.1cm}\infty)$
Solution space of surrogate functions $[0\hspace{0.1cm}0.37]\cup[1.1\hspace{0.1cm}\infty)$ $[0\hspace{0.1cm}0.27]\cup[1.1\hspace{0.1cm}\infty)$
\[comparision\_agent2\]
Conclusions, Limitations and Future Work
========================================
Conclusions
-----------
In this paper, we have presented the probabilistic variant of RVO, defined as chance constraints \[PRVO\] over the inequalities defined by the deterministic RVO. These chance constraints are generally computationally intractable,and the consideration of ego and estimation uncertainties further increases its complexity.This paper attempts to approximate such a chance constraint through a family of surrogate constraints \[expecvariance\] that have a closed form characterization of their solution space. Further a closed form mapping based on cantelli’s inequalities is provided that maps the solution space of these surrogates to the probability of the chance constraint being satisfied.
Limitations
-----------
The computed avoidance maneuvers are piece-wise straight line trajectories with no velocity continuity or acceleration bounds. For practical implementation, these needs to be incorporated. The cantelli’s inequality \[Cantelli\] represented here can act as a weak bound at times. Formulation of an efficient scheme for mapping the solution space of the surrogate functions to the probability of the chance constraint being satisfied is very important and would form the main crux of our future work.
[99]{}
Fiorini, Paolo, and Zvi Shiller. “Motion planning in dynamic environments using velocity obstacles.” The International Journal of Robotics Research 17, no. 7 (1998): 760-772.
Van den Berg, Jur, Ming Lin, and Dinesh Manocha. “Reciprocal velocity obstacles for real-time multi-agent navigation.” In Robotics and Automation, 2008. ICRA 2008. IEEE International Conference on, pp. 1928-1935. IEEE, 2008.
Alonso-Mora, Javier, Andreas Breitenmoser, Martin Rufli, Paul Beardsley, and Roland Siegwart. “Optimal reciprocal collision avoidance for multiple non-holonomic robots.” In Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems, pp. 203-216. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.
Van Den Berg, Jur, Stephen J. Guy, Ming Lin, and Dinesh Manocha. “Reciprocal n-body collision avoidance.” In Robotics research, pp. 3-19. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.
Kluge, B., and Prassler, E. (2006, January). Recursive probabilistic velocity obstacles for reflective navigation. In Field and Service Robotics (pp. 71-79). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Kim, S., Guy, S. J., Liu, W., Wilkie, D., Lau, R. W., Lin, M. C., and Manocha, D. Predicting Pedestrian Trajectories for Robot Navigation. In Proc. of the workshop Crossing the Reality Gap: Control, Human Interaction and Cloud Technology for Multi- and Many- Robot Systems 2014 IEEE ICRA 2014. Hong Kong, China, May 31 - June 7, 2014
Fulgenzi, C., Tay, C., Spalanzani, A., and Laugier, C. (2008, September). Probabilistic navigation in dynamic environment using rapidly-exploring random trees and gaussian processes. In Proc. IEEE IROS 2008 (pp. 1056-1062).
Rios-Martinez, J., Spalanzani, A., and Laugier, C. (2011). Probabilistic autonomous navigation using risk-rrt approach and models of human interaction. In Proc. IEEE IROS 2011 .
Kushleyev, A., and Likhachev, M. Time-bounded lattice for efficient planning in dynamic environments. In Proc. of IEEE ICRA 2009 (pp. 1662-1668).
Trautman, Peter, and Andreas Krause. “Unfreezing the robot: Navigation in dense, interacting crowds.” In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pp. 797-803. IEEE, 2010.
Aoude, Georges S., Brandon D. Luders, Joshua M. Joseph, Nicholas Roy, and Jonathan P. How. “Probabilistically safe motion planning to avoid dynamic obstacles with uncertain motion patterns.” Autonomous Robots 35, no. 1 (2013): 51-76.
Luders, Brandon, Mangal Kothari, and Jonathan P. How. “Chance constrained RRT for probabilistic robustness to environmental uncertainty.” In AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference (GNC), Toronto, Canada. 2010.
Schildbach, Georg, Lorenzo Fagiano, Christoph Frei, and Manfred Morari. “The scenario approach for stochastic model predictive control with bounds on closed-loop constraint violations.” Automatica 50, no. 12 (2014): 3009-3018.
Gopalakrishnan, Bharath, Arun Kumar Singh, and K. Madhava Krishna. “Closed form characterization of collision free velocities and confidence bounds for non-holonomic robots in uncertain dynamic environments.” In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pp. 4961-4968. IEEE, 2015.
Nagariya, Akhil, Bharath Gopalakrishnan, Arun Kumar Singh, Krishnam Gupta, and K. Madhava Krishna. “Mobile robot navigation amidst humans with intents and uncertainties: A time scaled collision cone approach.” In 2015 54th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 2773-2779. IEEE, 2015.
Snape, Jamie, and Dinesh Manocha. “Goal velocity obstacles for spatial navigation of multiple virtual agents.” In Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, pp. 1191-1192. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2013.
Hennes, Daniel, Daniel Claes, Wim Meeussen, and Karl Tuyls. “Multi-robot collision avoidance with localization uncertainty.” In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 1, pp. 147-154. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2012.
Claes, Daniel, Daniel Hennes, Karl Tuyls, and Wim Meeussen. “Collision avoidance under bounded localization uncertainty.” In 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1192-1198. IEEE, 2012.
Nemirovski, Arkadi. “On safe tractable approximations of chance constraints.” European Journal of Operational Research 219, no. 3 (2012): 707-718.
Boyd, Stephen. “Chance-constrained optimization.” (2015).
Wolfram, S. (2009). Mathematica. Wolfram Research, Champaign.
Snape, J., van den Berg, J., Guy, S. J., and Manocha, D. (2011). The hybrid reciprocal velocity obstacle. Robotics, IEEE Transactions on, 27(4), 696-706.
Gopalakrishnan, Bharath, Arun Kumar Singh, and K. Madhava Krishna. “Time scaled collision cone based trajectory optimization approach for reactive planning in dynamic environments.” In 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 4169-4176. IEEE, 2014.
[^1]: The research was supported
[^2]: $^{1}$ RRC, IIIT-Hyderabad
[^3]: $^{2}$ NTU, Singapore
[^4]: $^{3}$ University of North Carolina, Chappel Hill
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We investigate an analytic model to compute nonlinear power spectrum of dark matter, galaxies and their cross-correlation. The model is based on Press-Schechter halos, which cluster and have realistic dark matter profiles. The total power spectrum is a sum of two contributions, one from correlations betwen the halos and one from correlations within the same halo. We show that such a model can give dark matter power spectra which match well with the results of N-body simulations, provided that concentration parameter decreases with the halo mass.
Galaxy power spectrum differs from dark matter power spectrum because pair weighted number of galaxies does not scale with the halo mass and because most halos harbor a central galaxy. If the pair weighted number of galaxies increases less rapidly than the halo mass, as predicted by theoretical models and observed in clusters, then the resulting power spectrum becomes a power law with the slope closed to the observed over several orders of magnitude in scale. Such a model also predicts later onset of nonlinear clustering compared to the dark matter, which is needed to reconcile the CDM models with the data. Generic prediction of this model is that bias is scale dependent and nonmonotonic. This is particularly important for red or elliptical galaxies, which are preferentially found in larger mass halos and for which bias in power spectrum may be scale dependent even on large scales.
Our predictions for galaxy-dark matter correlations, which can be observed through the galaxy-galaxy lensing, show that these cannot be interpreted simply as an average halo profile of a typical galaxy, because different halo masses dominate at different scales and because larger halos host more than one galaxy. We compute predictions for the cross-correlation coefficient as a function of scale and discuss the prospects of using cross-correlations in combination with galaxy clustering to determine the dark matter power spectrum.
address: ' Department of Physics, Jadwin Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 '
author:
- Uroš Seljak
date: January 2000
title: Analytic model for galaxy and dark matter clustering
---
\#1
Introduction
============
Correlations in dark matter contain a wealth of information about cosmological parameters. Their power spectrum is sensitive to parameters such as matter density, Hubble constant, primordial power spectrum slope and amplitude, massive neutrinos, baryon density etc. Determining the linear power spectrum of dark matter is one of the main goals of modern cosmology. There are several complications that prevent us at present from reaching this goal. First, on small scales the linear power spectrum is modified by nonlinear evolution which enhances its amplitude over the linear spectrum. It is important to understand this process, so that one can predict the relation between the two. This is necessary both to reconstruct the linear spectrum from a measured nonlinear one and to verify whether there are other mechanisms besides gravity that modify the clustering of dark matter on small scales. Examples of such are baryonic feedback effects on dark matter [@DS] or nongravitational interactions between dark matter particles [@SS99]. Second, it is difficult to observe correlations in dark matter directly. Direct tracers such as peculiar velocity flows or weak lensing still suffer from low statistics and poorly understood systematics. Instead it is much easier to observe correlations between galaxies [@P97] or correlations between galaxies and dark matter [@qsogal]. While these are related to the dark matter correlations, the relation may not be simple. The goal of this paper is to address both issues with a model that is simple enough to allow analytic calculations without the use of N-body simulations, yet sufficiently accurate to be useful for predicting galaxy and dark matter power spectrum.
Our approach to dark matter clustering is based on the Press & Schechter model [@PS74]. In this picture at any given time all the matter in the universe is divided into virialized halos. These halos are correlated and have some internal density profile, which can be a function of halo mass. By specifying the halo mass function, their clustering strength and their halo profile we can determine the dark matter correlation function. The formalism for correlations inside halos has been developed by [@MS] and applied to power law halos [@SJ]. We generalize this approach by including the correlations between halos and by using more realistic non-power law halo profiles whose shape may depends on the halo mass [@NFW]. We show in this paper that such a generalized model can provide very good agreement with results of numerical simulations over a wide range of scales [@ScoSh].
The central question in extracting dark matter power spectrum from that of the galaxies is how well galaxies trace dark matter, the issue of bias. This has been addressed theoretically both with hydrodynamic [@bias] and semi-analytic methods [@Benson; @Kauffmann]. The fact that the galaxy correlation function is a power law over several decades in scale, while power spectra in CDM models do not show such behaviour, already indicates that the bias is scale dependent. Moreover, galaxies come in different types and observational data show that they can be biased relative to one another [@biasobs]. In our modelling of galaxy correlations we introduce two new functions, the mean number and the mean pair weighted number of galaxies inside the halo as a function of the halo mass. The importance of these has recently been emphasized in the context of pairwise velocity measurements [@JingMoBo98; @Benson99b] and galaxy clustering [@Benson]. These play a key role in understanding the relation between galaxy and dark matter clustering. We explore the predictions for different choices of these relations and compare them to the results of semi-analytic models.
Galaxy-dark matter correlations can provide additional information on the clustering of galaxies and dark matter and the relation between them. Such correlations have been observed through gravitational lensing effects, for example using galaxy-galaxy lensing or correlations between foreground and background populations [@qsogal]. Such measurements are often interpreted either in terms of an averaged density profile of a halo [@brainerd] or in terms of a constant bias model [@waerbeke]. We discuss the applicability of these models and how they can be generalized to take into account effects such as broad range of halo masses and multiple galaxies inside halos.
Dark matter power spectrum
==========================
The halo model for power spectrum assumes all the matter is in a form of isolated halos with a well defined mass $M$ and halo profile $\rho(r,M)$. The halo profile is defined to be an average over all halos of a given mass and does not necessarily assume all halos have the same profile. The mass is determined by the total mass within the virial radius $r_v$, defined to be the radius where the mean density within it is $\delta_{\rm vir}$ times the mean density of the universe. Throughout the paper we will use $\Lambda CDM$ model with $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, normalized to $\sigma_8=0.9$ today. For this model $\delta_{\rm vir} \sim 340$, although we will also use $\delta_{\rm vir} \sim 200$ (the value for Einstein-de Sitter universe) for consistency with the results of some of the N-body simulations. The halo profile is spherically averaged and assumed to depend only on the mass of the halo. We will model the halo density profile in the form $$\rho(r)={\rho_s \over (r/r_s)^{-\alpha}(1+r/r_s)^{3+\alpha}}.
\label{rho}$$ This model assumes that the profile shape is universal in units of scale radius $r_s$, while its characteristic density $\rho_s$ at $r_s$ or concentration $c=r_v/r_s$ may depend on the halo mass. The halo profile is assumed to go as $r^{-3}$ in the outer parts and as $r^{\alpha}$ in the inner parts, with the transition between the two at $r_s$. The outer slope is fixed by the results of N-body simulations which generally agree in this regime. An example of such a profile is $\alpha=-1$ [@NFW; @Huss; @Tormen]. Other models have however been proposed with $\alpha=-1.5$ [@Moore; @Fukushige] or even $\alpha>-1$ [@Kravtsov]. In principle $\alpha$ could also be a function of mass scale and may steepen towards smaller mass halos with $\alpha \sim -1$ for cluster halos and $\alpha \sim -1.5$ for galactic halos [@JingSuto99]. Similarly, concentration $c$ may depend on the mass and different authors find somewhat different dependence [@NFW; @Moore; @Bullock99]. We will explore how variations in the profile and concentration affect the power spectrum. Instead of $r_s$ we use the concentration parameter $c=r_v/r_s$ as a free parameter. Note that $r_v$ is related to $M$ via $M=4\pi/3r_v^3\delta_{\rm vir}\bar{\rho}$. Similarly we can eliminate $\rho_s$ and describe the halo only in terms of its virial mass $M$ and concentration $c$, because the integral over the halo density profile (equation \[rho\]) must equal the halo mass.
For a complete description we need the halo mass function $dn / dM$, describing the number density of halos as a function of mass. It can be written as $${dn \over dM} dM={\bar{\rho} \over M}f(\nu)d\nu,$$ where $\bar{\rho}$ is the mean matter density of the universe. We introduced function $f(\nu)$, which can be expressed in units in which it has a universal form independent of the power spectrum or redshift if written as a function of peak height $$\nu=[\delta_c(z)/\sigma(M)]^2.
\label{nu}$$ Here $\delta_c$ is the value of a spherical overdensity at which it collapses at $z$ ($\delta_c=1.68$ for Einstein-de Sitter model) and $\sigma(M)$ is the rms fluctuation in spheres that contain on average mass $M$ at initial time, extrapolated using linear theory to $z$. The form proposed by Press & Schechter (PS) [@PS74] is $\nu f(\nu)=
(\nu/2\pi)^{1/2}e^{-\nu/2}$. This has been shown to overpredict the halo abundance by a factor of 2 at intermediate masses below nonlinear mass scale $M_*$ [@Somm; @ShethTormen99]. A modified version of this form that fits better the N-body simulations is given by Sheth & Tormen (ST) [@ShethTormen99] $$\nu f(\nu)=A(1+ \nu'^{-p})\nu'^{1/2} e^{-\nu'/2},$$ where $\nu'=a\nu$ with $a=0,707$ and $p=0.3$ as the best fitted values, which gives $\nu f(\nu) \propto \nu^{0.2}$ for small $\nu$. PS expression corresponds to $a=1$, $p=0$ giving $\nu f(\nu) \propto \nu^{0.5}$ for small $\nu$. The constant $A$ is determined by mass conservation, requiring that the integral over the mass function times the mass gives the mean density $${1 \over \bar{\rho}}\int {dn \over dM}M dM=\int f(\nu)d\nu=1.
\label{rhobar}$$ Note that we can still apply this equation even if some dark matter is not bound to any halo. In this case the mass function has a nonvanishing contribution in the limit $M\rightarrow 0$.
The correlation function consists of two terms. On large scales the halos are correlated with each other. We assume the halo-halo correlation function follows the linear correlation function. Its amplitude depends on the bias for each halo. Halos more massive than the nonlinear mass scale $M_*$ are more strongly clustered than the matter, while those with masses below $M_*$ are less strongly clustered than the matter. A simple halo biasing scheme has been given by [@ColeKaiser89; @MoWhite96] and generalized to the ST mass function by [@ShethTormen99] $$b(\nu)=1+{\nu -1 \over \delta_c}+{2p \over \delta_c(1+\nu'^p)}.
\label{b}$$
Since halos are not pointlike we need to convolve the halo-halo correlation function with the halo profiles of both halos to obtain the dark matter correlation function. The expressions simplify significantly in Fourier space, where convolution becomes a multiplication with the Fourier transform of the halo profile $$\tilde{\rho}(k,M) = \int 4\pi r^2 dr \rho(r,M){\sin(kr) \over kr}.$$ Note that this is normalized so that $\tilde{\rho}(0,M)=M$. It is convenient to renormalize it to unity by introducing a new variable $y(k,M)=\tilde{\rho}(k,M)/M$, so that $y(0,M)=1$ and $y(k>0,M)<1$. The mass of the halo rapidly increases as $r^{3-\alpha}$ up to $r=r_s$, but increases only logarithmically between $r_s$ and $r_v$ if the outer profile is $\rho(r) \propto r^{-3}$. The dominant contribution to the mass therefore comes from radii around $r_s$. For $kr_s \ll 1$ we have $y \approx 1$. At $k r_s\sim 1$ there is a transition and $y$ begins to decrease with $k$, so that for $kr_s \gg 1$ we have $y(k,M)
\propto (kr_s)^{-(3+\alpha)}$.
Because the expressions simplify significantly in Fourier space we will in the following only describe the power spectrum analysis. The halo-halo term is given by the integral over their mass function with the appropriate bias and the halo profile transform, $$P^{hh}_{\rm dm}(k)=P_{\rm lin}(k)\left[\int
f(\nu)d\nu b(\nu)y[k,M(\nu)]\right]^2,
\label{hh}$$ where $P_{\rm lin}(k)$ is the linear power spectrum and $M$ is related to $\nu$ via equation \[nu\] using the relation between $\sigma^2(M)=4\pi \int P_{\rm lin}(k)W_R(k)k^2 dk$ and $M=4\pi R^3 \bar{\rho}/3$, where $W_R(k)$ is the Fourier transform of the top hat window with radius $R$. This gives $M \propto \nu^{3/(n+3)}$, where $n$ is the slope of the linear power spectrum at scale $k \sim R^{-1}$. We can also define the nonlinear mass scale $M_*$ where $\nu=1$. Note that on galaxy and smaller scales $n<-2$ and the relation between $M$ and $\nu$ is very steep, $M\propto \nu^{\gamma}$ with $\gamma>3$. The requirement that on large scales ($k \rightarrow 0$, $ y \sim 1$) the power spectrum reduces to the linear power spectrum imposes a nontrivial constraint on the bias distribution, $$\int f(\nu)d\nu b(\nu) =1.
\label{ndm}$$ This implies that if halos are biased ($b>1$) for $M>M_*$ at least some of the halos with $M<M_*$ must be antibiased ($b<1$) to satisfy this constraint. Most of the bias descriptions in the literature satisfy this constraint to within a few percent. The halo-halo term follows the linear power spectrum on large scales and drops below it on scales where finite extent of the halos become important (ie where $y(k,M)<1$). This term is shown in figure \[fig1\] and as expected is dominant on large scales.
In addition to the halo-halo correlation term there are also correlations between dark matter particles within the same halos. These are expected to dominate on small scales. We denote this the Poisson term, which is given by $$P^P_{\rm dm}(k)= {1 \over (2\pi)^3}\int f(\nu)d\nu {M(\nu) \over \bar{\rho}}
|y[k,M(\nu)]|^2,
\label{pdm}$$ The main difference between this term and the halo-halo term in equation \[hh\] is that we have an additional mass weighting $M/\bar{\rho}$. This makes the dominant contribution to this term to come from the higher mass halos relative to the halo-halo term. On large scales ($k \rightarrow 0$, $y \sim 1$) the Poisson term is independent of $k$ and behaves as white noise. It increases with $k$ more rapidly than the halo-halo term, which scales as the linear power spectrum (figure \[fig1\]). The Poisson term declines below the white noise on small scales where the effects of the halo profile become important.
The total power spectrum is the sum of the two contributions, $$P_{\rm dm}(k)=P^{hh}_{\rm dm}(k)+P^P_{\rm dm}(k).$$ To complete the calculation we need to model the dependence of $c$ on $M$. We will parametrize it as $$c=c_0(M/M_*)^{\beta}.$$ Typical values for $c_0$ are around 10 at the nonlinear mass scale for $\alpha=-1$ profile [@NFW; @Bullock99] and about a third lower for $\alpha=-1.5$ profile [@Moore]. Numerical studies also show that the concentration decreases slowly with the halo mass, making $\beta$ negative.
Figure \[fig1\] shows the individual contributions and the sum in comparison to the linear power spectrum and the nonlinear prediction from [@PD97] (PD). In top of the figure we used $\alpha=-1.5$ and $c(M)=6(M/M_*)^{-0.15}$. The latter fits the concentration mass dependence given in [@Moore]. Note that for consistency with [@Moore] we use $\delta_{\rm vir}=200$ in this case as opposed to $\delta_{\rm vir}=340$. In bottom of the figure we used the ST mass function and $\alpha=-1$ with $c(M)=10(M/M_*)^{-0.2}$, which is somewhat steeper than numerical studies predict [@Bullock99] as discussed below. The agreement in both cases is quite remarkable given the simple nature of the model. It correctly predicts the transition between the linear and nonlinear power spectrum, as well as reproduces well the slope at higher values of $k$. This shows that given a suitable choice of $c(M)$ both models can reproduce the nonlinear power spectrum. Conversely, the slope of the power spectrum at high $k$ is not directly determined by the inner slope of dark matter profiles, at least if the inner profiles are shallower than $\alpha=-1.5$.
In the case of $\alpha=-1$ profile the best fitted value for $c_0=10$ agrees well with [@Bullock99; @NFW], while $\beta \sim -0.2$ is somewhat lower than $\beta=-0.07$ [@NFW] and $\beta=-0.13$ [@Bullock99]. If one adopts such shallow dependence of $c(M)$ with $\beta \sim -0.1$ then for $k>10h$Mpc$^{-1}$ the predictions of the model are systematically below the PD model. Before concluding that this is caused by the galactic halos not being sufficiently compact we must investigate the possibility that the mass function is underestimated at small masses. Replacing ST with PS does not significantly affect the results. However, both PS and ST assume that each mass element belongs to only one halo, counting only the isolated halos. This is certainly a valid description on large scales, where the total halo mass determines the white noise amplitude of the power spectrum. On small scales the clumpiness caused by subhalos within the halos may become important. Recent numerical simulations have in fact shown that most of the small halos that merge into larger ones are not immediately destroyed, but stay around for some time until they are finally merged on the dynamical friction time scale [@TDS98; @Moore; @Kravtsov]. In such a case a given mass particle can be part of more than one halo at any given time. Because on very small scales the correlation function is dominated by the small halos it may make a difference whether the mass is smoothly distributed within the halos or some fraction of it is in the subhalos. However, the contribution to the total mass of the halo coming from the subhalos is below 10% [@Kravtsov; @Tormen]. Recently, the mass function for subhalos from high resolution simulations was determined and it was shown that it is an order of magnitude below the one for isolated halos [@Sigad00]. One may conclude therefore that subhalos do not affect the mass function significantly and cannot resurrect $\beta >-0.13$, $\alpha=-1$ model.
Steepening the halo profile or changing concentration can both increase the power spectrum to agree better with N-body simulations (figure \[fig1\]). This is because to increase the power on small scales one has to increase the amount of mass contained within a given radius. This can be achieved either by making the inner profile steeper than $\alpha=-1$ or making the concentration parameter larger towards the smaller mass halos. The change in the slope would support the results in [@Moore; @Fukushige], where the universal profile has the inner slope close to $\alpha \sim -1.5$, or in [@JingSuto99], where the profile is not universal and steepens as the halo mass is decreased, so that the inner slope changes from $\alpha \sim
-1$ on the cluster scales to $\alpha \sim -1.5$ on the galactic scales. If the inner slope of the halo profile is $\alpha \sim -1$ the concentration has a stronger mass dependence than in [@NFW; @Bullock99], although the discrepancy is not large. As shown in figure \[fig1\] both models can fit the nonlinear power spectrum on small scales remarkably well.
Further insight into the relation between the halos and the dark matter power spectrum can be obtained by investigating the contribution to the power spectrum from different mass intervals. This is shown in figure \[fig2\] for the Poisson term, using the two models from figure \[fig1\]. On large scales the Poisson term is dominated by very massive clusters with $M>10^{14}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$. These halos dominate the nonlinear clustering on scales around and below $k < 1 $hMpc$^{-1}$. On smaller scales the contribution from large clusters is suppressed because $y(k,M)$ begins to decrease from unity at $ k \sim r_c^{-1} \propto c(M)M^{-1/3} \propto M^{-0.5}$. This occurs at lower $k$ for the higher mass halos. As a result around $k \sim 10h$Mpc$^{-1}$ the halos with $10^{14}h^{-1}M_{\sun}>M>10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$ dominate, while around $k \sim 100 h$Mpc$^{-1}$ the halos with $10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\sun}>M>10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$ dominate. Note again that the inner slope plays a subdominant role in determining the amplitude of the power spectrum. Even if for a steeper slope the power spectrum from a given mass interval is decreasing less rapidly (for example for $\alpha=-1.5$ it is asymptotically flat as opposed to decreasing as $k^{-1}$ for $\alpha=-1$), when this becomes important the smaller mass halos have already taken over as a dominant contribution to the power spectrum. The nonlinear power spectrum therefore does not reflect the inner slope of the halo profile, but rather the halo mass function and the radius at which the mass enclosed within this radius begins to deviate significantly from the total halo mass. In both models the halos with $M>10^{11}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$ dominate the power spectrum for $k<100h$Mpc$^{-1}$. Any modifications in the linear power spectrum on mass scales below $M \sim 10^{11}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$ [@LK] would therefore show up in the dark matter correlation function only on kiloparsec scales and below.
It is interesting to explore in more detail the quasi-linear regime, where $P^P(k) \sim {\rm const}$. This approximation is valid up to $4\pi k^3P(k) \sim 10$ or $k \sim 1h$Mpc$^{-1}$. On scales larger than these the power spectrum can be approximated as a sum of a linear power spectrum and a constant term, whose amplitude is given as an integral over the mass function (equation \[pdm\] with $y=1$). From figure \[fig2\] one can see that the amplitude of this integral is dominated by the massive halos, $M>10^{14} h^{-1}M_{\sun}$. It is important to emphasize that this amplitude depends only on the integral over the power spectrum and not on the details of the power spectrum itself. Even if there are sharp features in the linear power spectrum, such as for example baryonic wiggles [@TE], these would not show up as features in the quasi-linear power spectrum. Instead, they would be integrated over into a single number, corresponding to the mass weighted integral over the mass function (equation \[pdm\]). This argument is in agreement with the results of N-body simulations [@MWP99] which indeed show that any baryonic features are erased in the nonlinear regime. This suggests that while the PD model breaks down for such spectra, our model could also be applied in such a case. This also applies to the spectra with truncated power on small scales [@White]. We plan to investigate this further in the future.
Galaxy power spectrum
=====================
We now apply the above developed model to the galaxies. We assume all the galaxies form in halos, which is a reasonable assumption given that only very dense enviroments which have undergone nonlinear collapse allow the gas to cool and to form stars. The key new parameters we introduce are the mean number of galaxies per halo as a function of halo mass, $\langle N \rangle (M)$, and the mean pair weighted number of galaxies per halo, $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}(M)$. Just as in the case of dark matter these functions are well defined even if the assumption that the statistical properties of galaxy population depend only on the halo mass and not on its enviroment is not satisfied [@bias], as long as the averaging is performed over all possible enviroments. The resulting power spectrum on small scales where the Poisson term dominates is independent of this assumption. On large scales where correlations between the halos are important violation of this assumption may lead to a change in the strength of the halo-halo term.
We furthermore assume that there each halo has a galaxy at its center, while the rest of the galaxies in the halos are distributed in the same way as the dark matter, so $y(k,M)$ remains unchanged. This is only the simplest model and one could easily generalize it to profiles that differ from the dark matter. Any such complications are important on small scales, while on large scales ($k<1h$Mpc$^{-1}$) all that is relevant is the total number of galaxies inside the halo. The normalization equation \[ndm\] becomes $$\int {\langle N \rangle \over M} f(\nu)d\nu={\bar{n} \over \bar{\rho}},
\label{ngal}$$ where $\bar{n}$ is the mean density of galaxies in the sample.
The halo-halo correlation term is given by $$P^{hh}_{\rm gg}(k)=P_{\rm lin}(k) \left[{\bar{\rho}\over \bar{n}}\int
f(\nu)d\nu {\langle N \rangle \over M}b(\nu)y(k,M)\right]^2.
\label{ghh}$$ This should be modified somewhat because the central galaxy does not contribute a $y(k,M)$ term, but this is only important on small scales where the halo-halo term is negligible. On large scales where $y\sim 1$ this term gives the constant bias model $$P^{hh}_{\rm gg}(k)=\langle b\rangle ^2 P_{\rm lin}(k),$$ where the mean galaxy bias $\langle b\rangle$ is given by $$\langle b\rangle={\bar{\rho}\over \bar{n}}\int
f(\nu)d\nu {\langle N \rangle \over M}b(\nu).$$
The Poisson term is given by $$P^P_{\rm dm}(k)= {\bar{\rho}^2 \over (2\pi)^3 \bar{n}^2}
\int {M \over \bar{\rho}}f(\nu)d\nu {\langle N(N-1)\rangle \over M^2}
|y(k,M)|^p.
\label{gp}$$ We use the approximation with $p=2$ if $\langle N(N-1)\rangle > 1$, because in the limit the number of pairs is large it is dominated by the halo galaxies, and $p=1$ if $\langle N(N-1)\rangle <1$, because in the opposite limit the number of pairs in this case is dominated by the central galaxy paired with a halo galaxy. Following the usual convention [@Peebles] we use $\langle N(N-1)\rangle$ instead of $\langle N^2\rangle$, since we subtract out the shot noise term arising from the discrete nature of galaxies (such a term does not depend on the halo profile $y(k,M)$). Comparing equations \[hh\] and \[pdm\] with equations \[ghh\] and \[gp\] we see that there is no difference between the two only if $\langle N \rangle/M$ and $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}/M$ are independent of $M$, there are many galaxies per halo and the galaxies are distributed as the dark matter within the halo. For such conditions the power spectrum of galaxies is identical to the power spectrum of dark matter.
To test the model above we use semi-analytic models of galaxy formation developed in [@Kauffmann]. These models use N-body simulations to identify the halos and their progenitors. Gas is assumed to follow dark matter initially so that it heats up during the collapse to the virial temperature of the halo. Because of the high density it can efficiently cool and subsequently concentrate at the center of the halo. Stars are formed from this cold gas on the dynamical time scale. The parametrized star formation efficiency and the stellar population synthesis models are used to assign magnitudes in different color bands to the formed galaxies. The small halos with galaxies in them subsequently merge into larger halos and exist as individual galaxies until they merge with the central galaxy on the dynamical friction time scale. The output of these models is a catalog of halos and their masses. For each halo the output consists of a list of galaxies, their positions and luminosities in different bands. From such a catalog one can reconstruct the 3-d distribution of galaxies and dark matter, as well as $\langle N \rangle$ and $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}$ averaged over a given range of halo masses for any desired galaxy selection criterion. The goal of our comparison is to compare the galaxy power spectrum predicted from our model using $\langle N \rangle(M)$ and $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}(M)$ from semi-analytic models to the galaxy power spectrum obtained directly from these models. This is a meaningful comparison even if semi-analytic models do not correctly describe the nature. If we determine that the model contains all the necessary ingredients to predict the galaxy correlations we can then try to obtain these ingredients by other means, either through direct observations or better modelling. This can also be applied in the other direction: from observations of galaxy power spectrum (and galaxy-dark matter power spectrum discussed in the next section) we can determine the ingredients of our model, which must be satisfied by any theoretical galaxy formation model.
A generic outcome of theoretical models such as these is that the amount of cold gas that can be transformed to stars increases as a function of the mass slower than the halo mass itself, because larger halos are hotter and the gas takes longer to cool [@bias; @Kauffmann; @Benson]. In such models one would expect $\langle N \rangle/M$ to decline with $M$. This is shown in figure \[fig3\] where $\langle N \rangle$ and $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}$ is plotted versus $M$ for galaxies selected only on the basis on absolute magnitude ($M_B<-19.5$). Both functions have similar dependence for $M>10^{14}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$. When the number of galaxies per halo begins to drop below unity the two functions begin to deviate from one another and $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}$ drops below $\langle N \rangle$. This is because only the halos with two or more galaxies contribute to $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}$, while single galaxy halos also contribute to $\langle N \rangle$. However, both functions increase less rapidly than the mass for $M>10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$.
Using $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}/M $ and $\langle N\rangle /M$ for $M_B<-19.5$ from figure \[fig3\] in equations \[ngal\]-\[gp\] we obtain the galaxy power spectrum shown in figure \[fig4\]. We only show results for $\alpha=-1$ model, but the $\alpha=-1.5$ model gives essentially identical results. Also shown is the dark matter power spectrum and its two contributions, as well as the measured APM and scaled IRAS galaxy power spectrum compiled in [@P97]. First thing to note is the good agreement between our analytical model and the simulations. The agreement is significantly better for this model than for the model where there is no central galaxy, which would give a stronger decline in power on small scales. The galaxy power spectrum is almost a perfect power law over several decades in scale, in agreement with observations and in contrast to the dark matter power spectrum, whose slope gradually decreases with $k$. The slope of the galaxy power spectrum is in agreement with the observed slope $k^3P(k)\propto k^{1.8}$ and this slope persists in the analytic model down to kpc scales.
It is useful to introduce bias $b(k)$, defined as the square root of the ratio between galaxy and dark matter power spectrum, $$b(k)=[P_{\rm gg}(k)/P_{\rm dm,dm}(k)]^{1/2}.$$ The bias $b(k)$ is approximately constant and close to unity on large scales, decreases and becomes less than unity between $0.3{\rm hMpc}^{-1}<k<6{\rm hMpc}^{-1}$ and then increases for large $k$. The bias is therefore scale dependent and nonmonotonic, both of which as shown below are generic predictions of this model. On very large scales the power spectrum is dominated by the correlations between the halos and the internal structure of halos can be neglected. This gives the constant bias on large scales, which for the galaxy type considered here is close to unity. On smaller scales the halo Poisson term becomes important both for galaxies and dark matter. However, if $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}/M \propto M^{\psi}$ with $\psi<0$ the Poisson term for galaxies is lower than the Poisson term for dark matter in the limit $y(k,M)=1$. This is because the halo Poisson term is larger if halos are rarer. If $\psi<0$ the dominant contribution in galaxy power spectrum is shifted to lower mass halos, which are more abundant and this reduces the Poisson term relative to dark matter. Another important factor that reduces the galaxy Poisson term is that $\langle N \rangle$ exceeds $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}$ below $M \sim 10^{14}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$. $\langle N \rangle(M)$ determines the mean density of galaxies $\bar{n}$ in equation \[ngal\]. This suppresses the Poisson term in equation \[gp\] even if $\psi=0$. Suppression of the galaxy Poisson term relative to the dark matter delays the onset of nonlinear power in the galaxy power spectrum relative to the dark matter, which is clearly seen in figure \[fig4\]. It gives a natural explanation for the position of the inflection point in the observed galaxy power spectrum without the need to introduce phenomenological double power law spectra [@P97]. While our model is already in a good agreement with the data an even better fit would be achieved with a somewhat smaller Poisson term, which would require $\psi$ to be even lower or $\langle N \rangle$ to exceed $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}$ even more. This would further delay the onset of the nonlinear clustering.
On even smaller scales the halo profile $y(k,M)$ becomes important, since it begins to decrease from unity at a scale that corresponds to a typical size of the halo, which is smaller for the lower mass halos. Since the galaxy power spectrum is weighted towards lower mass halos relative to dark matter the term $y(k,M)$ begins to be important in suppressing the Poisson term at a smaller scale. In addition, if each halo hosts a central galaxy then switching to $p=1$ for small halos also makes the suppression by the halo profile less important. Smaller suppression of the galaxy power spectrum relative to the dark matter results in an increase of bias with $k$. This argues that the decrease of $b(k)$ on intermediate scales and the increase on small scales are generic predictions. The overall result of this is an approximate power law of the galaxy power spectrum over several decades. Such a power law arises quite generically in a CDM family of models where $\psi<0$ (or $\langle N \rangle> \langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}$) and where each halo hosts a central galaxy. We note that the latter is required to preserve the power law behaviour to very small scales. A model where $p=2$ for all halo masses turns below the power law in the power spectrum at $k>50h$Mpc$^{-1}$, similar to the dark matter.
The conclusion above that the bias first declines with $k$ and then rises again applies to a normal galaxy population. If one selects red galaxies on the basis of color or ellipticals on the basis of morphology then one may expect a different bias dependence, since red or elliptical galaxies are preferentially found in more massive halos, such as groups and clusters. Figure \[fig3\] shows that the galaxies selected by $M_B-M_V>0.8$ and $M_B<-19.5$ are dominant in halos with $M > 10^{14}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$, while their relative fraction declines rapidly below that. The dependence of $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2} $ with $M$ is much steeper in this case so that $\psi >0$ for $M < 10^{14}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$. In addition $\langle N \rangle \sim \langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}$ across the entire range of halo masses, a consequence of the fact that most of the red galaxies are not central galaxies, which in these models show recent star formation and are therefore not red.
Figure \[fig4b\] shows the comparison between analytic predictions and results from semi-analytic models [@Kauffmann]. We use mass dependence from figure \[fig3\] in equations \[ngal\]-\[gp\] for both $M_B<-19.5$ and $M_B-M_V>0.8$ galaxy selection. Also shown are the dark matter power spectrum from the model and from the GIF simulations [@Jenkins] which were used for semi-analytic models. Qualitatively the agreement is excellent, specially for dark matter and $M_B<-19.5$ galaxies, while for red galaxies semi-analytic models predict a somewhat higher amplitude. Part of the disagreement is caused simply by dark matter spectrum not being in agreement with PD (our models are chosen so that they agree with PD) [@Jenkins]. We do not show small scales ($k>20h$Mpc$^{-1}$) where limited resolution of N-body simulations prevents a meaningful comparison. The remaining discrepancy for red galaxies between $0.5h$Mpc$^{-1}<k<20h$Mpc$^{-1}$ can only be explained by them not tracing exactly dark matter distribution in halos with $M>10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$. The red galaxies must be more centrally concentrated than dark matter in semi-analytic models in order that their power spectrum has a higher amplitude than predicted from our model. This is in agreement with direct analysis of galaxy distribution inside halos using the same simulations [@Diaferio99], where it was found that red galaxies in $\Lambda CDM$ model tend to be more centrally concentrated that dark matter. Galaxies that form first end up more towards the center of the cluster because the violent relaxation during the merging is incomplete.
In the case of the red galaxies the bias starts with a value larger than unity on large scales. This is because most of the red galaxies are in clusters which are biased relative to the dark matter following equation \[b\]. Bias first rises with $k$ and then declines. This is just the opposite from the scale dependence of the normal galaxies and is a consequence of $\psi>0$ for $M < 10^{14}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$ and $\langle N \rangle \sim \langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}$. This gives rise to the Poisson term larger for the galaxies than for the dark matter on large scales. This conclusion is again independent of the distribution of the galaxies inside the halos. This is confirmed in figure \[fig4b\] where on large scales our model agrees very well with the semi-analytic predictions. Because the galaxies are preferentially in larger halos relative to the dark matter $y(k,M)$ suppression is more important and the bias declines on smaller scales. This is seen in the power spectrum from the simulations. In our model it begins to rise again on even smaller scales because $p$ switches to unity for $M< 10^{14}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$, resulting in a smaller suppression by the halo profile. This effect is not seen in the simulations, presumably because of their limited resolution.
It is important to note that bias may never be really constant even on scales above $100h^{-1}$Mpc. For the red sample it changes by 30% between $k=0.01h$Mpc$^{-1}$ and $k=0.1h$Mpc$^{-1}$. This is because the Poisson term does not become much smaller than the halo-halo term even on very large scales, a consequence of the fact that the slope of $P_{\rm lin}(k)$ and thus the halo-halo term itself becomes flat and even positive on very large scales (approaching $n \sim 1$ on very large scales). Since even at the turnover of the power spectrum (where $n \sim 0$) the Poisson term for the red galaxies is of the order of 20% of the halo-halo term the bias does not become constant and begins to increase again on scales larger than the scale of the turnover. In fact on very large scales ($k<10^{-3}h$Mpc$^{-1}$) the red galaxy power spectrum becomes white noise, although these scales are already approaching the size of the visible universe. It should be noted that this description is valid on large scales only for galaxies which do not obey mass and momentum conservation. For the dark matter mass and momentum conservation require that the Poisson term vanishes on large scales and any spectrum generated by a local process should decrease faster than $P(k) \propto k^4$ as $k \rightarrow 0$ [@zeldovich]. Galaxies do not obey mass and momentum conservation and can have the Poisson contribution, so the qualitative scale dependence of bias remains as predicted above.
We have concentrated on the power spectrum above because it is the quantity that can be most directly compared to the theoretical predictions. The same analysis could however be applied to the correlation function as well. The power law dependence of the power spectrum would also result in a power law correlation function, so the conclusions would remain unchanged. The main difference in the real space is that the Poisson term is localized to scales smaller than the typical halo scale and vanishes on scales above that. In this case bias would be scale dependent up to this typical scale (of order few Mpc), but would become scale independent on scales above that. There is no need to model the Poisson term on large scales at all. In this sense the real space correlation function offers some advantages over the power spectrum, where one must attempt to remove the Poisson term in the power spectrum by modelling it as a constant term on large scales.
Our predictions agree with the results of semi-analytic models, indicating that the here proposed model is sufficient to extract the key ingredients to model the galaxy clustering. This means one does not need to rely on N-body simulations as long as the ingredients of the model are specified. If one can extract $\langle N \rangle$, $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}(M)$ and $y(k,M)$ directly from the data one can sidestep the theoretical modelling of this relation and predict the galaxy power spectrum directly [@KNH]. It is in principle possible to obtain such information at least for the massive halos by combining dynamical information on galaxy groups and clusters, such as X-ray temperature, velocity dispersion or weak lensing mass, with the number of galaxies in these clusters. Existing data such as CNOC survey [@Carlberg] indeed find that $\langle N \rangle/M$ for galaxies with $M_K<-18.5$ is systematically lower in massive clusters with $\sigma>1000$ km/s than in poorer clusters. The current data are sparse, but new large surveys such as SDSS and 2dF will enable one to extract such information with a much better statistics. This could allow one to determine within our model the dark matter power spectrum from the galaxy power spectrum directly.
Another direction to obtain $\langle N \rangle/M$ is to require consistency with other measurements that combine dynamical and galaxy information. Galaxy-dark matter correlations discussed in the next section are one possibility. Another are pairwise velocity dispersion measurements. If $\langle N \rangle/M$ declines with $M$ then the pairwise velocity dispersion for the galaxies will be lower than for the dark matter [@JingMoBo98; @Benson99b]. This is because there will be more pairs of galaxies in smaller halos relative to the dark matter. Smaller halos have smaller velocity dispersions and smaller relative velocities between the particles. This can explain the lower amplitude of pairwise velocity dispersion in the LCRS data compared to the N-body simulations [@JingMoBo98]. The required value of $\psi \sim -0.1$ has indeed the same sign as required to reproduce the delayed onset of nonlinear clustering and the power law in galaxy power spectrum. It would be interesting to see whether a single set of functions $\langle N \rangle (M)$, $\langle N (N-1)\rangle^{1/2}(M)$ can provide a unified description to both galaxy clustering and pairwise velocities within the CDM models.
Dark matter-galaxy cross-correlation
====================================
Dark matter-galaxy cross-correlations are measured whenever a galaxy is cross-correlated with a tracer of the dark matter. Examples of this are galaxy-galaxy lensing [@galgal], where one is measuring correlation between galaxies and cosmic shear, and correlations between foreground and background galaxies or quasars [@qsogal], where correlations (or anti-correlations) are induced by magnification bias of background objects. In both cases one is measuring the correlations between the galaxies and dark matter along the line of sight, which can be expressed as a convolution over the galaxy-dark matter cross-correlation power spectrum.
Galaxy-dark matter cross-correlations have been modelled in the past using either a bias model relating them to the dark matter or galaxy power spectrum [@waerbeke] or using galaxies sitting at the centers of the galactic size halos [@brainerd]. In the first description assuming galaxy-dark matter cross-correlations measure bias $b(k)P_{\rm dm}(k)$, which in combination with the galaxy power spectrum $b^2(k)P_{\rm dm}(k)$ can give both $b(k)$ and $P_{\rm dm}(k)$. Such a model is a reasonable description on large scales, but must break down on small scales where galaxies do not trace dark matter and there is no guarantee that the scale dependent bias that relates $P_{\rm gal,dm}(k)$ and $P_{\rm gal}(k)$ can be used to extract $P_{\rm dm}(k)$.
Second model describes cross-correlations in terms of galaxies sitting at the centers of their halos and interprets the results in terms of the averaged halo profile [@brainerd]. There are two potential problems with this approach. First, there may be more than one galaxy inside the halo, which is specially important for large halos (figure \[fig3\]). Since not all galaxies can lie at the halo center this can affect the interpretation of the cross-correlations in terms of the halo profile. Second, just as in the case of the dark matter the contribution to the power spectrum comes from a range of halo masses and one cannot model the galaxy-dark matter cross-correlation simply as a typical $L_*$ galaxy halo profile. The strength of the correlations is determined both by the dark matter profile of the halos as well as by the halo mass function, so the slope of the correlation function that one is ultimately measuring with galaxy-galaxy lensing and foreground-background galaxy correlations need not be directly related to the dark matter profile [@Guzik00]. Model developed in previous sections may be applied to the dark matter-galaxy cross-correlation power spectrum to quantify these issues in more detail.
Galaxy-dark matter cross-correlation power spectrum has halo-halo and halo Poisson terms. First term describes the correlations between galaxies and dark matter in neighbouring halos and is dominant on large scales. Second term includes the correlations between the galaxies and dark matter in the same halo and dominates on small scales. The halo-halo term is given by $$P^{hh}_{\rm g,dm}(k)=P_{\rm lin}(k) \left[{\bar{\rho}\over \bar{n}}
\int f(\nu)d\nu {\langle N \rangle \over M}b(\nu)y[k,M(\nu)]\right]
\left[\int f(\nu)d\nu b(\nu)y[k,M(\nu)]\right].
\label{chh}$$ On large scales where this term dominates it reduces to constant bias model, $P^{hh}_{\rm g,dm}(k)=\langle b \rangle P_{\rm lin}(k)$. The Poisson term in the model where galaxies trace dark matter inside the halos except for the central galaxy sitting at its center is given by $$P^P_{\rm g,dm}(k)= {1 \over (2\pi)^3 \bar{n}}
\int f(\nu)d\nu \langle N \rangle
|y(k,M)|^p.
\label{cp}$$ Here $p=2$ for $\langle N \rangle >1$ and $p=1$ for $\langle N \rangle <1$.
Figure \[fig5\] shows the results for the cross-correlation power spectrum for the same galaxy selection as in figures \[fig3\] and \[fig4\]. For regular galaxies selected by an absolute magnitude (top panel) the cross-correlation spectrum is similar to the galaxy power spectrum. If we define the cross-correlation coefficient as $$r(k)={P_{\rm g, dm}(k) \over [P_{\rm dm}(k) P_{\rm g}(k)]^{1/2}},$$ then we see from figure \[fig5\] that it is approximately unity up to $k \sim 1h$Mpc$^{-1}$ and increases for higher $k$. Note that the cross-correlation coefficient is not restricted to $|r(k)|<1$ because we have subtracted out the shot noise term from the galaxy power spectrum following the usual approach [@Peebles]. Because on small scales the galaxy and cross-correlation spectra are comparable and exceed the dark matter spectrum the cross-correlation coefficient grows to large values in this model. Comparison with the semi-analytic results [@Guzik00] again shows very good agreement up to the resolution limit of the simulations. Bottom of figure \[fig5\] shows the results for the red galaxies. In this case the cross-correlation spectrum falls in between the dark matter and the galaxy spectrum, so that $r \sim 1$ down to very small scales. This is again in agreement with semi-analytic results which show $r\sim 1$ throughout the entire range of $k$.
The main reason for $r \ne 1$ on small scales is that $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2} \ne \langle N\rangle$ (figure \[fig3\]). The difference between the two functions is more significant for the normal than for the red galaxies, which is why the cross-correlation coefficient begins to deviate from unity at larger scales for $M_B<-19.5$ than for $M_B-M_V>0.8$. Because in this regime $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2} <\langle N\rangle$ this leads to $r(k)>1$, as seen in figure \[fig5\]. It is interesting to note from figure \[fig3\] that for the red galaxies the two functions agree very well even below unity and this leads to $r(k) \sim 1$ down to very small scales. When this happens one can reconstruct the dark matter power spectrum from the galaxy and cross-correlation spectrum even if most of the dark matter halos are not directly observed. Unfortunately one cannot extract these two functions without first identifying the dark matter halos, so this prediction cannot be directly verified from observational data using the galaxy information only.
Second source of stochasticity is the presence of central galaxy. For those halos where $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}<1$ or $\langle N\rangle <1$ only one power of $y(k,M)$ is used as opposed to two in the case of the dark matter. This induces some stochasticity even if $\langle N\rangle =
\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2} $, because it enhances the galaxy-galaxy and galaxy-dark matter spectrum above the dark matter-dark matter spectrum. Another source of stochasticity would be $\psi \ne 0$, which would make correlations at a given scale being dominated by different mass range in the case of the dark matter and the galaxies. Calculations where only this effect is present give $r \sim 1$ over a wide range of scales, showing that this cannot be a significant source of stochasticity, at least for reasonable values of $\psi$.
Our model predicts that even if the constant bias model is not valid, its generalization $r=1$ model may be a reasonable approximation at least down to 1 Mpc scales. An example are the red galaxies (bottom of figure \[fig5\]), which have very strong scale dependent bias, yet $r\approx 1$ over a wide range of scales. In this sense determining the dark matter power spectrum from the measurements of galaxy-galaxy spectrum and galaxy-dark matter spectrum under the assumption of $r=1$ may have a larger range of validity than the constant bias model. This relies on the assumption $\langle N\rangle=\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}$ predicted from these models. This prediction can be verified at least for the more massive halos directly from observations, for example by using galaxy counts in cluster catalogs to extract $\langle N\rangle$ and $\langle N(N-1)\rangle^{1/2}$. Such an approach would provide an alternative way to determine $r(k)$ directly from the data.
The model developed here can also be used to clarify the interpretation of the galaxy-dark matter cross-correlation in terms of an averaged density profile of a typical galaxy. Figure \[fig6\] shows the contribution to the cross-correlation spectrum from the different halo mass intervals, similar to figure \[fig2\] for the dark matter. For $k<20h$Mpc$^{-1}$, corresponding approximately to scales larger than 100h$^{-1}$kpc in real space, one cannot interpret the correlations in terms of the shape of a single halo profile, but instead as the convolution of these over the halo mass function, multiplied with the number of galaxies per halo. Observed correlations on large scales do not necessarily mean that the halo of an $L_*$ galaxy extends to large distances. Instead, it is more likely that one is observing correlations arising from the group and cluster size halos, which exceed the correlations contributed from the galactic size halos on larger scales. This cannot be corrected in any simple manner by taking into account the correlation function of the galaxies [@galgal], which attempts to model the presence of other nearby halos. Even if the galaxy correlations vanished one would still need to take into account the halo mass function and the fact that different halos dominate on different scales. More detailed discussion of these points will be presented elsewhere [@Guzik00].
On smaller scales the transition to $\langle N\rangle(M) <1$ implies that $y(k,M)$ suppression is less important because $p=1$. This is further enhanced by the flattening of $\langle N\rangle$ below $M\sim 10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$ as seen in figure \[fig3\]. In addition, galaxies selected on the basis of their absolute magnitude cannot exist in very small halos, so the mass function has a strong cutoff below $10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$. Thus on scales with $k>20h$Mpc$^{-1}$ the galaxy-dark matter cross-correlation may be better interpreted in terms of the average profile of $10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\sun}<M< 10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$ halos. However, this may not be a robust prediction since the semi-analytic predictions in figure \[fig3\] are highly uncertain over this mass range. A small change in $\langle N \rangle (M)$ may lead to a larger influence of the mass function on the power spectrum, making the correspondence between the halo profile and the power spectrum less certain. In general one should be cautious in interpreting the shape of the galaxy-dark matter correlation function in terms of an averaged dark matter profile.
Conclusions
===========
We developed an analytic model for computing the power spectrum of the dark matter, galaxies and their cross-correlation based on the Press-Schechter model. In this model all the matter in the universe is divided into virialized halos. These halos cluster and have some internal profile. The total power spectrum is the sum of the halo clustering term and the halo Poisson term, which accounts for the correlations within the halos. We assume that the halo profiles are self-similar regardless of the initial conditions, but with the mass dependent concentration parameter, as suggested by high resolution simulations [@NFW; @Kravtsov; @Moore]. The model agrees well with the results of N-body simulations for the $\Lambda CDM$ model. We are able to find a good agreement for inner slopes $\alpha=-1$ and $\alpha=-1.5$, indicating that the shape of the nonlinear power spectrum cannot by itself distinguish between the two.
The model can in principle be applied to any cosmological model, including those with a cutoff in the linear power spectrum on small scales or with some features in the power spectrum. While this will be explored in more detail in a future paper we wish to emphasize here that the mass function, which is sensitive to the linear power spectrum, has a direct effect on the nonlinear power spectrum through the halo abundance, so that not all of the information on the linear power is lost in the nonlinear regime. For example, if the linear power spectrum is cut-off on small scales and if inner profile $\alpha>-1.5$ as suggested by the simulations then the correlation function or $k^3P(k)$ must have a turnover on small scales. This differs from the CDM models which predict the nonlinear correlation function to continue to grow on small scales. If we wish to eliminate the halos with $M<10^{11}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$ [@LK] then this would suppress the power on scales below 10kpc (figure \[fig2\]). This effect therefore becomes significant on scales smaller than those resolved in a recent study of such truncated power spectrum models [@White].
Our main conclusion regarding the galaxy power spectrum is that a simple model for the dependence of the linear and pair weighted number of galaxies inside halo as a function of the halo mass can explain most of the properties of the galaxy clustering seen in more complicated models based on the N-body simulations. A power law in the galaxy correlation function with slope $1.8$ is a generic prediction of the model where the number of galaxies inside the halo increases less rapidly with mass than the halo mass itself, mean number of galaxies exceeds pair weighted average and there is a central galaxy in each halo. The decline of number of galaxies per unit mass as a function of mass is predicted by the galaxy formation models [@Benson; @Kauffmann; @bias] and has been observed in clusters [@Carlberg]. It is also required to explain the pairwise velocity dispersion results [@JingMoBo98]. For such galaxies bias first decreases below unity, because the Poisson term is smaller for them than for dark matter. This naturally explains the later onset of nonlinearity in galaxy power spectrum compared to the dark matter, which reconciles the discrepancy between the data and the CDM models [@P97]. Conversely, there is no need to invoke poorly motivated models such as double power law model [@P97]. On large scales bias converges to a constant for these galaxies.
Red or elliptical galaxies, which are more abundant in massive halos, show a different relation: their number inside the halos increases on average more rapidly than the halo mass. In this case bias increases with $k$ above the turnover in the power spectrum ($k \sim 0.01h$Mpc$^{-1}$), because their Poisson term is larger than that of dark matter. In fact, the Poisson term may be so strong that it may not be negligible compared to the halo clustering term even on very large scales and one may not converge to the constant bias model.
Galaxy-dark matter correlations can also be predicted by this model. In this case one must specify the average number of galaxies per halo as a function of halo mass. Here again our model reproduces the main features present in the N-body simulations with semi-analytic galaxy formation [@Guzik00]. Galaxy-dark matter cross-correlations can be measured with galaxy-galaxy lensing or correlations between foreground and background galaxies and may provide a way to break some of the uncertainties present with the galaxy clustering. For example, we have shown that even if the constant bias may not be a good approximation, cross-correlation coefficient may nevertheless be close to unity down to Mpc scales, which would allow one to extract the dark matter power spectrum from the knowledge of the galaxy and cross-corelation spectrum on scales larger than this. The main source of stochasticity ($r \ne 1$) arises from the pair weighted number of galaxies inside the halo differing from the mean number of galaxies and from the (possible) existence of central galaxies in the halos.
We have emphasized that caution must be applied when interpreting the cross-correlations such as galaxy-galaxy lensing in terms of an averaged density profile of a halo. As we have shown different halo masses dominate on different scales and the correlation function reflects this combined effect of all the halos. For example, correlations at a few hundred kpc observed by galaxy-galaxy lensing [@galgal] are more likely to be caused by group and cluster sized halos at $r_s$ distances than by galaxy sized halos at $r_v$ distances. More detailed work is needed to extract the structure and extent of the dark matter halos from such observations.
Perhaps the most promising direction to explore in the future is to extract the functional dependences that parametrize our model directly from the observations. If one can determine the linear and pair weighted number of galaxies as a function of halo mass and their distribution inside the halos then one can determine the galaxy power spectrum directly within this model. Similarly if one can compare the mean number of galaxies with the pair weighted number as a function of halo mass then one can predict the galaxy-dark matter cross-correlation coefficient. This is certainly feasible for clusters, which dominate the Poisson term on large scales. Current data are sparse [@Carlberg], but new surveys such as SDSS or 2dF should provide sufficient statistics to make this feasible. This approach would provide an independent estimate of the scale dependence of bias and correlation coefficient on large scales. It will also provide important constraints that would need to be satisfied by any viable galaxy formation model.
I ackowledge the support of NASA grant NAG5-8084. I thank G. Kauffmann and S. White for a detailed reading of the manuscript and for providing results of GIF N-body and semi-analytic simulations and J. Guzik for help with them. I also thank R. Sheth and R. Scoccimarro for useful conversations and help in initial stages of this project and J. Peebles and U. Pen for useful discussions.
[99]{}
A. Dekel and J. Silk, , 39 (1986). D. N. Spergel and P. J. Steinhardt, preprint astro-ph/9909386 (1999). see e.g. a compilation in J. A. Peacock, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**284**]{} 885 (1997). a review is given in M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, submitted to Phys. Rep., preprint astro-ph/9912508 (1999). T. G. Brainerd, R. D. Blandford and I. Smail, 623 (1996). W. H. Press and P. Schechter, Astrophys. J. [**187**]{}, 425 (1974). J. McClelland and J. Silk, , [**217**]{}, 331 (1977). R. Sheth and B. Jain, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**285**]{}, 231 (1997). J. Navarro, C. Frenk and S. D. M. White, , 563 (1996). Similar approach has been developed independently by R. Scoccimaro and R. Sheth (in preparation, 2000). M. Blanton, R. Cen, J. P. Ostriker and M. A. Strauss 590 (1999); F. R. Pearce et al., L99 (1999). A. J. Benson, S. Cole, C. S. Frenk, C. M. Baugh and C. G. Lacey, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}in press, astro-ph/9903343 (1999). G. Kauffmann, J. M. Colberg, A. Diaferio and S. D. M. White, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**303**]{} 529 (1999); [*ibid*]{} [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**307**]{} 529 (1999). see e.g. a compilation in J. A. Peacock and S. J. Dodds, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**267**]{} 1020 (1994). Y.P. Jing, H.J. Mo and G. Boerner, , 1 (1998). A. J. Benson, C. M. Baugh, S. Cole, C. S. Frenk and C. G. Lacey, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}submitted, astro-ph/9910488 (1999). I. P. Dell’Antonio and J. A. Tyson, , L17 (1996); M. J. Hudson, S. D. J. Dwyn, H. Dahle and N. Kaiser, 531 (1998); R. E. Griffiths, S. Casertano, M. Im and K. U. Ratnatunga, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**282**]{} 1159 (1996); Fischer et al. astro-ph/9912119 (1999). L. van Waerbeke, å[**334**]{} L1 (1998). A. Huss, B. Jain and M. Steinmetz, 64 (1999). G. Tormen, F. R. Bouchet and S. D. M. White, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**286**]{} 865 (1997). B. Moore, , F. Governato, T. Quinn, J. Stadel and G. Lake, L5 (1998); B. Moore, T. Quinn, F. Governato, J. Stadel and G. Lake, astro-ph/9903164 (1999). T. Fukushige and J. Makino, L9 (1997). A. V. Kravtsov et al., 48 (1998). Y. P. Jing and Y. Suto, in press, astro-ph/9909478 (1999). J. S. Bullock, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}submitted, astro-ph/9908159 (1999). M. A. K. Gross et al., [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**301**]{}, 81 (1998); R. S. Somerville, G. Lemson, T. S. Kolatt and A. Dekel, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}, in press (astro-ph/9807277) (2000). R. K. Sheth and G. Tormen, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**308**]{}, 119 (1999). S. Cole and N. Kaiser, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**237**]{} 1127 (1989). H. J. Mo and S. D. M. White, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**282**]{}, 347 (1996). G. Tormen, A. Diaferio and D. Syer, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**299**]{}, 728 (1998). J. A. Peacock and S. J. Dodds, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**280**]{} L19 (1996). Y. Sigad, et al., to be submitted (2000). M. Kamionkowski and A. R. Liddle, preprint astro-ph/9911103 (1999). D. J. Eisenstein, W. Hu, J. Silk and A. S. Szalay, , L1 (1998). A. Meiksin, M. White and J. A. Peacock, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**304**]{}, 851 (1999). M. White and R. A. C. Croft, preprint astro-ph/0001247 (2000). P. J. E. Peebles, [*The Large Scale Structure of the Universe*]{}, Princeton University Press (1980). Jenkins, A. et al. 20 (1998). A. Diaferio, G. Kauffmann, J. M. Colberg and S. D. M. White, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**307**]{} 537 (1999). Y. Zeldovich, å[**5**]{} 84 (1970). G. Kauffmann, A. Nusser and M. Steinmetz, [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.]{}[**286**]{}, 795 (1997). R. G. Carlberg et al., 32 (1996). J. Guzik et al., in preparation (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'When eliciting opinions from a group of experts, traditional devices used to promote honest reporting assume that there is an observable future outcome. In practice, however, this assumption is not always reasonable. In this paper, we propose a scoring method built on strictly proper scoring rules to induce honest reporting without assuming observable outcomes. Our method provides scores based on pairwise comparisons between the reports made by each pair of experts in the group. For ease of exposition, we introduce our scoring method by illustrating its application to the peer-review process. In order to do so, we start by modeling the peer-review process using a Bayesian model where the uncertainty regarding the quality of the manuscript is taken into account. Thereafter, we introduce our scoring method to evaluate the reported reviews. Under the assumptions that reviewers are Bayesian decision-makers and that they cannot influence the reviews of other reviewers, we show that risk-neutral reviewers strictly maximize their expected scores by honestly disclosing their reviews. We also show how the group’s scores can be used to find a consensual review. Experimental results show that encouraging honest reporting through the proposed scoring method creates more accurate reviews than the traditional peer-review process.'
author:
- |
Arthur Carvalho\
University of Waterloo\
[email protected]
- |
Stanko Dimitrov\
University of Waterloo\
[email protected]
- |
Kate Larson\
University of Waterloo\
[email protected]
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'Inducing Honest Reporting Without Observing Outcomes: An Application to the Peer-Review Process'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
In the absence of a well-chosen incentive structure, experts are not necessarily honest when reporting their opinions. For example, when reporting subjective probabilities, experts who have a reputation to protect might tend to produce forecasts near the most likely group consensus, whereas experts who have a reputation to build might tend to overstate the probabilities of outcomes they feel will be understated in a possible consensus [@Nakazono:2013]. Hence, an important question when eliciting experts’ opinions is how to incentivize honest reporting.
*Proper scoring rules* [@Winkler:1968] are traditional devices that incentivize honest reporting of subjective probabilities, *i.e.*, experts maximize their expected scores by honestly reporting their opinions. However, proper scoring rules rely on the assumption that there is an observable future outcome, which is not always a reasonable assumption. For example, when market analysts provide sales forecasts on a potential new product, there is no guarantee that the product will ever be produced. Hence, the actual number of sales may never be observed.
In this paper, we propose a scoring method for promoting honest reporting amongst a group of experts when future outcomes are unobservable. In particular, we are interested in settings where experts observe signals from a multinomial distribution with an unknown parameter. Honest reporting then means that experts report exactly the signals that they observed. Our scoring method is built on proper scoring rules. However, different than what is traditionally assumed in the proper scoring rules literature, our method does not assume that there is an observable future outcome. Instead, scores are determined based on pairwise comparisons between experts’ reported opinions.
The proposed method may be used in a variety of settings, *e.g.*, strategic planning, reputation systems, peer review, *etc*. When applied to strategic planning, the proposed method may induce honest evaluation of different strategic plans. A strategic plan is a systematic and coordinated way to develop a direction and a course for an organization, which includes a plan to allocate the organization’s resources [@Argenti:1968]. After a candidate strategic plan is discarded, it becomes nearly impossible to observe what would be the consequences of that plan because strategic plans are long-term in nature. Hence, a method to incentivize honest evaluations of candidate strategic plans cannot assume that the result of a strategic plan is observable in the future.
Our method can also be applied to reputation systems to elicit honest feedback. In reputation systems, individuals rate a product/service after experiencing it, *e.g.*, customer product reviews on Amazon.com are one such reputation system. Due to the subjective nature of this task, incentives for honest feedback should not be based on the assumption that an absolute rating exists.
For ease of exposition, we introduce our scoring method by illustrating its application to a domain where traditionally there are no observable outcomes: the peer-review process. Peer review is a process in which an expert’s output is scrutinized by a number of other experts with relevant expertise in order to ensure quality control and/or to provide credibility. Peer review is commonly used when there is no objective way to measure the output’s quality, *i.e.*, when quality is a subjective matter. Peer review has been widely used in several professional fields, *e.g.*, accounting [@AICPA:2012], law [@LSC:2005], health care [@Dans:1993], *etc*.
Currently, a popular application of the peer-review process is in online education. Recent years have seen a surge of massive online open courses, *i.e.*, free online academic courses aimed at large-scale participation. Some of these courses have attracted tens of thousands of students [@Pappano:2012]. One of the biggest challenges faced by online educators brought by this massive number of students is the grading process since the available resources (personnel, time, *etc*.) is often insufficient. Auto-grading by computers is not always feasible, *e.g.*, courses whose assignments consist of essay-style questions and/or questions that do not have clear right/wrong answers. Peer review has been used by some companies like Coursera[^1] as a way to overcome this issue.
For simplicity’s sake, we focus on peer review as used in modern scientific communication. The process, as we consider in this paper, can be described as follows: when a manuscript first arrives at the editorial office of an academic journal, it is first examined by the editor, who might reject the manuscript immediately because either it is out-of-scope or because it is of unacceptable quality. Manuscripts that pass this first stage are then sent out to experts with relevant expertise who are usually asked to classify the manuscript as publishable immediately, publishable after some revisions, or not publishable at all. Traditionally, the manuscript’s authors do not know the reviewers’ identities, but the reviewers may or may not know the identity of the authors.
In other words, peer review can be seen as a decision-making process where the reviewers serve as cognitive inputs that help a decision maker (chair, editor, course instructor, *etc*.) judge the quality of a peer’s output. A crucial point in this process is that it greatly depends on the reviewers’ honesty. In the canonical peer-review process, reviewers have no direct incentives for honestly reporting their reviews. Several potential problems have been discussed in different research areas, *e.g.*, bias against female authors, authors from minor institutions, and non-native English writers [@Bornmann:2007; @Wenneras:1997; @Primack:2008; @Newcombe:2009].
In order to illustrate the application of our method to peer review, we start by modeling the peer-review process as a Bayesian model so as to take the uncertainty regarding the quality of the manuscript into account. We then introduce our scoring method to evaluate reported reviews. We assume that the scores received by reviewers are somehow coupled with relevant incentives, be they social-psychological, such as praise or visibility, or material rewards through prizes or money. Hence, we naturally assume that reviewers seek to maximize their expected scores and that there are no external incentives. We show that reviewers strictly maximize their expected scores by honestly disclosing their reviews under the additional assumptions that they are Bayesian decision-makers and that they cannot influence the reviews of other reviewers.
Honesty is intrinsically related to accuracy in our peer-review model: as the number of honest reviews increases, the distribution of the reported reviews converges to the probability distribution that represents the quality of the manuscript. We performed peer-review experiments to validate the model and to test the efficiency of the proposed scoring method. Our experimental results corroborate our theoretical model by showing that the act of encouraging honest reporting through the proposed scoring method creates more accurate reviews than the traditional peer-review process, where reviewers have no direct incentives for expressing their true reviews.
In addition to our method for inducing honest reporting, we also propose a method to aggregate opinions that uses information from experts’ scores. Our aggregation method is general in a sense that it can be used in any decision-making setting where experts report probability distributions over the outcomes of a discrete random variable. The proposed method works as if the experts were continuously updating their opinions in order to accommodate the expertise of others. Each updated opinion takes the form of a linear opinion pool, where the weight that an expert assigns to a peer’s opinion is inversely related to the distance between their opinions. In other words, experts are assumed to prefer opinions that are close to their own opinions, where closeness is defined by an underlying proper scoring rule. We provide conditions under which consensus is achieved under our aggregation method and discuss a behavioral foundation of it. Using data from our peer-review experiments, we find that the consensual review resulting from the proposed aggregation method is consistently more accurate than the canonical average review.
Related Work {#sec:related_work}
============
In recent years, two prominent methods to induce honest reporting without the assumption of observable future outcomes were proposed: the *Bayesian truth serum* (BTS) *method* [@Prelec:2004] and the *peer-prediction method* [@Miller:2005].
The BTS method works on a single multiple-choice question with a finite number of alternatives. Each expert is requested to endorse the answer mostly likely to be true and to predict the empirical distribution of the endorsed answers. Experts are evaluated by the accuracy of their predictions as well as how surprisingly common their answers are. The surprisingly common criterion exploits the false consensus effect to promote truthfulness, *i.e.*, the general tendency of experts to overestimate the degree of agreement that the others have with them.
The score received by an expert from the BTS method has two major components. The first one, called the information score, evaluates the answer endorsed by the expert according to the log-ratio of its actual-to-predicted endorsement frequencies. The second component, called the prediction score, is a penalty proportional to the relative entropy between the empirical distribution of answers and the expert’s prediction of that distribution. Under the BTS scoring method, collective honest reporting is a Bayes-Nash equilibrium.
The BTS method has been used to promote honest reporting in many different domains, *e.g.*, when sharing rewards amongst a set of experts [@Carvalho:2011] and in policy analysis [@Weiss:2009]. However, the BTS method has two major drawbacks. First, it requires the population of experts to be large. Second, besides reporting their opinions, experts must also make predictions about how their peers will report their opinions. While the artificial intelligence community has recently addressed the former issue [@Witkowski:2012; @Radanovic:2013], the latter issue is still an intrinsic requirement for using the BTS method.
The drawbacks of the BTS method are not shared by the peer-prediction method [@Miller:2005]. In the peer-prediction method, a number of experts experience a product and rate its quality. A mechanism then collects the ratings and makes payments based on those ratings. The peer-prediction method makes use of the stochastic correlation between the signals observed by the experts from the product to achieve a Bayes-Nash equilibrium where every expert reports honestly.
A major problem with the peer-prediction method is that it depends on historical data. For example, when applied to a peer-review setting, after a reviewer $i$ reports his review, say $r_i$, the mechanism then estimates reviewer $i$’s prediction of the review reported by another reviewer $j$, $P(r_j | r_i)$, which is then evaluated and rewarded using a proper scoring rule and reviewer $j$’s actual reported review. The mechanism needs to have a history of previously reported reviews for computing $P(r_j | r_i)$, which is not always a reasonable assumption, *e.g.*, when the evaluation criteria may change from review to review and when the peer-review process is being used for the first time. In other words, the peer-prediction method is prone to cold-start problems.
[@Carvalho:2012] addressed this issue by making the extra assumption that experts have uninformative prior knowledge about the distribution of the observed signals. Given this assumption, honest reporting is induced by simply making pairwise comparisons between reported opinions and rewarding agreements. In this paper, we extend the method by [@Carvalho:2012] in several ways. First, we show that the assumption of uninformative priors is unnecessary as long as experts have common prior distributions and this fact is common knowledge. Moreover, we provide stronger conditions with respect to the underlying proper scoring rule under which pairwise comparisons induce honest reporting.
Another contribution of our work is a method to aggregate the reported opinions into a single consensual opinion. Over the years, both behavioral and mathematical methods have been proposed to establish consensus [@Clemen:1999]. Behavioral methods attempt to generate agreement through interaction and exchange of knowledge. Ideally, the sharing of information leads to a consensus. However, behavioral methods usually provide no conditions under which experts can be expected to reach an agreement. On the other hand, mathematical aggregation methods consist of processes or analytical models that operate on the reported opinions in order to produce a single aggregate opinion. [@DeGroot:1974] proposed a model which describes how a group of experts can reach agreement on a consensual opinion by pooling their individual opinions. A drawback of DeGroot’s method is that it requires each expert to explicitly assign weights to the opinions of other experts. In this paper, we propose a method to set these weights directly which takes the scores received by the experts into account. We also provide a behavioral interpretation of the proposed aggregation method.
A related method for finding consensus was proposed by [@Carvalho:2013]. Under the assumption that experts prefer probability distributions close to their own distributions, where closeness is measured by the root-mean-square deviation, the authors showed that a consensus is always achieved. Moreover, if risk-neutral experts are rewarded using the quadratic scoring rule, then the assumption that experts prefer probability distributions that are close to their own distributions follows naturally. The approach in this paper is more general because the underlying proper scoring rule can be any bounded proper scoring rule.
From an empirical perspective, we investigate the efficiency of both our scoring method and our method for finding consensus in a peer-review experiment. Formal experiments involving peer review are still relatively scarce. Even though the application of the peer-review process to scientific communication can be traced back almost 300 years, it was not until the early 1990s that research on this matter became more intensive and formalized [@vanRooyen:2001]. Scientists in the biomedical domain have been in the forefront of research on the peer-review process due to the fact that dependable quality-controlled information can literally be a matter of life and death in this research field. In particular, the staff of the renowned BMJ, formerly British Medical Journal, have been studying the merits and limitations of peer review over a number of years [@Lock:1985; @Godlee:2003]. Most of their work has focused on defining and evaluating review quality [@vanRooyen:1999], and examining the effect of specific interventions on the quality of the resulting reviews [@vanRooyen:2001].
One mechanism used to prevent bias in the peer-review process is called *double-blind review*, which consists of hiding both authors and reviewers’ identities. Indeed, it has been reported that such a practice reduces bias against female authors [@Budden:2008]. However, it can be argued that knowing the authors’ identities makes it easier for the reviewers to compare the new manuscript with previously published papers, and it also encourages the reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest. Another argument that undermines the benefits of double-blind reviewing is that the authorship of the manuscript is often obvious to a knowledgeable reader from the context, *e.g.*, self-referencing, research topic, writing style, working paper repositories, seminars, *etc*. [@Falagas:2006; @Justice:1998; @Yankauer:1991]. Furthermore, this mechanism does not prevent against certain types of bias, *e.g.*, when a reviewer rejects new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.
Some work has focused on the calibration aspect of peer review. [@Roos:2011] proposed a maximum likelihood method for calibrating reviews by estimating both the bias of each reviewer and the unknown ideal score of the manuscript. Bias is treated as the general rigor of a reviewer across all his reviews. Hence, Roos *et al.*’s method does not attempt to prevent bias by rewarding honest reporting. Instead, it adjusts reviews *a posteriori* so that they can be globally comparable.
Instead of calibrating reviews *a posteriori*, [@robinson:2001] suggested to “calibrate" reviewers *a priori*. Reviewers are first asked to review short texts that have gold-standard reviews, *i.e.*, reviews of high quality provided by experts with relevant expertise. Thereafter, they receive calibration scores, which are later used as weighting factors to determine how well their future reviews will be considered. This approach, however, does not guarantee that reviewers will report honestly after the calibration phase, when gold-standard reviews are no longer available.
To the best of our knowledge, our peer-review experiments are the first to investigate the use of incentives for honest reporting in a peer-review task. When objective verification is not possible, as in the peer-review process, economic measures may be used to encourage experts to honestly disclose their opinions. The proposed scoring method does so by making pairwise comparisons between reported reviews and rewarding agreements.
Rewarding experts based on pairwise comparisons has been empirically proven to be an effective incentive technique in other domains. [@Shaw:2011] measured the effectiveness of a collection of social and financial incentive schemes for motivating experts to conduct a qualitative content analysis task. The authors found that treatment conditions that provided financial incentives and asked experts to prospectively think about the responses of their peers produced more accurate responses. [@Huang:2013] showed that informing the experts that their rewards will be based on how similar their responses are to other experts’ responses produces more accurate responses than telling the experts that their rewards will be based on how similar their responses are to gold-standard responses. Our work adds to the existing body of literature by theoretically and empirically showing that pairwise comparisons make the peer-review process more accurate.
The Basic Model {#sec:model}
===============
In our proposed peer-review process, a *manuscript* is reviewed by a set of *reviewers* $N = \{1, \dots, n\}$, with $n \geq 2$. The quality of the manuscript is represented by a multinomial distribution[^2] $\Omega$ with *unknown* parameter $\boldsymbol\omega = (\omega_{0}, \dots, \omega_{v})$, where $v \in \mathbb{N}^+$ represents the best *evaluation score* that the manuscript can receive and $\omega_{k}$ is the probability assigned to the evaluation score being equal to $k$.
Each reviewer is modeled as possessing a privately observed draw (signal) from $\Omega$. Hence, our model captures the uncertainty of the reviewers regarding the quality of the manuscript. We extend the model to multiple observed signals in Section 5. We denote the *honest review* of each reviewer $i \in N$ by $t_i \sim \Omega$, where $t_i \in \{0, \dots, v\}$. Honest reviews are independent and identically distributed, *i.e.*, $P(t_i | t_j) = P(t_i)$. We say that reviewer $i$ is reporting honestly when his *reported review* $r_i$ is equal to his honest review, *i.e.*, $r_i = t_i$.
Reviews are elicited and aggregated by a trusted entity referred to as the *center*[^3], which is also responsible for rewarding the reviewers. Let $s_i$ be reviewer $i$’s *review score* after he reports $r_i$. We discuss how $s_i$ is determined in Section 4. Review scores are somehow coupled with relevant incentives, be they social-psychological, such as praise or visibility, or material rewards through prizes or money. We make four major assumptions in our model:
1. *Autonomy*: Reviewers cannot influence other reviewers’ reviews, *i.e.*, they do not know each other’s identity and they are not allowed to communicate to each other during the reviewing process.
2. *Risk Neutrality*: Reviewers behave so as to maximize their expected review scores.
3. *Dirichlet Priors*: There exists a common prior distribution over $\boldsymbol\omega$, *i.e.*, $P\left(\boldsymbol\omega\right)$. We assume that this prior is a Dirichlet distribution and this is common knowledge.
4. *Rationality*: After observing $t_i$, every reviewer $i \in N$ updates his belief by applying Bayes’ rule to the common prior, *i.e.*, $P\left( \mathbf{\boldsymbol\omega} | {t}_i \right)$.
The first assumption describes how peer review is traditionally done in practice. The second assumption means that reviewers are self-interested and no external incentives exist for each reviewer. The third assumption means that reviewers have common prior knowledge about the quality of the manuscript, a natural assumption in the peer-review process. We discuss the formal meaning of such an assumption in the following subsection. The fourth assumption implies that the posterior distributions are consistent with Bayesian updating, *i.e.*:
$$P\left(\boldsymbol\omega | t_{i}\right) = \frac{P(t_{i} | \boldsymbol\omega)P(\boldsymbol\omega)}{P(t_{i})}$$
The last three assumptions imply that reviewers are *Bayesian decision-makers*. We note that different modeling choices could have been used, *e.g.*, models based on games of incomplete information. Unlike our model, an incomplete-information game is often used when experts do not know each other’s beliefs. To find strategic equilibria in such incomplete-information models, one would need information about experts’ beliefs about each other’s private information. A Bayesian structure could be used to model each expert’s beliefs about the others, and it would permit the calculation of experts’ expected scores, which are maximized at equilibrium. However, the natural autonomy assumption makes such a Bayesian structure unrealistic.
Dirichlet Distributions {#subsec:dirichlet}
-----------------------
An important assumption in our model is that reviewers have *Dirichlet priors* over distributions of evaluation scores. The *Dirichlet distribution* can be seen as a continuous distribution over parameter vectors of a multinomial distribution. Since $\boldsymbol\omega$ is the unknown parameter of the multinomial distribution that describes the quality of the manuscript, then it is natural to consider a Dirichlet distribution as a prior for $\boldsymbol\omega$. Given a vector of positive integers, $\boldsymbol\alpha = (\alpha_0, \dots , \alpha_v)$, that determines the shape of the Dirichlet distribution, the probability density function of the Dirichlet distribution over $\boldsymbol\omega$ is:
$$\label{eq:dirichlet_dist}
P(\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol\alpha) =
\frac{1}{\beta(\boldsymbol\alpha)}\prod_{k=0}^v \omega_{k}^{\alpha_k - 1}$$
where:
$$\beta(\boldsymbol\alpha) = \frac{\prod_{k=0}^v (\alpha_k -1)!}
{\left(\sum_{k=0}^v \alpha_k - 1\right)!}$$
Figure \[fig:Dirichlet\] shows the above probability density when $v=2$ for some parameter vectors $\boldsymbol\alpha$. For the Dirichlet distribution in (\[eq:dirichlet\_dist\]), the expected value of $\omega_{j}$ is $\mathbb{E}[\omega_{j} | \boldsymbol\alpha] = \alpha_i/\sum_{k=0}^v \alpha_k$. The probability vector $\mathbb{E}[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol\alpha]=(\mathbb{E}[\omega_{0} | \boldsymbol\alpha], \dots, \mathbb{E}[\omega_{v} | \boldsymbol\alpha])$ is called the *expected distribution* regarding $\boldsymbol\omega$.
An interesting property of the Dirichlet distribution is that it is the *conjugate prior* of the multinomial distribution [@Bernardo:1994], *i.e.*, the posterior distribution $P(\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol\alpha, t_i)$ is itself a Dirichlet distribution. This relationship is often used in Bayesian statistics to estimate hidden parameters of multinomial distributions. To illustrate this point, suppose that reviewer $i$ observes the signal $t_i = x$, for $x \in \{0, \dots, v\}$. After applying Bayes’ rule, reviewer $i$’s posterior distribution is $P(\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol\alpha, t_i = x) = P(\boldsymbol\omega | (\alpha_0, \alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_x + 1, \dots \alpha_v))$. Consequently, the new expected distribution is:
$$\label{eq:pos_pred_dist}
\mathbb{E}[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol\alpha, t_i=x] = \left(
\frac{\alpha_0}{1 + \sum_{k=0}^v \alpha_k},
\frac{\alpha_1}{1 + \sum_{k=0}^v \alpha_k},
\dots,
\frac{\alpha_x + 1}{1 + \sum_{k=0}^v \alpha_k},
\dots,
\frac{\alpha_v}{1 + \sum_{k=0}^v \alpha_k}\right)$$
We call the probability vector in (\[eq:pos\_pred\_dist\]) reviewer $i$’s *posterior predictive distribution* regarding $\boldsymbol{\omega}$ because it provides the distribution of future outcomes given the observed data $t_i$. With this perspective, we regard the values $\alpha_0, \dots , \alpha_v$ as “pseudo-counts" from “pseudo-data", where each $\alpha_k$ can be interpreted as the number of times that the $\omega_{k}$-probability event has been observed before.
![Probability densities of Dirichlet distributions when $v=2$ for different parameter vectors. Left: $\boldsymbol\alpha = (1, 1, 1)$. Center: $\boldsymbol\alpha = (2, 1, 1)$. Right: $\boldsymbol\alpha = (2, 2, 2)$. []{data-label="fig:Dirichlet"}](dirichlet.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Throughout this paper, we assume that reviewers have common prior Dirichlet distributions and this fact is common knowledge, *i.e.*, the value of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ is initially the same for all reviewers. A practical interpretation of this assumption is that reviewers have common prior knowledge about the quality of the manuscript, *i.e.*, reviewers have a common expectation regarding the quality of arriving manuscripts.
By using Dirichlet distributions as priors, belief updating can be expressed as an updating of the parameters of the prior distribution[^4]. Furthermore, the assumption of common knowledge allows the center to estimate reviewers’ posterior distributions based solely on their reported reviews, a point which is explored by our proposed scoring method. Due to its attractive theoretical properties, the Dirichlet distribution has been used to model uncertainty in a variety of different scenarios, *e.g*, when experts are sharing a reward based on peer evaluations [@Carvalho:2012] and when experts are grouped based on their individual differences [@Navarro:2006].
Scoring Method
==============
In this section, we propose a scoring method to induce honest reporting of reviews. The proposed method is built on proper scoring rules [@Winkler:1968].
Proper Scoring Rules {#sec:scoring_rules}
--------------------
Consider an uncertain quantity with possible outcomes $o_0, \dots, o_v$, and a probability vector $\mathbf{z} = (z_0, \dots, z_v)$, where $z_k$ is the probability value associated with the occurrence of outcome $o_k$. A *scoring rule* $R(\mathbf{z}, e)$ is a function that provides a score for the assessment $\mathbf{z}$ upon observing the outcome $o_e$, for $e \in \{0, \dots, v\}$. A scoring rule is called *strictly proper* when an expert receives his maximum expected score if and only if his stated assessment $\mathbf{z}$ corresponds to his true assessment $\mathbf{q} = (q_0,\dots, q_v)$ [@Winkler:1968]. The *expected score* of $\mathbf{z}$ at $\mathbf{q}$ for a real-valued scoring rule $R(\mathbf{z}, e)$ is:
$$\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{q}} \left[ R(\mathbf{z}, e) \right] = \sum_{e=0}^v q_e\, R(\mathbf{z},e)$$
Proper scoring rules have been used as a tool to promote honest reporting in a variety of domains, *e.g.*, when sharing rewards amongst a set of experts based on peer evaluations [@Carvalho:2010; @Carvalho:2012], to incentivize experts to accurately estimate their own efforts to accomplish a task [@Bacon:2012], in prediction markets [@Hanson:2003], in weather forecasting [@Gneiting:2007], *etc*. Some of the best known strictly proper scoring rules, together with their scoring ranges, are:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{logarithmic: }& R(\textbf{z},e) = \log z_e \hspace{0.8in} (-\infty,0] \nonumber\\
\mbox{quadratic: } & R(\textbf{z},e) = 2z_e - \sum_{k=0}^v z_{k}^2 \hspace{0.46in} [-1,1]\label{eq:quad_scor_rul}\\
\mbox{spherical: } & R(\textbf{z},e) = \frac{z_e}{\sqrt{\sum_{k=0}^v z_{k}^2}} \hspace{0.63in} [0,1] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
All the above scoring rules are *symmetric*, *i.e.*, $R((z_0, \dots, z_v), e) = R((z_{\pi_0}, \dots, z_{\pi_v}), \pi_e)$, for all probability vectors $\mathbf{z} = (z_0, \dots, z_v)$, for all permutations $\pi$ on $v+1$ elements, and for all outcomes indexed by $e \in \{0, \dots, v\}$. We say that a scoring rule is *bounded* if $R(\mathbf{z}, e) \in \mathbb{R}$, for all probability vectors $\mathbf{z}$ and $e \in \{0, \dots, v\}$. For example, the logarithmic scoring rule is not bounded because it might return $-\infty$ whenever the probability vector $\mathbf{z}$ contains an element equal to zero, whereas both the quadratic and spherical scoring rules are always bounded. A well-known property of strictly proper scoring rules is that they are still strictly proper under positive affine transformations [@Gneiting:2007], *i.e.*, $\mbox{argmax}_{\mathbf{z}} \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{q}} \left[ \gamma R(\mathbf{z}, e) + \lambda\right] = \mbox{argmax}_{\mathbf{z}} \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{q}} \left[ R(\mathbf{z}, e)\right] = \mathbf{q}$, for a strictly proper scoring rule $R$, $\gamma > 0$, and $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$.
If $R(\mathbf{z}, e)$ is a strictly proper scoring rule, then a positive affine transformation of $R$, *i.e.*, $\gamma R(\mathbf{z}, e) + \lambda,$ for $\gamma > 0$ and $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$, is also strictly proper.
Review Scores {#sec:review_scores}
-------------
If we knew *a priori* reviewers’ honest reviews, we could then compare the honest reviews to the reported reviews and reward agreement. However, due to the subjective nature of the peer-review process, we are facing a situation where this objective truth is practically unknowable. Our solution is to induce honest reporting through pairwise comparisons of reported reviews. The first step towards computing each reviewer $i$’s review score is to estimate his posterior predictive distribution $\mathbb{E}[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol\alpha, t_i]$ shown in (\[eq:pos\_pred\_dist\]) based on his reported review $r_{i}$. Let $\mathbb{E}[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol\alpha, r_i] = (\mathbb{E}[\omega_0 | \boldsymbol\alpha, r_i], \dots,\mathbb{E}[\omega_v | \boldsymbol\alpha, r_i])$ be such an estimation, where:
$$\label{eq:est_post_pred_dist}
\mathbb{E}[\omega_k | \boldsymbol\alpha, r_i] = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\alpha_k +1}{1 + \sum_{x=0}^v \alpha_x} & \textrm{if $r_{i} = k$},\\
\frac{\alpha_k}{1+ \sum_{x=0}^v \alpha_x} & \textrm{otherwise}.\\
\end{array} \right.$$
Recall that the elements of reviewer $i$’s true posterior predictive distribution are defined as:
$$\mathbb{E}\left[\omega_{k} | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, t_{i}\right] = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\alpha_k +1}{1 + \sum_{x=0}^v \alpha_x} & \textrm{if $t_{i} = k$},\\
\frac{\alpha_k}{1+ \sum_{x=0}^v \alpha_x} & \textrm{otherwise}.\\
\end{array} \right.$$
Clearly, $\mathbb{E}\left[\omega_{k} | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, r_{i}\right] = \mathbb{E}\left[\omega_{k} | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, t_{i}\right] $ if and only if reviewer $i$ is reporting honestly, *i.e.*, when he reports $r_i = t_i$. The review score of reviewer $i$ is determined as follows:
$$\label{eq:truth_telling_score}
s_i = \sum_{j \neq i} ( \gamma R\left(\mathbb{E}\left[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, r_{i}\right], r_{j} \right) + \lambda)$$
where $\gamma$ and $\lambda$ are constants, for $\gamma > 0$ and $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$, and $R$ is a strictly proper scoring rule. Scoring rules require an observable outcome, or a “reality", in order to score an assessment. Intuitively, we consider each review reported by every reviewer other than reviewer $i$ as an observed outcome, *i.e.*, the evaluation score deserved by the manuscript, and then we score reviewer $i$’s *estimated posterior predictive distribution* in (\[eq:est\_post\_pred\_dist\]) as an assessment of that value.
Each reviewer $i \in N$ strictly maximizes his expected review score if and only if $r_{i} = t_{i}$.
Let $\mathbf{\Theta}_i = \mathbb{E}\left[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, t_{i}\right]$ and $\mathbf{\Phi}_i = \mathbb{E}\left[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, r_{i}\right]$. By the autonomy assumption, reviewers cannot affect their peers’ reviews. Hence, we can restrict ourselves to show that each reviewer $i \in N$ strictly maximizes $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Theta}_i} \left[\gamma R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i, r_j\right)+\lambda\right]$, for $j\neq i$, if and only if $r_i = t_i$.
**(If part)** Since $R$ is a strictly proper scoring rule, from Proposition 1 we have that:
$$\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{\mathbf{\Phi}_i} \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Theta}_i} \left[\gamma R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i, r_j \right) + \lambda\right] = \mathbf{\Theta}_i$$
If $r_{i} = t_{i}$, then by construction $\mathbf{\Phi}_i = \mathbf{\Theta}_i$, *i.e.*, the estimated posterior predictive distribution in (\[eq:est\_post\_pred\_dist\]) is equal to the true posterior predictive distribution in (\[eq:pos\_pred\_dist\]). Consequently, honest reporting strictly maximizes reviewers’ expected review scores.
**(Only-if part)**. Using a similar argument, given that $R$ is a strictly proper scoring rule, from Proposition 1 we have that:
$$\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{\mathbf{\Phi}_i} \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Theta}_i} \left[\gamma R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i, r_j \right) + \lambda\right] = \mathbf{\Theta}_i$$
By construction, $\mathbf{\Phi}_i = \mathbf{\Theta}_i $ if and only if $r_i = t_i$ (see equations (\[eq:pos\_pred\_dist\]) and (\[eq:est\_post\_pred\_dist\])). Thus, reviewers’ expected review scores are strictly maximized only when reviewers are honest.
Another way to interpret the above result is to imagine that each reviewer is betting on the review deserved by the manuscript. Since the most relevant information available to him is the observed signal, then the strategy that maximizes his expected review score is to bet on that signal, *i.e.*, to bet on his honest review. When this happens, the true posterior predictive distribution in (\[eq:pos\_pred\_dist\]) is equal to the estimated posterior predictive distribution in (\[eq:est\_post\_pred\_dist\]) and, consequently, the expected score resulting from a strictly proper scoring rule is strictly maximized when the expectation is taken with respect to the true posterior predictive distribution.
It is important to observe that by incentivizing honest reporting, the scoring function in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]) also incentivizes accuracy since honest reviews are draws from the distribution that represents the true quality of the manuscript. In other words, the center is indirectly observing these draws when reviewers report honestly. Consequently, due to the law of large numbers, the distribution of the reported reviews converges to the distribution that represents the true quality of the manuscript as the number of honestly reported reviews increases. Our experimental results in Section 7 show that there indeed exists a strong correlation between honesty and accuracy.
Different interpretations of the scoring method in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]) arises depending on the underlying strictly proper scoring rule and the hyperparameter $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$. In the following subsections, we discuss two different interpretations: 1) when $R$ is a symmetric and bounded strictly proper scoring rule and reviewers’ prior distributions are non-informative; and 2) when $R$ is a strictly proper scoring rule sensitive to distance.
Rewarding Agreement {#sec:agreement}
-------------------
Assume that reviewers’ prior distributions are non-informative, *i.e.*, all the elements making up the hyperparameter $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ have the same value. This happens when reviewers have no relevant prior knowledge about the quality of the manuscript. Consequently, the elements of reviewers’ true and estimated posterior predictive distributions can take on only two possible values (see equations (\[eq:pos\_pred\_dist\]) and (\[eq:est\_post\_pred\_dist\]) for $\alpha_0 = \alpha_1 = \dots = \alpha_v$ ).
Moreover, if $R$ is a symmetric scoring rule, then the term $ R\left(\mathbb{E}\left[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, r_{i}\right], r_{j} \right)$ in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]) can take on only two possible values because a permutation of elements with similar values does not change the score of a symmetric scoring rule. When $R$ is also strictly proper, it means that $ R\left(\mathbb{E}\left[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, r_{i}\right], r_{j} \right) = \delta_{max}$, when $r_i = r_j$, and $ R\left(\mathbb{E}\left[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, r_{i}\right], r_{j} \right) = \delta_{min}$, when $r_i \neq r_j$, where $\delta_{max} > \delta_{min}$. Consequently, each term of the summation in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]) can be written as:
$$\gamma R\left(\mathbb{E}\left[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, r_{i}\right], r_{j} \right) + \lambda = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\gamma \delta_{max} + \lambda & \textrm{if $r_{i} = r_{j}$},\\
\gamma \delta_{min} + \lambda & \textrm{otherwise}.\\
\end{array} \right.$$
When $R$ is also bounded, we can then set $\gamma = \frac{1}{\delta_{max} - \delta_{min}}$ and $\lambda = \frac{-\delta_{min}}{\delta_{max} - \delta_{min}}$, and the above values become, respectively, $1$ and $0$. Hence, the resulting review scores do not depend on parameters of the model. Moreover, we obtain an intuitive interpretation of the scoring method in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]): whenever two reported reviews are equal to each other, the underlying reviewers are rewarded by one payoff unit. Thus, in practice, our scoring method works by simply comparing reported reviews and rewarding agreements whenever $R$ is a symmetric and bounded strictly proper scoring rule and reviewers have no informative prior knowledge about the quality of the manuscript.
Another interesting point is that the center can reward different agreements in different ways, *i.e.*, reviewers are not necessarily equally valued. For example, if the center knows *a priori* that a particular reviewer $j$ is reliable (respectively, unreliable), then she can increase (respectively, decrease) the reward of reviewers whose reviews are in agreement with reviewer $j$’s reported review. Formally, this means that for different reviewers $i$ and $j$, the center can use different values for $\gamma$ and $\lambda$ in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]). Proposition 2 is not affected by this as long as $\gamma > 0$, $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$, and their values are independent of the reported reviews. Hence, by having a few reliable reviewers, this approach might help to eliminate the hypothetical scenario where a set of reviewers learn over time to report similar reviews. A similar idea was proposed by [@Jurca:2009] to prevent collusions in reputation systems.
Strictly Proper Scoring Rules Sensitive to Distance {#subsec:spsr_distance}
---------------------------------------------------
Pairwise comparisons, as defined in the previous subsection, might work well for small values of $v$, the best evaluation score that the manuscript can receive, but it can be too restrictive and, to some degree, unfair when the best evaluation score is high. For example, when $v = 10$ and the review used as the observed outcome is also equal to $10$, a reported review equal to $9$ seems to be more accurate than a reported review equal to $1$. One effective way to deal with these issues is by using strictly proper scoring rules in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]) that are *sensitive to distance*.
Using the notation of Section 4.1, recall that $\mathbf{z} = (z_0,\dots, z_v)$ is some reported probability distribution. Given that the outcomes are ordered, we denote the cumulative probabilities by capital letter: ${Z}_k = \sum_{j\leq k} z_j$. We first define the notion of distance between two probability vectors as proposed by [@Holstein:1970]. We say that a probability vector $\mathbf{z}^\prime$ is more distant from the $j$th outcome than a probability vector $\mathbf{z} \neq \mathbf{z}^\prime$ if:
$$\begin{aligned}
{Z}_k^\prime \geq {Z}_k, &\mbox{ for } k = 0, \dots, j-1\nonumber\\
{Z}_k^\prime \leq {Z}_k, &\mbox{ for } k = j, \dots, v \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Intuitively, the above definition means that $\mathbf{z}$ can be obtained from $\mathbf{z}^\prime$ by successively moving probability mass towards the $j$th outcome from other outcomes [@Holstein:1970]. A scoring rule $R$ is said to be *sensitive to distance* if $R(\mathbf{z}, j) > R(\mathbf{z}^\prime, j)$ whenever $\mathbf{z}^\prime$ is more distant from $\mathbf{z}$ for all $j$. [@Epstein:1969] introduced the *ranked probability score* (RPS), a strictly proper scoring rule that is sensitive to distance. Using the formulation of Epstein’s result proposed by [@Murphy:1971], we have for a probability vector $\mathbf{z}$ and an observed outcome $j \in \{0, \dots, v\}$:
$$\label{eq:RPS}
RPS(\mathbf{z}, j) = - \sum_{k=0}^{j-1} {Z}_k^2 - \sum_{k=j}^{v} (1-{Z}_k)^2$$
Figure \[fig:sco\_rul\_dist\] illustrates the scores returned by (\[eq:RPS\]) for different reported reviews and values for $j$ when reviewers’ prior distributions are non-informative. When using RPS as the strictly proper scoring rule in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]), reviewers are rewarded based on how close their reported reviews are to the reviews taken as observed outcomes. For example, when the review used as the observed outcome is equal to $0$ (see the dotted line with squares in Figure \[fig:sco\_rul\_dist\]), the returned score monotonically decreases as the reported review increases. Since RPS is strictly proper, Proposition 2 is still valid for any hyperparameter $\boldsymbol\alpha$, *i.e.*, each reviewer strictly maximizes his expected review score by reporting honestly. The scoring range of RPS is $[-v, 0]$. Hence, review scores are always non-negative when using $\gamma = 1$ and $\lambda = v$ in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]).
![Scores returned by $R\left(\mathbb{E}\left[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, r_{i}\right], j \right)$ for different reported reviews when $v = 4$, $R$ is the RPS rule, and $\boldsymbol\alpha=(1,1,1,1,1)$. Each line represents a different value for $j$ (observed outcome).[]{data-label="fig:sco_rul_dist"}](distance.eps)
Numerical Example {#subsec:num_example}
-----------------
Consider four reviewers ($n = 4$) and the best evaluation score being equal to four ($v = 4$). Suppose that reviewers have non-informative Dirichlet priors with $\boldsymbol\alpha = (1,1,1,1,1)$, and that reviewers 1, 2, 3, and 4 report, respectively, ${r}_{1} = 0$, ${r}_{2} = 0$, $r_{3} = 1$, and $r_{4} = 4$. From (\[eq:est\_post\_pred\_dist\]), the resulting estimated posterior predictive distributions are, respectively, $\mathbb{E}[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol\alpha, r_1=0] = \left(\frac{2}{6}, \frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{6} \right)$, $\mathbb{E}[\boldsymbol\omega| \boldsymbol\alpha, r_2=0] = \left(\frac{2}{6}, \frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{6} \right)$, $\mathbb{E}[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol\alpha, r_3=1] = \left(\frac{1}{6}, \frac{2}{6}, \frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{6} \right)$, and $\mathbb{E}[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol\alpha, r_4=4] = \left(\frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{6}, \frac{1}{6}, \frac{2}{6} \right)$. In what follows, we illustrate the scores returned by (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]) when using a symmetric and bounded strictly proper scoring rule and when using RPS.
### Rewarding Agreements
Assume that $R$ in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]) is the quadratic scoring rule shown in (\[eq:quad\_scor\_rul\]), which in turn is symmetric, bounded, and strictly proper. Consequently, as discussed in Section 4.3, the term $\gamma R\left(\mathbb{E}[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol\alpha, r_i], r_j \right) + \lambda$ in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]) can take on only two values:
$$\begin{array}{ll}
\gamma \left( \frac{4}{v+2} - \left(\frac{2}{v+2}\right)^2 - \sum_{e=0}^{v-1}\left(\frac{1}{v+2}\right)^2\right) + \lambda & \textrm{if $r_{i} = r_{j}$},\\
\gamma \left( \frac{2}{v+2} - \left(\frac{2}{v+2}\right)^2 - \sum_{e=0}^{v-1}\left(\frac{1}{v+2}\right)^2\right) + \lambda & \textrm{otherwise}.\\
\end{array}
$$
Hence, by setting $\gamma = \frac{1}{\delta_{max} - \delta_{min}} = \frac{v+2}{2}$ and $\lambda = \frac{-\delta_{min}}{\delta_{max} - \delta_{min}} = \frac{-v}{2v+4}$, the above values are equal to, respectively, $1$ and $0$. Using the scoring method in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]), we obtain the following review scores: $s_{1} = s_{2} = 1$ and $s_{3} = s_{4} = 0$. That is, the review scores received by reviewers $1$ and $2$ are similar due to the fact that $r_1 = r_2$. Reviewer $3$ and $4$’s review scores are equal to $0$ because there is no match between their reported reviews and others’ reported reviews.
### Taking Distance into Account
Now, assume that $R$ in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]) is the RPS rule shown in (\[eq:RPS\]). In order to ensure non-negative review scores, let $\gamma = 1$ and $\lambda = v = 4$ . Using the scoring method in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]), we obtain the following review scores: $s_1 = s_2 = (-0.8333\gamma + \lambda) + (-0.5\gamma + \lambda) + (-1.5\gamma + \lambda) = 9.1667, s_{3} = 2\cdot(-1.0833\gamma + \lambda) + (-1.4167\gamma + \lambda) = 8.4167$, and $s_{4} = 2\cdot(-1.5\gamma + \lambda) + (-0.8333\gamma + \lambda) = 8.1667$. The review score of reviewer $4$ is the lowest because his reported review is the most different review, *i.e.*, it has the largest distance between it and all of the other reviews.
Multiple Criteria
=================
In our basic model, reviewers observe only one signal from the distribution that represents the quality of the manuscript. However, manuscripts are often evaluated under multiple criteria, *e.g.*, relevance, clarity, originality, *etc*., meaning that in practice reviewers might observe multiple signals and report multiple evaluation scores. Under the assumption that these signals are independent, each reported evaluation score can be scored individually using the same scoring method proposed in the previous section. Clearly, Proposition 2 is still valid, *i.e.*, honest reporting still strictly maximizes reviewers’ expected review scores.
The lack of relationship between different criteria is not always a reasonable assumption. A modeling choice that takes the relationship between observed signals into account, which is also consistent with our basic model, is to assume that the quality of the manuscript is still represented by a multinomial distribution, but now reviewers may observe several signals from that distribution. Formally, let $\rho \in \mathbb{N}^+$ be the number of draws from the distribution that represents the quality of the manuscript, where each signal represents an evaluation score related to a criterion. Instead of a single number, each reviewer $i$’s private information is now a vector: $\mathbf{t}_i = \left(t_{i, 1}, \dots, t_{i, \rho}\right)$, where $t_{i,k} \in \{0, \dots, v\}$, for $k \in \{1,\dots, \rho\}$. The basic assumptions (autonomy, risk neutrality, Dirichlet priors, and rationality) are still the same. For ease of exposition, we denote reviewer $i$’s true posterior predictive distribution in this section by $\mathbf{\Theta}_i^{(\rho)} = \mathbb{E}\left[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \mathbf{t}_{i}\right]$. Under this new model, each reviewer $i$’s posterior predictive distribution is now defined as:
$$\label{eq:pos_pred_dist_mult_obs}
\mathbf{\Theta}_i^{(\rho)} = \left(\frac{\alpha_0 + \sum_{k = 1}^\rho H(0, t_{i ,k})}
{\rho+\sum_{x=0}^v \alpha_x},
\frac{\alpha_1 + \sum_{k = 1}^\rho H(1, t_{i ,k})}
{\rho+\sum_{x=0}^v \alpha_x}, \dots,
\frac{\alpha_v + \sum_{k = 1}^\rho H(v, t_{i, k})}
{\rho+\sum_{x=0}^v \alpha_x}\right)$$
where $H(x, y)$ is an indicator function:
$$H(x, y) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1 & \textrm{if $x = y$,}\\
0 & \textrm{otherwise}.\\
\end{array} \right.$$
Assuming that each reported review is a vector of $\rho$ evaluations scores, *i.e.*, $\mathbf{r}_i = \left(r_{i, 1}, \dots, r_{i, \rho}\right)$, where $r_{i,k} \in \{0, \dots, v\}$, for $i \in N$ and $k \in \{1,\dots, \rho\}$, the center estimates each reviewer $i$’s posterior predictive distribution by applying Bayes’ rule to the common prior. The resulting estimated posterior predictive distribution $\mathbb{E}\left[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \mathbf{r}_{i}\right]$, referred to as $\mathbf{\Phi}_{i}^{(\rho)}$ for ease of exposition, is:
$$\label{eq:est_pos_pred_dist_mult_obs}
\mathbf{\Phi}_{i}^{(\rho)} = \left(\frac{\alpha_0 + \sum_{k = 1}^\rho H(0, r_{i ,k})}
{\rho+\sum_{x=0}^v \alpha_x},
\frac{\alpha_1 + \sum_{k = 1}^\rho H(1, r_{i ,k})}
{\rho+\sum_{x=0}^v \alpha_x}, \dots,
\frac{\alpha_v + \sum_{k = 1}^\rho H(v, r_{i, k})}
{\rho+\sum_{x=0}^v \alpha_x}\right)$$
Thereafter, the center rewards $\mathbf{\Phi}_{i}^{(\rho)}$ by using a strictly proper scoring rule $R$ and other reviewers’ reported reviews as observed outcomes:
$$\label{eq:truth_telling_score_mult_obs}
s_i = \sum_{j \neq i} \left( \gamma R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_{i}^{(\rho)}, G(\mathbf{r}_{j}) \right) + \lambda \right)$$
where $G$ is some function used by the center to summarize each reviewer $j$’s reported review in a single number, and whose image is equal to the set $\{0, \dots, v\}$. For example, $G$ can be a function that returns the median or the mode of the reported evaluation scores. Honest reporting, *i.e.*, $\mathbf{r}_i = \mathbf{t}_i$, maximizes reviewers’ expected review scores under this setting.
When observing and reporting multiple signals, each reviewer $i \in N$ maximizes his expected review score when $\mathbf{r}_i = \mathbf{t}_i$.
Due to the autonomy assumption, we restrict ourselves to show that each reviewer $i \in N$ maximizes $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Theta}_i^{(\rho)}} \left[\gamma R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)}, G(\mathbf{r}_{j})\right)+\lambda\right]$, for $j\neq i$, when $\mathbf{r}_i = \mathbf{t}_i$. Given that $R$ is a strictly proper scoring rule, from Proposition 1 we have that:
$$\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)}} \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Theta}_i^{(\rho)}} \left[\gamma R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)}, G(\mathbf{r}_{j}) \right) + \lambda\right] = \mathbf{\Theta}_i^{(\rho)}$$
When $\mathbf{r}_i = \mathbf{t}_i$, we have by construction that $\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)} = \mathbf{\Theta}_i^{(\rho)} $ (see equations (\[eq:pos\_pred\_dist\_mult\_obs\]) and (\[eq:est\_pos\_pred\_dist\_mult\_obs\])). Thus, reviewers’ expected review scores are maximized when reviewers report honestly.
When observing and reporting multiple evaluation scores, a reviewer can weakly maximize his expected review score by reporting a review different than his true review as long as the estimated posterior predictive distributions are the same. For example, when reviewer $i$ reports $\mathbf{r}_i = (1,2,3)$, the resulting estimated posterior predictive distribution is the same as when he reports $\mathbf{r}_i = (3,1,2)$, and, consequently, reviewer $i$ receives the same review score in both cases. This implies that the scoring method in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\_mult\_obs\]) is more suitable to a peer-review process where all criteria are equally weighted since honest reporting weakly maximizes expected review scores.
Summarizing Signals when Prior Distributions are Non-Informative
----------------------------------------------------------------
When reviewers report multiple evaluation scores, the intuitive interpretation of review scores as rewards for agreements that arises when using symmetric and bounded strictly proper scoring rules (see Section 4.3) is lost because the elements of the estimated posterior predictive distribution in (\[eq:est\_pos\_pred\_dist\_mult\_obs\]) can take on more than two different values.
A different approach that preserves the aforementioned intuitive interpretation when reviewers’ prior distributions are non-informative is to ask the reviewers to summarize their observed signals into a single value before reporting it, instead of the center doing it on their behalf. Hence, each reviewer $i$ is now reporting honestly when $r_i = G(\mathbf{t}_i)$, where $G$ is some function suggested by the center whose image is equal to the set $\{0, \dots, v\}$. This new model can be interpreted as if the reviewers were reviewing the manuscript under several criteria and reporting the manuscript’s overall evaluation score by reporting the value $G(\mathbf{t}_i)$.
Since reviewers are reporting only one value, we can use the original scoring method in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]) to promote honest reporting. We prove below that for any symmetric and bounded strictly proper scoring rule, honest reporting strictly maximizes reviewers’ expected review scores under the scoring method in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]) if and only if $G$ is the mode of the observed signals, *i.e.*, when $G(\mathbf{t}_i) = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{x \in \{0, \dots, v\}} \sum_{k = 1}^{\rho} H(x, t_{i,k})$. Ties between observed signals are broken randomly.
When observing multiple signals and reporting $r_i = G(\mathbf{t}_i)$, each reviewer $i \in N$ with non-informative prior strictly maximizes his expected review score under the scoring method in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]), for a symmetric and bounded strictly proper scoring rule $R$, if and only if $r_i = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{x \in \{0, \dots, v\}} \sum_{k = 1}^{\rho} H(x, t_{i,k})$.
Recall that since each reviewer $i \in N$ observes multiple signals, his true posterior predictive distribution is equal to $\mathbb{E}\left[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \mathbf{t}_{i}\right] = \mathbf{\Theta}_{i}^{(\rho)} = (\theta_0, \theta_1, \dots, \theta_v)$ as shown in (\[eq:pos\_pred\_dist\_mult\_obs\]). Due to Proposition 1 and since reviewers cannot affect their peers’ reviews because of the autonomy assumption, we restrict ourselves to show that each reviewer $i \in N$ maximizes $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Theta}_i^{(\rho)}} \left[ R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)}, r_j\right)\right]$, for $j\neq i$, if and only if $r_i = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{x \in \{0, \dots, v\}} \sum_{k = 1}^{\rho} H(x, t_{i,k})$, where $\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)} = \mathbb{E}\left[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, r_{i} = G(\mathbf{t}_i)\right]$.
Let $z \in \{0, \dots, v\}$ be the most common signal observed by reviewer $i$. Hence, reviewer $i$’s subjective probability associated with $z$ is greater than his subjective probability associated with any other signal $y \in \{0, \dots, v\}$, *i.e.*, $\theta_{i, z} > \theta_{i, y}$.
**(If part)** Given that $R$ is a symmetric and strictly proper scoring rule and that each reviewer is reporting only one evaluation score, the resulting score from $ R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)}, r_j\right)$ can take on only two possible values: $\delta_{max}$, if $r_i = r_j$, and $\delta_{min}$ otherwise (see discussion in Section 4.3). When reporting $r_i = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{x \in \{0, \dots, v\}} \sum_{k = 1}^{\rho} H(x, t_{i,k}) = z$, reviewer $i$’s expected review score is $\theta_{i, z} \delta_{max} + \sum_{y \neq z}\theta_{i, y}\delta_{min}$. Given that $\theta_{i, z} > \theta_{i, y},$ for any $y \neq z$, and $\delta_{max} > \delta_{min}$, this expected review score is maximized. Thus, reporting $r_i = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{x \in \{0, \dots, v\}} \sum_{k = 1}^{\rho} H(x, t_{i,k}) = z$ maximizes reviewer $i$’s expected review score.
**(Only-if part)** Recall that all the elements making up the hyperparameter $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ have the same value because reviewers’ prior distributions are non-informative. Let $\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)} = (\phi_{i,0}, \dots, \phi_{i,v})$ be reviewer $i$’s estimated posterior predictive distribution computed according to the original scoring method in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]) when reviewer $i$ is reporting $r_i = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{x \in \{0, \dots, v\}} \sum_{k = 1}^{\rho} H(x, t_{i,k}) = z$, *i.e.*:
$$\phi_{i,k} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\alpha_k +1}{1 + \sum_{x=0}^v \alpha_x} = \frac{\alpha_k +1}{(v+1)\cdot\alpha_k +1} & \textrm{if $k = z$},\\
\frac{\alpha_k}{1+ \sum_{x=0}^v \alpha_x} = \frac{\alpha_k}{(v+1)\cdot\alpha_k +1} & \textrm{otherwise}.\\
\end{array} \right.$$
For contradiction’s sake, suppose that reviewer $i$ maximizes his expected review score by misreporting his review and reporting $r_i = y \neq z$. Let $\tilde{\mathbf{\Phi}}_i^{(1)} = (\tilde{\phi}_{i,0}, \dots, \tilde{\phi}_{i,v})$ be reviewer $i$’s estimated posterior predictive distribution when he is misreporting his review, *i.e.*:
$$\tilde{\phi}_{i,k} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\alpha_k +1}{1 + \sum_{x=0}^v \alpha_x} = \frac{\alpha_k +1}{(v+1)\cdot\alpha_k +1} & \textrm{if $k = y$},\\
\frac{\alpha_k}{1+ \sum_{x=0}^v \alpha_x} = \frac{\alpha_k }{(v+1)\cdot\alpha_k +1} & \textrm{otherwise}.\\
\end{array} \right.$$
As discussed in Section 4.3, the term $R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)}, r_j \right)$ can take on only two possible values whenever $R$ is a symmetric scoring rule. Consequently, $R\left(\tilde{\mathbf{\Phi}}_i^{(1)}, k\right) = R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)}, k\right)$ for $k \neq z, y$. A consequence of our assumption that reviewer $i$ maximizes his expected review score by misreporting his review is that $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Theta}_i^{(\rho)}} \left[R\left(\tilde{\mathbf{\Phi}}_i^{(1)}, r_j\right)\right] \geq
\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Theta}_i^{(\rho)}} \left[R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)}, r_j\right)\right]$. Assuming that $R$ is a symmetric and bounded proper scoring rule, this inequality becomes:
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k = 0}^v \theta_{i, k} R\left(\tilde{\mathbf{\Phi}}_i^{(1)}, k\right)
&\geq
\sum_{k = 0}^v \theta_{i, k} R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)}, k\right) & \implies \label{eq:prop_3}\\
\theta_{i, z} R\left(\tilde{\mathbf{\Phi}}_i^{(1)}, z\right) + \theta_{i, y} R\left(\tilde{\mathbf{\Phi}}_i^{(1)}, y\right)
&\geq
\theta_{i, z} R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)}, z\right) + \theta_{i, y}R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)}, y\right) & \implies \nonumber\\
\theta_{i, y}
&\geq
\theta_{i, z} \left(\frac{ R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)}, z\right) - R\left(\tilde{\mathbf{\Phi}}_i^{(1)}, z\right)} {R\left(\tilde{\mathbf{\Phi}}_i^{(1)}, y\right) - R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)}, y\right)} \right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The second line follows from the fact that $R\left(\tilde{\mathbf{\Phi}}_i^{(1)}, k\right) = R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)}, k\right)$ for $k \neq z, y$. Regarding the last line, we have by construction that $R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)}, z\right) = R\left(\tilde{\mathbf{\Phi}}_i^{(1)}, y\right) = \delta_{max}$, and $R\left(\tilde{\mathbf{\Phi}}_i^{(1)}, z\right) = R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)}, y\right) = \delta_{min}$. Consequently, we obtain that $\theta_{i, y} \geq \theta_{i, z}$. As we stated before, since $z$ is the most common signal observed by reviewer $i$, then $\theta_{i, z} > \theta_{i, y}$. Thus, we have a contradiction. So, $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Theta}_i^{(\rho)}}\left[R\left(\tilde{\mathbf{\Phi}}_i^{(1)}, r_j\right)\right] < \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Theta}_i^{(\rho)}} \left[R\left( \mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(1)}, r_j\right) \right]$, *i.e.*, reviewer $i$ maximizes his expected review score only if he reports $r_i = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{x \in \{0, \dots, v\}} \sum_{k = 1}^{\rho} H(x, t_{i,k}) = z$.
In other words, the above proposition says that each reviewer should report the evaluation score most likely to be deserved by the manuscript when their prior distributions are non-informative and they are rewarded according to the scoring method in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]). Any other evaluation score has a lower associated subjective probability and, consequently, reporting it results in a lower expected review score. To summarize, Proposition 4 implies that the scoring method proposed in (\[eq:truth\_telling\_score\]) induces honest reporting by rewarding agreements whenever reviewers’ prior distributions are non-informative and the center is interested in the mode of each reviewer’s observed signals. It is noteworthy that Proposition 4 does not assume that the center knows *a priori* the number of observed signals ${\rho}$, thus providing more flexibility for practical applications of our method.
Finding a Consensual Review
===========================
After reviewers report their reviews and receive their review scores, there is still the question of how the center will use the reported reviews in making a suitable decision. Since reviewers are not always in agreement, belief aggregation methods must be used to combine the reported reviews into a single representative review. The traditional average method is not necessarily the best approach since unreliable reviewers might have a big impact on the aggregate review. Moreover, a consensual review is desirable because it represents a review that is acceptable by all.
In this section, we propose an adaptation of a classical mathematical method to find a consensual review. Intuitively, it works as if reviewers were constantly updating their reviews in order to aggregate knowledge from others. The scoring concepts introduced in previous sections are incorporated by the reviewers when updating their reviews. In what follows, for the sake of generality, we assume that reviewers evaluate the manuscript under $\rho \in \mathbb{N}^+$ criteria, *i.e.*, each reviewer $i$ observes $\rho$ signals from the underlying distribution that represents the quality of the manuscript and report a vector $\mathbf{r}_i = (r_{i,1}, \dots, r_{i,\rho})$ of evaluation scores, where $r_{i,k} \in \{0, \dots, v\}$ for all $k$. The center then estimates reviewers $i$’s posterior predictive distribution $\mathbb{E}\left[\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \mathbf{r}_{i}\right]$, referred to as $\mathbf{\Phi}_{i}^{(\rho)}$ for ease of exposition, as in (\[eq:est\_pos\_pred\_dist\_mult\_obs\]). We relax our basic model by allowing the evaluation scores in the aggregate review to take on any real value between $0$ and the best evaluation score $v$.
DeGroot’s Model
---------------
[@DeGroot:1974] proposed a model that describes how a group might reach a consensus by pooling their individual opinions. When applying this model to a peer-review setting, each reviewer $i$ is first informed of others’ reported reviews. In order to accommodate the information and expertise of the rest of the group, reviewer $i$ then updates his own review as follows:
$$\mathbf{r}_i^{(1)} = \sum_{j=1}^n w_{i, j } \mathbf{r}_j$$
where $w_{i,j}$ is a weight that reviewer $i$ assigns to reviewer $j$’s reported review when he carries out this update. It is assumed that $w_{i,j} \geq 0$, for every reviewer $i$ and $j$, and $\sum_{j=1}^n w_{i,j} = 1$. In this way, each updated review takes the form of a linear combination of reported reviews, also known as a *linear opinion pool*. The weights must be chosen on the basis of the relative importance that reviewers assign to their peers’ reviews. The whole updating process can be written in a more general form using matrix notation: $\mathbf{R}^{(1)} = \mathbf{W}\mathbf{R}^{(0)}$, where:
$$\mathbf{W} = \left[\begin{array}{cccc}
w_{1,1} & w_{1, 2} & \cdots & w_{1, n} \\
w_{2,1} & w_{2, 2} & \cdots & w_{2, n} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
w_{n,1} & w_{n, 2} & \cdots & w_{n, n} \\
\end{array}
\right] \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\mathbf{R}^{(0)}
=
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{r}_{1} \\
\mathbf{r}_{2} \\
\vdots\\
\mathbf{r}_{n} \\
\end{array}
\right]
=
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
r_{1,1} & r_{1, 2} & \cdots & r_{1,\rho} \\
r_{2,1} & r_{2, 2} & \cdots & r_{2, \rho} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
r_{n,1} & r_{n, 2} & \cdots & r_{n, \rho} \\
\end{array}
\right]$$
Since all the original reviews have changed, the reviewers might wish to update their new reviews in the same way as they did before. If there is no basis for the reviewers to change their assigned weights, the whole updating process after $t$ revisions can then be represented as follows:
$$\label{eq:DeGroot_consensus}
\mathbf{R}^{(t)} = \mathbf{W}\mathbf{R}^{(t-1)} = \mathbf{W}^{t}\mathbf{R}^{(0)}$$
Let $\mathbf{r}^{(t)}_i = \left(r^{(t)}_{i,1}, \dots, r^{(t)}_{i,\rho}\right)$ be reviewer $i$’s review after $t$ revisions, *i.e.*, it denotes the $i$th row of the matrix $\mathbf{R}^{(t)}$. We say that a *consensus* is reached if and only if $\mathbf{r}^{(t)}_i = \mathbf{r}^{(t)}_j$, for every reviewer $i$ and $j$, when $t \rightarrow \infty$.
Review Scores as Weights
------------------------
The original method proposed by [@DeGroot:1974] does not encourage honesty in a sense that reviewers can assign weights to their peers’ reviews however they wish so as long as the weights are consistent with the construction previously defined. Furthermore, it requires the disclosure of reported reviews to the whole group when reviewers are weighting others’ reviews, a fact which might be troublesome when the reviews are of a sensitive nature.
A possible way to circumvent the aforementioned problems is to derive weights from the original reported reviews by taking into account review scores. In particular, we assume the weight that a reviewer assigns to a peer’s review is directly related to how close their estimated posterior predictive distributions are, where closeness is defined by an underlying proper scoring rule. We provide behavioral foundations for such an assumption in the following subsection. Formally, the weight that reviewer $i$ assigns to reviewer $j$’s reported review is computed as follows:
$$\label{eq:consensus_weight}
w_{i, j} = \frac{\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)}} \left[ \gamma R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_j^{(\rho)}, e\right) + \lambda \right] }{ \sum_{j=1}^n \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)}} \left[ \gamma R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}^{(\rho)}_j, e\right) + \lambda \right]}$$
that is, the weight $w_{i, j}$ is proportional to the expected review score that reviewer $i$ would receive if he had reported the review reported by reviewer $j$, where the expectation is taken with respect to reviewer $i$’s estimated posterior predictive distribution. Consequently, the weight that each reviewer indirectly assigns to his own review is always the highest because $R$ is a strictly proper scoring rule, *i.e.*, $\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{\mathbf{\Phi}_j^{(\rho)}} \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)}} \left[ \gamma R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_j^{(\rho)}, e\right) + \lambda \right] = \mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)}$. We assume that $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)}} \left[ \gamma R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_j^{(\rho)}, e\right) + \lambda \right] > 0$, for every reviewer $i$ and $j$. As long as $R$ is bounded, this assumption can be met by appropriately setting the value of $\lambda$. Consequently, $0 < w_{i, j} <1$, for every $i, j \in N$. Moreover, $\sum_{j=1}^n w_{i, j} =1$ because the denominator of the fraction in (\[eq:consensus\_weight\]) normalizes the weights so they sum to one.
In the interest of reaching a consensus, DeGroot’s method in (\[eq:DeGroot\_consensus\]) is applied to the original reported reviews using the weights as defined in (\[eq:consensus\_weight\]). We show that a consensus is always reached under this proposed method whenever the review scores are positive.
If $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)}} \left[ \gamma R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_j^{(\rho)}, e\right) + \lambda \right] > 0$, for every reviewer $i, j \in N$, then $\mathbf{r}_{i}^{(t)} = \mathbf{r}_{j}^{(t)}$ when $t \rightarrow \infty$.
Due to the assumption that $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)}} \left[ \gamma R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_j^{(\rho)}, e\right) + \lambda \right] > 0$, for every reviewer $i$ and $j$, all the elements of the matrix $\mathbf{W}$ in (\[eq:DeGroot\_consensus\]) are strictly greater than zero and strictly less than one. Moreover, the sum of the elements in any row is equal to one. Consequently, $W$ can be regarded as a $n\times n$ stochastic matrix, or a one-step transition probability matrix of a Markov chain with $n$ states and stationary probabilities. Furthermore, the underlying Markov chain is aperiodic and irreducible. Therefore, a standard limit theorem of Markov chains applies in this setting, namely given an aperiodic and irreducible Markov chain with transition probability matrix $\mathbf{W}$, every row of the matrix $ \mathbf{W}^{t}$ converges to the same probability vector when $t \rightarrow\infty$ [@Ross:1995].
Recall that $\mathbf{r}_i^{(t)} = \sum_{j=1}^n w_{i,j}\mathbf{r}_j^{(t-1)} = \sum_{j=1}^n w_{i,j}\sum_{k=1}^n w_{j,k} \mathbf{r}_k^{(t-2)} = \dots = \sum_{j=1}^n \beta_j\mathbf{r}_j^{(0)}$, where $\mathbf{\beta} = (\beta_1, \beta_2, \dots, \beta_n)$ is a probability vector that incorporates all the previous weights. This equality implies that the consensual review can be represented as an instance of the linear opinion pool. Hence, an interpretation of the proposed method is that reviewers reach a consensus regarding the weights in (\[eq:DeGroot\_consensus\]). When $\mathbf{\beta} = (1/n, 1/n, \dots, 1/n)$ in the above equality, the underlying linear opinion pool becomes the average of the reported evaluation scores. A drawback with an averaging approach is that it does not take into account the scoring concepts introduced in the previous sections, a fact which might favor unreliable reviewers. Moreover, disparate reviews might have a big impact on the resulting aggregate review. On the other hand, under our approach to find $\mathbf{\beta}$, reviewers weight down reviews far from their own reviews, which implies that the proposed method might be less influenced by disparate reviews. A numerical example in subsection 6.4 illustrates this point. The experimental results discussed in Section 7 show that our method to find a consensual review is consistently more accurate than the traditional average method.
Behavioral Foundation
---------------------
The major assumption regarding our method for finding a consensual review is that reviewers assign weights according to (\[eq:consensus\_weight\]). An interesting interpretation of (\[eq:consensus\_weight\]) arises when the proper scoring rule $R$ is *effective* with respect to a metric $M$. Formally, given a metric $M$ that assigns a real number to any pair of probability vectors, which can be seen as the shortest distance between the two probability vectors, we say that a scoring rule $R$ is effective with respect to $M$ if the following relation holds for all probability vectors $\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)}$, $\mathbf{\Phi}_j^{(\rho)}$, and $\mathbf{\Phi}_k^{(\rho)}$ [@Friedman:1983]:
$$M\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)}, \mathbf{\Phi}_j^{(\rho)}\right) < M\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)}, \mathbf{\Phi}_k^{(\rho)}\right)
\iff
\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)}} \left[\gamma R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_j^{(\rho)}, e\right) + \lambda \right] > \mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{\Phi}_i^{(\rho)}} \left[\gamma R\left(\mathbf{\Phi}_k^{(\rho)}, e\right) + \lambda \right]$$
Thus, when $R$ is effective with respect to a metric $M$, the higher the weight one reviewer assigns to a peer’s review in (\[eq:consensus\_weight\]), the closer their estimated posterior predictive distributions are according to the metric $M$. In other words, when using effective scoring rules, reviewers naturally prefer reviews close to their own reported reviews, and the weight that each reviewer assigns to his own review is always the highest one. Hence, in spirit, the resulting learning model in (\[eq:DeGroot\_consensus\]) can be seen as a model of *anchoring* [@Tversky:1974] in a sense that the review of a reviewer is an “anchor", and subsequent updates are biased towards reviews close to the anchor.
[@Friedman:1983] discussed some examples of effective scoring rules. For example, the quadratic scoring rule in (\[eq:quad\_scor\_rul\]) is effective with respect to the root-mean-square deviation, the spherical scoring rule is effective with respect to a renormalized $L_2$-metric, whereas the logarithmic scoring rule is not effective with respect to any metric [@Nau:1985].
Numerical Example {#numerical-example}
-----------------
Consider a peer-review process where the best evaluation score is four ($v=4$), three reviewers $(n=3)$ observe three signals ($\rho = 3$), and they report the following reviews: $\mathbf{r}_{1} = (0, 1, 3)$, $\mathbf{r}_{2} = (0, 2, 3)$, and $\mathbf{r}_3 = (4, 4, 4)$. Consequently, the matrix $\mathbf{R}^{(0)}$ in (\[eq:DeGroot\_consensus\]) is:
$$\mathbf{R}^{(0)} = \left[\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 1 & 3\\
0 & 2 & 3 \\
4 & 4 & 4 \\
\end{array}
\right]$$
Consider the hyperparameter $\boldsymbol\alpha = (1,1,1,1,1)$. Hence, the estimated posterior predictive distributions are $\mathbf{\Phi}_1^{(3)} = (2/8, 2/8, 1/8, 2/8, 1/8)$, $\mathbf{\Phi}_2^{(3)} = (2/8, 1/8, 2/8, 2/8, 1/8)$, and $\mathbf{\Phi}_3^{(3)} = (1/8, 1/8, 1/8, 1/8, 4/8)$. Assume that $R$ in (\[eq:consensus\_weight\]) is the quadratic scoring rule in (\[eq:quad\_scor\_rul\]), and let $\gamma = 1$ and $\lambda = 1$ in order for the resulting expected values in (\[eq:consensus\_weight\]) to be always positive. We obtain:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{W} = \left[\begin{array}{ccc}
0.3545 & 0.3455 & 0.3000 \\
0.3455 & 0.3545 & 0.3000 \\
0.3158 & 0.3158 & 0.3684 \\
\end{array}
\right]\end{aligned}$$
Focusing on the main diagonal of $\mathbf{W}$, we notice that each reviewer always assigns the highest weight to his own review. From the first row of $\mathbf{W}$, we can see that reviewer $1$ assigns a high weight to his review and to reviewer $2$’s review, and a lower weight to reviewer $3$’s review. This happens because reviewer 3’s review is very distant from the others’ reported reviews. We can draw similar conclusions from the other rows. We then obtain the following weights when carrying out DeGroot’s method with the weights calculated according to (\[eq:consensus\_weight\]):
$$\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\mathbf{W}^{t} = \left[\begin{array}{ccc}
0.3390 & 0.3390 & 0.3220 \\
0.3390 & 0.3390 & 0.3220 \\
0.3390 & 0.3390 & 0.3220 \\
\end{array}
\right]$$
and, consequently, the consensual review is represented by any row of the matrix $\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\mathbf{W}^{t}\mathbf{R}^{(0)}$, which results in the vector $(1.288, 2.305, 3.322)$. It is worthwhile to discuss an interesting point regarding the above example. The aggregate review would be $(1.333, 2.333, 3.333)$ if it was equal to the average of the reported reviews. Hence, reviewer $3$’s review would have more impact on the aggregate review because the evaluation scores in the average review are all greater than the corresponding evaluation scores in the consensual review. In our proposed method, the influence of reviewer $3$ on the aggregate review is diluted because his review is very different from the others’ reviews. More formally, reviewer $3$’s estimated posterior predictive distribution is very distant from the others’ estimated posterior predictive distributions when measured according to the root-mean-square deviation, the metric associated with the quadratic scoring rule.
Experiments
===========
In this section, we describe a peer-review experiment designed to test the efficacy of both the proposed scoring method and the proposed aggregation method. In the following subsections, we discuss Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, the platform used in our experiments, the experimental design, and our results.
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
------------------------
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk[^5] (AMT) is an online labor market originally developed for human computation tasks, *i.e.*, tasks that are relatively easy for human beings, but nonetheless challenging or even currently impossible for computers, *e.g.*, audio transcription, filtering adult content, extracting data from images, *etc*. Several studies have shown that AMT can effectively be used as a means of collecting valid data in these settings [@Snow:2008; @Marge:2010].
More recently, AMT has also been used as a platform for conducting behavioral experiments [@Mason:2012]. One of the advantages that it offers to researchers is the access to a large, diverse, and stable pool of people willing to participate in the experiments for relatively low pay, thus simplifying the recruitment process and allowing a faster iteration between developing theory and executing experiments. Furthermore, AMT provides an easy-to-use built-in mechanism to pay workers that greatly reduces the difficulties of compensating individuals for their participation in the experiments, and a built-in reputation system that helps requesters distinguish between good and bad workers and, consequently, to ensure data quality. Numerous studies have shown that results of behavioral studies conducted on AMT are comparable to results obtained in other online domains as well as in offline settings [@Buhrmester:2011; @Horton:2011], thus providing evidence that AMT is a valid means of collecting behavioral data.
Experimental Design
-------------------
We designed a task on AMT that required workers, henceforth referred to as reviewers, to review 3 short texts under three different criteria: *Grammar*, *Clarity*, and *Relevance*. The first two texts were extracts from published poems, but with some original words intentionally replaced by misspelled words. The third text contained random words presented in a semi-structured way. All the details regarding the texts are included in the appendix. For each text, three questions were presented to the reviewers, each one having three possible responses ordered in decreasing negativity order:
- Grammar: does the text contain misspellings, syntax errors, *etc*.?
- A lot of grammar mistakes
- A few grammar mistakes
- No grammar mistakes
- Clarity: does the text, as a whole, make any sense?
- The text does not make sense
- The text makes some sense
- The text makes perfect sense
- Relevance: could the text be part of a poem related to love?
- The text cannot be part of a love poem
- The text might be part of a love poem
- The text is definitely part of a love poem
Words with subjective meaning were intentionally used so as to simulate the subjective nature of the evaluation scores in a review, *e.g.*, “a lot", “a few", *etc.* Each individual response was translated into an evaluation score inside the set $\{0, 1 ,2\}$. The most negative response received the score $0$, the middle response received the score $1$, and the most positive response received the score $2$. Thus, each reviewer reported a vector of 9 evaluation scores (3 texts times 3 criteria).
We recruited 150 reviewers on AMT, all of them residing in the United States of America and older than 18 years old. They were required to accomplish the task in at most 20 minutes. Reviewers were split into 3 groups of equal size. After accomplishing the task, every reviewer in every group received a payment of $20$ cents. A study done by [@Ipeirotis:2010] showed that more than 90$\%$ of the tasks on AMT have a baseline payment less than $\$0.10$, and $70\%$ of the tasks have a baseline payment less than $\$0.05$. Thus, our baseline payment was much higher than the average payment from other jobs posted to the AMT marketplace.
Each reviewer was randomly assigned into one of the three groups. Reviewers in two of the groups, the treatment groups, could earn an additional *bonus* of up to $10$ cents. Reviewers in the first treatment group, referred to as the *Bonus Group* (BG), were informed that their bonuses would be proportional to the number of reviews similar to their reported reviews. Reviewers in the second treatment group, the *Bonus and Information Group* (BIG), received similar information, but they also received a short summary of some theoretical results presented in this paper:
> “A group of researchers from the University of Waterloo (Canada) formally showed that the best strategy to maximize your expected bonus in this setting is by being honest, *i.e.*, by considering each question thoroughly and deciding the best answers according to your personal opinion".
Members of the third group, the *Control Group* (CG), neither received extra explanations nor bonuses. Their reported reviews were used as the control condition. Bonuses were computed by rewarding agreements as described in Section 4.3. Due to the one-shot nature of this peer-review task, we assumed that Dirichlet priors were non-informative with hyperparameter $\boldsymbol\alpha = (1,1,1)$. For each reported evaluation score, there could be at most 49 similar reported evaluation scores because each group had 50 members. We then used the formula $\frac{10}{9}\times \frac{\# \mbox{agreements}}{49}$ to calculate the reward for an individual evaluation score. Given that each reviewer reported 9 evaluation scores, if the evaluation scores reported by all members of a group were the same, then all group members would received the maximum bonus of 10 cents. The provided bonuses can be seen as review scores. Our primary objective when performing this experiment was to empirically investigate the extent to which providing review scores affects the quality of the reported reviews.
Gold-Standard Evaluation Scores
-------------------------------
Since the source and original content of each text were known *a priori*, *i.e.*, before the experiments were conducted, we were able to derive *gold-standard reviews* for each text. In order to avoid confirmation bias[^6], we asked five professors and tutors from the English and Literature Department at the University of Waterloo to provide their reviews for each text. We set the *gold-standard evaluation score* for each criterion in a text as the median of the evaluation scores reported by the professors and tutors. Coincidentally, each median value was also the mode of the underlying evaluation scores. All the evaluation scores reported by the professors and tutors as well as the respective gold-standard evaluation scores are in the appendix.
Hypotheses
----------
Our first research question was whether or not providing review scores through pairwise comparisons makes the reported reviews more accurate, *i.e.*, closer to the gold-standard reviews. Based on our theoretical results, our hypothesis was:
The average accuracy of group BIG is greater than the average accuracy of group BG, which in turn is greater than the average accuracy of group CG.
In other words, the resulting reviews would be on average more accurate when reviewers received review scores, and the extra explanation regrading the theory behind the scoring method would provide more credibility to it, thus making the reviews more accurate. Regarding the resulting bonuses, since honest reporting maximizes reviewers’ expected review scores in our model, our second hypothesis was:
The average bonus received by members of group BIG is greater than the average bonus received by members of group BG, which in turn is greater than the average bonus received by members of group CG.
In order to test whether or not Hypothesis 2 was true, we used the bonus the members of group CG would have received had they received any bonus. It is important to note that Hypothesis 1 was measured by comparing how close the reported reviews were to the gold-standard reviews, whereas Hypothesis 2 was measured by making pairwise comparisons between reported reviews: the higher the number of agreements, the greater the resulting bonus.
Another metric used to compare groups’ performance was the *task completion time*. The amount of time spent by reviewers on the reviewing task can be seen as a proxy for the effort they exerted to complete the task. Regarding this metric, we expected reviewers who received review scores to be more cautious when completing their tasks. Moreover, the extra explanation regrading the theory behind the scoring method would provide more credibility to it, thus making the members of group BIG work harder on the task. Hence, our third hypothesis was:
The average task completion time of group BIG is greater than the average task completion time of group BG, which in turn is greater than the average task completion time of group CG.
Finally, we believed that the consensual review, computed as described in Section 6, would be more accurate than the average review since disparate reviews are less likely to have a big influence on the consensual review than on the average review. Hence, our fourth hypothesis was:
The average accuracy of the consensual review is greater than the average accuracy of the average review.
Experimental Results
--------------------
### Accuracy on Individual Criteria
In our first analysis, we computed the absolute difference between each reported evaluation score and the corresponding gold-standard evaluation score. Thus, the outcome measure was an integer with a value between zero and two, and the closer this value was to zero, the better the resulting accuracy. Table \[tab:mean\_values\_individual\] shows the average accuracy of each group on individual criteria.
[l l c c c c c c]{} & & & & &\
(r)[6-8]{} & & BG & BIG & CG & BIG-BG & BIG-CG & BG-CG\
& Grammar & 0.5000 & **0.3200** & 0.4400 & 0.035\*\* & 0.110 & 0.726\
& & (0.5051) & (0.4712) & (0.5014)\
Text 1 & Clarity & 0.8200 & **0.6200** & 0.8600 & 0.065\* & 0.052\* & 0.413\
& & (0.6606) & (0.6024) & (0.7287)\
& Relevance & 0.2200 & **0.2000** & 0.3000 & 0.484 & 0.213 & 0.230\
& & (0.5067) & (0.4518) & (0.5803)\
\
& Grammar & 0.4400 & **0.3600** & 0.3800 & 0.209 & 0.420 & 0.729\
& & (0.5014) & (0.4849) & (0.4903)\
Text 2 & Clarity & 0.5000 & **0.3800** & 0.5400 & 0.155 & 0.067\* & 0.325\
& & (0.6468) & (0.6024) & (0.6131)\
& Relevance & **0.4400** & 0.6400 & 0.6600 & 0.977 & 0.419 & 0.014\*\*\
& & (0.5014) & (0.4849) & (0.4785)\
\
& Grammar & **0.7600** & 0.7800 & 1.0200 & 0.539 & 0.077\* & 0.061\*\
& & (0.8466) & (0.8640) & (0.8449)\
Text 3 & Clarity & 0.1400 & **0.0000** & 0.1600 & 0.006\*\* & 0.002\*\* & 0.301\
& & (0.4046) & (0.0000) & (0.3703)\
& Relevance & 0.1200 & **0.1000** & 0.2000 & 0.491 & 0.112 & 0.122\
& & (0.4352) & (0.3642) & (0.4949)\
$\mbox{ } p \leq 0.1$\
\*\* $p \leq 0.05$
Focusing first on the groups BG and BIG, the group BIG is the most accurate group on all criteria, except for the criterion Relevance in Text 2 and the criterion Grammar in Text 3. This result is statistically significant with $p\mbox{-value} \leq 0.1$ in three out of the seven cases in which BIG is more accurate than BG. In two out of these three statistically significant cases, this result is also statistically significant with $p\mbox{-value} \leq 0.05$. BG is more accurate than BIG in only two criteria. This result is only statistically significant for the criterion Relevance in Text 2 ($p\mbox{-value} \leq 0.05$).
The group CG, the control condition that involved no incentives beyond the baseline compensation offered for completing the task, never outperforms both BG and BIG at the same time, and it is the less accurate group in seven out of nine criteria. In two (respectively, four) occasions, CG is statistically significantly less accurate than BG (respectively BIG) with $p\mbox{-value} \leq 0.1$.
Giving these results, we conclude that Hypothesis 1 is true for individual criteria, *i.e.*, the resulting reviews are on average more accurate when using review scores, and the extra explanation regrading the theory behind the scoring method seems to provide more credibility to it, thus improving the accuracy of the reported reviews.
### Aggregate Accuracy
We also computed the aggregate accuracy of each group for each text as well as for the whole task. In the former case, the outcome measure was the sum of the absolute difference between each reported evaluation score for a given text and the corresponding gold-standard evaluation score. For example, given $(0, 1, 2)$ as the reported evaluation scores for Text 1, and $(1, 2, 2)$ as the corresponding gold-standard evaluation scores, the outcome measure for Text 1 would be $|0 - 1| + |1 - 2| + |2 - 2| = 2$. For the whole task, we summed the absolute differences across all criteria and texts. Table \[tab:mean\_values\_aggregate\] shows the aggregate accuracy of each group.
\[t\]
---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ----------- ----------- ---------
(r)[5-7]{} BG BIG CG BIG-BG BIG-CG BG-CG
Text 1 1.5400 **1.1400** 1.6000 0.043\*\* 0.085\* 0.588
(1.1287) (1.0304) (1.4142)
Text 2 **1.3800** **1.3800** 1.5800 0.547 0.163 0.148
(1.0669) (0.9666) (0.9916)
Text 3 1.0200 **0.8800** 1.3800 0.394 0.020\*\* 0.052\*
(1.1865) (0.9179) (1.1933)
Overall 3.9400 **3.4000** 4.5600 0.110 0.002\*\* 0.064\*
(2.2352) (1.6903) (2.1301)
\* $\mbox{ } p \leq 0.1$
\*\* $p \leq 0.05$
---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ----------- ----------- ---------
: Aggregate accuracy of each group. The average of the sum of the absolute difference between the reported evaluation scores and the corresponding gold-standard evaluation scores is shown below each group. For each text and for the whole task, the lowest average is highlighted in bold. The standard deviations are in parenthesis. One-tailed p-values resulting from rank-sum tests are given in the last three columns. Given the notation A-B, the null hypothesis is that the outcome measures resulting from groups A and B are equivalent, and the alternative hypothesis is that the outcome measure resulting from group A is less than the outcome measure resulting from group B.[]{data-label="tab:mean_values_aggregate"}
For every single text as well as for the overall task, members of the group CG report less accurate reviews than members of the group BG and the group BIG. For the group BG, this result is statistically significant for Text 3 and for the overall task ($p\mbox{-value} \leq 0.1$). For the group BIG, this result is statistically significant for Text 1 ($p\mbox{-value} \leq 0.1$), Text 3 ($p\mbox{-value} \leq 0.05$), and for the whole task ($p\mbox{-value} \leq 0.05$). Thus, the experimental results suggest that providing review scores produces a significant improvement in quality over the control condition. Moreover, providing an extra explanation about the theory behind the scoring method improves the final quality of the reviews because, on average, the reviews from group BIG are more accurate than the reviews from group BG. This result is statistically significant for Text 1 ($p\mbox{-value} \leq 0.05$). Therefore, we conclude that Hypothesis 1 is also true on the aggregate level.
### Bonus
The average bonus per group is shown in the first row of Table \[tab:rewards\_time\]. From it, we conclude that Hypothesis 2 is true, *i.e.*, the average bonus received by members of BIG is greater than the average bonus received by members of BG, which in turn is greater than the average bonus hypothetically received by members of CG. All these results are statistically significant with $p\mbox{-value} \leq 0.05$. In other words, providing review scores and informing reviewers about the theory behind the scoring method do indeed increase the number of reported reviews that are similar.
---------------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ---------------- --------------- ------------
(r)[5-7]{} BG BIG CG BIG-BG BIG-CG BG-CG
Bonus 0.053 **0.058** 0.050 $<$ 0.0005\*\* $<$0.0005\*\* 0.0025\*\*
(0.0086) (0.0073) (0.0078)
Time 178.66 **215.90** 196.36 0.0232\*\* 0.0257\*\* 0.4208
(87.4495) (127.7471) (149.0788)
\* $\mbox{ } p \leq 0.1$
\*\* $p \leq 0.05$
---------------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ---------------- --------------- ------------
: Average bonus and completion time per group. The highest average values are highlighted in bold. The standard deviations are in parenthesis. One-tailed p-values resulting from rank-sum tests are given in the last three columns. Given the notation A-B, the null hypothesis is that the outcome measures resulting from groups A and B are equivalent, and the alternative hypothesis is that the outcome measure resulting from group A is greater than the outcome measure resulting from group B.[]{data-label="tab:rewards_time"}
Interestingly, there is a strong negative correlation between bonuses and the aggregate absolute error for the whole task shown in the fourth row of Table \[tab:mean\_values\_aggregate\], even though the former is computed by making pairwise comparisons between reported reviews, whereas the latter is computed by comparing reported reviews with gold-standard reviews. The Pearson correlation coefficients for BG, BIG, and CG are, respectively, $-0.73$, $-0.79$, and $-0.72$. This result implies that there exists a strong positive correlation between honest reporting and accuracy in this task, a fact which is in agreement with our theoretical model.
### Completion Time
The average completion time per group is shown in the second row of Table \[tab:rewards\_time\]. We start by noting that Hypothesis 3 is not true. Surprisingly, the average time spent on the task by members of the group BG is statistically equivalent to the average time spent by members of the group CG since the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The average completion time by members of the group BIG is the highest one amongst the three groups, and this result is statistically significant with $p\mbox{-value} \leq 0.05$. A possible explanation for this result is that reviewers work on the reviewing task more seriously by taking more time to complete it when they receive a brief explanation regarding some theoretical results of the proposed scoring method, whereas they could be quickly guessing how their peers would review the texts when the extra explanation about the theoretical results is not provided.
It is noteworthy that even though the average values might suggest that spending more time reviewing the texts results in higher bonuses and lower overall absolute errors, we do not find any significant correlation between these variables at an individual level.
### Consensus
[l l c c c c c c]{} & & & &\
(r)[3-4]{} (r)[5-6]{} (r)[7-8]{} & & AVG & CR & AVG & CR & AVG & CR\
& Grammar & **0.2622** & 0.2781 & 0.1238 & **0.1086** & **0.1285** & 0.1307\
& & (0.0920) & (0.1015) & (0.0680) & (0.0631) & (0.0800) & (0.0829)\
Text 1 & Clarity & 0.8219 & **0.8159** & 0.6211 & **0.6078** & 0.8633 & **0.8477**\
& & (0.0903) & (0.0963) & (0.0850) & (0.0987) & (0.1031) & (0.1156)\
& Relevance & 0.2188 & **0.1462** & 0.2020 & **0.1382** & 0.2996 & **0.2156**\
& & (0.0676) & (0.0536) & (0.0622) & (0.0512) & (0.0783) & (0.0696)\
\
& Grammar & **0.1643** & 0.1667 & 0.0754 & **0.0698** & 0.0716 & **0.0679**\
& & (0.0819) & (0.0855) & (0.0571) & (0.0541) & (0.545) & (0.0531)\
Text 2 & Clarity & 0.4965 & **0.4314** & 0.3812 & **0.3036** & 0.5405 & **0.5022**\
& & (0.0879) & (0.0970) & (0.0858) & (0.0860) & (0.0857) & (0.0987)\
& Relevance & 0.3590 & **0.3508** & **0.4360** & 0.4957 & **0.4996** & 0.5642\
& & (0.0804) & (0.0933) & (0.0948) & (0.1061) & (0.0909) & (0.0999)\
\
& Grammar & 0.7598 & **0.6976** & 0.7792 & **0.7198** & **1.0231** & 1.0288\
& & (0.1204) & (0.1473) & (0.1222) &(0.1505) & (0.1161) & (0.1455)\
Text 3 & Clarity & 0.1379 & **0.0859** & **0.0000** & **0.0000** & 0.1615 & **0.1115**\
& & (0.0565) & (0.0400) & (0.0000) & (0.0000) & (0.0522) & (0.0453)\
& Relevance & 0.1197 & **0.0699** & 0.1019 & **0.0597** & 0.2022 & **0.1320**\
& & (0.0619) & (0.0400) & (0.0521) & (0.0335) & (0.0696) & (0.0537)\
Lastly, we tested the accuracy of the method proposed in Section 6 to find a consensual review. We compared the resulting consensual review with the average review by using a bootstrapping technique. For each group of reviewers, we randomly resampled with replacement reviews from the original dataset so as to obtain *bootstrap resamples*. The size of each bootstrap resample was equal to the size of the original dataset, *i.e.*, each bootstrap resample contained 50 data points (the original number of reviewers), each one consisting of 9 evaluation scores.
For each bootstrap resample, we aggregated evaluation scores individually using both the proposed method for finding a consensual review and the average method. For each evaluation score, the weight that each reviewer $i$ assigned to reviewer $j$’s reported evaluation score was computed according to equation (\[eq:consensus\_weight\]). The proper scoring rule $R$ and the constants $\gamma$ and $\lambda$ were set so as to reward agreement as in Section 4.3. Given that the best evaluation score in this task was $v=2$ and $\alpha = (1,1,1)$, each element of a reviewer’s estimated posterior predictive distribution in (\[eq:est\_post\_pred\_dist\]) could take on only two values: $0.25$ and $0.5$. Consequently, the numerator in (\[eq:consensus\_weight\]) could take on only two values: $0.5$, if reviewer $i$ and $j$’s reported evaluation scores were the same, and $0.25$ otherwise.
After aggregating evaluation scores, we computed the accuracy of each aggregation method. The outcome measure was the absolute difference between each aggregate evaluation score and the corresponding gold standard score. Thus, the outcome measure was an integer with a value between zero and two, and the closer this value was to zero, the better the resulting accuracy. Table \[tab:consensual\_average\] shows the average accuracy by group resulting from a total of 1000 bootstrap resamples.
Table \[tab:consensual\_average\] shows that consensual evaluation scores are more accurate than average evaluation scores in 20 out of 27 cases, and equally accurate in one case. It comes as no surprise that consensual evaluation scores are more accurate in groups where review scores were provided since these groups reported more accurate reviews and their reported reviews were more similar, as previously discussed. We performed a statistical analysis to investigate whether or not these differences in accuracy are statistically significant. Since we used the same bootstrap resamples for both aggregation methods, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. The null hypothesis was that the outcome measures resulting from both aggregation methods are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was that the outcome measure resulting from the consensual method was less than the outcome measure resulting from the average method, which implies that the former is more accurate than the latter. All the resulting 27 $p$-values are extremely small $\left(< 10^{-10}\right)$. Therefore, we conclude that Hypothesis 4 is indeed true, *i.e.*, the proposed method for finding a consensual review is, on average, more accurate than the average approach in this experiment. As discussed in Section 6, we believe this result happens because disparate reported reviews are less likely to have a big influence on the consensual review than on the average review.
Conclusion
==========
We proposed a scoring method built on strictly proper scoring rules that induces honest reporting when outcomes are not observable. We illustrated the mechanics behind our scoring method by applying it to the peer-review process. In order to do so, we modeled the peer-review process using a Bayesian model where the uncertainty regarding the quality of the manuscript is taken into account. The main assumptions in our model are that reviewers cannot be influenced by other reviewers, and reviewers are Bayesian decision-makers.
We then showed how our scoring method can be used to evaluate reported reviews and to encourage honest reporting by risk-neutral reviewers. The proposed method assigns scores based on how close reported reviews are, where closeness is defined by an underlying proper scoring rule. Under the aforementioned assumptions, we showed that risk-neutral reviewers strictly maximize their expected scores by honestly disclosing their reviews. We also proposed an extension of our model and scoring method to scenarios where reviewers evaluate a manuscript under several criteria. We discussed how honest reporting is related to accuracy in our model: when reviewers report honestly, the distribution of reported reviews convergences to the distribution that represents the quality of the manuscript as the number of reported reviews increases.
Since all reviews are not always in agreement, we suggested an adaptation of the method proposed by [@DeGroot:1974] to find a consensual review. Intuitively, the proposed method works as if the reviewers were going through several rounds of discussion, where in each round they are informed about others’ reported reviews, and they update their own reviews using our predefined method in order to reach a consensus. Formally, each updated review is a convex combination of reported reviews, where review scores are used as part of the weights that reviewers assign to their peers’ reviews. We showed that the resulting method always converges to a consensual review when reviewers’ expected review scores are positive, and we provided behavioral foundations for the aggregation method.
We tested the efficacy of both the proposed scoring method and the proposed aggregation method on a peer-review experiment using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Our experimental results corroborated the relationship between honest reporting and accuracy in our model. We empirically showed that providing review scores through pairwise comparisons results in more accurate reviews than the traditional peer-review process, where reviewers have no direct incentives for expressing their true reviews. Moreover, reviewers tended to agree more with each other when they received review scores. In addition, our method for finding a consensual review outperformed the traditional average method in our peer-review experiments.
For ease of exposition, our discussion on peer review was focused on scientific communication. However, our model and scoring method are readily applied to most peer-review settings, *e.g.*, academic courses, clinical peer review, *etc*. Moreover, our proposed method to incentivize honest reporting is readily applied to different domains. For example, our method can be used to incentivize honest feedback in reputation systems, where individuals rate a product/service after experiencing it, and to induce honest evaluation of different strategic plans in an organization’s strategic planning process. The proposed aggregation method is also general in a sense that it can be applied to any decision analysis process where experts express their opinions through probability distributions over a set of exhaustive and mutually exclusive outcomes.
Given the positive results obtained in our peer-review experiments, an interesting open question is whether or not the methods proposed in this paper would perform as well in other domains, such as in the aforementioned reputation systems and strategic planning in organizations. Another question worth contemplating is whether or not incentives other than from the received scores play a role in our scoring method. For example, one can conjecture that altruism may play an important role in our scoring method. In our peer-review experiments, the performance of the reviewers not only affect their own review scores, but also the review scores of their peers. In other words, if reviewers do not put enough effort into reporting high-quality reviews, not only might they receive low review scores, but other reviews evaluated based on those erroneous reviews might also receive low review scores. Thus, an interesting future work is to investigate whether or not experts, in general, have an altruistic motive to put more effort into the underlying task in order to maximize the potential payoffs of their peers.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors thank Carol Acton, Katherine Acheson, Stefan Rehm, Susan Gow, and Veronica Austen for providing gold-standard reviews for our experiments.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
In this appendix, we describe the texts used in our experiments as well as the gold-standard reviews reported by five professors and tutors from the English and Literature Department at the University of Waterloo, henceforth referred to as the *experts*.
### Text 1 {#text-1 .unnumbered}
An excerpt from the “Sonnet XVII" by [@Neruda:2007]. Intentionally misspelled words are highlighted in bold.
> “I do not love you as if you **was** salt-rose, or topaz,\
> or the **arrown** of carnations that spread fire:\
> I love you as certain dark things are loved,\
> secretly, between the **shadown** and the soul"
Table \[tab:text1\] shows the evaluation scores reported by the experts. The gold-standard evaluation score for each criterion is the median/mode of the reported evaluation scores.
\[H\]
Criterion Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Median/Mode
----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------
Grammar 1 0 1 0 1 1
Clarity 2 2 2 1 2 2
Relevance 2 2 2 2 2 2
: Evaluation scores reported by the experts for Text 1.[]{data-label="tab:text1"}
### Text 2 {#text-2 .unnumbered}
An excerpt from “The Cow" by [@Taylor:2010]. Intentionally misspelled words are highlighted in bold.
> “THANK you, **prety** cow, that made\
> **Plesant** milk to soak my bread,\
> Every day and every night,\
> Warm, and fresh, and sweet, and white."
Table \[tab:text2\] shows the evaluation scores reported by the experts. The gold-standard evaluation score for each criterion is the median/mode of the reported evaluation scores.
\[H\]
Criterion Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Median/Mode
----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------
Grammar 1 1 1 1 1 1
Clarity 2 2 2 1 2 2
Relevance 1 0 0 1 1 1
: Evaluation scores reported by the experts for Text 2.[]{data-label="tab:text2"}
### Text 3 {#text-3 .unnumbered}
Random words in a semi-structured way. Each line starts with a noun followed by a verb in a wrong verb form. All the words in the same line start with a similar letter in order to mimic a poetic writing style.
> “Baby bet binary boundaries bubbles\
> Carlos cease CIA conditionally curve\
> Daniel deny disease domino dumb\
> Faust fest fierce forced furbished"
Table \[tab:text3\] shows the evaluation scores reported by the experts. The gold-standard evaluation score for each criterion is the median/mode of the reported evaluation scores.
\[H\]
Criterion Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 Median/Mode
----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------
Grammar 0 1 0 0 0 0
Clarity 0 0 0 0 0 0
Relevance 0 1 0 0 0 0
: Evaluation scores reported by the experts for Text 3.[]{data-label="tab:text3"}
[^1]: http://www.coursera.org/
[^2]: We use the term *multinomial distribution* to refer to the generalization of the Bernoulli distribution for discrete random variables with any constant number of outcomes. The parameter of this distribution is a probability vector that specifies the probability of each possible outcome.
[^3]: We refer to a single reviewer as “he" and to the center as “she".
[^4]: We note that other priors could have been used. However, the inference process would not necessarily be analytically tractable. In general, tractability can be obtained through conjugate distributions. Hence, another modeling choice is to consider that evaluation scores follow a normal distribution with unknown parameters. Assuming exchangeability, we can then use either the normal-gamma distribution or the normal-scaled inverse gamma distribution as the conjugate prior [@Bernardo:1994]. The major drawback with this approach is that continuous evaluation scores might bring extra complexity to the reviewing process.
[^5]: http://www.mturk.com
[^6]: The tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions [@Plous:1993].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**Comment on “Duality of $x$ and $\psi$ in Quantum Mechanics” by A.E. Faraggi and M. Matone**]{}\
[**J.L. Lucio$^{(1)}$ and M. Ruiz–Altaba$^{(2)}$**]{}
[*$^{(1)}$ Instituto de Física, Universidad de Guanajuato, León, Gto., México*]{}
[*$^{(2)}$ Instituto de Física, UNAM, A.P. 20-364, 01000 México, D.F.*]{}
Recently, Faraggi and Matone introduced \[1\] an equation “dual" to the time–independent Schrödinger equation namely which they derived \[1\] in a rather roundabout way with the help of a “prepotential” $\cal F(\psi)$. They went on to speculate on a possible dual quantization of space based on this formula, employing also this formalism to study duality transformations in the pilot–wave version of quantum mechanics \[2\].
We would like to point out that, regardless of the conceptual interest and difficulties of interpreting space in terms of a wave–function instead of the opposite, equation (2) can be derived very easily from the trivial observation that = \^[-1]{} , and thus
Plugging (4) into (1) gives (2) directly. A more interesting truly dual version of (1) should involve a dual potential $\tilde V (\psi)$; we have no idea how to derive such an equation, nor what its interpretation would be.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
Work partially supported by CONACyT under contract 3979PE-9608 and Catedra Patrimonial de Excelencia Nivel II.
\[1\] [A.E. Faraggi and M. Matone, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**78**]{} (1997) 163; [hep-th/9606063]{}.]{}
\[2\] [A.E. Faraggi and M. Matone, [hep-th/9705108]{}.]{}.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The analysis of stochastic loss networks has long been of interest in computer and communications networks and is becoming important in the areas of service and information systems. In traditional settings, computing the well known Erlang formula for blocking probability in these systems becomes intractable for larger resource capacities. Using compound point processes to capture stochastic variability in the request process, we generalize existing models in this framework and derive simple asymptotic expressions for blocking probabilities. In addition, we extend our model to incorporate reserving resources in advance. Although asymptotic, our experiments show an excellent match between derived formulas and simulation results even for relatively small resource capacities and relatively large values of blocking probabilities.
[**Keywords:**]{} loss networks; subexponential distributions.
bibliography:
- 'anabib.bib'
title: |
Asymptotic Blocking Probabilities in Loss Networks with\
Subexponential Demands
---
Introduction
============
The problem of satisfying a stream of customer (user) requirements from resources of finite capacities for some random processing time has long been present in many areas such as telephone and communication networks, inventory control (rental industry) and, recently, workforce management. For all of these applications, system dynamics can be described as follows. Requests for resources arrive according to some point process in time. If there are enough available (non-engaged) resources to satisfy their requirements at the moment of arrival, required resources are committed for some random time that represents their processing duration (holding time) after which they are released and become available to accommodate future requests. In the case of insufficient amount of available resources at the moment of its arrival, a request is lost. The previously described system is usually referred to as a [*loss network*]{}, and one of the commonly analyzed performance metrics is the blocking probability, i.e., probability that an incoming request is lost due to insufficient amount of available resources to satisfy its requirements.
Loss networks with fixed resource requirements have been intensively analyzed in the context of circuit-switched networks. Let requests require resources of $K<\infty$ different types for some random generally distributed processing time with finite mean. Furthermore, assume that requests belong to $M$ different classes characterized by their resource requirements, processing durations, arrival rates. Then, assuming that requests of different types arrive according to mutually independent Poisson processes, by PASTA property ([@WOL89]), blocking probability $B_l$ of an incoming request of type $1\le l\le M$ is equal to the sum of probabilities of blocking states for $l$ type request and is computed using the generalized Erlang formula (e.g., see [@KEL91s]), i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
B_l=1-G({\bf C})^{-1} G({\bf C} -{\bf A} {\bf e}_l),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
G({\bf C})
=\left(\sum_{{\bf n} \in {\cal S}({\bf C})}\prod_{l=1}^M
\frac{\rho_l^{n_l}}{n_l!} \right)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:domain} {\cal S}({\bf C}):= \{ {\bf n}\in
\mathbb{Z}^M_+: {\bf A} {\bf n} \le {\bf C}\},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf n}=(n_1,\dots ,n_{M})$ and ${\bf C}=(C_1,\dots,C_K)$. In the previous expressions $C_k$, $1\le k\le K$, is capacity of resource type $k$, ${\bf A}=[A_{kl}]$ is a $K\times M$ matrix, where $A_{kl}$ represents the amount of resources of type $1\le
k\le K$ required by a request of type $1\le l\le M$, and $\rho_l$, $1\le l\le M$, represent traffic intensities of $l$ type requests (computed as $\rho_l=\lambda_l/\mu_l$, where $\lambda_l$ is the arrival rate of $l$ type requests and $1/\mu_l$ is the corresponding mean processing time). Furthermore, $e_l$ is a $M$ dimensional vector with the $l$th component equal to one and the rest equal to zero. In the case of a single resource type and a single request class with exponentially distributed processing times, blocking probability was first expressed by Erlang in 1917 (see [@ERL17]). Later on, it was shown that the Erlang formula holds under more general assumptions on call holding time distributions (see [@SEV57]) and in the case of Poisson arrivals with retrials (see [@BON06]). It is noteworthy to point out the difference between the Erlang loss network and a queue with finite buffer. The two systems follow very different dynamics resulting in a different behavior and, therefore, their analysis (e.g., see [@JEL97c] and [@ASP05]). It is easy to see that the cardinality of the state space ${\cal
S}({\bf C})$ in (\[eqn:domain\]) increases exponentially in the norm of vector ${\bf C}$, i.e., $|{\bf C}|\equiv
\sum_{i=1}^{K}|C_i|$. It is shown in [@LOU94] that the calculation of $G({\bf C})$ is a $\sharp P$-complete problem, which belongs to a class of problems that are at least as hard as $NP$-complete problems. To this end, many approximation techniques for evaluating blocking probabilities in large loss networks have been proposed. One of the most popular ones is known as Erlang fixed point method. The main idea of this approximation is to assume that deficiencies of different resource types happen independently. The application of the Erlang fixed point method can be traced back as early as 50’s (e.g., see [@WIL56]). In [@KEL86], Kelly studied the performance of the Erlang fixed point method and established its relation to a nonlinear optimization problem. He also proved uniqueness of the fixed point and its asymptotic exactness when resource capacities and arrival rates grow with the same rate (see [@KEL91s]). Some of the related practical aspects of Kelly’s analysis were investigated in [@WIT85]. The Erlang fixed point method is further refined in [@ZAC91]. There are also many other types of approximations such as recursive algorithm in [@KAUF81], or unified approach based on large deviations for all (light, critical and heavy) traffic regimes in [@GLM93]. Overall, except from the bounds in [@GLM93], these methods make use of the structural properties of the Erlang formula and, hence, largely rely on the Poisson assumption for call arrivals. Another restriction of the above models is that the amount of resource requirements are assumed to be fixed; in fact, it is assumed that they are $(0,1)$ parameters in most of the cases considered. Meanwhile, we see in many applications that resource requirements could be highly variable and their distributions possibly long-tailed; for specific examples, see [@HEL96], [@JLS95a] and [@KRM97]. Furthermore, more recently, loss networks models have been applied in the context of workforce management applications (see [@LU06]), where requests behavior is even more volatile and extreme.
In this paper, we analyze loss networks that have renewal arrivals and random resource requirements. In particular, we assume that request arrivals follow a compound renewal process, with the corresponding holding times being arbitrarily distributed with finite mean, independent of each other and arrival points. In order to cope with variability in resource requirements, we model them as subexponential random variables. We obtain a simple and explicit asymptotic expressions for blocking probabilities when capacities of resources grow. For the case of a single resource loss network, we show that the stationary blocking probability is approximately equal to the tail of the resource requirement distribution. In addition, we extend our results to allow advance reservations of resources. Finally, we investigate general (multiple resources and arbitrary topology) loss networks and show that the asymptotic blocking probability behaves as the tail of the heaviest-tailed resource requirement. Although asymptotic, our numerical experiments show an excellent accuracy of the derived formulas even for relatively small capacities and relatively large values of blocking probabilities, suggesting wide applicability of the obtained results.
Our paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:model\], we introduce our model in the context of a single resource type. Then, in Subsection \[sec:singlepool\], we state and prove our main result in Theorem \[theorem:th1\], while in Subsection \[sec:advancereservation\], we extend it to the case of advance reservations. Further extension to the analysis of the stationary blocking probability in the case of general loss networks is stated and proved in Theorem \[theorem:th2\] of Section \[sec:network\]. Our simulation experiments for some specific cases of arrival processes and resource requirements are presented in Section \[sec:experiment\]. Finally, we conclude our paper in Section \[sec:concl\]. A discussion and the proof of existence of the stationary blocking probability is presented in the Appendix.
Systems with one resource type {#sec:model}
==============================
Let requests for resources from a common resource pool of capacity $C< \infty$ arrive at time points $\{\tau_{n},-\infty < n<
\infty\}$ that represent a renewal process with rate $0<\lambda<\infty$, i.e., $\expect [\tau_n
-\tau_{n-1}]=1/\lambda$. At each point $\tau_{n}$, $B_{n}$ amount of resources is requested. If available capacity is less than $B_n$, this request is rejected (blocked); otherwise, it is accepted and $B_n$ amount of resources will be occupied for the length of time $\theta_{n}$. Sequences $\{B_{n}\}$ and $\{\theta_n\}$ of i.i.d. random variables (r.v.) are assumed to be mutually independent and independent of the arrival points $\{\tau_{n}\}$; furthermore $\expect \theta_n <\infty$ for all $n$. Let $B$ and $\theta$ denote random variables that represent $\{B_{n}\}$, $\{\theta_n\}$, i.e., $\Pr[B>x]=\Pr[B_n>x],
\Pr[\th>y]=\Pr[\th_n>y]$, for any $n\in\mathbb{Z}$, $x\ge 0$ and $y\ge 0$.
In this paper, we assume that $B$ is a subexponential random variable, defined as follows (e.g., see [@GOK97]):
Let $\{X_i\}$ be a sequence of positive i.i.d. random variables with distribution function $F$ such that $F(x) <1$ for all $x>0$. Denote by $\Bar {F}(x)=1-F(x)$, $x\ge 1$, the tail of $F$ and by $\Bar {F}^{n\ast} = 1-F^{n\ast}(x)=\Pr [X_1+\dots +X_n
>x]$ the tail of the n-fold convolution of $F$. $F$ is subexponential distribution function, denoted as $F\in {\cal S}$, if one of the following equivalent conditions holds:
- $\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\Bar {F}^{n\ast}(x)}{\Bar
{F} (x)}=n$ for some (all) $n\ge 2$,
- $\lim_{x\rightarrow
\infty} \frac{\Pr [X_1+\dots +X_n >x]}{\Pr [\max (X_1,\dots
,X_n)>x]}=1$ for some (all) $n\ge 2$.
For a brief introduction to subexponential distributions the reader is referred to a recent survey [@GOK97]. This class of distributions is fairly large and well known examples include regularly varying (in particular Pareto), some Weibull, log-normal and “almost” exponential distributions.
Next, let ${\cal N}^{(C)}_n$ be the set of indices $i< n$ of resource requirements that arrive prior to $\tau_n$, are accepted, and are [*still active*]{} by time $\tau_n$. Furthermore, let $N^{(C)}_n\eqdef |{\cal N}^{(C)}_n|$ be a cardinality of set ${\cal N}^{(C)}_n$. Thus, the total amount of resources $Q_n^{(C)}$ that an arrival at time $\tau_n$ finds engaged can be expressed as $Q^{(C)}_{n}= \sum_{i\in {\cal N}^{(C)}_n} B_{i}$.
Our goal in this paper is to estimate the stationary blocking probability, i.e., $$\label{eq:deflossrate} \Pr [Q^{(C)}_n +B_n>C],$$ for large $C$. It can be shown that for the model introduced above there exists a unique stationary distribution for $Q^{(C)}_n$ and, therefore, the quantity in (\[eq:deflossrate\]) is well defined. The proof of this result is based on constructing a Markov chain with general state space, of which $Q^{(C)}_n$ is a functional. Then, by using a discrete version of Theorem 1 from [@SEV57], we show that there exists a unique stationary distribution for the constructed Markov chain (and, therefore, $Q^{(C)}_n$) which is ergodic. Since this proof is not the main focus of this paper, we present it in the Appendix.
In this paper we use the following standard notation. For any two real functions $a(t)$ and $b(t)$ and fixed $t_{0}\in
\real\cup\{\infty\}$, let $a(t)\thicksim b(t)$ as $t\rightarrow
t_{0}$ denote $\lim_{t\rightarrow t_{0}} [a(t)/b(t)]=1$.
Blocking probability in a system with one resource type {#sec:singlepool}
-------------------------------------------------------
In this section we estimate the stationary blocking probability $\Pr [Q^{(C)}_n+B_n>C]$ in a loss network with a single resource pool when its capacity $C$ grows large.
\[theorem:th1\] Let $\{B_n,-\infty<n<\infty\}$ be a sequence of subexponential random variables with finite mean. Then, the stationary blocking probability satisfies $$\label{eq:asymmain} \Pr [Q^{(C)}_{n}+B_{n}>C]\sim \Pr
[B>C]\;\;\text{as}\;\;\text{$C\rightarrow \infty$.}$$
First, observe that a request will be lost if it requires more than the total capacity $C$ and, therefore, $$\label{eq:lowbd5} \Pr [Q^{(C)}_n
+B_{n}>C]\ge \Pr [B>C]\;\;\text{ for all $C>0$.}$$
In order to prove the asymptotic upper bound for $\Pr
[Q^{(C)}_n+B_{n}>C]$, we start by conditioning on the size of $B_n$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr [Q^{(C)}_{n}+B_{n}>C]&=\Pr [Q^{(C)}_{n}+B_{n}>C,
B_{n}>C]+\Pr [Q^{(C)}_{n}+B_{n}>C,B_{n}\le C]\nonumber\\
&\eqdef I_{1}+I_2.\label{eq:split1}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $I_1$ is upper bounded by $\Pr [B>C]$. Next, we prove that $I_2=o(\Pr [B>C])$ as $C\rightarrow \infty$. In view of the definition of ${\cal N}^{(C)}_{n}$ from above, $$\label{eq:crucial} I_2 = \Pr \left [\sum_{i\in {\cal N}^{(C)}_{n}}
B_i+B_{n}>C, B_{n}\le C \right].$$ Observe that for $i\in {\cal N}^{(C)}_{n}$, $B_i$s are mutually dependent which makes direct analysis of the expression in (\[eq:crucial\]) complex. For that reason, we sample the original process of arrivals at points $\tau_i$ at which the requested amount of resources $B_i$ is smaller or equal to $C$ and observe another system of unlimited capacity with the sampled arrivals. Let ${\cal
N}_{n,s}$ be a set of request indices $i<n$ that belong to the sampled process and are still active at time $\tau_n$, i.e., $${\cal N}_{s,n}=\{i<n|B_i\le C,\theta_i>\tau_n -\tau_i\}.$$ Note that the sampled process is renewal as well with rate $\lambda \Pr [B\le C]/\Pr [B > C]$ and that resource requirements $B_i$, $i\in {\cal N}_{s,n}$, are mutually independent. Furthermore, since ${\cal N}^{(C)}_{n}\subset {\cal N}_{s,n}$, we can upper bound $I_2$ in (\[eq:crucial\]) by the probability that the total amount of required resources in a new system exceeds capacity $C$, i.e., $$\label{eq:refth11} I_2\le \Pr \left [\sum_{i\in {\cal N}_{s,n}}
B_i+B_{n}>C, B_{n}\le C \right].$$ Now, in view of the results derived in [@EMG80] for every integer $n$ and i.i.d. subexponential random variables $B_1,\dots
,B_n$, $\Pr [\sum_{i=1}^{n} B_i>C]\sim \Pr [\max (B_1,B_2,\dots
,B_n)>C]$ as $C\rightarrow \infty$, implying asymptotic relation $$\Pr \left[\sum_{i=1}^{n}B_i>C,B_{i}\le C\text{ for every $1\le i\le
n$}\right]=o(\Pr [B>C])\;\;\text{as}\;\;\text{$C\rightarrow
\infty$.}$$ In order to show that $n$ can be replaced by $N_{s,n}$ in the above inequality, we need to integrate it with respect to the density of $N_{s,n}$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
&\Pr \left[\sum_{i\in {\cal N}_{s,n}\cup \{n\}}B_i>C,B_{i}\le
C\text{ for every
$i\in {\cal N}_{s,n}\cup \{n\}$}\right]\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\Pr [N_{s,n}=k]\Pr
\left[\sum_{i=1}^{k+1}B_i>C,B_{i}\le C\text{ for every $i=1,\dots
,k+1$}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Note that on the left hand side of the previous equation index $i$ can take negative values. Next, due to the lemma stated by Kesten (see Lemma $7$, pp.$149$ of [@ATN72]), for any $\epsilon>0$ there exists a positive constant $K(\epsilon)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Pr[\sum_{i=1}^{k}B_i>C,B_{i}\le C\text{ for every $1\le
i\le k$}]}{\Pr [B>C]} \le \frac{\Pr[\sum_{i=1}^{k}B_i>C]}{\Pr
[B>C]} \le K(\epsilon)(1+\epsilon)^k,\end{aligned}$$ for any integer $k$ and all capacity values $C<\infty$. Then, since the probability generating function $\expect z^{N_{s,n}}$ is finite for any $z\in \mathbb{C}$ (see Theorem 1 in [@TAK80] and Theorem 5 in [@LKT90] for the detailed proof), we have $\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \Pr [N_{s,n} =k](1+\epsilon)^{k} <\infty$. Therefore, by applying the dominated convergence theorem, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{C\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\Pr \left [\sum_{i\in
N_{s,n}}B_i+B_n>C,B_{i}\le C\text{ for every $i\in
{\cal N}_{s,n}\cup \{n\}$}\right]}{\Pr [B>C]}\nonumber\\
&=\lim_{C\rightarrow \infty}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{\Pr
[N_{s,n}=k]\Pr \left [\sum_{i=1}^{k+1}B_i
>C,B_i\le C\text{ for every $1\le i\le
k+1$}\right]}{\Pr [B>C]}\nonumber\\
&=0,\label{eq:ref2}\end{aligned}$$ which in conjunction with (\[eq:split1\]) and (\[eq:lowbd5\]), completes the proof of this theorem.
[**Remark:**]{} It may appear surprising that the performance of the loss network from above does not depend on engagement durations, as long as they have finite mean. In addition, the result is quite general and provides the asymptotic result for a large (subexponential) class of possible resource requirement distributions.
Advance reservations {#sec:advancereservation}
--------------------
Using the result of Theorem \[theorem:th1\] and observations from the previous remark, we extend the loss networks model to allow requests to become effective with some delay with respect to the moments of their arrivals. In particular, a request that arrives at time $\tau_n$ and requires $B_n$ amount of resources for some random time $\theta_n$ starting from the moment $\tau_n+D_n$ is accepted if previously admitted resource requirements allow that; otherwise, it is rejected. In other words, a request arriving at $\tau_n$ is lost if at any moment of time in interval $(\tau_n+D_n, \tau_n+D_n+\theta_n)$ the total amount of active requirements requested prior to $\tau_n$ exceeds $C-B_n$. First, note that $B_n
>C$ implies the loss of $n$th request and, therefore, it is straightforward to conclude that the blocking probability in the system with advance reservations can be lower bounded by $\Pr
[B>C]$.
Next, we discuss the idea behind proving the upper bound on the blocking probabilities. By applying sample path arguments one can show that, at any moment of time, the amount of active resources in the previously described system with advance reservations can be bounded from above by the amount of active resources in another system of unlimited capacity, without advance reservations, with resource holding times $D_n+\theta_n$ for every $n$, and with requests for resources being sampled from the original process $\{B_n\}$ whenever the corresponding requirements are less or equal to $C$. Equivalently, the blocking probability in the system with advance reservations can be bounded from above by $$\Pr \left [\sum_{i\in {\cal N}^{(C)}_{s,n} (\theta +D)} B_i +B_n
>C \right ],$$ where ${\cal N}^{(C)}_{s,n} (\theta+D)$ is a set of request indices $i<n$ that are active at time $\tau_n$, whose requirements are less or equal to $C$ and holding times last throughout the interval $(\tau_i,\tau_i+D_i+\theta_i)$, assuming that there is an unlimited resource capacity. Finally, by using the previous discussion, the properties of $\{B_n\}$, $\{\theta_n\}$ and $\{\tau_n\}$ as introduced at the beginning of this section, assuming that reservation times $\{D_n\}$, $\expect D_n <\infty$, are i.i.d. and independent from $\{B_n\}$, $\{\theta_n\}$ and $\{\tau_n\}$, and applying the identical arguments as in the proof of Theorem \[theorem:th1\], we obtain the following result:
The blocking probability in the system with advance reservations approaches $\Pr [B>C]$ as $C\rightarrow \infty$.
Acquiring resources of different types (loss networks case) {#sec:network}
===========================================================
Assume that there are $K\in \nat$ resource types with capacities $C_1,\dots ,C_K$. Again, requests arrive at $\{\tau_n,-\infty<n<\infty\}$, which represent a renewal process with rate $0<\lambda =1/\expect [\tau_1 -\tau_0] <\infty$. There are $M<\infty$ request types and, given an arrival, the request is of type $l$, $1\le l\le M$, with probability $p_l$, $p_1+\dots+p_M=1$, independent from $\{\tau_n\}$. We will use random variables $J_n\in \{1,2,\dots ,M\}$ to denote the type of the request arriving at $\tau_n$. Furthermore, let $B_n^{(J_n,1)},\dots ,B_n^{(J_n,K)}$ represent amounts of required resources of each type at time $\tau_n$ and let $\theta_n^{(J_n)}$, $\expect \theta_n^{(J_n)}<\infty$, be the corresponding random duration. We assume that sequences $\{(B_n^{(J_n,1)},\dots , B_n^{(J_n,K)})\} ,\{\theta_n^{(J_n)}\}$ are mutually independent and independent from $\{\tau_n\}$. Given the event $\{J_n=l\}$, resource requirements $B_n^{(l,i)}$, $1\le
i\le K$, are mutually independent nonnegative random variables drawn from distributions $F_{l,i}$, $1\le i\le K$; if a request does not require resources of type $i$ then $B_n^{(l,i)}=0$ a.s., $-\infty <n<\infty$. Only if there is enough capacity available, the request arriving at time $\tau_n$ will be accepted and all of the engaged resources will be occupied for the duration of $\th_n^{(J_n)}$; otherwise, the request is rejected.
Our goal is to estimate the blocking probability in a system described above. Define $Q^{(1)}_n,\dots ,Q_n^{(K)}$ to be amounts of resources of each type that a request arriving at time $\tau_n$ finds engaged. Note that $Q^{(i)}_n$, $1\le i\le K$, are mutually dependent and, as pointed out in the Introduction, it is hard to compute the blocking probability of this system explicitly. Using analogous arguments as in the case of a single resource type (see the Appendix), one can show that the stationary distribution of $Q^{(i)}_n$, $1\le i\le K$, exists. Probability that the request arriving at time $\tau_n$ is blocked equals to $$\label{eq:lossmult} \Pr [\cup_{1\le i\le K}
\{Q_n^{(i)}+B_n^{(J_n,i)}>C_i\}],$$ and our goal again is to estimate its value as $\min_i C_i$ grows large.
Asymptotic estimates derived in this section hold under the following assumption:
[**Assumptions:**]{} For each resource type $1\le i\le K$, let ${\cal L}_i$ and ${\cal H}_i$ be two disjoint sets of request types ($|{\cal L}_i\cup {\cal H}_i|=M$) satisfying:
- Assume that there exists at least one resource type that is accessed by subexponentially distributed resource requirements, which implies $|{\cal H}_i|>0$ for some $1\le i\le K$;
- For every $l\in {\cal H}_i \neq \emptyset$, there exists a subexponential distribution $F_i\in {\cal S}$ such that $\Bar
{F}_{l,i}(x)\sim c_{l,i}\Bar {F}_i(x)$ as $x\rightarrow \infty$ with $c_{l,i}>0$;
- There exists a subexponential random variable $L\in {\cal S}$ that satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr[L>x]\ge \max_{1\le i\le K,l\in {\cal L}_i} \Pr
[B_n^{(J_n,i)}>x|J_n=l]\;\;\text{for all $x>0$,}\end{aligned}$$ and $\Pr [L>x]=o(\Bar {F}_i (x))$ as $x\rightarrow \infty$ for all $i\in \{j|{\cal H}_j\neq \emptyset\}$.
[**Remark:** ]{} In the preceding assumptions, we require the resource requirement distributions to be asymptotically comparable. For each $1\le i\le K$, ${\cal H}_i$ contains tail dominant subexponential distributions that are asymptotically proportional to each other. On the other hand, the only assumption imposed on the distributions in ${\cal L}_i$, $1\le i\le K$, is that there is a subexponential tail that asymptotically dominates them. This asymptotic tail comparability is necessary for our main result to hold. In particular, these conditions are extensively used in (\[eq:chtermth2\]) - (\[eq:unifbound\]) of the proof of Theorem \[theorem:th2\].
Next, we prove the following lemma that investigates summations of random variables with different tail distributions.
\[lem:tail\] Suppose that $X_i, 1\le i\le n$, are independent random variables with corresponding tail distributions ${\bar
F}_i(x)$, $1\le i\le n$. If there exists $F\in {\cal S}$ such that ${\bar F}_i(x)\sim c_i {\bar F}(x)$ as $x\rightarrow \infty$ with $c_i\ge 0, 1\le i\le n$, and $\sum_{i=1}^n c_i>0$, then the following asymptotic relation holds: $$\label{eq:mainlemma} \Pr \left [ \sum_{i=1}^n X_i
>x, X_i \le x, 1\le i\le n \right ]= o({\bar F}(x)
)\;\;\text{as}\;\;\text{$x\rightarrow \infty$}.$$
Note that $$\Pr \left [\sum_{i=1}^{n} X_i>x\right ]=\Pr \left [\sum_{i=1}^{n}
X_i>x, X_i\le x, 1\le i\le n\right ]+\Pr \left [\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i
>x,\cup_{i=1}^{n} \{X_i>x\}\right ].$$ Then, the previous expression, $\cup_{i=1}^{n}
\{X_i>x\}\subset\{\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i
>x\}$, independence of $X_i$s, as well as Lemmas 4.2 and 4.5 of [@AHK94], imply (\[eq:mainlemma\]).
First, we estimate the asymptotic lower bound for the expression in (\[eq:lossmult\]). By using our model assumptions, $\{B_n^{(J_n,i)}>C_i\}\subset \{Q_n^{(i)}+B_n^{(J_n,i)}>C_i\}$ and independence, we obtain $$\label{eq:finallow} \Pr [\cup_{1\le i\le K}
\{Q_n^{(i)}+B_n^{(J_n,i)}>C_i\}]\ge \Pr [\cup_{1\le i\le K}
\{B_n^{(J_n,i)}>C_i\}]\sim \sum_{i=1}^{K} \sum_{l\in {\cal H}_i}
p_l \Bar {F}_{l,i} (C_i),$$ as $\min_i C_i\rightarrow \infty$.
Next, we estimate the asymptotic upper bound for the expression in (\[eq:lossmult\]). Using the union bound yields $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr [\cup_{1\le i\le K} \{Q_n^{(i)}+B_n^{(J_n,i)}>C_i\}] &\le
\sum_{i=1}^{K} \Pr
[Q_n^{(i)}+B_n^{(J_n,i)}>C_i].\label{eq:crucialbd}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly as in (\[eq:refth11\]) of Theorem \[theorem:th1\], for each resource $1\le i\le K$, $$\label{eq:sampleth2} \Pr [Q_n^{(i)}+B_n^{(J_n,i)}>C_i]\le \Pr
\left [\sum_{l\in {\cal L}_i}\sum_{j\in {\cal N}_{s,n}^{(l,C_i)}}
B_j^{(l,i)}+ \sum_{l\in {\cal H}_i} \sum_{j\in {\cal
N}^{(l,C_i)}_{s,n}}B_j^{(l,i)}+B_n^{(J_n,i)}>C_i\right ],$$ where ${\cal N}_{s,n}^{(l,C_i)}$, $1\le l\le M$, are sets of indices $j<n$ defined as $${\cal N}_{s,n}^{(l,C_i)}\eqdef \{ j<n |J_j=l,B_j^{(l,i)}\le C_i,
\theta_j^{(l)}>\tau_n -\tau_j\}.$$ In the previous expressions we bounded the amount of allocated resources that are active at time $\tau_n$ by the corresponding quantity in another system of infinite capacity where the corresponding request process is sampled from the original $\{B^{(J_n,i)}_n\}$, $1\le i\le K$, whenever the corresponding requirements are less than or equal to $C_i$, $1\le i\le K$.
In the rest of the proof, we derive an asymptotic estimate for the expression in (\[eq:sampleth2\]). After conditioning on $\{
N_{s,n}^{(1,C_i)}=n_1,\dots ,N_{s,n}^{(M,C_i)}=n_M\}$ ($N_{s,n}^{(l,C_i)}\eqdef |{\cal N}_{s,n}^{(l,C_i)}|$, $1\le l\le
M$), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\Pr [Q_n^{(i)}+B_n^{(J_n,i)}>C_i]\nonumber\\
&\le \sum_{0\le n_1,\dots ,n_M<\infty}\Pr
[N_{s,n}^{(1,C_i)}=n_1,\dots ,N_{s,n}^{(M,C_i)}=n_M]\nonumber\\
&\;\;\times \Pr \left [\sum_{l\in {\cal H}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n_l}
B_{(j)}^{(l,i)} + \sum_{l\in {\cal L}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n_l}
B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}+ B_n^{(J_n,i)} >C_i,\text{ $B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}\le
C_i$, $1\le j\le n_l$, $1\le l\le M$}\right
],\label{eq:mainth2term}\end{aligned}$$ where $B^{(l,i)}_{(j)}\eqd B_k^{(l,i)}$, $k\in {\cal
N}^{(l,C_i)}_{s,n}$, $j=1,\dots ,n_l$, are independent replicas of requests in ${\cal N}^{(l,C_i)}_{s,n}$. Next, after conditioning on $\{J_n=m\}$, $m=1,\dots ,M$, and then on $B_n^{(m,i)}$ being smaller or larger than $C_i$, we can further upper bound the conditional blocking probability in (\[eq:mainth2term\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&\Pr \left [\sum_{l\in {\cal H}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n_l} B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}
+ \sum_{l\in {\cal L}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n_l} B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}+
B_n^{(J_n,i)} >C_i,\text{ $B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}\le C_i$, $1\le j\le
n_l$, $1\le l\le M$}\right ]\le \nonumber\\
&\sum_{m=1}^{M} p_m\Pr \left [\sum_{l\in {\cal
H}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n_l} B_{(j)}^{(l,i)} + \sum_{l\in {\cal
L}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n_l} B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}+ B_n^{(m,i)} >C_i,\text{
$B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}\le C_i$, $1\le j\le n_l$, $1\le l\le
M$, $B_n^{(m,i)}\le C_i$}\right ]\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad + \sum_{m=1}^{M} p_m\Pr [B_n^{(m,i)}
>C_i].\label{eq:mainsplitth2}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the probabilities in the first term on the right hand side of the previous expression can be expressed in the form $$\label{eq:chtermth2} \Pr \left [\sum_{l\in {\cal
H}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l} B_{(j)}^{(l,i)} + \sum_{l\in {\cal
L}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l} B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}>C_i,\text{
$B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}\le C_i$, $1\le j\le n'_l$, $1\le l\le M$}\right
],$$ where $n'_l=n_l$ for $l\not =m$ and $n'_l=n_l+1$ for $l=m$.
Next, in order to estimate the asymptotic upper bound of the term in (\[eq:chtermth2\]), Assumptions enable us to distinguish between two cases: (i) ${\cal H}_i =\emptyset$ or $\sum_{l\in
{\cal H}_i}n'_l =0$, and (ii) ${\cal H}_i \neq \emptyset$ and $\sum_{l\in {\cal H}_i}n'_l
>0$.
(i): If ${\cal H}_i =\emptyset$ or $\sum_{l\in {\cal
H}_i}n'_l =0$, we have that probability in (\[eq:mainsplitth2\]) can be upper bounded as $$\Pr \left [ \sum_{l\in {\cal L}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l}
B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}>C_i\right ]\le \Pr \left [ \sum_{l\in {\cal
L}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l} L^{(l,i)}_{(j)}>C_i\right ],$$ where in the inequality above we used Assumptions and introduced $L_{(j)}^{(l,i)}$ to be independent r.v.s equal in distribution to $L$. Hence, since $L^{(l,i)}_{(j)}$ are subexponential, we obtain $$\lim_{C_i\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\Pr \left [ \sum_{l\in {\cal
L}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l} B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}>C_i\right ]}{\Pr
[L>C_i]}\le \sum_{l\in {\cal L}_i} n'_l.\label{eq:lightpieceth2}$$
(ii): If ${\cal H}_i \neq \emptyset$ and $\sum_{l\in
{\cal H}_i}n'_l >0$, using Assumptions and Lemma 1, we derive the following asymptotic upper bound $$\Pr \left [\sum_{l\in {\cal H}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l} B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}
+ \sum_{l\in {\cal L}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l}
B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}>C_i,\text{ $B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}\le C_i$, $1\le j\le
n'_l$, $1\le l\le M$}\right ]=o({\bar F}_i(C_i)),
\label{eq:estth21}$$ as $C_i\rightarrow \infty$.
Thus, in (\[eq:chtermth2\])-(\[eq:estth21\]) we obtained upper bounds and their asymptotic estimates for the conditional blocking probabilities in the first term of (\[eq:mainsplitth2\]) that hold for any finite nonnegative integers $n_1,\dots,n_M$. Thus, in view of (\[eq:mainth2term\]), in order to estimate an asymptotic upper bound of $\Pr [Q_n^{(i)}+B_n^{(J_n,i)}>C_i]$, we need to integrate probabilities in (\[eq:chtermth2\]) with respect to densities of r.v.s $N^{(l,C_i)}_{s,n}$, $l=1,\dots ,M$. In this regard, note that in the case where ${\cal H}_i\not =\emptyset$, by Assumptions, the term in (\[eq:chtermth2\]) can be upper bounded as $$\begin{aligned}
&\Pr \left [\sum_{l\in {\cal H}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l}
B_{(j)}^{(l,i)} + \sum_{l\in {\cal L}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l}
B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}>C_i,\text{ $B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}\le C_i$, $1\le j\le
n'_l$, $1\le l\le M$}\right ]\nonumber\\
&\le \Pr \left [\sum_{l\in {\cal H}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l}
B_{(j)}^{(l,i)} + \sum_{l\in {\cal L}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l}
L^{(l,i)}_{(j)}>C_i\right ],\label{eq:upbd100th2}\end{aligned}$$ where, as before, $L^{(l,i)}_{(j)}$ are independent r.v.s equal in distribution to $L$. Furthermore, since $\Pr [L>x]=o({\Bar F}_i
(x))$ as $x\rightarrow \infty$, there exists a large enough finite integer $H$ such that $\Pr [L>x]\le H{\Bar F}_i (x)$ for all $x\ge
0$. Therefore, for any $x\ge 0$, one can write $$\label{eq:stbdth2} \Pr [L>x]\le H{\Bar F}_i (x)=\Pr \left
[\cup_{1\le r\le H}\{{\Hat B}^{(i)}_r >x\}\right ]\le \Pr \left
[\sum_{r=1}^{H} {\Hat B}^{(i)}_r >x\right ],$$ where ${\Hat B}^{(i)}_r$, $1\le r\le H$, are independent r.v.s having cumulative distribution function $F_i$. Now, in view of (\[eq:stbdth2\]), each of random variables $L^{(l,i)}_{(j)}$ in (\[eq:upbd100th2\]) can be stochastically upper bounded by a random variable that is equal in distribution to $\sum_{r=1}^{H}
{\Hat B}^{(i)}_r$. Thus, if we introduce $Y_j$, $j\ge 1$, to be independent r.v.s equal in distribution to $\sum_{r=1}^{H} {\Hat
B}^{(i)}_r$, we obtain $$\Pr \left [\sum_{l\in {\cal H}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l} B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}
+ \sum_{l\in {\cal L}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l}
L_{(j)}^{(l,i)}>C_i\right ]\le \Pr \left [\sum_{l\in {\cal
H}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l} B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}+\sum_{j=1}^{\sum_{l\in
{\cal L}_i} n'_l} Y_j>C_i\right ],$$ which in conjunction with point (b) of Lemma 4.2 in [@AHK94] implies that for any $\epsilon >0$ there exist a finite constant $K_{\epsilon}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr \left [\sum_{l\in {\cal H}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l} B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}
+ \sum_{l\in {\cal L}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l}
L_{(j)}^{(l,i)}>C_i\right ]&\le \Pr \left [\sum_{l\in {\cal
H}_i}\sum_{j=1}^{n'_l} B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}+\sum_{j=1}^{\sum_{l\in
{\cal L}_i}n'_l}
Y_j>C_i\right ]\nonumber\\
&\le K_{\epsilon} (1+\epsilon)^{\sum_{l\in {\cal H}_i} n'_l
+\sum_{l\in {\cal L}_i} n'_l} {\Bar F}_i(C_i),\label{eq:unifbound}\end{aligned}$$ for any $C_i<\infty$. Similarly, in cases where ${\cal H}_i
=\emptyset$, we could apply the stochastic dominance $B_{(j)}^{(l,i)}\leqd L^{(l,i)}_{(j)}$, $l\in {\cal L}_i$, where $L^{(l,i)}_{(j)}$ are, as before, independent subexponential random variables equal in distribution to $L$. Then, by Kesten’s lemma (see Lemma 7 on page 149 of [@ATN72]), the analogous bound to the one in (\[eq:unifbound\]) follows.
Finally, since (\[eq:unifbound\]) bounds uniformly probabilities in (\[eq:chtermth2\]) for all $C_i<\infty$ and $n'_l$, $1\le
l\le M$, in conjunction with (\[eq:mainsplitth2\]), (\[eq:mainth2term\]), $N_{s,n}^{(l,C_i)}\le N_{n}^{(l,\infty)}$ a.s. and existence of $ \expect z^{N_{n}^{(l,\infty)}}$ for all $z\in \mathbb{C}$, $1\le l\le M$, (see Theorem 1 in [@TAK80] and Theorem 5 in [@LKT90]), one can apply the dominated convergence theorem and conclude $$\lim_{C_i\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\Pr [Q_n^{(i)}+B_n^{(J_n,i)}>C_i]}{\sum_{l\in {\cal H}_i} p_l \Bar {F}_{l,i} (C_i)}\le 1[ {\cal H}_i \neq \emptyset].$$ Next, by adding asymptotic estimates for all $1\le i\le K$, in conjunction with (\[eq:finallow\]), we complete the proof of the following result:
\[theorem:th2\] For the request model introduced in this section, under the conditions imposed by Assumptions, the stationary blocking probability for general loss networks satisfies $$\Pr [\cup_{1\le i\le K} \{Q_n^{(i)}+B_n^{(J_n,i)}>C_i\}]\sim
\sum_{i=1}^{K}\sum_{l\in {\cal H}_i}p_lc_{l,i} \Bar
{F}_{i}(C_i)\;\;\text{as}\;\;\text{$\min_i C_i\rightarrow \infty$.}$$
Numerical examples {#sec:experiment}
==================
In this section, with two simulation experiments, we demonstrate the accuracy of our asymptotic formulas, proved in Theorems \[theorem:th1\] and \[theorem:th2\]. Our goal is to show that even though our results are asymptotic, the derived estimates match experiments with high accuracy even for systems with finite support demand distributions and moderately large capacities.
In each experiment, in order for the system to reach stationarity, we let the first $10^{8}$ arrivals to be a warm-up time. By repeating many experiments, we observe that longer warm-up times do not lead to improved results. Then, we count the number of blocked requests among next $10^{9}$ arrivals. In both of the experiments below, measurements are conducted for capacities $C=500+100j,0\le j\le 9$, where the starting value of $C=500$ is set to be slightly larger than the effective systems load $\lambda \expect[\theta_n] \expect [B_n]$. Simulation results are presented by symbol “o” in Figures \[fig:example1\] and \[fig:example2\], while our approximations, estimates obtained in Theorems \[theorem:th1\] and \[theorem:th2\], are the solid lines on the same figures. Note that in order to emphasize the difference and to observe a range of blocking probabilities we are trying to estimate, we present base $10$ logarithm of the obtained values.
[**Example 1**]{} Consider the case of a single resource type of capacity $C$. Let requests for resources arrive at Poisson time points with rate $\lambda = 1$. In addition, we assume that engagement durations are exponentially distributed with mean $1/\mu =1$. Next, let request requirements $B_n$ be drawn from a finite support distribution, where $\Pr [B_n
=i]=\frac{0.3}{i^{1.5}}$, $1\le i\le 1999$, and $\Pr
[B_n=2000]=1-\Pr [B_n <2000]$ (power law distribution). Effective load in this example is $\lambda \expect [\theta_n] \expect
[B_n]\approx 485.8$. Experimental results are presented in Figure \[fig:example1\]. Even though we start measuring rejections at capacities that are slightly larger than the mean requirement value, our approximation $\Pr[B_n>C]$ is very close to experimental results. In particular, the relative approximation error is less than $1\%$ for $C=500$, and for capacity values larger or equal to $C=1400$ this error is less than $0.3\%$.
[**Example 2**]{} In this example, we consider the case of two resource and two request types. Furthermore, we assume that resource capacities are the same $C=C_1=C_2$. The frequencies of requests of types 1 and 2 are $p_1=0.3$ and $p_2=0.7$ respectively. Assume that the arrival points are separated by a fixed, unit length of time, i.e., $\tau_n-\tau_{n-1}=1$ for all $n$. Type $1$ request durations satisfy $\theta^{(1)}_i\sim
exp(4)$ and type 2 request holding times are drawn from the uniform distribution on $[0,40]$, i.e., $\theta^{(2)}_i\sim
Unif([0,40])$. Resource requirements corresponding to engagements of type 1 are distributed as $\Pr [B^{1,1}=1]=0.8$, $\Pr
[B^{1,1}=i]=0.15e^{-\sqrt {i}}$, $2\le i\le 1999$ and $\Pr
[B^{1,1}=2000]=1-\Pr [B^{1,1}<2000]$ for the type 1 resources, and $\Pr [B^{1,2}=50]=1$ for type 2 resources. Requests of type 2 require resources according to $\Pr
[B^{2,1}=i]=geom^{i-1}(1-geom)$, $1\le i\le 1999$, $\Pr
[B^{2,1}=2000]=1-\Pr [B^{2,1}<2000]$, where $geom=0.6$ for resources of type 1, and $\Pr [B^{2,2} =i]=\frac{0.3}{i^{1.5}}$, $1\le i\le 1999$, $\Pr [B^{2,2}=2000]=1-\Pr [B^{2,2} <2000]$ for type 2 resources. Our asymptotic results suggest that the blocking probability should be characterized by the heaviest tailed demand distributions. The results of this experiment are presented in Figure \[fig:example2\]. As in the previous case, we obtain a very accurate agreement between our approximation and the simulation. The relative approximation error in this case does not exceed $2\%$ and is getting smaller as resource capacities grow.
[**Remark:**]{} (i) We would like to point out that the accuracy of experimental results directly depends on the approximation errors (\[eq:refth11\]) and (\[eq:estth21\]), depending on the simulated scenarios. These errors highly depend on the tail properties of the resource requirements distributions. More specifically, under fairly general assumptions, the heavier the dominant tail of the resource requirement distribution is, the smaller would be the relative approximation error. For detailed explanations, a reader is referred to Section 1.3.2 of [@EKM97]. (ii) Note that our main results estimate the stationary blocking probability and, as we commented earlier, are indifferent to distributional properties of holding times. For that reason, as long as one can claim that the measurements are conducted in stationarity, the transience should not affect experimental results.
Concluding remarks {#sec:concl}
==================
In this paper, we consider loss networks with reusable resources and finite resource capacities and estimate the probability that a request is rejected due to insufficient amount of resources at points of their arrivals. Assuming a renewal process of request arrivals, subexponential resource requirements and generally distributed activity durations, we show that the asymptotic blocking probability for a wide class of analyzed systems can be fully estimated using resource requirement distribution, independent from other system’s properties. In particular, we show that the blocking probability behaves as the asymptotically dominant tail of the resource requirement distribution.
The model we study can be applied to a wide range of applications. Historically, loss networks (in particular, Erlang loss networks) are widely used for modeling communication networks. Later, through the development of new services applications such as workforce management with similar modeling properties, the importance of accurately estimating blocking probabilities of general loss networks has become significant. In this regard, we investigate loss networks with various request types and possibly highly variable random amounts of required resources. In addition, we research the possibility of incorporating random advance reservations for incoming requests. These results should be of great interest to an emerging research community. Although our results are intended mainly for qualitative purposes, numerical examples demonstrate an excellent match between derived formulas and simulated systems performance, hence strongly suggesting their application.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
In this section we prove the existence of the stationary blocking probabilities in (\[eq:deflossrate\]). Using the model description from Section \[sec:model\], we observe the system at the moments of request arrivals. Then, we define a discrete time process $X_n\triangleq (N^{(C)}_{n}, B_i, E_i, i=1, 2, \cdots,
N^{(C)}_{0,n})$, where $E_i$s represent times that elapsed in processing requests in the system by time $\tau_n$; furthermore, $N^{(C)}_{0,n}$ is the number of active requests at the moment of $n$th arrival. Note that $\{X_n\}_{n\ge 0}$ is a discrete time Markov chain with state space $\Omega\eqdef \nat_{0}\times
\ell_\infty \times \ell_\infty$, where $\ell_\infty$ denotes the Banach space of the infinite sequence of real numbers equipped with the supreme norm; let $\omega_0\in\Omega$ denote the state with no active requests. We start observing the system at the moment $\tau_0$ of $0$th arrival and denote the initial state by $X_0=(N^{0},B_i^{0},E_i^{0},i=1,\dots,N^{0})$ drawn from some arbitrary distribution $P_0$, where $\expect B_i^{0}<\infty$, $\expect \theta^{0}_i<\infty$. Next, define ${\mathcal F}$ to be the Borel field of $\Omega$, and let $P_n (x_0,A)$, $x_0\in
\Omega$, $A\in {\mathcal F}$, represent a transition probability of the Markov chain $X_n$ into set $A$ in time $n$, starting from state $x_0$. Let $P_n$ be the probability distribution of $X_n$.
Now, in order to prove the existence of a unique stationary distribution for the Markov chain $\{X_n\}$, we use a discrete version of Theorem 1 in [@SEV57], which we state next for reasons of completeness.
[**Theorem:**]{} A Markov chain homogeneous in time has a unique stationary distribution which is ergodic if, for any $\epsilon >0$, there exists a measurable set $S$, a probability distribution $R$ in $\Omega$, and $n_1>$, $k>0$, $K>0$ such that
- $k R(A)\le P_{n_1} (x,A)$ for all points $x\in S$ and measurable sets $A\subset S$; for any initial distribution $P_0$ there exists $n_0$ such that for any $n\ge n_0$
- $P_n (S)\ge
1-\epsilon$,
- $P_n (A) \le K R(A) +\epsilon$ for all measurable sets $A\subset S$.
The proof follows identical arguments as in [@SEV57] translated into discrete setting.
Next, we need to show that Theorem 1 holds for the process investigated in this paper; in particular, we will consider a common resource pool case. The proof follows the similar reasoning as in Theorems 4 and 5 of [@SEV57].
Define set $S(\psi, \beta, \delta)$ as $$S(\psi,\beta, \delta)\eqdef \{N^{(C)}_{0,n}\le \psi, 0\le B_i\le
\beta, 0\le E_i\le \delta, i\in {\cal N}^{(C)}_{0,n}\}$$ for some positive finite constants $\psi, \beta, \delta$.
Now, we show that for any $\epsilon >0$, there exists $S(\psi,
\beta,\delta) \subset \Omega$ such that for any initial distribution $P_0$ there exists $n_0$ such that for all $n\ge n_0$ $$\label{eq:point2} P_n (S(\psi,\beta,\delta))\ge 1-\epsilon.$$ Note that $$\begin{aligned}
&P_n (\Bar {S} (\psi,\beta,\delta))\le \Pr [\cup_{i\in {\cal
N}^{(C)}_{0,n}} \{\theta_i > \delta \}, N^{(C)}_{0,n}\le \psi] + \Pr
[\cup_{i\in {\cal N}^{(C)}_{0,n}} \{B_i > \beta\},N^{(C)}_{0,n}\le
\psi]+\Pr [N^{(C)}_{0,n}>\psi]\nonumber\\
&\le \psi \Pr [\theta_i > \delta]+\psi \Pr [B_i >\beta] + \Pr
[N^{(C)}_{a,n}+N^{0}_{0,n}>\psi],\label{eq:point2p1}\end{aligned}$$ where $N^{(C)}_{a,n}$ represents the number of active requests at $\tau_n$ that originated from $n$ arrivals at $\tau_0,\dots
\tau_{n-1}$, and the rest of active requests at $\tau_n$, $N^{0}_{0,n}=N^{(C)}_{0,n}-N^{(C)}_{a,n}$ are those that were active at the initial point $\tau_0$ and are still processed at the moment of $n$th arrival. Next, since $$\begin{aligned}
&\Pr [N^{(C)}_{a,n}+N^{0}_{0,n}>\psi]\le \Pr \left
[N^{(C)}_{a,n}>\frac{\psi}{2}\right ] +\Pr \left [N^{0}_{0,n}
>\frac{\psi}{2}\right ]\nonumber\\
&\le \Pr \left [N^{(\infty)}_n>\frac{\psi}{2}\right ]+\Pr
\left [\sum_{i=1}^{N^{0}}1[\theta_i^{0}>\tau_n-\tau_0]>\frac{\psi}{2}\right ]\nonumber\\
&\le \Pr \left [N^{(\infty)}_n>\frac{\psi}{2}\right
]+\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\Pr [N^{0}=m]\Pr \left
[\sum_{i=1}^{m}1[\theta_i^{0}>(1-\epsilon_1)n\expect
[\tau_1-\tau_0]]>\frac{\psi}{2}\right ]\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad+\Pr [\tau_n-\tau_0< (1-\epsilon_1)n\expect
[\tau_1-\tau_0]],\label{eq:initstat1}\end{aligned}$$ where in the previous inequalities $0<\epsilon_1 <1$ is an arbitrary constant and we used $N^{(\infty)}_n \ge N^{(C)}_{a,n}$ a.s., where $N^{(\infty)}_n$ is defined as in the proof of Theorem \[theorem:th1\].
Now, we prove that there exists $\psi=\psi_0$ large enough such that (\[eq:initstat1\]) is bounded by $\epsilon/3$. By definition of $N^{(\infty)}_n$ in Section \[sec:model\] and Little’s formula, $\expect N^{(\infty)}_n <\infty$ and, therefore, $$\label{eq:ninftyn} \lim_{\psi\rightarrow \infty} \Pr \left
[N^{(\infty)}>\frac{\psi}{2}\right ]\rightarrow 0,$$ uniformly for all $n>0$. Next, note that $1[\theta_i^{0}>(1-\epsilon_1)n\expect [\tau_1-\tau_0]]\le
1[\theta_i^{0}>(1-\epsilon_1)\expect [\tau_1-\tau_0]]$ a.s., and that for any fixed $m$, $$\Pr \left [\sum_{i=1}^{m}1[\theta_i^{0}>(1-\epsilon_1)n\expect
[\tau_1-\tau_0]]>\frac{\psi}{2}\right ]\le \Pr \left
[\sum_{i=1}^{m}1[\theta_i^{0}>(1-\epsilon_1)\expect
[\tau_1-\tau_0]]>\frac{\psi}{2}\right ]\downarrow
0\;\;\text{as}\;\;\text{$\psi\rightarrow \infty$,}$$ which by the monotone convergence theorem implies that the second term in (\[eq:initstat1\]) satisfies $$\label{eq:sectermconv2} \lim_{\psi\rightarrow \infty}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\Pr [N^{0}=m]\Pr \left
[\sum_{i=1}^{m}1[\theta_i^{0}>(1-\epsilon_1)n\expect
[\tau_1-\tau_0]]>\frac{\psi}{2}\right ]=0,$$ uniformly for all $n>0$. Finally, by the Weak Law of Large Numbers, for all $n$ large enough, $$\label{eq:sectermpiece} \Pr [\tau_n-\tau_0\le (1-\epsilon_1)n\expect
[\tau_1-\tau_0]]\le \epsilon/9.$$ Thus, the previous conclusion in conjunction with (\[eq:sectermconv2\]), (\[eq:ninftyn\]) and (\[eq:initstat1\]) implies that for an arbitrary $0<\epsilon <1$, there exist $n_0<\infty$ and $\psi_0<\infty$ large enough such that for all $n\ge n_0$ $$\label{eq:finsecterm2} \Pr \left
[N^{(\infty)}>\frac{\psi_0}{2}\right ]\le
\frac{\epsilon}{9}\;\;\text{and}\;\;\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\Pr
[N^{0}=m]\Pr \left
[\sum_{i=1}^{m}1[\theta_i^{0}>(1-\epsilon_1)n\expect
[\tau_1-\tau_0]]>\frac{\psi_0}{2}\right ]\le \frac{\epsilon}{9}.$$
Now, since $\expect B_i < \infty$, $\expect \theta_i <\infty$, there exist $\beta_0$, $\delta_0$, such that $$\Pr [B_i >\beta_0] \le \frac{\epsilon}{3\psi_0}\;\;\text{and}\;\;\Pr
[\theta_i >\delta_0] \le \frac{\epsilon}{3\psi_0}.$$ Thus, the previous expressions in conjunction with (\[eq:finsecterm2\]), (\[eq:sectermpiece\]) and (\[eq:point2p1\]) imply that for all large enough $n\ge n_0$ inequality (\[eq:point2\]) holds for a chosen set $S(\psi_0,\beta_0,\delta_0)$.
Next, we show that there exists $n_1 >0$ and $k>0$ such that for all points $x\in S(\psi_0, \beta_0,\delta_0)$ and measurable sets $A\subset S(\psi_0,\beta_0,\delta_0)$, the following inequality holds $$\label{eq:point1ineq1} P_{n_1} (x,A)\ge k R(A).$$ Let $F_{\theta} (u)$ denote a cumulative distribution function of a random duration $\theta$, i.e., $\Pr [\theta \le u]$. Furthermore, select a small positive number $\eta$ such that for some chosen $\Delta
> \delta_0$, $F_{\theta} (\Delta) -F_{\theta} (\delta_0) =\eta
>0$. Next, for any $n_1$ $$\label{eq:point1main} P_{n_1} (x,A)\ge P_1 (x,\omega_0) P_{n_2}
(\omega_0,A),$$ where $n_2 = n_1 - 1$. Let $x=(m,b_1,\dots, b_m,e_1,\dots ,e_m)\in
S(\psi_0, \beta_0,\delta_0)$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
P_1 (x,\omega_0) &\ge \Pr [\tau_1 -\tau_0 \ge \Delta , \text{all
$m$ requests depart in $(\tau_0,\tau_1)$}]\nonumber\\
&= \int_{\Delta}^{\infty} \prod_{i=1}^{m}\frac{F_{\theta} (u+e_i)
-F_{\theta} (e_i)}{1-F_{\theta} (e_i)} dF_a
(u),\label{eq:point1lowbd}\end{aligned}$$ where $F_a (u)$ represents cumulative inter arrival distribution of a renewal process $\{\tau_n\}$, i.e., $F_a (u)=\Pr
[\tau_1-\tau_0 \le u]$. Now, by applying lower bound $$\frac{F_{\theta} (u+e_i)-F_{\theta}(e_i)}{1-F_{\theta} (e_i)}\ge
F_{\theta} (\Delta)-F_{\theta} (\delta_0)=\eta$$ in (\[eq:point1lowbd\]) we obtain $$\label{eq:point1ineq2} P_1 (x,\omega_0)\ge \eta^{m}\Pr [\tau_1
-\tau_0
>\Delta]\ge \eta^{\psi_0} (1-F_a (\Delta)).$$
Next, we derive a lower bound for $P_{n_2} (\omega_0,A)$ for some $n_2$ large enough such that $$\label{eq:wlln} \Pr [\tau_{n_2}-\tau_0 > \delta]\ge
1-\frac{\epsilon}{2}.$$ Note that the condition imposed on $n_2$ in (\[eq:wlln\]) is possible due to the Weak Law of Large Numbers, since for any $\epsilon >0$ and all $n_2$ large enough with $\delta_0 <
(1-\epsilon)\ex[\tau_{n_2}-\tau_0]$, $$\Pr [\tau_{n_2}-\tau_0>\delta_0]\ge \Pr
[\tau_{n_2}-\tau_0>(1-\epsilon)\expect [\tau_{n_2}-\tau_0]]\ge
1-\frac{\epsilon}{2},$$ Next, pick any $x'=(m',e'_1,\dots ,e'_{m'},b'_1,\dots,b'_{m'})\in
A$ where, without loss of generality, we assume that $e'_1\ge
e'_2\ge \dots \ge e'_{m'}$. Define $x'+dx'\triangleq
(m',e'_1+de'_1,\dots
,e'_{m'}+de'_{m'},b'_1+db'_1,\dots,b'_{m'}+db'_{m'})$ where $de'_1, \cdots, de'_{m'}, db'_1,\cdots, db'_{m'}$ are infinitesimal elements. Then, the transition probability into state $(x', x'+d x')$ starting from $\omega_0$ can be bounded by the probability of the event that there are exactly $m'$ arrivals prior to $\tau_{n_2}$ whose arrival times are determined by $e'_1,
\cdots, e'_{m'}$, whose resource requirements are in $(b'_1,b'_1+db'_1),\cdots, (b'_{m'},b'_{m'}+db'_{m'})$, and where the rest of $n_2-m'$ arrivals are rejected since their requirements exceed capacity $C$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
&P_{n_2}(\omega_0,(x', x'+dx'))\ge \left \{ \prod_{j=1}^{m'}\Pr
[\theta_j
> e'_j]\Pr [B_j\in (b'_j,b'_j+db'_j)]\right \} \Pr
[B_1>C]^{n_2 - m'}\\
&\qquad\times\Pr \left [\bigcup_I \left \{\sum_{j=i_1}^{i_{2}-1}Y_j
\in (e'_1-e'_2,e'_1-e'_2+de'_1),\dots \sum_{j=i_{m'}}^{n_2-1}Y_j\in
(e'_{m'},e'_{m'}+de'_{m'})\right
\}\right ]\\
&\ge \Pr [B_1>C]^{n_2} \left \{ \prod_{j=1}^{m'}\Pr [\theta_j
> e'_j]\Pr [B_j\in (b'_j,b'_j+db'_j)]\right \}\\
&\qquad\times\Pr \left [\bigcup_I \left \{\sum_{j=i_1}^{i_2
-1}Y_j\in (e'_1-e'_2,e'_1-e'_2+de'_1),\dots
,\sum_{j=i_{m'}}^{n_2-1}Y_j\in (e'_{m'},e'_{m'}+de'_{m'})\right
\}\right ],\end{aligned}$$ where $I\triangleq\{0\le i_1<i_2<\dots <i_{m'}\le n_2 -1\}$ and $Y_j$ are i.i.d. random variables equal in distribution to inter-arrival times of the renewal process $\{\tau_n\}$, i.e., $Y_j\eqd \tau_{j+1}-\tau_j$. Now denote $$\begin{aligned}
&r(m',e'_1,\dots ,e'_{m'}, b'_1,\cdots ,b'_{m'})\eqdef \left \{
\prod_{j=1}^{m'}\Pr [\theta_j
>
e'_j]\Pr [B_j\in (b'_j,b'_j+db'_j)]\right \} \nonumber \\
&\qquad \times\Pr \left [\bigcup_I \left \{\sum_{j=i_1}^{i_2
-1}Y_j \in (e'_1-e'_2,e'_1-e'_2+de'_1),\dots
,\sum_{j=i_{m'}}^{n_2-1}Y_j\in (e'_{m'},e'_{m'}+de'_{m'})\right
\}\right ],\label{eq:point1ineqdef}\end{aligned}$$ and define probability distribution $$\label{eq:defdistrpr} R(A)\eqdef {\mathcal V} \int_{x'\in A}
r(m',e'_1,\dots ,e'_{m'},b'_1,\dots ,b'_{m'}),$$ where ${\mathcal V}$ is a normalization constant. Note that $R(A)$ is well-defined since $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{m'=0}^{\infty} \int_{\infty > e'_1 >\dots >e'_{m'} >0}
\int_{b'_1,\dots ,b'_{m'}\ge 0}^{\infty}r(m',e'_1,\dots
,e'_{m'},b'_1,\dots b'_{m'})\\
&\le \Pr [N^{(C)}_{0,n} \le \psi_0](\expect \theta_1)^{\psi_0} +\Pr
[N^{(C)}_{0,n} >\psi_0]\\
&\le \Pr [N^{(C)}_{0,n} \le \psi_0] (\expect \theta_1)^{\psi_0} +\Pr
[N^{(\infty)}_{n}
>\psi_0] < \infty.\end{aligned}$$ The previous inequalities, in conjunction with (\[eq:point1ineqdef\]), (\[eq:point1ineq2\]) and (\[eq:point1main\]) imply that $$\label{eq:point1} P_{n_2+1}(x,A)\ge \eta^{\psi_0} (1-F_a
(\Delta))\Pr [B_1>C]^{n_2} {\mathcal V}^{-1} R(A).$$
Finally, it is left to show that there exists $K>0$ such that for every initial distribution $P_0$, for all $n$ large and for any measurable set $A\subset S(\psi_0,\beta_0,\delta_0)$ $$P_n (A) \le K R(A)+\epsilon.$$ By (\[eq:wlln\]), for all $n\ge n_2$ $$\begin{aligned}
&P_n (A)& \le \Pr [X_{n} \in A, \tau_{n} -\tau_{0} > \delta_0 ]+
\Pr
[\tau_{n} -\tau_{0} \le \delta_0]\\
&&\le \Pr [X_{n} \in A, \tau_{n} -\tau_{0} > \delta_0 ]+\epsilon/2 \\
&&\le \int_{x'\in A}\left \{ \prod_{j=1}^{m'}\Pr [\theta_j
> e'_j]\Pr [B_j\in (b'_j,b'_j+db'_j)]\right \}\\
&&\qquad \times \Pr \left [\bigcup_I \left \{\sum_{j=i_1}^{i_2
-1}Y_j \in (e'_1 -e'_2,e'_1-e'_2+de'_1),\dots
,\sum_{j=i_{m'}}^{n_2-1}Y_j\in
(e'_{m'},e'_{m'}+de'_{m'})\right \} \right ]+\epsilon\\
&&=\int_{x'\in A}r(m',e'_1,\dots ,e'_{m'},b'_1,\dots
,b'_{m'})+\epsilon,\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality follows from the fact that requests that are active at $\tau_n$ must occur in the previous $\delta_0$ length of time that are captured in $n_2$ renewal intervals $[\tau_{n-n_2},\tau_{n-n_2+1}),\dots ,[\tau_{n-1},\tau_n)$ with significant probability (greater than $1-\epsilon/2$). Thus, after applying definition (\[eq:defdistrpr\]), we obtain that for all $n$ large $$P_n (A) \le {\mathcal V}^{-1} R(A)+\epsilon,$$ which, in conjunction with (\[eq:point1\]) and (\[eq:point2\]), implies that the process $X_n$ satisfies conditions of the theorem stated at the beginning of this section. Thus, there exists a unique stationary distribution for the Markov chain $X_n$. Therefore, since $Q_n^{(C)}$ defined in Section \[sec:model\] is a functional of the process $X_n$, it has a unique stationary distribution as well implying the existence of the stationary blocking probability.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank Prof. Predrag Jelenković for valuable suggestions related to the possible generalizations of this work.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The theory of neutrino oscillations explains changes in neutrino flavor, count rates, and spectra from solar, atmospheric, accelerator, and reactor neutrinos. These oscillations are characterized by three mixing angles and two mass-squared differences. The solar mixing angle, $\theta_{12}$, and the atmospheric mixing angle, $\theta_{23}$, have been well measured, but until recently the neutrino mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ was not well known. The Daya Bay experiment, located northeast of Hong Kong at the Guangdong Nuclear Power Complex in China, has made a precise measurement of electron antineutrino disappearance using six functionally-identical gadolinium-doped liquid scintillator-based detectors at three sites with distances between 364 and 1900 meters from six reactor cores. This proceeding describes the Daya Bay updated result, using 127 days of good run time collected between December 24, 2011 and May 11, 2012. For the far site, the ratio of the observed number of events to the expected number of events assuming no neutrino oscillation is $0.944 \pm 0.007(\mathrm{stat}) \pm 0.003(\mathrm{syst}).$ A fit for $\theta_{13}$ in the three-neutrino framework yields $\sin^2 2\theta_{13} = 0.089 \pm 0.010(\mathrm{stat}) \pm 0.005(\mathrm{syst}).$'
address: 'University of Wisconsin, Madison'
author:
- 'David M. Webber, on behalf of the Daya Bay Collaboration'
bibliography:
- 'Webber\_Beach2012.bib'
title: An Improved Measurement of Electron Antineutrino Disappearance at Daya Bay
---
Neutrino oscillation ,Neutrino mixing ,Reactor ,Daya Bay
Introduction
============
In the Standard Model of particle physics, the three neutrino flavors $\nu_e,$ $\nu_\mu,$ $\nu_\tau,$ corresponding to the three generations of matter, are massless. However, the discovery of neutrino flavor oscillation [@SuperK_1998; @SNO_2002] has shown that neutrinos must have mass. Neutrinos propagate in definite mass eigenstates, denoted $\nu_1,$ $\nu_2,$ $\nu_3,$ and the mixing between the mass and flavor eigenstates is described by three mixing angles and one complex phase. Until this year, the smallest mixing angle, $\theta_{13}$, was not known. Previous experiments observing reactor antineutrinos showed that $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}<0.17$ at 90% confidence [@Chooz1; @Chooz2]. More recently, beam neutrino [@MINOS; @T2K] and reactor antineutrino [@DoubleChooz] experiments showed hints that $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ is nonzero with significances between 1 and 2.5 $\sigma$. In March 2012, the Daya Bay experiment released results showing that $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ is nonzero to better than $5~\sigma$ [@DayaBay_PRL], and this result was confirmed by the RENO experiment [@RENO_2012].
After this announcement, the Daya Bay experiment has updated its result including an additional 77 days ($2.5\times$) exposure [@DayaBay_improved]. This proceeding describes an overview of neutrino oscillation and the Daya Bay experiment, and presents the updated result.
Neutrino Oscillation
====================
As an introduction to neutrino oscillations, consider the simple case of two neutrinos, with flavor eigenstates $\nu_a$ and $\nu_b$ and mass eigenstates $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$, related by one mixing angle $\theta$. $$\left (
\begin{array}{c}
\nu_a \\
\nu_b
\end{array}
\right )
=
\left (
\begin{array}{rr}
\cos \theta & \sin \theta \\
-\sin \theta & \cos \theta
\end{array}
\right )
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
\nu_1 \\
\nu_2
\end{array}
\right )$$ Neutrinos initially in a pure $\nu_a$ state will oscillate in and out of a pure $\nu_a$ state following the wave function $$\Psi_{\nu_a}(x,t) = f(x,t) \sum_i U_{ai}e^{-i(m_i t/2E)}.$$ The “survival probability” for a neutrino initially in a pure $\nu_a$ state to remain in the $\nu_a$ state is $$P(\nu_a\rightarrow\nu_a) = 1 - \sin^2(2\theta) \sin^2 \left( 1.27 \Delta m_{21}^2 \frac{L}{E_\nu} \right),$$ where $\theta$ governs the amplitude of the oscillation, $\Delta m_{21}^2 (eV^2) = m_2^2 - m_1^2 $ governs the frequency of oscillation, $L$ (km) is the propagation distance, and $E_\nu$ (GeV) is the neutrino energy.
By extending this framework to three neutrinos [@MNSmatrix] and making the approximation $\Delta m^2_{32} \approx \Delta m^2_{31} \approx \Delta m^2_{\mathrm atm},$ one can write the survival probability of electron antineutrinos as
$$\label{eqn:psur}
\begin{split}
P_{\mathrm{sur}} \approx 1 &- \sin^2 2\theta_{13} \sin^2 \left( \Delta m^2_{32} \frac{L}{4E} \right) \\
&- \sin^2 2\theta_{12} \cos^4 2\theta_{13} \sin^2\left(\Delta m^2_{21} \frac{L}{4E}\right).
\end{split}$$
From equation \[eqn:psur\], it is clear that two terms dominate the survival probability. For a fixed antineutrino energy range, the first term contains the larger $\Delta m^2_{32}$ and becomes dominant at smaller baselines. The second term depends on the smaller $\Delta m^2_{21}$ and applies to the measurement of $\theta_{12}$ at larger baselines. The latter term has been measured by KamLAND [@Kamland_2008], and the former is well suited to a $\approx$[2]{} [km]{} baseline reactor antineutrino experiment.
The Daya Bay Experiment
=======================
The Daya Bay experiment takes place at the Daya Bay nuclear power complex near Shenzhen, China. There are 6 reactors spaced in pairs along the coast in three nuclear power plants. Each reactor is capable of producing 2.9 GW thermal power, for a total site power of 17.4 GW. The reactor companies provide time-averaged information about the reactor power and the isotope fractions to the experiment; uncertainties on these quantities are given in Table \[tbl:reactor\_uncertainties\].
------------------------------- ------ ------------------ ------
Energy/fission 0.2% Power 0.5%
IBDs$^\dagger$/fission 3% Fission fraction 0.6%
Spend fuel 0.3%
Combined 3% Combined 0.8%
$^\dagger$inverse beta decays
------------------------------- ------ ------------------ ------
: Reactor Uncertainties\[tbl:reactor\_uncertainties\]. Note that for a relative near-far measurement, only the uncorrelated uncertainties contribute.
Overall, the nuclear power complex produces $3\times10^{21}$ antineutrinos per second. During the collection of the December 24 – May 11 dataset, there were 6 detectors in installed in three experimental halls, as shown in Figure \[fig:sitelayout\]. The detectors are installed underground with baselines and overburdens summarized in Table \[tbl:baselines\].
![The layout of the Daya Bay experiment. The six reactors (D1,D2,L1,L2,L3,L4) are located at the Daya Bay (D.B.), Ling Ao (L.A.), and Ling Ao-II (L.A.II) nuclear power plants. The Daya Bay antineutrino detectors (ADs) are located underground in three experimental halls (EHs). Underground tunnels connect the three sites and provide access from the surface.\[fig:sitelayout\]](Fig1_DYB_layout_prl.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Overburden D.B. L.A. L.A.II
----- ------------ ------ ------ --------
EH1 280 360 860 1310
EH2 300 1250 480 530
EH3 880 1910 1540 1550
: Experimental hall overburden (m.w.e.) and approximate baselines to reactor cores (m). An overview of the experimental site layout is shown in Figure \[fig:sitelayout\]. \[tbl:baselines\]
The Daya Bay antineutrino detectors (ADs) have 3 cylindrical nested fluid volumes separated by two acrylic vessels. The innermost volume holds 20 tons of linear-alkyl-benzene-based liquid scintillator, doped with 0.1% gadolinium. This gadolinium-doped liquid scintillator (GdLS) optimizes the detection of the the inverse beta decay (IBD) process $\bar{\nu}_e + p \rightarrow n + e^+$, where the positron carries most of the neutrino energy and is tagged by neutron capture on gadolinium. The intermediate volume contains undoped liquid scintillator (LS) and serves as a gamma-ray catcher for light escaping from the central volume. The outer volume contains a non-scintillating mineral oil (MO) buffer. Scintillation light is collected by reflectors on the top and bottom of the detector and by 192 photomultiplier tubes on the walls of the AD.
The detectors are constructed on the surface in a clean environment, and then transported underground for filling. The detector is filled simultaneously from three fluid reservoirs to keep the fluid levels equal and to minimize the stress on the acrylic vessels. After filling, the detectors are transported to one of the three experimental halls, where they are placed in a water pool. Each water pool is filled with ultra-pure (15 megohm-cm) water and serves the dual function of radiation shield and active muon veto. The water pool is covered with a light-tight cover and an array of resistive-plate chambers (RPCs) [@DYB_RPC] is rolled over the top as an additional cosmic ray veto. A schematic of an AD installed in the water pool is shown in Figure \[fig:AD\]. The detectors are functionally identical and have excellent consistency, as studied in a side-by-side comparison of the first two detectors in hall 1 [@DYB_AD12].
![Schematic of installed antineutrino detector (AD). The AD has three cylindrical nested fluid volumes, filled with gadolinium-doped liquid scintillator, undoped liquid scintillator, and mineral oil. Top and bottom reflectors guide scintillation light into 192 8-inch photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) on the walls of the detector. The ADs are installed on supports in a water pool instrumented with PMTs. The water pool and the RPCs serve as a cosmic ray veto. Automated calibration units (ACUs) periodically lower sources into the detector for calibration.\[fig:AD\]](Fig2_DYB_detector.pdf){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Event Selection
===============
Although care is taken to keep radioactive materials out of the detectors, antineutrino interactions in the detector are rare compared to ambient radioactive backgrounds. With a trigger threshold of 0.4 MeV, the single-event rate is $\approx$[250]{} [Hz]{} ($\approx$[140]{} [Hz]{}), whereas the neutrino interaction rate is $\approx$[650]{}[/day]{} ($\approx$[75]{}[/day]{}) at the near (far) sites. The Daya Bay analysis uses coincident events to reduce this background. Specifically, the detectors are optimized for observing the prompt positron and delayed neutron of the IBD process. The positron carries most of the energy of the neutrino, and it thermalizes and annihilates quickly. The average neutron capture time in GdLS is [28]{} [$\mu$s]{}. This neutron capture provides an easily identified delayed signal which tags the prompt events. After rejecting flashing PMT events and applying a muon veto, IBD candidates are selected from all the prompt-delayed coincidence events which have;
- prompt energy between 0.7 and 12 MeV,
- delayed energy between 6 and 12 MeV,
- time between prompt and delayed events between 1 and 200 $\mu s$,
- no other signals [400]{} [$\mu s$]{} before or [200]{} [$\mu s$]{} after the delayed neutron event.
The efficiency and uncertainty of these cuts, as well as other detector-related uncertainties, is summarized in Table \[tbl:detector\_uncertainties\].
=0.11cm
Efficiency Correlated Uncorrelated
-------------------- ------------ ------------ --------------
Target Protons – 0.47% 0.03%
Flasher Cut 99.98% 0.01% 0.01%
Delayed Energy Cut 90.9% 0.6% 0.12%
Prompt Energy Cut 99.88% 0.10% 0.01%
Multiplicity Cut – 0.02% $<0.01\%$
Capture Time Cut 98.6% 0.12% 0.01%
Gd Capture Ratio 83.8% 0.8% $<0.1\%$
Spill-in 105.0% 1.5% 0.02%
Livetime 100.0% 0.002% $<0.01\%$
Combined 78.8% 1.9% 0.2%
: Detector Uncertainties\[tbl:detector\_uncertainties\]. The spill-in efficiency is larger than 100% since more IBD neutrons drift inward into the central GdLS target volume than outward into the LS volume. For a relative near-far measurement, only the uncorrelated uncertainties contribute.
Backgrounds
===========
Despite the resolving power of the coincidence IBD selection, a few background effects can mimic an IBD signal. First, independent single events can occur with small time-separation, giving an accidental coincidence. These events are statistically subtracted by calculating the expected rate of accidentals using the rate of prompt-like single events, delayed-like single events, and the coincidence interval.
Second, a fast cosmogenic neutron can mimic an IBD signal by first scattering inside the detector to give prompt light and then capturing on Gd to give a delayed signal. Since the neutron energy deposition is expected to be flat below 50 MeV, these neutron events can be subtracted from the IBD candidates by considering the prompt-like signal energies with 12-50 MeV and extrapolating into the IBD signal region 0.7-12 MeV. This method is validated by examining fast-neutron events tagged with a muon.
Third, long-lived cosmogenic isotopes can create an IBD-like coincidence. For example, ${^9{\rm Li}} \rightarrow {^9{\rm Be}} + e^- + \bar{\nu_e}$ with half-life [178]{} [ms]{}, followed by ${^9{\rm Be}}\rightarrow n+2\alpha$ yields prompt light from the electron and a delayed neutron capture. This background is studied vs. time after a muon and controlled to $\approx$0.2% of the IBD signal.
Fourth, the 0.5-Hz ${^{241}{\rm Am}}-{^{13}{\rm C}}$ neutron sources introduce a background when they are retracted into the automated calibration units on the top of the AD. The neutron scatters off of iron, then captures on stainless steel, producing correlated prompt and delayed signals corresponding to $0.3\pm0.3\%$ of the IBD rate at the far site.
Other backgrounds result from alpha and neutron interactions with carbon and iron in the detector materials. Although the uncertainties on these contributions are high, these are negligible effects overall. A summary of the background contributions are given in Table \[tbl:dataset\].
Results
=======
---------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
[**EH2**]{}
AD1 AD2 AD3 AD4 AD5 AD6
IBD Candidates 69121 69714 66473 9788 9669 9452
DAQ livetime (hours) 127.3763
Efficiency 0.8015 0.7986 0.8364 0.9555 0.9552 0.9547
Accidentals (/day) 9.73$\pm$0.10 9.61$\pm$1.10 7.55$\pm$0.08 3.05$\pm$0.04 3.04$\pm$0.04 2.93$\pm$0.03
Fast neutrons (/day) 0.58$\pm$0.33
$^{8}$He/$^{9}$Li (/AD/day) 2.0$\pm$1.1
AmC (/AD/day)
$^{13}$C($\alpha$,n)$^{16}$O (/AD/day) 0.08$\pm$0.04 0.07$\pm$0.04 0.05$\pm$0.03 0.04$\pm$0.02 0.04$\pm$0.02 0.04$\pm$0.02
Antineutrino Rate (/day) 662.47$\pm$3.00 670.87$\pm$3.01 613.53$\pm$2.69 77.57$\pm$0.85 76.62$\pm$0.85 74.97$\pm$0.84
---------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Overall, the Daya Bay experiment collected over 230,000 IBD candidates during the running period from December 24, 2011 to May 11, 2012. The antineutrino rates are consistent within each experimental hall, and the dominant uncorrelated detector systematic uncertainty is the delayed energy cut at 6 MeV.
The event rates at the near sites are weighted by reactor power and baseline to predict the event rate at the far site under a null-oscillation hypothesis. The ratio of far to near events is $$R=0.944 \pm 0.007(\mathrm{stat}) \pm 0.003(\mathrm{syst}).$$ The event rate vs. day at the three experimental sites tracks the reactor power, and a clear deficit is visible for the far site (Figure \[fig:reactor\_vs\_time\]).
![The measured neutrino events (points) are in good agreement with the prediction from reactor power (lines) for $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}=0.089$. At the far site (EH3), the null oscillation hypothesis clearly disagrees with the data. \[fig:reactor\_vs\_time\]](Reactor_vs_time.png){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
A relative rate-only analysis was performed on the IBD rates in the 6 detectors, independent of any reactor flux model. In the standard 3-neutrino framework, a fit for $\theta_{13}$ yields $\sin^2 2\theta_{13} = 0.089 \pm 0.010(\mathrm{stat}) \pm 0.005(\mathrm{syst})$ (Figure \[fig:rate\_analysis\]). A superposition of the predicted and observed neutrino events with energy, overlaid with the rate-only best-fit line, is shown in Figure \[fig:prompt\].
![The ratio of predicted to observed events at the six detectors vs. flux-weighted baseline is fit for $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$. The $\chi^2$ plot in the upper right shows $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}=0$ is excluded by over $5\sigma.$ \[fig:rate\_analysis\] ](th13_fit.png){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
![The upper plot shows the prompt energy spectrum at the near and far experimental halls, weighted by the reactor power and baseline. The lower plot shows the ratio, with the best-fit rate-only analysis curve superimposed.[]{data-label="fig:prompt"}](prompt.png){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Future
======
During the summer of 2012, the Daya Bay experiment will install the final two antineutrino detectors. A series of special calibration measurements will be made using radioactive sources deployed along strings from the top of the detector and on an arm inserted into the central volume of one detector. These measurements will improve the understanding of detector uniformity and energy resolution.
Continuing its science mission over the next 2–3 years, Daya Bay will make a definitive and precise measurement of $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$. In addition, the location of the oscillation maximum in the positron energy spectrum will allow a measurement of $\Delta m^2_{ee}$, a combination of $\Delta m^2_{31}$ and $\Delta m^2_{32}$.
In addition, Daya Bay will pursue several secondary scientific and technical studies. With the largest antineutrino dataset ever collected, Daya Bay will make the best reactor antineutrino flux and spectra measurements. Daya Bay will also measure the rates of cosmogenic neutron and isotope production at a range of modest depths and energies. In terms of technical studies, Daya Bay will demonstrate the multi-year operation of functionally identical detectors and measure long-term GdLS stability. Finally, the Day Experiment has the potential to search for non-standard neutrino interactions [@Dwyer:2011xs]. Although Daya Bay has produced the most precise value of $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ to date, there are many more results still to come.
Acknowledgements
================
The Daya Bay experiment is supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, the United States Department of Energy, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Guangdong provincial government, the Shenzhen municipal government, the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group, Shanghai Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, University Development Fund of The University of Hong Kong, the MOE program for Research of Excellence at National Taiwan University, National Chiao-Tung University, and NSC fund support from Taiwan, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, the Czech Science Foundation, and the Joint Institute of Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia. We thank Yellow River Engineering Consulting Co., Ltd. and China railway 15th Bureau Group Co., Ltd. for building the underground laboratory. We are grateful for the ongoing cooperation from the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group and China Light & Power Company.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove that every unconditionally summable sequence in a Hilbert space can be factorized as the product of a square summable scalar sequence and a Bessel sequence. Some consequences on the representation of unconditionally convergent multipliers are obtained, thus providing positive answers to a conjecture by Balazs and Stoeva in some particular cases.'
author:
- 'Carmen Fernández, Antonio Galbis and Eva Primo'
title: Unconditionally convergent multipliers and Bessel sequences
---
Introduction
============
A [*multiplier*]{} on a separable Hilbert space $H$ is a bounded operator $$M_{m,\Phi,\Psi}:H\to H,\ f\mapsto\sum_{n=1}^\infty m_n\left<f, \Psi_n\right> \Phi_n,$$ where $\Phi = \left(\Phi_n\right)_n$ and $\Psi = \left(\Psi_n\right)_n$ are sequences in $H$ and $m = (m_n)_n$ is a scalar sequence called the symbol. The multiplier is said to be unconditionally convergent if the above series converges unconditionally for every $f\in H.$ For any (unconditionally convergent) multiplier $M_{m,\Phi,\Psi}$ its adjoint $M_{\overline{m},\Psi,\Phi}$ is also a (unconditionally convergent) multiplier.
Observe that each bounded operator $T$ on $H$ can be expressed as a multiplier: if $\left(u_n\right)_n$ is an orthonormal basis, we can take $\Phi_n=Tu_n,$ $\Psi_n=u_n $ (alternatively $\Phi_n=u_n,$ $\Psi_n=T^\ast u_n $) and $m_n=1$ for each $n\in {\mathbb N}.$
In the case that $\Phi = \left(\Phi_n\right)_n$ and $\Psi = \left(\Psi_n\right)_n$ are Bessel sequences in $H$ and $m\in \ell^\infty$ the operator $M_{m,\Phi,\Psi}$ is called a Bessel multiplier. Recall that $\Psi = \left(\Psi_n\right)_n$ is called a [*Bessel sequence*]{} if there is a constant $B > 0$ such that $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left|\left<f, \Psi_n\right>\right|^2 \leq B \|f\|^2$$ for every $f\in H.$ It turns out that $\left(\Psi_n\right)_n$ is a Bessel sequence if and only if there exists a bounded operator $T:\ell^2\to H$ such that $T(e_n) = \Psi_n,$ where $\left(e_n\right)_n$ denote the canonical unit vectors of $\ell^2$ ([@chris Theorem 3.2.3]).
Bessel multipliers were introduced and studied in a systematic way by Balazs [@balazs] as a generalization of the Gabor multipliers considered in [@fn]. In [@balazs] it is proved that each Bessel multiplier is unconditionally convergent. Balazs and Stoeva [@sb2] provide examples of non-Bessel sequences and non-bounded symbols defining unconditionally convergent multipliers. However all the examples are obtained from a Bessel multiplier after some trick. In fact, Balazs and Stoeva [*conjecture*]{} in [@sb] that every unconditionally convergent multiplier can be written as a Bessel multiplier with constant symbol by shifting weights. More precisely, if $M_{m,\Phi,\Psi}:H\to H$ is an unconditionally convergent multiplier, then they conjecture that there exist scalar sequences $(a_n)
_n,\
(b_n)_n$ such that $$m_n = a_n\cdot \overline{b}_n$$ and $$\left(a_n \Phi_n\right)_n,\ \left(b_n \Psi_n\right)_n$$ are Bessel sequences in $H.$ Several classes of multipliers for which the conjecture is true are obtained in [@sb].
In the particular case that $m_n = 1$ and $\Psi_n = g$ for every $n\in {\mathbb N},$ the conjecture has a positive answer if and only if for every unconditionally summable sequence $(\Phi_n)_n$ in a separable Hilbert space $H$ we may find $(\alpha_n)_n\in \ell^2$ such that $(\frac{1}{\alpha_n }\Phi_n)_n$ is a Bessel sequence in $H.$ So, the main aim of the present paper is to analyze the structure of unconditionally summable sequences in a separable Hilbert space. As a consequence we obtain some new situations where the conjecture of Balasz and Stoeva is still true, which are different in spirit to the ones considered in [@sb].
Results
=======
We will use the well known fact that a series $\sum_{n=1}^\infty x_n$ in a Banach space $X$ is unconditionally convergent if and only if there exist a compact operator $T:c_0\to X$ with the property that $T(e_n) = x_n,$ where $\left(e_n\right)_n$ denote the canonical unit vectors of $c_0$ (see for instance the omnibus theorem on unconditional summability in [@djt 1.9]). We recall that, in the case that $X = H$ is a Hilbert space, every bounded operator $T:c_0\to H$ is compact. In fact, the closed unit ball $B$ of $H$ is weakly compact, the transposed map $T^\ast:H\to \ell^1$ is a bounded operator and weak and norm convergence of sequences in $\ell^1$ coincide ([@djt Theorem 1.7]). Therefore $T^\ast$ is a compact operator and so is $T.$
From the previous considerations we conclude that a series $\sum_{n=1}^\infty x_n$ in a Hilbert space $H$ is unconditionally convergent if and only if there exists a bounded operator $T:c_0\to H$ with the property that $T(e_n) = x_n.$ An important consequence is the fact that the unconditionally convergence of $\sum_{n=1}^\infty x_n$ is equivalent to $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left|\left<x_n,g\right>\right| < \infty\ \ \forall g\in H.$$ This is so because if the last condition is satisfied then, by closed graph theorem, $S:H\to \ell^1,$ $S(g):=\left(\left<x_n,g\right>\right)_n,$ defines a bounded operator and $T = S^\ast:\ell^\infty\to H$ verifies $T(e_n) = x_n.$
For a fixed sequence $\alpha = (\alpha_n)_n$ the diagonal operator $D_\alpha$ acts on a sequence $x = (x_n)_n$ as $$D_\alpha (x) = \left(\alpha_n x_n\right)_n.$$ If $\alpha\in\ell^2$ then $D_\alpha:\ell^\infty \to \ell^2$ is a bounded operator, while $D_\alpha:\ell^2 \to \ell^2$ whenever $\alpha\in c_0.$
\[lem:reformulacion\] The following statements are equivalent:
- Every unconditionally summable sequence $\left(\Phi_n\right)_n$ in $H$ can be written as $\Phi_n = \alpha_n f_n,$ where $(\alpha_n)_n\in \ell^2$ and $\left(f_n\right)_n$ is a Bessel sequence in $H.$
- Every bounded operator $T:c_0\to H$ can be factorized as $$T = A \circ D_\alpha$$ where $D_\alpha:c_0\to \ell^2$ is a diagonal operator and $A:\ell^2\to H$ is a bounded operator.
$(a)\Rightarrow (b).$ If $T:c_0\to H$ is bounded then $\left(\Phi_n\right)_n = \left(T(e_n)\right)_n$ is unconditionally summable ([@djt Theorem 1.9]), hence $T(e_n) = \alpha_n f_n,$ where $\alpha = (\alpha_n)_n\in \ell^2$ and $\left(f_n\right)_n$ is a Bessel sequence in $H.$ Therefore $\left(f_n\right)_n$ defines a bounded operator $A:\ell^2 \to H,\ A(\beta) = \sum_n \beta_n f_n,$ and $T = A\circ D_\alpha.$
$(b)\Rightarrow (a).$ Let $\left(\Phi_n\right)_n$ be an unconditionally summable sequence in $H.$ Then there is a bounded operator $T:c_0\to H$ such that $T(e_n) = \Phi_n$ and, by hypothesis, it can be factorized as $T = A \circ D_\alpha$ where $\alpha \in \ell^2$ and $A:\ell^2\to H$ is a bounded operator. Then $\left(f_n\right)_n:= \left(A(e_n)\right)_n$ is a Bessel sequence in $H$ and clearly $\Phi_n = A\left(\alpha_n e_n\right) = \alpha_n f_n.$ $\Box$
In the same spirit, the conjecture in [@sb] has a positive answer for a given unconditionally convergent multiplier $M_{m,\Phi,\Psi}$ on $\ell^2$ if and only if the continuous bilinear map $$T: c_0 \times \ell^2\to\ell^2,\ \ (\alpha, f)\mapsto \sum_{n=1}^\infty \alpha_n m_n \left< f, \Psi_n\right>\Phi_n,$$ admits a factorization $$T = B \circ D$$ where $B:\ell^2\to \ell^2$ is a bounded operator and $D:c_0 \times \ell^2\to \ell^2$ is a continuous bilinear map such that for every $f \in \ell^2,$ $D(\cdot, f):c_0 \to \ell^2$ is a diagonal operator.
We recall that any bounded operator $B:c_0\to \ell^\infty,\ B(e_j) = \left(b^i_j\right)_i,$ has the property that $b^i:= \left(b^i_j\right)_j \in \ell^1$ for every $i\in {\mathbb N}$ and $$\|B\| = \sup_i \|b^i\|_{\ell^1}.$$
The next result can be viewed as an improvement of Orlicz’s Theorem (see for instance [@djt Theorem 1.11] or [@h Theorem 3.16]) that every unconditionally summable sequence in a Hilbert space is absolutely 2-summable. It is the main result of the paper.
\[th:sequence\] Every unconditionally summable sequence $\left(\Phi_n\right)_n$ in a separable Hilbert space $H$ can be expressed as $\Phi_n = \overline{a}_n f_n,$ where $(a_n)_n\in \ell^2$ and $\left(f_n\right)_n$ is a Bessel sequence in $H.$
By Lemma \[lem:reformulacion\] it is enough to show that every bounded operator $T:c_0\to H$ can be factorized as $T=A\circ D_\alpha,$ where $\alpha \in \ell^2$ and $A:\ell^2\to H$ is a bounded operator. According to [@djt 3.7 and 5.9], $T$ is a 2-integral operator, hence it is 2-nuclear ([@p Theorem 5]). Therefore there are bounded operators $B:c_0\to \ell^\infty,$ $S:\ell^2\to H$ and $\lambda \in \ell^2$ such that $T = S\circ D_\lambda\circ B$ [@jarchow Theorem 19.7.4]. To finish it suffices to find $\alpha \in \ell^2$ and a bounded operator $\tilde{A}$ on $\ell^2$ such that $D_\lambda\circ B=\tilde{A}\circ D_\alpha,$ since then $$T =A\circ D_\alpha,$$ with $A=S\circ \tilde{A}.$
As $D_\lambda\circ B = D_{t\lambda}\circ (t^{-1}B)$ for each $t > 0,$ without loss of generality we can assume $\|B\| = 1.$ We denote $B(e_j) = \left(b^i_j\right)_i$ and $b^i:= \left(b^i_j\right)_j \in \ell^1.$ We define $\alpha = (\alpha_k)_k$ such that $$|\alpha_k|^2 := \sum_{i=1}^\infty |\lambda_i|^2\cdot |b^i_k|.$$ Then $$\label{eq:alphak}
\sum_{k=1}^\infty |\alpha_k|^2 = \sum_{i=1}^\infty |\lambda_i|^2\cdot \|b^i\|_{\ell^1} \leq \|\lambda\|_{\ell^2}^2,$$ hence $\alpha \in \ell^2.$ Next, we consider $$f_k:= \frac{1}{\alpha_k}\left(\lambda_i b^i_k\right)_i,\ \ k\in {\mathbb N}.$$ Since $|b^i_k|^2\leq |b^i_k|,$ the inequality (\[eq:alphak\]) implies that $f_k\in \ell^2. $ To finish the proof, we have to show that there is a bounded operator $\tilde{A}$ on $\ell^2$ such that $\tilde{A}(e_k) = f_k,$ that is, $\left(f_k\right)_k$ is a Bessel sequence in $\ell^2.$ To this end, we fix $\beta = (\beta_k)_k\in \ell^2$ and $\gamma = (\gamma_k)_k\in \ell^2.$ Then, $$\sum_{k=1}^N \left|\beta_k\left<f_k, \gamma\right>\right| \leq \sum_{k=1}^N \frac{|\beta_k|}{|\alpha_k|}\sum_{j= 1}^\infty|\lambda_j \gamma_j|\cdot |b^j_k|$$ for all $N\in {\mathbb N}.$ As $\lambda, \, \gamma \in \ell^2,$ $$\begin{array}{ll}
\begin{displaystyle}
\sum_{j= 1}^\infty|\lambda_j \gamma_j|\cdot |b^j_k|
\end{displaystyle} & \begin{displaystyle} \leq \left(\sum_{j= 1}^\infty|\lambda_j|^2\cdot |b^j_k|\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\cdot \left(\sum_{j= 1}^\infty|\gamma_j|^2\cdot |b^j_k|\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\end{displaystyle}\\ & \\ & = \begin{displaystyle}
|\alpha_k|\cdot \left(\sum_{j= 1}^\infty |\gamma_j|^2\cdot|b^j_k|\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{displaystyle}
\end{array}$$ Moreover $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty\sum_{j=1}^\infty |\gamma_j|^2\cdot|b^j_k|
= \sum_{j=1}^\infty |\gamma_j|^2\cdot \|b^j\|_{\ell^1} \leq \|\gamma\|_{\ell^2}^2.$$ This means that $$\left(\left(\sum_{j= 1}^\infty|\gamma_j|^2\cdot |b^j_k|\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)_{k\in {\mathbb N}}\in \ell^2.$$ Hence, $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty\left|\beta_k\left<f_k, \gamma\right>\right|$$ is less than or equal to $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty |\beta_k|\cdot \left(\sum_{j= 1}^\infty|\gamma_j|^2\cdot |b^j_k|\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} < \infty.$$ Since this holds for every $\beta\in \ell^2$ we conclude that $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty\left|\left<f_k, \gamma\right>\right|^2 < \infty$$ for every $\gamma\in \ell^2.$ Now, the closed graph theorem gives the conclusion. $\Box$
Theorem \[th:sequence\] gives a positive answer to the conjecture when $(\Psi_n)_n$ is a constant sequence. Next we consider a more general situation.
\[cor:without-accum\] Let $M_{m,\Phi,\Psi}$ be an unconditionally convergent multiplier and assume that $0$ is not a weak accumulation point of the sequence $\left(\frac{\Psi_n}{\|\Psi_n\|}\right)_n.$ Then there exist scalar sequences $(a_n)_n,\ (b_n)_n$ such that $m_n = a_n\cdot \overline{b}_n
$ and $
\left(a_n \Phi_n\right)_n,\ \left(b_n \Psi_n\right)_n
$ are Bessel sequences in $H.$
In fact, our hypothesis implies the existence of finitely many elements $f_1, \ldots, f_K\in H$ with the property that $$\sum_{k=1}^K\left|\left<f_k,\frac{\Psi_n}{\|\Psi_n\|}\right>\right| \geq 1$$ for every $n\in {\mathbb N}.$ Since $M_{m,\Phi,\Psi}$ is an unconditionally convergent multiplier we have $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left|\left<f, \Psi_n\right>\right|\cdot \left|\left<\Phi_n, g\right>\right| < \infty$$ for every $f,g\in H.$ Consequently $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left|m_n\right|\cdot{\Vert\Psi_n\Vert }\cdot\left|\left<\Phi_n, g\right>\right| \leq \sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left|\left<f_k, \Psi_n\right>\right|\cdot \left|\left<\Phi_n, g\right>\right| < \infty$$ for every $g\in H.$ It follows that the series $\sum_{n=1}^\infty m_n \|\Psi_n\|\Phi_n$ is unconditionally convergent and we can apply Theorem \[th:sequence\] to find a sequence $(b_n)_n\in \ell^2$ such that $\left(\frac{m_n}{b_n}\|\Psi_n\|\Phi_n\right)_n$ is a Bessel sequence. Since also $\left(b_n \frac{\Psi_n}{\|\Psi_n\|}\right)_n$ is a Bessel sequence, the conclusion follows.
By Orlicz’s Theorem, in the case that $(\Psi_n)_n$ is constant, the unconditional convergence of the series $\begin{displaystyle}\sum_{n=1}^\infty m_n\left<f, \Psi_n\right> \Phi_n\end{displaystyle}$ implies that $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty (|m_n|\|\Phi_n\|\|\Psi_n\|)^2 < \infty.$$ In particular, the sequence $\left(m_n\cdot \|\Phi_n\|\cdot \|\Psi_n\|\right)_n$ converges to zero and [@sb Proposition 1.1] cannot be applied. Obviously, in Corollary \[cor:without-accum\], the condition on the sequence $(\Psi_n)_n$ can be replaced by a similar condition on $(\Phi_n)_n.$ The following result shows that the conjecture stated by Balazs and Stoeva in [@sb] holds under the stronger hypothesis of absolute convergence of the series. The proof depends on Theorem \[th:sequence\] and it does not follow from the results in [@sb].
\[th:absolute\] Let $M_{m,\Phi,\Psi}$ be such that for each $f\in H,$ the series $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty m_n\left<f, \Psi_n\right> \Phi_n$$ converges absolutely in $H.$ Then there exist scalar sequences $(a_n)_n$ and $(b_n)_n$ such that $m_n = a_n\cdot \overline{b_n},$ and $\left( b_n \Psi_n \right)_n$ and $\left( a_n \Phi_n \right)_n$ are Bessel sequences in $H. $
Without loss of generality, we may assume that $ ||\Phi_n||=1$ for every $n\in {\mathbb N}.$ The condition $(m_n\left< f, \Psi_n \right>)_n \in \ell^1$ for every $f\in H$ implies that the sequence $(\overline{m_n} \Psi_n)_n$ is unconditionally summable in $H$, therefore by Theorem \[th:sequence\], there is $(c_n)_n \in \ell^2$ such that $\left( \frac{\overline{m_n}}{c_n} \Psi_n \right)_n$ is a Bessel sequence. As $\left( \overline{c_n}\Phi_n \right)_n$ is also a Bessel sequence, we conclude. $\Box$
As a consequence of the previous result, it is easy to see that the absolute convergence of $\sum_{n=1}^\infty m_n\left<f, \Psi_n\right> \Phi_n$ (for every $f$ in $H$) implies the unconditional convergence of the series $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty m_n \Psi_n\otimes \Phi_n$$ in the Hilbert space $S^2(H)$ of Hilbert-Schmidt operators on $H.$
Let $B_H$ denote the closed unit ball of $H$ endowed with the weak topology and $\mu$ a probability Borel measure on $B_H.$ Then we have the canonical continuous inclusion $$j_\mu:H\to L^2(B_H,\mu),\ j_\mu(f)\left(g\right):=\left<f,g\right>.$$
Let $B_H$ denote the closed unit ball of $H$ endowed with the weak topology and assume that the multiplier $M_{m,\Phi,\Psi}$ has the additional property that the series $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty m_n \Psi_n\otimes \Phi_n$$ converges unconditionally in $S^2(H).$ Then, for every probability Borel measure $\mu$ on $B_H$ there exist scalar sequences $(a_n)_n,\ (b_n)_n$ such that $m_n = a_n\cdot \overline{b}_n,$ $\left(a_n \Psi_n\right)_n$ is a Bessel sequence in $H$ and $\left(j_\mu(b_n \Phi_n)\right)_n$ is a Bessel sequence in $L^2(B_H,\mu).$ In particular $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left|\left<f, b_n \Phi_n\right>\right|^2 < \infty$$ for $\mu$-almost every $f\in B_H.$
In fact, according to Theorem \[th:sequence\] there is $(\alpha_n)_n\in\ell^2$ such that $$\left(\frac{m_n}{\alpha_n}\Psi_n\otimes \Phi_n\right)_n$$ is a Bessel sequence in $S^2(H).$ In particular, for some constant $C > 0,$ $$\label{eq:remark}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \left|\frac{m_n}{\alpha_n} \left<f, \Psi_n\right> \left<g, \Phi_n\right>\right|^2 \leq C \|f\|^2\cdot \|g\|^2$$ for every $f,g\in B_H.$ We now consider $$a_n^2:= \left|\frac{m_n}{\alpha_n}\right|^2 \int_{B_H}\left|\left<g, \Phi_n\right>\right|^2\ d\mu(g).$$ After integrating in (\[eq:remark\]) we obtain that $\left(a_n \Psi_n\right)_n$ is a Bessel sequence. Moreover, for $b_n = \frac{\overline{m}_n}{a_n}$ we have $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\int_{B_H}\left|\left<f, b_n \Phi_n\right>\right|^2\ d\mu(f) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \alpha_n^2 < \infty,$$ from where the conclusion follows. $\Box$
[00]{} P. Balazs, *Basic definition and properties of Bessel multipliers.* J. Math. Anal. Appl. **325** (2007), 571–585. O. Christensen, *An introduction to frames and Riesz bases.* Applied and Numerical Harmonic Analysis. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2003. J. Diestel, H. Jarchow, A. Tonge, *Absolutely summing operators.* Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics **43**. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995. H.G. Feichtinger, K. Nowak, *A first survey of Gabor multipliers,* in: Advances in Gabor analysis, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2003, pp.99–128 (Chapter 5). C. Heil, *A basis theory primer.* Applied and Numerical Harmonic Analysis. Birkhäuser/Springer, New York, 2011. H. Jarchow, *Locally convex spaces.* Mathematical Textbooks **548** (1981) B. G. Teubner, Stuttgart. A. Persson, *On some properties of p-nuclear and p-integral operators.* Studia Math. **33** (1969), 213–222. D.T. Stoeva, P. Balazs, *Canonical forms of unconditionally convergent multipliers.* J. Math. Anal. Appl. **399** (2013), 252–259. D.T. Stoeva, P. Balazs, *Detailed characterization of conditions for the unconditional convergence and invertibility of multipliers.* Sampl. Theory Signal Image Process. **12** (2013), 87–125.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'Weierstrass Institute for Applied Analysis and Stochastics, Mohrenstr. 39, D–10117 Berlin, Germany'
- 'University of Bath, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom.'
- 'Weierstrass Institute for Applied Analysis and Stochastics, Mohrenstr. 39, D–10117 Berlin, Germany'
author:
- Klaus Fleischmann
- Peter Mörters
- Vitali Wachtel
bibliography:
- 'bibtex.bib'
- 'bibtexmy.bib'
title: |
Hydrodynamic limit fluctuations\
of super-Brownian motion\
with a stable catalyst
---
[^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]
> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Abstract.</span> [We consider the behaviour of a continuous super-Brownian motion catalysed by a random medium with infinite overall density under the hydrodynamic scaling of mass, time, and space. We show that, in supercritical dimensions, the scaled process converges to a macroscopic heat flow, and the appropriately rescaled random fluctuations around this macroscopic flow are asymptotically bounded, in the sense of log-Laplace transforms, by generalised stable Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes. The most interesting new effect we observe is the occurrence of an index-jump from a ‘Gaussian’ situation to stable fluctuations of index ]{}$1+\gamma$[, where ]{}$\gamma\in(0,1)$ [is an index associated to the medium. ]{}
Introduction and main results\[S.intr\]
=======================================
Motivation and background\[SS.mot\]
-----------------------------------
In order to describe the long-term behaviour of infinite interacting spatial particle systems with mass preservation on average, limit theorems under mass-time-space rescaling are an established tool. A typical feature that can be captured by this means is the clumping behaviour of spatial branching processes in *low dimensions*: In some models, for a critical scaling one can observe convergence to a nontrivial field of isolated mass clumps. The spatial contraction allows to get hold of large mass clumps in remote locations, and the index of mass-rescaling serves as a measure of the strength of the clumping effect, quantifying the degree of intermittency. In some of these results a macroscopic time dependence can be retained, giving insight in the long-time developments of the clumps. For a recent result in this direction, see Dawson et al. [@DawsonFleischmannMoerters2002.sclump].
In *higher dimensions* one does not expect to observe clumping under mass-time-space rescaling, but convergence to a non-random mass flow, the *hydrodynamic limit*. In this case one can hope to get a deeper understanding from the investigation of fluctuations around this limit. Such fluctuations were studied by Holley and Stroock [@HolleyStroock1978] and Dawson [@Dawson1978.k], and their results were later refined and extended, e.g. by Dittrich [@Dittrich1987]. There is also a large body of literature on hydrodynamic limits of interacting particle systems, see e.g. [@MasiPresutti1991; @KipnisLandim1999; @Spohn1991]. Our main motivation behind this paper is to investigate the possible effects on fluctuations around the hydrodynamic limit if the original process is influenced by a *random medium*, which in our model acts as a catalyst for the local branching rates.
In Dawson et al. [@DawsonFleischmannGorostiza1989.hydro], fluctuations under mass-time-space rescaling were derived for a class of spatial infinite branching particle systems in $\,\mathbb{R}^{d}$ (with symmetric $\alpha$–stable motion and $(1+\beta)$–branching) in supercritical dimensions in a random medium with *finite* overall density. This leads to *generalized Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes* which are the same as for the model in the constant (averaged) medium. In other words, for the log-Laplace equation the governing effect is homogenization: After rescaling, the equation approximates an equation with homogeneous branching rate, the medium is simply averaged out. The nature of the fluctuations for the case of a medium with *infinite* overall density remained unresolved over the years.
The purpose of the present paper is to get progress in this direction. Our main result shows that a medium with an *infinite* overall density can have a drastic effect on the fluctuation behaviour of the model under critical rescaling in supercritical dimensions, and homogenization is no longer the effect governing the macroscopic behaviour. In fact, despite the infinite overall density of the medium, we still have a law of large numbers under a certain mass-time-space rescaling. But under this scaling, the variances (given the medium) blow up, and the related fluctuations do *not* obey a central limit theorem. However, fluctuations can be described to some degree by a stable process.
To be more precise, we start with a branching system with *finite* variance given the medium, considered as a branching process with a random law, where this randomness of the laws comes from the randomness of the medium (quenched approach). Under a mass-time-space rescaling, the random laws of the fluctuations are asymptotically bounded from above and below by the laws of constant multiples of a generalized Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with *infinite* variance. Here the ordering of random laws is defined in terms of the random Laplace transforms. The generalized Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process is the same as the fluctuation limit of a super-Brownian motion with infinite variance branching in the case of a constant medium. In fact, the branching mechanism is $(1+\gamma)$–branching, where $\,\gamma\in
(0,1)$ is the index of the medium. Altogether, the present result is a big step towards an affirmative answer to the old open problem of understanding fluctuations in the case of a random medium with infinite overall density. It also leads to random medium effects which are in line with experiences concerning the clumping behaviour in subcritical dimensions as in [@DawsonFleischmannMoerters2002.sclump].
Preliminaries: notation
-----------------------
For $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$, introduce the reference function$$\phi_{\lambda}(x)\;:=\;\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda|x|}\quad\text{for}\ \,x\in
\mathbb{R}^{d}. \label{ref.fct}$$ For $\,f:\mathbb{R}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{R},$ set$$|f|_{\lambda}\;:=\;\Vert f/\phi_{\lambda}\Vert_{\infty} \label{norm.l}$$ where $\,\Vert\cdot\Vert_{\infty}$ refers to the supremum norm. Denote by $\,\mathcal{C}_{\lambda}$ the separable Banach space of all continuous functions $\,f:\mathbb{R}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that $\,|f|_{\lambda}$ is finite and that $\,f(x)/\phi_{\lambda}(x)$ has a finite limit as $\,|x|\rightarrow
\infty.$ Introduce the space $$\mathcal{C}_{\exp}\;=\;\mathcal{C}_{\exp}(\mathbb{R}^{d})\;:=\;\bigcup
_{\lambda>0}\,\mathcal{C}_{\lambda\,} \label{C.spaces}$$ of (at least) *exponentially decreasing* continuous test functions on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. An index $+$ as in $\mathbb{R}_{+}$ or $\mathcal{C}_{\exp
}^{+}$ refers to the corresponding non-negative members.
Let $\,\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ denote the set of all (non-negative) Radon measures $\,\mu$ on $\,\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $\,\mathrm{d}_{0}$ a complete metric on $\,\mathcal{M}$ which induces the vague topology. Introduce the space $\,\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem}}=\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem}}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ of all measures $\,\mu$ in $\,\mathcal{M}$ such that $\,\left\langle \mu,\phi_{\lambda}\right\rangle
:=\int\!{d}\mu\;\phi_{\lambda}<\infty,$ for all $\,\lambda
>0.$ We topologize this set $\,\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem}}$ of *tempered* measures by the metric $$\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{tem}}(\mu,\nu)\;:=\;\mathrm{d}_{0}(\mu,\nu)+\sum
_{n=1}^{\infty}2^{-n}\left( |\mu-\nu|_{1/n}\,_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\wedge\,1\right)
\!\quad\text{for}\,\ \mu,\nu\in\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem\,}}.$$ Here $\,|\mu-\nu|_{\lambda}$ is an abbreviation for $\,\big
|\langle\mu,\phi_{\lambda}\rangle-\langle\nu,\phi_{\lambda}\rangle
\big|.$ Note that $\,\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem}}$ is a Polish space (that is, $\left( \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem\,}},\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{tem}}\right) $ is a complete separable metric space), and that $\,\mu_{n}\rightarrow\mu$ in $\,\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem}}$ if and only if$$\left\langle \mu_{n\,},\varphi\right\rangle \;\underset{n\uparrow\infty
}{\longrightarrow}\;\left\langle \mu,\varphi\right\rangle \quad\text{for
}\,\varphi\in\mathcal{C}_{\exp\,}.$$
Probability measures will be denoted as $\,\mathsf{P},\mathbb{P},\mathcal{P},$ whereas $\,\mathsf{E},\mathbb{E},\mathcal{E}$ and $\,\mathsf{V}\!$ar$,\mathbb{V}\!$ar$,\mathcal{V}\!$ar refer to the corresponding expectation and variance symbols.
Let $p$ denote the standard heat kernel in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ given by $$p_{t}(x)\;:=\;(2\pi t)^{-d/2}\,\exp\!\Big[-\frac{|x|^{2}}{2t}\,\Big ]\quad
\text{for}\,\ t>0,\,\ x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}. \label{notation.heat.kernel}$$ Write $W=\bigl(W,\,(\mathcal{F}_{t})_{t\geq0\,},\,\mathcal{P}_{x},\,x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}\bigr)$ for the corresponding (standard) Brownian motion in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ with natural filtration, and $S=\left\{ S_{t}:\,t\geq0\right\} $ for the related semigroup. Quantities depending on time $t,$ as $p_{t},S_{t}$ or solutions $u(t,$$\cdot\,),$ are formally set to $0$ if $t<0.$
Let $\,\ell$ denote the Lebesgue measure on $\,\mathbb{R}^{d}.$ Write $\,B(x,r)$ for the closed ball around $\,x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ with radius $\,r>0.$ In this paper, $G$ denotes the Gamma function.
With $c=c(q)$ we always denote a positive constant which (in the present case) might depend on a quantity $q$ and might also change from place to place. Moreover, an index on $c$ as $c_{(\mathrm{\#})}$ or $c_{\mathrm{\#}}$ will indicate that this constant first occurred in formula line (\#) or (for instance) Lemma \#, respectively. We apply the same labelling rules also to parameters like $\,\lambda$ and $\,k.$
Modelling of catalyst and reactant\[SS.mod\]
--------------------------------------------
Of course, there is some freedom in choosing the model we want to work with. To avoid unnecessary limit procedures, we work on $\,\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and with continuous-state branching as the branching system, namely with continuous super-Brownian motion, which is a spatial version of Feller’s branching diffusion. The branching rate of an intrinsic ‘particle’ varies in space and in fact is selected from a random field to be specified. In this context, it is convenient to speak also of the random field as the *catalyst,* and of the branching system given the random medium as the *reactant.*
First we want to specify the catalyst. In our context, a very natural way is to start from a *stable random measure* $\Gamma$ on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ with index $\,\gamma\in(0,1)$ determined by its log-Laplace functional$$-\log\mathsf{E}\exp\left\langle \Gamma,-\varphi\right\rangle \;=\;\int
\!\!{d}z\;\varphi^{\gamma}(z)\quad\text{for}\,\ \varphi\in\mathcal{C}_{\mathrm{\exp}\,}^{+}. \label{logL.Gamma}$$ (The letter $\,\mathsf{P}$ always stands for the law of the catalyst, whereas $\,\mathbb{P}$ is reserved for the law of the reactant given the catalyst.) See, for instance, [DawsonFleischmann1992.equ]{} for background concerning $\,\Gamma.$ Clearly, $\,\Gamma$ is a spatially homogeneous random measure with independent increments and infinite expectation. $\,\Gamma
$ has a simple *scaling property*,$$\Gamma(k\,dz)\ \overset{\mathcal{L}}{=}\ k^{d/\gamma}\,\Gamma(dz)\quad
\text{for}\,\ k>0, \label{scal.Gamma}$$ where $\,\overset{\mathcal{L}}{=}$ refers to equality in law. However, $\,\Gamma$ is a purely atomic measure, hence, its atoms cannot be hit by a Brownian path or a super-Brownian motion in dimensions $\,d\geq2.$ Thus, $\,\Gamma$ cannot serve directly as a catalyst for a non-degenerate reaction model based on Brownian particles in higher dimensions. Therefore we look at the density function after smearing out $\,\Gamma$ by the (non-normalized) function $\,\vartheta
_{1\,},$ where $\,\vartheta_{r}:=\mathsf{1}_{B(0,r)\,},$ $r>0,$ that is,$$\Gamma^{1}(x)\;:=\;\int\!\Gamma({d}z)\;\vartheta_{1}(x-z)\quad\text{for}\,\ x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}. \label{not.Gamma.eps}$$ In the sequel, the unbounded function $\,\Gamma^{1}$ with infinite overall density will play the rôle of the *random medium*: It will act as a catalyst that determines the spatially varying branching rate of the reactant. Once again, smoothing is needed, since otherwise the medium will not be hit by an intrinsic Brownian reactant particle. In our proofs, the independence and scaling properties of $\,\Gamma$ will be advantageous, though one would expect analogous results to hold for quite general random media with infinite overall density.
Consider now the *continuous super-Brownian motion* $\,X=X[\Gamma^{1}]$ in $\,\mathbb{R}^{d},$ $d\geq1,$ *with random catalyst* $\Gamma^{1}.$ More precisely, $\,$*for almost all samples* $\,\Gamma^{1},\,\ $this is a continuous time-homogeneous Markov process $\,X=X[\Gamma^{1}]=(X,\,\mathbb{P}_{\mu},\,\mu\in\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem}})$ with log-Laplace transition functional $$-\log\mathbb{E}_{\mu}\!\exp\left\langle X_{t\,},-\varphi\right\rangle
\;=\;\left\langle \mu,u(t,\,\cdot\,)_{\!_{\!_{{}}}}\right\rangle
\quad\text{for}\,\ \varphi\in\mathcal{C}_{\exp\,}^{+},\;\,\mu\in
\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem\,}}, \label{loglap}$$ where $\,u=u[\varphi,\Gamma^{1}]=\left\{ u(t,x):\,t\geq0,\;x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}\right\} $ is the unique mild non-negative solution of the reaction diffusion equation$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}u(t,x)\;=\;\tfrac{1}{2}\Delta u(t,x)-\varrho
\,\Gamma^{1}(x)\,u^{2}(t,x)\quad\text{for}\,\ t\geq0,\;\,x\in\mathbb{R}^{d},
\label{logLap.equ}$$ with initial condition $\,u(0,\,\cdot\,)=\,\varphi.\,\ $Here $\varrho>0$ is an additional parameter (for scaling purposes). For background on super-Brownian motion we recommend [@Dawson1993], [@Etheridge2000], or [@Perkins2002], and for a survey on catalytic super-Brownian motion, see e.g. [@DawsonFleischmann2002.survasc] or [@Klenke2000].
rom Dawson and Fleischmann [@DawsonFleischmann1983.env1; @DawsonFleischmann1985.env2] the following dichotomy concerning the long-term behaviour of $\,X$ is basically known (although there the phase space is $\,\mathbb{Z}^{d}$ and the processes are in discrete time): Starting from the Lebesgue measure $\,X_{0}=\ell$, $\,$the process $\,X$ dies locally in law as $\,t\uparrow\infty$ if $\,d\leq2/\gamma\,\ $(recall that $\,0<\gamma<1\,\ $is the index of the random medium $\,\Gamma^{1}),$ whereas in all higher dimensions one has persistent convergence in law to a non-trivial limit state denoted by $\,X_{\infty\,}$. *From now on, we restrict our attention to (supercritical) dimensions* $\,d>2/\gamma.$
We are interested in the large scale behaviour of $\,X.$
Main results of the paper
-------------------------
Introduce the *scaled processes* $\,X^{k},$ $k>0,$ defined by$$X_{t}^{k}(B)\;:=\;k^{-d}\,X_{k^{2}t}(kB)\quad\text{for}\,\ t\geq
0,\;\,B\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{d}\text{ \thinspace Borel.} \label{scale}$$ This *hydrodynamic rescaling* leaves the underlying Brownian motions invariant (in law), and the expectation of the scaled process is the heat flow:$$\mathbb{E}_{\mu}X_{t}^{k}\;=\;S_{t}\,\mu^{k}\quad\text{for}\,\ X_{0}=\mu
\in\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem\,}}. \label{expect}$$ In particular, if $\,X$ is started with the Lebesgue measure $\,\ell,$ the expectation is preserved in time. We also define the *critical scaling index*$$\varkappa_{\mathrm{c}}\;:=\;\frac{\gamma d-2}{1+\gamma}\;>\;0. \label{not.ski}$$
\[**Refined law of large numbers**\]\[C.LLN\]Suppose $\,d>2/\gamma
.$ Start $\,X$ with $k$–dependent initial states $\,X_{0}=\mu_{k}\in\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem}}$ such that $X_{0}^{k}=\mu\in\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem}}$ for $\,k>0.$ If $\,\varkappa\in\lbrack0,\varkappa_{\mathrm{c}}),$ then $$k^{\varkappa}\!\left( X_{t}^{k}-S_{t}\mu\right) \;\underset{k\uparrow\infty
}{\Longrightarrow}\;0\quad\text{in}\,\ \mathsf{E}\mathbb{P}_{\mu_{k}}\text{--law.} \label{LLN}$$
The refined law of large numbers is actually a by-product of the proofs of our main result, as will be explained immediately after Proposition \[L.exp.conv\].
In contrast to [@DawsonFleischmannGorostiza1989.hydro], in the present paper we use Laplace transforms instead of Fourier transforms although fluctuations we are interested in are signed objects. This is possible since these fluctuations themselves are deviations from non-negative $\,X^{k},$ and related stable limiting quantities have skewness parameter $\,\beta=-1$, for which Laplace transforms are meaningful.
For $\,x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ we put$$\mathrm{en}(x)\ :=\ \left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}\log^{+}\!\left( |x|^{-1}\right) & \text{if}\,\ d=4,\vspace{6pt}\\
\,|x|^{4-d} & \text{if}\,\ d\geq5,
\end{array}
\right. \label{en}$$ and for $\,\mu\in\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem}\,},$ and $\lambda>0$, $$\mathrm{En}_{\lambda}(\mu)\ :=\ \int\!\!\mu(dx)\,\phi_{\lambda}(x)\int
\!\!\mu(dy)\,\phi_{\lambda}(y)\ \mathrm{en}(x-y). \label{En}$$ Note that $\,\mathrm{En}_{\lambda}(\delta_{x})\equiv\infty$ if $\,d>3.$
\[**Asymptotic fluctuations**\]\[T.fluct\]Suppose $\,d>2/\gamma
.$ Start $\,X$ with $k$–dependent initial states $\,X_{0}=\mu_{k}\in\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem}}$ such that $X_{0}^{k}=\mu\in\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem}}$ for $\,k>0.$ In the case $\,d>3,$ suppose additionally that $\,\mu$ is a measure of finite energy in the sense that $\,\mathrm{En}_{\lambda}(\mu)<\infty$ for all $\lambda>0$. If $\,\varkappa=\varkappa_{\mathrm{c}\,},$ then there exists constants $\,\overline{c}>\underline{c}>0$ such that for any $\,\varphi_{1},\ldots,\varphi_{n}\in\mathcal{C}_{\mathrm{exp}}^{+}$ and $\,0=:t_{0}\leq t_{1}\leq\dots\leq t_{n\,},$ in $\mathsf{P}$–probability,$$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\displaystyle
\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{n}k^{\varkappa}\big\langle X_{t_{i}}^{k}-S_{t_{i}}\mu,\,-\varphi
_{i}\big\rangle\Big]\vspace{6pt}\\\displaystyle
\qquad\leq\ \exp\!\Bigg[\overline{c}\,\bigg\langle\mu,\sum_{i=1}^{n}\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t_{i}}\!dr\ S_{r}\Big(\Big(\sum_{j=i}^{n}S_{t_{j}-r}\varphi_{j}\Big)^{1+\gamma}\Big)\bigg\rangle\Bigg]
\end{array}
\label{fluct1}$$ and$$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\displaystyle
\liminf_{k\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{n}k^{\varkappa}\big\langle X_{t_{i}}^{k}-S_{t_{i}}\mu,\,-\varphi
_{i}\big\rangle\Big]\vspace{6pt}\\\displaystyle
\qquad\geq\ \exp\!\Bigg[\underline{c}\,\bigg\langle\mu,\sum_{i=1}^{n}\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t_{i}}\!dr\ S_{r}\Big(\Big(\sum_{j=i}^{n}S_{t_{j}-r}\varphi_{j}\Big)^{1+\gamma}\Big)\bigg\rangle\Bigg].
\end{array}
\label{fluct1'}$$
Explicit values of $\,\overline{c}$ and $\,\underline{c}$ are given in (\[c.fluct\]) and (\[c.u\]), respectively.
\[**Generalized Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process**\]\[R.limit.process\]The right-hand sides of (\[fluct1\]) and (\[fluct1’\]) are the Laplace transforms of the finite-dimensional distributions of different multiples of a process $Y$ taking values in the Schwartz space of tempered distributions. This process $Y$ can be called a *generalized Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process* as it solves the *generalized Langevin equation*, $$dY_{t}\ =\ \tfrac{1}{2}\Delta Y_{t}\,dt+dZ_{t}\quad\text{for}\,\ t\geq
0,\,\ Y_{0}=0,$$ where $dZ_{t}/dt$ is a $(1+\gamma)$–stable noise, i.e. $Z$ is the process with independent increments with values in the Schwartz space such that, for $0\leq s\leq t\,\ $and $\,\varphi\in
\mathcal{C}_{\mathrm{exp}}^{+}$, $$E\mathrm{e}^{-\left\langle Z_{t}-Z_{s},\varphi\right\rangle }\ =\ \exp
\!\Big[\int_{s}^{t}\!dr\,\left\langle S_{r}\mu,\varphi^{1+\gamma}\right\rangle
\Big ].$$ $Y$ is described in detail in [DawsonFleischmannGorostiza1989.hydro]{}, where it appeared as the hydrodynamic fluctuation limit process corresponding to super-Brownian motion with finite mean branching rate, but with infinite variance $(1+\gamma)$–branching. Recall that the Markov process $Y$ has log-Laplace transition functional $$-\log E\left\{ \exp\left\langle Y_{t\,},-\varphi\right\rangle \;\big|\;Y_{0}\right\} \;=\;\left\langle Y_{0},S_{t}\varphi\right\rangle +\left\langle
\mu,v(t,\,\cdot\,)_{\!_{\!_{{}}}}\right\rangle \quad\text{for}\,\ \varphi
\in\mathcal{C}_{\exp\,}^{+},$$ where $\,v=v[\varphi]=\left\{ v(t,x):\,t\geq0,\;x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}\right\} $ solves$\ $$$\begin{array}
[c]{c}\displaystyle
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}v(t,x)\;=\;\tfrac{1}{2}\Delta v(t,x)\,+\,(S_{t}\varphi)^{1+\gamma}\,(x)\vspace{6pt}\\
\text{with initial condition }\,v(0,\,\cdot\,)=0.
\end{array}
\label{equ.lim}$$
In particular, in our limit procedure the finite variance property of the original process given the medium is lost and, by a subtle averaging effect, an index jump of size $1-\gamma>0$ occurs. $\Diamond$
\[**Ordering**\]The stochastic ordering of the random laws in our bounds in (\[fluct1\]) and (\[fluct1’\]) is well-known in queueing and risk theory, see [@MullerStoyan2002] for background.$\Diamond$
\[**Existence of a fluctuation limit**\]Theorem \[T.fluct\] leaves *open*, whether a fluctuation limit exists in $\mathsf{P}$–probability and whether it is a generalised Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process as described above.$\Diamond$
\[**Variance considerations**\]\[R.variance\]In the case $\,\mu
_{k}\equiv\ell,$ for $\,\varphi\in\mathcal{C}_{\exp\,},$ the $\mathsf{P}$–random variance $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{V}\mathrm{ar}_{\ell} & \left[ k^{\varkappa}\langle X_{t}^{k}-S_{t}\mu,\varphi\rangle\right] \;=\;k^{2\varkappa}\,\mathbb{V}\!\mathrm{ar}_{\ell}\langle X_{t}^{k},\varphi\rangle\label{variance}\\
& =\;2\varrho\,k^{2\varkappa-2d}\int_{0}^{k^{2}t}\!{d}s\int\!\!{d}x\;\Gamma^{1}(x)\,\big[S_{k^{2}t-s}\varphi\,(k^{-1}\cdot\,)\big]^{2}(x)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ equals (by scaling) approximately$$2\varrho\,k^{2\varkappa-2d+2+d/\gamma}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\int\!\Gamma
({d}z)\,[S_{s}\varphi]^{2}(z)\quad\text{as}\,\ k\uparrow\infty.$$ Hence, for $\,\varkappa$ satisfying $$0\;\leq\;\varkappa\;<\;\varkappa_{\mathrm{var}}\;:=\;\frac{(2\gamma
-1)d-2\gamma}{2\gamma}\,, \label{kappa.var}$$ implying $\,\gamma\in(\tfrac{1}{2},1)$ and $\,d>2\gamma
/(2\gamma-1),$ the random variances (\[variance\]) converge to zero as $\,k\uparrow\infty,$ yielding the refined law of large numbers (\[LLN\]), whereas for $\,\varkappa>\varkappa_{\mathrm{var}}$ these variances explode. Note that $\,\varkappa_{\mathrm{var}}<\varkappa_{\mathrm{c\,}},$ since $\,(\gamma-1)(d-2\gamma
)<0$. Therefore a quenched variance consideration as in (\[variance\]) can only imply statement (\[LLN\]) in the restricted case (\[kappa.var\]). Of course, *annealed* variances are infinite already for fixed $\,k,$ which follows from (\[variance\]).$\Diamond$
Heuristics, concept of proof, and outline\[SS.heuristics\]
----------------------------------------------------------
For this discussion we first focus on the case $n=1$ in Theorem \[T.fluct\]. [F]{}rom (\[loglap\]), (\[logLap.equ\]), and scaling,$$\log\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\left[ -k^{\varkappa}\langle X_{t}^{k}-S_{t}\mu,\varphi\rangle\right] \ =\ \left\langle \mu,k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi-u_{k}(t,\,\cdot\,)_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\right\rangle \!,
\label{scaling}$$ where $u_{k}$ solves the (scaled) equation$$\begin{array}
[c]{c}\displaystyle
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}u_{k}(t,x)\;=\;\tfrac{1}{2}\Delta u_{k}(t,x)\,-\,k^{2-d}\,\varrho\,\Gamma^{1}(kx)\,u_{k}^{2}(t,x)\vspace{6pt}\\
\text{with initial condition }\,u_{k}(0,\,\cdot\,)=k^{\varkappa}\varphi.
\end{array}
\label{logLap.equ.k}$$
Since $\,v(t,x):=k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi\,(x)$ is the solution of$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}v(t,x)\;=\;\tfrac{1}{2}\Delta v(t,x)\quad\text{with
initial condition}\,\ v(0,\,\cdot\,)=k^{\varkappa}\varphi,$$ we see that $\,f_{k}(t,x):=k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi\,(x)-u_{k}(t,x)$ solves$$\begin{array}
[c]{c}\displaystyle
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}f_{k}(t,x)\;=\;\tfrac{1}{2}\Delta f_{k}(t,x)\,+\,k^{2-d}\,\varrho\,\Gamma^{1}(kx)\left[ k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi\,(x)-f_{k}(t,x)_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\right] ^{2}\vspace{6pt}\\
\text{with initial condition }\,f_{k}(0,\,\cdot\,)=0.
\end{array}
\label{equ.f}$$
Consider now the critical scaling $\varkappa=\varkappa_{\mathrm{c\,}}.$ By our claims in Theorem \[T.fluct\], $\,f_{k}$ should be asymptotically bounded in $\mathsf{P}$–law by solutions $\,v$ of$\ $$$\displaystyle
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}v(t,x)\;=\;\tfrac{1}{2}\Delta v(t,x)\,+\,c\,(S_{t}\varphi)^{1+\gamma}\,(x) \label{equ.lim'}$$ for different values of $\,c.$ Consequently, in a sense, we have to justify the transition from equation (\[equ.f\]) to the log-Laplace equation (\[equ.lim’\]) corresponding to the limiting fluctuations, recall (\[equ.lim\]). Here the $\,x\mapsto\Gamma^{1}(kx)$ entering into equation (\[equ.f\]) are random homogeneous fields with infinite overall density, and the solutions $\,f_{k}$ depend on $\,\Gamma^{1}.$ But the most fascinating fact here seems to be the index jump from $\,2$ to $\,1+\gamma$, which occurs when passing from to . Unfortunately, we are unable to explain this from an individual ergodic theorem acting on the (ergodic) underlying random measure $\,\Gamma$.
We take another route. For the heuristic exposition, we simplify as follows. First of all, we restrict our attention to the case $\,\varphi(x)\equiv\theta$ corresponding to total mass process fluctuations. Clearly, we have the domination$$0\,\leq\,u_{k}(t,x)\,\leq\,k^{\varkappa}\,\theta. \label{domi0}$$ Replacing one of the $\,u_{k}(t,x)$ factors in the non-linear term of (\[logLap.equ.k\]) by $\,k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi\,(x)\equiv
k^{\varkappa}\,\theta,$ and denoting the solution to the new equation with the same initial condition by $\,w_{k\,},$ then $\,u_{k}\geq w_{k\,},$ and we can explicitly calculate $\,w_{k}$ by the Feynman-Kac formula,$$w_{k}(t,x)\ =\ k^{\varkappa}\,\theta\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\exp\!\Big[-k^{2-d}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\varrho\,\Gamma^{1}(kW_{s})\,k^{\varkappa}\,\theta\Big].
\label{linprob0}$$ For the upper bound (\[fluct1\]), we may work with $\,w_{k}$ instead of $\,u_{k\,}.$ It suffices to show that $\left\langle
\mu,k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi-w_{k}(t,\cdot)\right\rangle $ converges to $\left\langle \mu,v\right\rangle $ in $L^{2}(\mathsf{P}),$ where $v$ is the solution to (\[equ.lim’\]) with constant $c=\overline{c}.$ We therefore show that the $\mathsf{P}$–expectations converge, and the $\mathsf{P}$–variances go to $0.$ In this heuristics we concentrate on the convergence of $\mathsf{E}$–expectations only, and we simplify by assuming $\,\mu=\delta_{x}$ (although formally excluded in the theorem by (\[En\]) if $\,d>3$$).$ We then have to show that$$\mathsf{E}k^{\varkappa}\,\theta\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\biggl(1-\exp
\!\Big[-k^{2-d+\varkappa}\,\theta\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\varrho\,\Gamma
^{1}(kW_{s})\Big]\biggr)\;\underset{k\uparrow\infty}{\longrightarrow
}\;t\,\overline{c}\,\theta^{1+\gamma}. \label{suff.E}$$ By definition (\[not.Gamma.eps\]) of $\,\Gamma^{1}$ and (\[logL.Gamma\]) of $\,\Gamma,$ the left hand side of (\[suff.E\]) can be rewritten as$$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\displaystyle
k^{\varkappa}\,\theta\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\biggl(1-\mathsf{E}\exp\!\Big[-\int
\!\Gamma(dz)\ k^{2-d+\varkappa}\,\varrho\theta\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta
_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\Big ]\biggr)\vspace{6pt}\\\displaystyle
\quad=\ k^{\varkappa}\,\theta\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\biggl(\!1-\exp
\!\bigg[\!-\!k^{(2-d+\varkappa)\gamma+d}\,(\varrho\theta)^{\gamma}\!\int\!\!dz\,\Big(\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\mathsf{1}_{B(z,\frac{1}{k})}(W_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\bigg]\biggr).
\end{array}$$ We may additionally introduce the indicator $\,\mathsf{1}_{\{\tau\leq t\}}$ where $\,\tau=\tau_{1/k}^{z}[W]$ denotes the *first hitting time* of the ball $\,B(z,1/k)$ by the path $\,W$ starting from $x,$ and we continue with$$=\ k^{\varkappa}\,\theta\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\biggl(\!1-\exp
\!\bigg[\!-\!k^{(2-d+\varkappa)\gamma+d}\,(\varrho\theta)^{\gamma}\int\!\!dz\,\mathsf{1}_{\{\tau\leq t\}\,}\Big(\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\mathsf{1}_{B(z,\frac{1}{k})}(W_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\bigg]\biggr).$$ Now we look at the $\mathcal{E}_{x}$–expectation of the exponent term. As the probability of hitting the small ball $\,B(z,1/k)$ is of order $\,k^{2-d},$ and the time spent afterwards in the ball is of order $\,k^{-2},$ the expectation of the exponent term is of order $\,k^{(-d+\varkappa)\gamma+2}=k^{-\varkappa}$ converging to zero as $\,k\uparrow\infty$. Heuristically this justifies the use of the approximation $\,1-\mathrm{e}^{-x}\approx x$. Note that then the leading factor $\,k^{\varkappa}$ is cancelled, and we arrive at a constant multiple of $\,\theta^{1+\gamma}.$
According to this simplified calculation, the index jump has its origin in an averaging of exponential functionals of $\,\Gamma$ \[as in (\[logL.Gamma\])\], generating a transition from $\,\theta$ to $\,\theta^{\gamma}.$ Note that the smallness of the exponent is largely due to the presence of the indicator of $\,\{\tau\leq t\}.$ This fact is also behind our estimates of variances in Section \[varlin\].
We recall that the simplification $\,u_{k}\rightsquigarrow w_{k}$ which we used in the upper bound is basically a *linearization* of the problem, that is we pass from the non-linear log-Laplace equation (\[logLap.equ.k\]) to the linear equation$$\begin{array}
[c]{c}\displaystyle
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}w_{k}(t,x)\;=\;\tfrac{1}{2}\Delta w_{k}(t,x)\,-\,k^{2-d}\,\varrho\,\Gamma^{1}(kx)\,k^{\varkappa}\theta\,w_{k}(t,x)\vspace{6pt}\\
\text{with initial condition }\,u_{k}(0,\,\cdot\,)=k^{\varkappa}\theta.
\end{array}
\label{equ.w}$$ In the case of a catalyst with finite expectation as in [@DawsonFleischmannGorostiza1989.hydro], this linearization was a key step for deriving the limiting fluctuations. The difference between $u_{k}$ and $w_{k}$ was asymptotically negligible. But in the present model of a catalyst of infinite overall density, this is *no longer the case.* In fact, $\,u_{k}(t,x)-w_{k}(t,x)$ does not converge to $0$ in $\mathsf{P}$–probability. Therefore, our upper bound is not sharp.
For the lower bound, we replace $u_{k}^{2}$ in (\[logLap.equ.k\]) by $w_{k\,}^{2},$ and denoting the solution to the new equation with the same initial condition by $\,m_{k\,}.$ Then$$k^{\varkappa}\theta-u_{k}(t,x)\ \geq\ k^{\varkappa}\theta-m_{k}(t,x)\ =\ k^{2-d}\varrho\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\ \Gamma^{1}(kW_{s})\,w_{k}^{2}(t-s,W_{s}).$$ Inserting for $w_{k}$ the Feynman-Kac representation (\[linprob0\]) we arrive at an explicit expression. Similarly as above, we then show that $\left\langle _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\mu,k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi-m_{k}(t,\cdot)\right\rangle $ converges to $\left\langle \mu,v\right\rangle $ in $L^{2}(\mathsf{P}),$ where $v$ is the solution to (\[equ.lim’\]) with constant $c=\underline{c}.$
The *structure of the remaining paper* is as follows. After some basic preparations, in Section \[S.upper\] we concentrate on the upper bound, whereas the lower bound follows in Section \[S.lower\].
Preparation: Some basic estimates\[S.basic\]
============================================
In this section we provide some simple but useful tools for the main body of the proof. For basic facts on Brownian motion, see, for instance, [@RevuzYor1991] or [@KaratzasShreve1991].
Simple estimates for the Brownian semigroup\[SS.Brown\]
-------------------------------------------------------
We frequently use the argument (based on the triangle inequality) that, for $\eta>0$ and $s>0$, there exists $c_{\eqref{klaustrick}}=c_{\eqref{klaustrick}}(\eta,s)$ such that for all $x,$ $$\int\!dy\ \phi_{\eta}(y)\,p_{s}(x-y)\ \leq\ \phi_{\eta}(x)\int
\!\!dy\ \mathrm{e}^{\eta|x-y|}\,p_{s}(x-y)\ =\ c_{\eqref{klaustrick}}\,\phi_{\eta}(x). \label{klaustrick}$$
For a while, let $\,t>0\,\ $and $\,\varphi\in\mathcal{C}_{\exp\,}^{+}.$ Recall that $(s,x)\mapsto S_{s}\varphi\,(x)$ is uniformly continuous, hence for any $\varepsilon>0$ one may choose $\delta>0$ such that, for $r,s\in\lbrack0,t]\,\ $and $\,\,x,y\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, $$\big|S_{r}\varphi\,(x)-S_{s}\varphi\,(y)\big|\,\leq\ \varepsilon\quad
\text{if}\,\ \,|r-s|\leq\delta,\,\ |x-y|\leq\delta. \label{unicont}$$ For convenience we expose the following simple fact.
\[**Brownian semigroup estimate**\]\[L.bo2\]There is a $\,\lambda
_{\ref{L.bo2}}=\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}(t,\varphi)>0$ and a constant $\,c_{\ref{L.bo2}}=c_{\ref{L.bo2}}(t,\varphi)$ such that, for every $x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, $$\tilde{\phi}(x)\;:=\;\sup_{0\leq s\leq t}\,\,\sup_{y\in B(x,1)}\,S_{s}\varphi\,(y)\;\leq\;c_{\ref{L.bo2}}\,\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x).
\label{bo2}$$
Note that in all dimensions, for each $\,\lambda>0,$$$\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}}\,\int\!\!dz\ \phi_{\lambda}(z)\,|z-x|^{2-d}\ <\ \infty. \label{all.d}$$ In fact, on the unit ball $\,B(x,1),$ use that $\,\int_{|z|\leq
1}\!dz$$|z|^{2-d}<\infty,$ and outside this ball, exploit $\,|z-x|^{2-d}\leq1$.
We continue with the following observation.
\[L.sim.id\]Let $\,d\geq5.$ Then, for some constant $\,c_{\ref{L.sim.id}}$ and all $x,y\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, $$\int\!\!{d}z\ |z-x|^{2-d}\,|z-y|^{2-d}\ =\ c_{\ref{L.sim.id}}\,|x-y|^{4-d}\ =\ c_{\ref{L.sim.id}}\ \mathrm{en}(x-y). \label{da}$$
Clearly, using the definition of the Green function as an integral of the transition densities,$$\int\!\!{d}z\ |z-x|^{2-d}\,|z-y|^{2-d}\ =\ c\int\!\!{d}z\int_{0}^{\infty
}\!ds\ p_{s}(z-x)\int_{0}^{\infty}\!dt\ p_{t}(z-y). \label{Green}$$ Interchanging integrations, using Chapman-Kolmogorov, substituting, and interchanging again gives$$=\ c\int_{0}^{\infty}\!dt\ t\,p_{t}(x-y)\ =\ c\,|x-y|^{4-d}\int_{0}^{\infty
}\!dt\ t\,p_{t}(\iota)$$ with $\,\iota$ any point on the unit sphere. The latter integral is finite since $\,d>4,$ finishing the proof.
In dimension four, the situation is slightly more involved.
\[L.sim.est\]Let $\,d=4$ and $\,\lambda>0.$ Then, for some constant $\,c_{\ref{L.sim.est}}=c_{\ref{L.sim.est}}(\lambda
)$ and all $x,y\in\mathbb{R}^{4}$, $$\int\!\!{d}z\ \phi_{\lambda}(z)\,|z-x|^{-2}\,|z-y|^{-2}\ \leq
\ c_{\ref{L.sim.est}}\left[ 1+\log^{+}\!\left( |x-y|^{-1}\right) \right]
\!. \label{log}$$
If $\,|x-y|\,>2,$ then the left hand side of (\[log\]) is bounded in $\,x,y.$ In fact, for $\,z$ in a unit sphere around a singularity, say $\,x,$ we use $\,|z-y|\,\geq1$ and (\[all.d\]). Outside both unit spheres, the integrand is bounded by $\,\phi_{\lambda\,}.$
Now suppose $\,|x-y|\,\leq2.$ We may also assume that $\,x\neq
y.$ As in the proof of Lemma \[L.sim.id\], the left hand side of (\[log\]) leads to the integral$$\int_{0}^{\infty}\!ds\int_{0}^{\infty}\!dt\int\!\!{d}z\ \phi_{\lambda
}(z)\,p_{s}(z-x)\,p_{t}(z-y).$$ First we additionally restrict the integrals to $\,s,t\leq|x-y|^{-1}.$ In this case, we drop $\,\phi_{\lambda}(z),$ use Chapman-Kolmogorov, substitute, and interchange the order of integration to get the bound$$\int_{0}^{2\,|x-y|^{-1}}\!dt\ t\,p_{t}(x-y)\ \leq\ \int_{0}^{2\,|x-y|^{-3}}\!dt\ t\,p_{t}(\iota)\ \leq\ c\,\left[ 1+\log\left( |x-y|^{-1}\right)
\right] \!.$$ To see the last step, split the integral at $\,t=1.$ To finish the proof, by symmetry in $\,x,y,$ it suffices to consider$$\int_{0}^{\infty}\!ds\int_{|x-y|^{-1}}^{\infty}\!dt\int\!\!{d}z\ \phi
_{\lambda}(z)\,p_{s}(z-x)\,p_{t}(z-y). \label{suff.con}$$ Now, by a substitution,$$\int_{|x-y|^{-1}}^{\infty}\!dt\ p_{t}(z-y)\ \leq\ |z-y|^{-2}\int
_{|x-y|^{-1}\,|z-y|^{-2}}^{\infty}\!dt\ c\,t^{-2}\ =\ c\,|x-y|\ \leq\ 2c.
\label{41}$$ Plugging (\[41\]) into (\[suff.con\]) and using the Green’s function again gives the bound$$c\,\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{4}}\int\!\!{d}z\ \phi_{\lambda}(z)\,|z-x|^{-2},$$ which is finite by (\[all.d\]).
Brownian hitting and occupation time estimates\[hittin\]
--------------------------------------------------------
Further key tools are the asymptotics of the hitting times of small balls. Recall that $\,\tau=\tau_{1/k}^{z}[W]$ denotes the *first hitting time* of the closed ball $\,B(z,1/k)$ by the Brownian motion $\,W$ started in $\,x.$ The following results are taken from [@LeGall1986.Ann], see formula (0a) and Lemma 2.1 there.
\[**Hitting time asymptotics and bounds**\]\[L.B.hitting.asy\]Suppose $\,d\geq3.$ Then the following results hold.
- There is a constant $c_{\mathrm{(\ref{hitting})}}$, which depends only on the dimension $d$, such that $$\mathcal{P}_{x}(\tau<\infty)\;\leq\;c_{\mathrm{(\ref{hitting})}}\,k^{2-d}\,|z-x|^{2-d}\quad\text{for}\,\ x,z\in\mathbb{R}^{d}. \label{hitting}$$
- There are constants $c_{\eqref{bo1}}$ and $\lambda_{\eqref{bo1}}>0$, depending on $d$ and $t>0$, such that for $\,x,z\in\mathbb{R}^{d},$ $$k^{d-2}\,\mathcal{P}_{x}(\tau\leq t)\ \leq\ c_{(\ref{bo1})}\big[|z-x|^{2-d}+1\big]\exp\bigl[-\lambda_{\eqref{bo1}}|z-x|^{2}\bigr]. \label{bo1}$$
- The following convergence holds uniformly whenever $|x-z|$ is bounded from zero, $$\lim_{k\uparrow\infty}\,k^{d-2}\,\mathcal{P}_{x}(\tau\leq t)\ =\ c_{(\ref{ba1})}\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\,\,p_{s}(z-x)\quad\text{for}\,\ z\not =x, \label{ba1}$$ where $\,c_{(\ref{ba1})}:=\frac{(d-2)\pi^{d/2}}{G(d/2)}$ (and $\,G$ is the Gamma function).
- Finally, writing $\,\tau^{i}:=\tau_{1/k}^{z_{i}}[W]$ for $i=1,2$, there are constants $c_{\eqref{loc3}}$ and $\lambda_{\eqref{loc3}}>0$, depending on $d$ and $t$, such that for $\,x,z\in\mathbb{R}^{d},$$$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\mathcal{P}_{x}\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\tau_{1}<\tau_{2}<{k^{2}t}\right)
\vspace{6pt}\\
\leq\ c_{(\ref{loc3})}\,k^{4-2d}\,\Big(\bigl|(z_{1}-x)/k\bigr|^{2-d}+1\Big)\exp\!\Big[-\lambda_{\eqref{loc3}}\bigl|(z_{1}-x)/k\bigr|^{2}\Big ]\vspace{6pt}\\
\qquad\qquad\times\ \Big(\big|(z_{2}-z_{1})/k\big|^{2-d}+1\Big)\exp
\!\Big[-\lambda_{\eqref{loc3}}\big|(z_{2}-z_{1})/k\big|^{2}\Big ].
\end{array}
\label{loc3}$$
The following lemmas are all consequences of Lemma \[L.B.hitting.asy\].
\[LemmaC\] Let $\,d\geq3$. Fix $\,\varphi\in\mathcal{C}_{\mathrm{exp}\,}^{+},$ $\eta\geq0,$ and $\,t>0$. Then there are constants $\,$ $c_{\ref{LemmaC}}$ and $\lambda_{\ref{LemmaC}}$ such that for $\,x,z\in\mathbb{R}^{d},$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi(W_{t}){\mathsf{1}}_{\{\tau\leq t\}}\Big(k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-kz)\Big)^{\!\eta}\ \nonumber\\
& \leq\ c_{\ref{LemmaC}}k^{2-d}\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(z)\,\big[|z-x|^{2-d}+1\big]\exp\bigl[-\lambda_{\ref{LemmaC}}|z-x|^{2}\bigr].
\label{ausdenken}$$
Initially, let $\varphi$ be any non-negative function. Using the strong Markov property at time $\,\tau$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi(W_{t})\, & \,\mathsf{1}_{\{\tau\leq t\}\,}\Big(k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-kz)\Big)^{\!\eta
}\nonumber\\
& =\;\mathcal{E}_{x}\,\varphi(W_{t})\,\mathsf{1}_{\{\tau\leq t\}\,}\mathcal{E}_{x}\bigg\{\!\Big(k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-kz)\Big)^{\!\eta}\;\bigg|\;\mathcal{F}_{\tau}\bigg\}\label{MP}\\[6pt]
& =\;\mathcal{E}_{x}\,\varphi(W_{t})\,\mathsf{1}_{\{\tau\leq t\}\,}g(\tau,W_{\tau}),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where$$g(r,y)\;:=\;\mathcal{E}_{y}\Big(k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t-r}\!{d}s\;\vartheta
_{1}(kW_{s}-kz)\Big)^{\!\eta} \label{not.f}$$ for $\,0\leq r\leq t$ and $\,y\in\partial B(z,1/k).$ But, $$g(r,y)\leq\,\mathcal{E}_{y}\Big(\int_{0}^{\infty}\!{d}s\;\vartheta
_{1}(kW_{k^{-2}s}-kz)\Big)^{\!\eta}=\,\mathcal{E}_{ky}\Big(\int_{0}^{\infty
}\!{d}s\ \vartheta_{1}(W_{s}-kz)\Big)^{\!\eta}.$$ Note that the right hand side is independent of $\,k,z,y$ (in the considered range of $y),$ and finite since in $\,d\geq3$ all such moments are finite. Consequently, there is a constant $\,c$ such that $\,g(r,y)\leq c.$ If now $\,\varphi
\in\mathcal{C}_{\exp\,}^{+},$ by the strong Markov property at time $\,\tau$, $$\mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi(W_{t})\,\,\mathsf{1}_{\{\tau\leq t\}\,}=\;\mathcal{E}_{x}\,\mathsf{1}_{\{\tau\leq t\}\,}\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\varphi(\tilde
{W}_{t-\tau})\ \leq\ \mathcal{P}_{x}(\tau\leq t)\,\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(z), \label{Markov1}$$ using (\[bo2\]) in the second step. By , $$\mathcal{P}_{x}(\tau\leq t)\ \leq\ c_{(\ref{bo1})}k^{2-d}\big[|z-x|^{2-d}+1\big]\exp\bigl[-\lambda_{(\ref{bo1})}|z-x|^{2}\bigr]. \label{hitt}$$ The result follows by combining and .
\[L.Br.hit.occ\]Let $\,d\geq3.$ Fix $\eta\geq0$, $\varphi
\in\mathcal{C}_{\mathrm{exp}}^{+}$, and $t>0$. Then there is a constant $c_{\mathrm{\ref{L.Br.hit.occ}}}$ such that
- $\displaystyle\mathcal{E}_{x}\Big(k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-kz)\Big)^{\!\eta}\;\leq
\;c_{\mathrm{\ref{L.Br.hit.occ}}}\,k^{2-d}\,|z-x|^{2-d},$for all $x,z\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $k\geq1.$
- $\displaystyle\int\!dz\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi(W_{t}){\mathsf{1}}_{\{\tau\leq t\}}\Big(k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-kz)\Big)^{\!\eta}\ \leq\ c_{\mathrm{\ref{L.Br.hit.occ}}}k^{2-d}\phi
_{\lambda_{\mathrm{\ref{L.bo2}}}}(x),$for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $\,k\geq1.$
The proof of (a) follows from for $\varphi\equiv1$ and , the proof of (b) by integrating (\[ausdenken\]) and applying (\[klaustrick\]).
Upper bound: Proof of (\[fluct1\])\[S.upper\]
=============================================
Anderson model with stable random potential\[SS.Anderson\]
----------------------------------------------------------
As motivated in Section \[SS.heuristics\], we look at the mild solution to the linear equation $$\begin{array}
[c]{c}\displaystyle
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}w_{k}(t,x)\;=\;\tfrac{1}{2}\Delta w_{k}(t,x)-k^{2-d}\,\varrho\,\Gamma^{1}(kx)\,k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi
\,(x)\,w_{k}(t,x)\vspace{6pt}\\
\text{with initial condition }\,w_{k}(0,\,\cdot\,)=k^{\varkappa}\varphi.
\end{array}$$ This is an *Anderson model* with the time-dependent scaled stable random potential $-k^{2-d}\,\varrho\,\Gamma^{1}(kx)\,k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi\,(x).$ We study its fluctuation behaviour around the heat flow:
\[**Limiting fluctuations of** $w_{k}$\]\[P.Anderson\]Under the assumptions of Theorem *\[T.fluct\],* if $\,\varkappa=\varkappa_{\mathrm{c}\,},$ then for any $\,\varphi
\in\mathcal{C}_{\exp}^{+}$ and $\,t\geq0,$ in $\mathsf{P}$–probability,$$\left\langle _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\mu,k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi-w_{k}(t,\cdot
)\right\rangle \;\underset{k\uparrow\infty}{\longrightarrow}\;\overline{c}\,\Big\langle
\mu,\int_{0}^{t}\!dr\ S_{r}\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}(S_{t-r}\varphi
)^{1+\gamma}\right) \!\Big\rangle
, \label{Anderson}$$ where the constant $\overline{c}=\overline{c}(\gamma,\varrho)$ is given by$$\overline{c}\ :=\ \varrho^{\gamma}\,\frac{(d-2)\pi^{d/2}}{G(d/2)}\ \mathcal{E}_{\imath}\Big(\int_{0}^{\infty}\!ds\ \vartheta_{1}(W_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}, \label{c.fluct}$$ where $\,\imath$ is any point on the unit sphere of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$.
To see how the case $n=1$ of (\[fluct1\]) follows from Proposition \[P.Anderson\], we fix a sample $\Gamma.$ For $\varphi\in\mathcal{C}_{\exp\,}^{+}$, we use the abbreviation $$\varphi_{k}(x)\;:=\;\varphi(x/k)\quad\text{for}\,\ k>0,\;\,x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}.
\label{not.phik}$$ Formulas (\[loglap\]) and (\[scale\]) give $$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\log\,\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\left[ k^{\varkappa}\big(\langle
X_{t\,}^{k},-\varphi\rangle-\langle S_{t}\mu,-\varphi\rangle
\big)_{\!_{\!_{\,_{{}}}}}\right] \vspace{4pt}\\
\quad=\;\log\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\left[ \langle X_{k^{2}t\,},-k^{\varkappa-d}\varphi_{k}\rangle+k^{\varkappa}\langle S_{t}\mu
,\varphi\rangle_{\!_{\!_{\,_{{}}}}}\right] \vspace{8pt}\\
\quad=\ -\left\langle \mu_{k},v_{k}(k^{2}t)_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\right\rangle
+k^{\varkappa}\langle S_{t}\mu,\varphi\rangle\;=\;\langle\mu,\,k^{\varkappa
}S_{t}\varphi\rangle-\left\langle \mu_{k\,}^{k},\,k^{d}\,v_{k}(k^{2}t,k\,\cdot\,)\right\rangle \!,
\end{array}
\label{logLap.k}$$ with $\,v_{k}$ the mild solution to (\[logLap.equ\]) with initial condition $\,v_{k}(0)=k^{\varkappa-d}\varphi_{k\,}.$ Setting$$u_{k}(t,x)\;:=\;\,k^{d}\,v_{k}(k^{2}t,kx)\quad\text{for}\,\ t\geq
0,\;\,x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}, \label{not.u}$$ $u_{k}$ solves$$u_{k}(t,x)\;=\;k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi\,(x)\,-\,k^{2-d}\varrho\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;S_{s}\bigl(\Gamma^{1}(k\,\cdot\,)\,u_{k}^{2}(t-s,\,\cdot
\,)\bigr)(x). \label{new}$$ Recall that this can be rewritten in Feynman-Kac form as$$\begin{array}
[c]{l}k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi\,(x)-u_{k}(t,x)\vspace{6pt}\\\displaystyle
\quad=\;k^{\varkappa}\mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi(W_{t})\bigg(1-\exp\!\Big[-k^{2-d}\varrho\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\Gamma^{1}(kW_{s})\,u_{k}(t-s,W_{s})\Big]\bigg).
\end{array}
\label{FK}$$ Using $\,u_{k}(t-s,W_{s})\leq k^{\varkappa}S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s})$ in (\[FK\]), and the Feynman-Kac representation$$w_{k}(t,x)\ :=\ k^{\varkappa}\mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi(W_{t})\exp\!\Big[-k^{2-d}\varrho\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\Gamma^{1}(kW_{s})\,k^{\varkappa}S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s})\Big], \label{linprob}$$ we arrive at $$0\ \leq\ k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi\,(x)-u_{k}(t,x)\ \leq\ k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi\,(x)-w_{k}(t,x). \label{76}$$ Hence, the case $n=1$ of (\[fluct1\]) follows from Proposition \[P.Anderson\].
Proposition \[P.Anderson\] is proved in two steps: In Section \[explin\] we show that the expectations converge, and in Section \[varlin\] that the variances vanish asymptotically.
Convergence of expectations\[explin\]
-------------------------------------
\[**Convergence of expectations**\]\[L.exp.conv\]Let $\,\varkappa
=\varkappa_{\mathrm{c}\,}.$ There exists a $\,\lambda
_{\ref{L.exp.conv}}>0$ such that for every $\varepsilon>0$ there is a $k_{\ref{L.exp.conv}}=k_{\ref{L.exp.conv}}(\varepsilon)>0$ with $$\bigg|\mathsf{E}\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi
\,(x)-w_{k}(t,x)\right) -\ \overline{c}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}r\;S_{r}(S_{t-r}\varphi)^{1+\gamma}(x)\bigg|\ \leq\ \varepsilon\phi_{\gamma
\lambda_{\ref{L.exp.conv}}}(x)$$ for $x\in\mathbb{R}^{d},\ \,k\geq k_{\ref{L.exp.conv}\,},$ where $\,\overline{c}$ is as in .
Theorem \[C.LLN\] immediately follows from this proposition. Indeed, turning back to the situation $\,\varkappa<\varkappa_{\mathrm{c}\,},$ note from (\[logLap.k\]) (which holds for general $\varkappa)$ that$$\log\,\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\left[ k^{\varkappa}\langle X_{t\,}^{k}-S_{t}\mu,-\varphi\rangle_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\right] \;=\;\left\langle
_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\mu,\,k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi-u_{k}(t,\,\cdot\,)\right\rangle
\,\geq\,0.$$ It suffices to show that the right hand side converges to zero in $L^{1}(\mathsf{P}).$ Using (\[76\]), $$\mathsf{E}\!\left\langle _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\mu,\,k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi
-u_{k}(t,\,\cdot\,)\right\rangle \ \leq\ k^{\varkappa-\varkappa_{\mathrm{c}}}\,\mathsf{E}\!\left\langle _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\mu,\,k^{\varkappa_{\mathrm{c}}}S_{t}\varphi-w_{k}(t,\,\cdot\,)\right\rangle \!,$$ where $\,w_{k}$ from (\[linprob\]) is defined using the critical index $\varkappa_{\mathrm{c}\,}.$ By Proposition \[L.exp.conv\], which does not require the finiteness of the energy, the expectation on the right remains bounded, implying the statement.
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of this proposition. Recall that $\,\varkappa\,\ $equals $\,\varkappa_{\mathrm{c}\,},$ which is defined in (\[not.ski\]). The proof is prepared by six lemmas. In all these lemmas, $\tau=\tau_{1/k}^{y}[W]$ denotes the first hitting time of the ball $B(y,1/k)$ by the Brownian motion $W,$ and $\,\pi_{x}$ the law of $\,\tau_{1/k}^{y}[W]$ if $\,W$ is started in $\,x.$
\[highs\] There exists a constant $c_{\ref{highs}}>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
k^{d-2} & \int\!\!dy\ \mathcal{E}_{x}1_{\tau\leq t}\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tau})\Big(k^{2}\int_{M/k^{2}}^{\infty}ds\;\vartheta
_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\,\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\Big)^{\!\gamma
}\nonumber\\
& \leq\ c_{\ref{highs}}M^{\gamma(1-d/2)}\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)\quad\text{for}\,\ M>1,\ \,k>0,\ \,x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}.\end{aligned}$$
Note that, for any $\,\iota\in\partial B(0,1),$ by Brownian scaling, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_{\iota/k}\,k^{2} & \int_{M/k^{2}}^{\infty}ds\;\vartheta
_{1/k}({W}_{s})\,=\ \mathcal{E}_{\iota}\int_{M}^{\infty}ds\;\vartheta_{1}({W}_{s})\nonumber\\
& =\ \int_{M}^{\infty}ds\;\mathcal{P}_{\iota}\!\left( |{W}_{s}|\leq1_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\right) \ \leq\ \int_{|y|\leq1}dy\int_{M}^{\infty
}ds\;p_{s}(y)\ \leq\ c_{\eqref{upta}}M^{1-d/2}. \label{upta}$$ We now use $\,\varphi\leq c,$ Jensen’s inequality, , , and , to get $$\begin{aligned}
k^{d-2} & \int\!\!dy\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq t}\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tau})\Big(k^{2}\int_{M/k^{2}}^{\infty
}ds\;\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\,\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\Big)^{\!\gamma}\nonumber\\
& \leq\ c\,k^{d-2}\int\!\!dy\ \phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq t}\,\mathcal{E}_{\iota/k}\Big(k^{2}\int_{M/k^{2}}^{\infty}ds\;\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\label{li2}\\
& \leq\ c\,M^{\gamma(1-d/2)}\int\!\!dy\ \phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\left[ _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}|x-y|^{2-d}+1\right] \exp\!\left[ -|x-y|^{2}/16\right] \nonumber\\[2pt]
& \leq\ c_{\ref{highs}}\,M^{\gamma(1-d/2)}\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This is the required statement.
\[la2\] For every $\delta>0$, there exists a constant $c_{\ref{la2}}=c_{\ref{la2}}(\delta)>0$ such that $$\mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi(W_{t})\bigg[\int\!\!dy\,\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-y)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma
}\bigg]^{2}\,\leq\ c_{\ref{la2}}\,k^{4-4\gamma+\delta}\phi_{\gamma
\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x),$$ for all $\,x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}\,\ $and $\,k\geq1$.
Using Brownian scaling in the second, substitution and in the last step, we estimate,$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_{x} & \varphi(W_{t})\bigg[\int\!\!dy\,\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-y)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma
}\bigg]^{2}\nonumber\\
& \leq\ \Vert\varphi\Vert_{\infty}{\displaystyle\iint}
\!dy_{1}dy_{2}\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\prod_{i=1}^{2}\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\ \vartheta
_{1}(kW_{s}-y_{i})\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\nonumber\\
& =\ \Vert\varphi\Vert_{\infty}{\displaystyle\iint}
\!dy_{1}dy_{2}\ \mathcal{E}_{0}\prod_{i=1}^{2}\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\ \vartheta
_{1}(W_{k^{2}s}+kx-y_{i})\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(\tfrac{1}{k}W_{k^{2}s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\nonumber\\
& \leq\ k^{-4\gamma}\,\Vert\varphi\Vert_{\infty}{\displaystyle\iint}
\!dy_{1}dy_{2}\ \mathcal{E}_{0}\prod_{i=1}^{2}\Big(\int_{0}^{k^{2}t}\!ds\ \vartheta_{1}(W_{s}-y_{i})\,\tilde{\phi}(y_{i}/k+x)\Big)^{\!\gamma}.
\label{loc1}$$ To study the double integral, denote by $\tau_{1}$, $\tau_{2}$ the first hitting times of the balls $B(y_{1},1)$ respectively $B(y_{2},1)$ by the Brownian path $W$. Pick $p>1$ such that $2d+2(2-d)/p<4+\delta$, and $q$ such that $1/p+1/q=1$. By Hölder’s inequality,$$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{E}_{0}\prod_{i=1}^{2}\Big(\int_{0}^{k^{2}t}\!ds\ \vartheta_{1}(W_{s}-y_{i})\,\tilde{\phi}(y_{i}/k+x)\Big)^{\!\gamma}\ \leq\ \left[
\mathcal{P}_{0}\big(\tau_{1}<{k^{2}t},\ \tau_{2}<{k^{2}t}\big)\right]
^{1/p}\nonumber\\
\times\ \bigg[\mathcal{E}_{0}\prod_{i=1}^{2}\Big(\int_{0}^{\infty
}\!ds\ \vartheta_{1}(W_{s}-y_{i})\,\tilde{\phi}(y_{i}/k+x)\Big)^{\!\gamma
q}\bigg]^{\!1/q}.\end{gathered}$$ For the second factor on the right hand side we get, using Cauchy-Schwarz, and the maximum principle to pass from $\,y_{i}$ to $\,0,$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \bigg[\mathcal{E}_{0}\prod_{i=1}^{2}\Big(\int_{0}^{\infty}\!ds\ \vartheta
_{1}(W_{s}-y_{i})\,\tilde{\phi}(y_{i}/k+x)\Big)^{\!\gamma q}\bigg]^{\!1/q}\nonumber\\
& \leq\ \prod_{i=1}^{2}\biggl(\mathcal{E}_{0}\Big(\int_{0}^{\infty
}\!ds\ \vartheta_{1}(W_{s}-y_{i})\,\tilde{\phi}(y_{i}/k+x)\Big)^{\!2\gamma
q}\biggr)^{\!1/2q}\nonumber\\
& \leq\ \tilde{\phi}^{\gamma}(y_{1}/k+x)\,\tilde{\phi}^{\gamma}(y_{2}/k+x)\,\biggl(\mathcal{E}_{0}\!\Big(\int_{0}^{\infty}\!ds\ \vartheta
_{1}(W_{s})\Big)^{\!2\gamma q}\biggr)^{\!1/q}. \label{loc4}$$ Recall from Lemma \[L.Br.hit.occ\](a) that the total occupation times of Brownian motion in the unit ball in $d\geq3$ have moments of all orders. Hence, the latter expectation is finite.
By using substitution in the $y$-variables, $$\begin{aligned}
\iint\! & dy_{1}dy_{2}\ \tilde{\phi}^{\gamma}(y_{1}/k+x)\,\tilde{\phi
}^{\gamma}(y_{2}/k+x)\,\left[ \mathcal{P}_{0}\!\left( \tau_{1}<k^{2}t,\ \tau_{2}<k^{2}t\right) \right] ^{\!1/p}\nonumber\\
& \leq\ c_{(\ref{loc3})}^{1/p}\,k^{2d+2(2-d)/p}\int\!\!dy_{1}\,\tilde{\phi
}^{\gamma}(y_{1}+x)\big(|y_{1}|^{2-d}+1\big)^{\!1/p}\exp\bigl[-|y_{1}|^{2}/(16p)\bigr]\nonumber\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\quad\times\int\!\!dy_{2}\,\tilde{\phi}^{\gamma
}(y_{2}+x)\big(|y_{2}|^{2-d}+1\big)^{\!1/p}\exp\!\bigl[-|y_{2}|^{2}/(16p)\bigr]\nonumber\\
& \leq\ c_{(\ref{loc2})}k^{4+\delta}\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x),
\label{loc2}$$ using in the last step. Plugging into completes the proof.
\[la5\] For all $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $\delta=\delta(\varepsilon)>0$ and $k_{\ref{la5}}=k_{\ref{la5}}(\varepsilon)>0$, such that $$\begin{gathered}
k^{d-2}\int\!\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{t-\delta\leq\tau\leq
t}\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\!\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{t-\tau}\!{d}s\;\vartheta
_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\,S_{t-\tau-s}\varphi\,(\tilde{W}_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma
}\nonumber\\
\leq\ \varepsilon\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)\quad for\text{
\thinspace$k\geq k$}_{\ref{la5}}\text{ and\thinspace\ $x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$.}$$
For any $\delta,M>0$ we have,
$$\begin{aligned}
k^{d-2} & \int\!\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{t-\delta\leq\tau\leq
t}\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\!\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{t-\tau}\!\!\!\!\!\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\,S_{t-\tau-s}\varphi\,(\tilde{W}_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\nonumber\\
& \leq\ k^{d-2}\int\!\!dy\ \phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{t-\delta\leq\tau\leq t}\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\!\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\Big)^{\!\gamma
}\label{te1}\\
& \qquad\ +\ k^{d-2}\int\!\!dy\ \phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq t}\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\!\Big(k^{2}\int_{M/k^{2}}^{\infty}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\Big)^{\!\gamma}. \label{te2}$$
We look at and choose $M$ such that this term is small. Indeed, the inner expectation in can be made arbitrarily small (simultaneously for all $k$ and $y$) by choice of $M$. Hence we can use to see that this term can be bounded by $\varepsilon\phi
_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)$, for all sufficiently large $k$, by choice of $M$ (and independently of $\delta$).
We look at and choose $\delta>0$ such that
$$c_{(\ref{ba1})}M^{\gamma}\int_{t-\delta}^{t}\!ds\int\!\!dy\ \phi
_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\,p_{s}(y-x)\ <\ \varepsilon\phi
_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x). \label{choicedelta}$$
The term can be bounded from above by $$M^{\gamma}k^{d-2}\int\!\!dy\ \phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\,\pi
_{x}[t-\delta,t]. \label{simpl}$$ By there exists $A\subset\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $k_{\ref{la5}}\geq0$ such that, for all $x-y\in A$ and $k\geq k_{\ref{la5}}$, $$k^{d-2}\pi_{x}[t-\delta,t]\,-\,c_{(\ref{ba1})}\int_{t-\delta}^{t}\!ds\,p_{s}(y-x)\ <\ \varepsilon\,\int_{0}^{t}ds\,p_{s}(y-x)$$ and $$\int_{A^{c}}dz\,\big[|z|^{2-d}+1\big]\exp\bigl[\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}|z|-|z|^{2}/16\bigr]\ <\ \varepsilon. \label{for}$$ We can thus bound , for all $k\geq k_{\ref{la5}}$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
& M^{\gamma}k^{d-2}\int\!\!dy\ \phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\,\pi
_{x}[t-\delta,t]\ \leq\ c_{(\ref{ba1})}M^{\gamma}\int_{x+A}\!\!dy\ \phi
_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\,\int_{t-\delta}^{t}\!ds\,p_{s}(y-x)\\
& \ \quad+\ \varepsilon\,M^{\gamma}\int\!\!dy\ \phi_{\gamma\lambda
_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\,\int_{0}^{t}ds\,p_{s}(y-x)\,+\,M^{\gamma}\int_{x+A^{c}}\!\!dy\ \phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\,\,k^{d-2}\pi_{x}[0,t].\end{aligned}$$ By the first term is bounded by $\varepsilon\phi
_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)$, as is the second term. For the last term we use the upper bound for $k^{2-d}\pi_{x}[0,t]$ and then to see the upper bound of $\varepsilon\phi_{\gamma\lambda
_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)$.
\[replace1\] For every $M>1$ and $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a $k_{\ref{replace1}}=k_{\ref{replace1}}(M,\varepsilon)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
& k^{d-2}\varrho^{\gamma}\int\!\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq
t}\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tau})\bigg|\Big(k^{2}\int
_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)S_{t-\tau-s}\varphi
\,(\tilde{W}_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\\
& -\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)S_{t-\tau
}\varphi\,(y)\Big)^{\!\gamma}\bigg|\ \leq\ \varepsilon\phi_{\gamma
\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)\quad\text{for }\,k\geq k_{\ref{replace1}\,},\ \,x\in\mathbb{R}.\end{aligned}$$
Recall that $|a^{\gamma}-b^{\gamma}|\leq|a-b|^{\gamma}$. We use to choose $k_{\ref{replace1}}>1/M$ such that $$\big|S_{r}\varphi\,(x)-S_{s}\varphi\,(y)\big|\leq\varepsilon^{1/\gamma}\quad\text{if}\,\ |r-s|\leq M/k_{\ref{replace1}\,}^{2},\,\,\,|x-y|\leq
1/k_{\ref{replace1}\,}. \label{unicont2}$$ Hence, for all $k\geq k_{\ref{replace1}}$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, $$\begin{aligned}
k^{d-2} & \varrho^{\gamma}\int\!\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq
t}\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tau})\bigg|\Big(k^{2}\int
_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)S_{t-\tau-s}\varphi
\,(\tilde{W}_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\quad\quad-\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)S_{t-\tau}\varphi\,(y)\Big)^{\!\gamma
}\bigg|\\
& \leq\ k^{d-2}\varrho^{\gamma}\int\!\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq t}\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tau})\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\quad\quad\quad\,\ \times
\big|S_{t-\tau-s}\varphi\,(\tilde{W}_{s})-S_{t-\tau}\varphi\,(\tilde{W}_{s})\big|\Big)^{\!\gamma}\\
& \leq\ \varepsilon k^{d-2}\varrho^{\gamma}\int\!\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq t}\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tau
})\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\Big)^{\!\gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ To complete the proof use Cauchy-Schwarz, , , and , to get
$$\begin{aligned}
k^{d-2} & \int\!\!dy\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq t}\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tau})\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\;\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\Big)^{\!\gamma}\nonumber\\
& \leq\ k^{d-2}\int\!\!dy\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq t}\,\big(\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\varphi^{2}(\tilde{W}_{t-\tau})\big)^{1/2}\nonumber\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\ \ \times\Big[\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\;\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\Big)^{\!2\gamma
}\Big ]^{1/2}\nonumber\\
& \leq\ c_{\eqref{lin2}}k^{d-2}\int\!\!dy\ \phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq t}\,\Big[\mathcal{E}_{0}\Big(\int_{0}^{\infty}ds\;\vartheta_{1}({W}_{s})\Big)^{\!2\gamma}\Big ]^{1/2}\label{lin2}\\
& \leq\ c_{\eqref{lin3}}\int\!\!dy\ \phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\left[
_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}|x-y|^{2-d}+1\right] \exp\!\left[ -|x-y|^{2}/16\right]
\label{lin3}\\[4pt]
& \leq\ c_{\eqref{lin4}}\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x). \label{lin4}$$
This gives the required statement.
\[replace2\] Let $\,M>1$ and $\,c_{\ref{replace2}}=c_{\ref{replace2}}(M):=\mathcal{E}_{\iota}\,\big\{\!(\int_{0}^{M}\!ds\ \vartheta_{1}(W_{s}))^{\!\gamma}\big\}$ for $\iota\in\partial B(0,1)$. For every $\varepsilon>0$ there exists a $k_{\ref{replace2}}=k_{\ref{replace2}}(\varepsilon,M)>0$ such that, for all $k\geq k_{\ref{replace2}}$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, $$\begin{aligned}
k^{d-2} & \varrho^{\gamma}\int\!\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq
t}\,\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-\tau}\varphi\,(y)\right) ^{\!\gamma}\\
& \times\bigg|\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\Big)^{\!\gamma}\mathcal{E}_{\tilde
{W}_{M/k^{2}}}\varphi(\tilde{\tilde{W}}_{t-\tau-M/k^{2}})-c_{\ref{replace2}}S_{t-\tau}\varphi\,(y)\bigg|\\
\leq\ \varepsilon & \phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x),\end{aligned}$$
In a first step we note that, by Brownian scaling, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}} & \Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta
_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\Big)^{\!\gamma}\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{W}_{M/k^{2}}}\varphi(\tilde{\tilde{W}}_{t-\tau-M/k^{2}})\\
& =\ \mathcal{E}_{0}\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tfrac
{1}{k}\tilde{W}_{sk^{2}}-y+W_{\tau})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau
}+\frac{1}{k}\tilde{W}_{M}}\varphi(\tilde{\tilde{W}}_{t-\tau-M/k^{2}}).\end{aligned}$$ The main contribution to this expectation is coming from those $\tilde{W}$ with $\tilde{W}_{M}\leq\sqrt{k}$. Indeed, the remaining part of the integral can be estimated by a constant multiple of $M^{\gamma}\mathcal{P}_{0}\big\{\tilde{W}_{M}>\sqrt{k}\big\}$, and we can estimate (with $c_{\eqref{mue1}}$ depending on $M$) $$\begin{aligned}
& k^{d-2}\int\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\Big(\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq t}\,\!\left(
_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-\tau}\varphi\,(y)\right) ^{\!\gamma}\Big)M^{\gamma
}\,\mathcal{P}_{0}\bigl(\tilde{W}_{M}>\sqrt{k}\bigr)\nonumber\\
& \leq\ c_{\eqref{mue1}}\mathrm{e}^{-k/2M}\int\!dy\ \phi_{\gamma
\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\big[|x-y|^{2-d}+1\big]\exp\!\big[\lambda
_{\ref{L.bo2}}|x-y|-|x-y|^{2}/16\big]\label{mue1}\\[4pt]
& \leq\ \varepsilon\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for sufficiently large values of $k$, recalling and .
In the next step we use to choose $k$ large enough such that $$\big|S_{r}\varphi\,(w+z)-S_{s}\varphi\,(y)\big|\leq\varepsilon\quad\text{if
}\,|r-s|\leq M/k^{2},\ |z|\leq1/\sqrt{k},\ |w-y|\leq1/k.$$ Using this, $$\begin{aligned}
k^{d-2} & \int\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq t}\,\!\left(
_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-\tau}\varphi\,(y)\right) ^{\!\gamma}\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau
}}\mathsf{1}_{\tilde{W}_{M}<\sqrt{K}}\,\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\Big)^{\!\gamma}\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\times\Big|\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau
}+\tfrac{1}{k}\tilde{W}_{M}}\varphi(\tilde{\tilde{W}}_{t-\tau-M/k^{2}})-\mathcal{E}_{y}\varphi(\tilde{\tilde{W}}_{t-\tau})\Big|\\
& \leq\ \varepsilon k^{d-2}\int\!dy\,\ \phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq t}\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\!\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\Big)^{\!\gamma}\\
& \leq\ \varepsilon\int\!dy\,\ \phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)k^{d-2}\mathcal{P}_{x}\left( \tau\leq t\right) \,\mathcal{E}_{0}\Big(\int_{0}^{\infty}ds\,\vartheta_{1}(\tilde{W}_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma},\end{aligned}$$ and the last line is $\ \leq\varepsilon\,\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)$ by and .
Now it remains to observe that, by Brownian scaling, $$\begin{gathered}
k^{d-2}\int\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq t}\,\!\left(
_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-\tau}\varphi\,(y)\right) ^{\!\gamma}\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau
}}\!\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\Big)^{\!\gamma}\mathcal{E}_{y}\varphi(\tilde{\tilde{W}}_{t-\tau})\\
=\ k^{d-2}\int\!dy\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq t}\left(
_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-\tau}\varphi\,(y)\right) ^{\!1+\gamma}\mathcal{E}_{kW_{\tau}}\Big(\int_{0}^{M}ds\,\vartheta_{1}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\Big)^{\!\gamma
}.\end{gathered}$$ For $y\not \in B(x,1/k)$ the inner expectation is constant and equals $c_{\ref{replace2}}$. The contribution coming from $y\in B(x,1/k)$ is very easily seen to be bounded by a constant multiple of $k^{-2}\phi_{\gamma
\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)$. This completes the proof.
The following lemma is at the heart of our proof of Proposition \[L.exp.conv\]. Recall that $\,\pi_{x}$ denotes the law of $\,\tau=\tau_{1/k}^{y}[W]$ for $\,W$ starting in $\,x.$
\[**A hitting time statement**\]\[la4\]For every $\varepsilon>0$ there exists a $k_{\ref{la4}}=k_{\ref{la4}}(\varepsilon)>0$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\bigg|k^{d-2}\int\!dy\int_{0}^{t}\pi_{x}(ds)\big(S_{t-s}\varphi
\,(y)\big)^{1+\gamma}-c_{(\ref{ba1})}\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\ S_{s}(S_{t-s}\varphi)^{1+\gamma}(x)\bigg|\nonumber\\
\leq\ \varepsilon\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)\quad\text{for\thinspace
\ }x\in\mathbb{R}^{d},\ \,k\geq k_{\ref{la4}\,}.\end{gathered}$$
Fix $\varepsilon>0$. Recall that $(s,y)\mapsto S_{s}\varphi\,(y)$ is uniformly continuous and bounded, and that there exists $R>0$ (dependent on $\varepsilon$) such that $\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{s}\varphi\,(y)\right)
^{1+\gamma}\leq\varepsilon\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)$ for all $0\leq
s\leq t$, $|y|>R$. We can therefore choose $0=t_{0}\leq\dots\leq t_{n}=t$ such that, for all $t_{j}\leq r,s\leq t_{j+1}$ and $y\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, $$\left\vert _{\!_{\!_{\,_{{}}}}}\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-s}\varphi
\,(y)\right) ^{1+\gamma}-\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-r}\varphi\,(y)\right)
^{1+\gamma}\right\vert \ \leq\ \varepsilon\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y).
\label{unif}$$ Using we may find $k_{\ref{la4}}$ such that, for all $k\geq
k_{\ref{la4}}$, $$\Big|k^{d-2}\pi_{x}[t_{j},t_{j+1}]-\int_{t_{j}}^{t_{j+1}}\!ds\,p_{s}(x,y)\Big|\ <\ \varepsilon\,k^{d-2}\pi_{x}[t_{j},t_{j+1}] \label{pieces}$$ for all $\,0\leq j\leq n-1$ and all $\,x-y\in A,$ where $A\subset\mathbb{R}^{d}$ is a set with $$\int_{A^{c}}dz\,\big[|z|^{2-d}+1\big]\exp\bigl[\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}|z|-|z|^{2}/16\bigr]\ <\ \varepsilon. \label{forcrit}$$ Now we show that for all $x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, and $k\geq k_{\ref{la4}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
k^{d-2}\int\!dy\int_{0}^{t} & \pi_{x}(ds)\big(S_{t-s}\varphi
\,(y)\big)^{1+\gamma}\nonumber\\
& \leq\ c_{(\ref{ba1})}\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\ \big(S_{s}(S_{t-s}\varphi
)^{1+\gamma}\big)(x)+\varepsilon\,\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x).
\label{aim1}$$ Indeed, using and , we can estimate
$$\begin{aligned}
k^{d-2} & \int\!dy\int_{0}^{t}\pi_{x}(ds)\big(S_{t-s}\varphi
\,(y)\big)^{1+\gamma}\nonumber\\
& \leq\ k^{d-2}\int\!dy\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\Big[\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-t_{j}}\varphi\,(y)\right) ^{\!1+\gamma}+\varepsilon\phi_{\lambda
_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\Big ]\pi_{x}[t_{j},t_{j+1}]\nonumber\\
& \leq\ \int\!\!dy\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\Big[\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-t_{j}}\varphi\,(y)\right) ^{\!1+\gamma}+\varepsilon\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\Big ]\int_{t_{j}}^{t_{j+1}}\!ds\,p_{s}(x,y)\label{mainterm}\\
& \quad\ \ +\ \varepsilon\int\!\!dy\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\Big[\!\left(
_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-t_{j}}\varphi\,(y)\right) ^{\!1+\gamma}+\varepsilon
\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\Big ]\,k^{d-2}\pi_{x}[t_{j},t_{j+1}]\label{erterm1}\\
& \quad\ \ +\ \int_{x+A^{c}}dy\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\Big[\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-t_{j}}\varphi\,(y)\right) ^{\!1+\gamma}+\varepsilon\phi_{\lambda
_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\Big ]\,k^{d-2}\pi_{x}[t_{j},t_{j+1}]. \label{erterm3}$$
We give estimates for the two final summands, the error terms. The term can be estimated, using , by
$$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon\!\!\int\!\!dy\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} & \Big[\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-t_{j}}\varphi\,(y)\right) ^{\!1+\gamma}+\varepsilon\phi_{\lambda
_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\Big ]k^{d-2}\pi_{x}[t_{j},t_{j+1}]\,\leq\,2\varepsilon
\!\!\int\!\!dy\ \phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)k^{d-2}\pi_{x}[0,t]\nonumber\\
& \leq\ 2\varepsilon\,c_{(\ref{bo1})}\int\!\!dy\ \phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\big[|x-y|^{2-d}+1\big]\exp\!\big[-|x-y|^{2}/16\big]\nonumber\\[8pt]
& \leq\ \varepsilon\,c_{\eqref{feh1}}\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x).
\label{feh1}$$
The error term can be estimated as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{x+A^{c}} & dy\,\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\Big[\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-t_{j}}\varphi\,(y)\right) ^{\!1+\gamma}+\varepsilon\phi_{\lambda
_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\Big ]\,k^{d-2}\pi_{x}[t_{j},t_{j+1}]\nonumber\\
& \leq\ c_{(\ref{bo1})}\int_{x+A^{c}}dy\ \phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\big[|x-y|^{2-d}+1\big]\exp\!\big[-|x-y|^{2}/16\big]\nonumber\\
& \leq\ c_{\eqref{crit}}\,\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)\int_{x+A^{c}}dy\,\big[|x-y|^{2-d}+1\big]\exp\!\big[\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}|x-y|-|x-y|^{2}/16\big], \label{crit}$$ and the integral is smaller than $\varepsilon$ by . For the first summand, the main term , we argue that $$\begin{aligned}
\int\!\!dy & \sum_{j=0}^{n}\Big[\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-t_{j}}\varphi\,(y)\right) ^{\!1+\gamma}+\varepsilon\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\Big ]\int_{t_{j}}^{t_{j+1}}\!ds\,p_{s}(x,y)\\
& \leq\ \int\!\!dy\,\int_{0}^{t}ds\,\big[(S_{t-s}\varphi\,(y))^{1+\gamma
}+2\varepsilon\,\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\big]p_{s}(x,y)\nonumber\\
& \leq\ \int_{0}^{t}ds\,S_{s}\big((S_{t-s}\varphi\,(x))^{1+\gamma
}\big)+2\varepsilon\int\!\!dy\ \phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\,\int_{0}^{t}ds\,p_{s}(x,y).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The last summand is again bounded by a constant multiple of $\varepsilon
\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)$. Hence we have verified and by the analogous argument one can see that, for all $k\geq k_{\ref{la4}}$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, $$k^{d-2}\int\!dy\int_{0}^{t}\pi_{x}(ds)\big(S_{t-s}\varphi\,(y)\big)^{1+\gamma
}\ \geq\ c_{(\ref{ba1})}\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\ \big(S_{s}(S_{t-s}\varphi
)^{1+\gamma}\big)(x)-\varepsilon\,\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x).$$ This completes the proof.
*Proof of Proposition* \[L.exp.conv\]. Recall from (\[linprob\]) that$$\begin{aligned}
& \mathsf{E}\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi\,(x)-w_{k}(t,x)\right) \ \nonumber\\
& =\ k^{\varkappa}\,\mathsf{E}\mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi(W_{t})\bigg(1-\exp
\!\Big [-k^{2-d+\varkappa}\varrho\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\Gamma^{1}(kW_{s})\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s})\Big]\bigg).\end{aligned}$$ We use to evaluate the expectation with respect to the medium. $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace*{5pt} & \mathsf{E}k^{\varkappa}\mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi(W_{t})\bigg(1-\exp\!\Big [-k^{2-d+\varkappa}\varrho\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\Gamma
^{1}(kW_{s})\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s})\Big]\bigg)\label{express}\\
& =\,k^{\varkappa}\mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi(W_{t})\nonumber\\
& \quad\ \times\bigg(1-\exp\!\Big [-k^{(2+\varkappa-d)\gamma}\varrho^{\gamma
}\int\!\!dy\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-y)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\Big]\bigg).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We now compare to $$k^{\varkappa}\mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi(W_{t})k^{(2+\varkappa-d)\gamma}\varrho^{\gamma}\int\!\!dy\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-y)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}. \label{exp1}$$ Clearly, $$x-x^{2}\ \leq\ 1-\mathrm{e}^{-x}\ \leq\ x\quad\text{for }\,x\geq0.$$ By the second inequality, the term (\[exp1\]) is always an upper bound for (\[express\]). On the other hand, by the first inequality and Lemma \[la2\], the difference is bounded from above by a constant multiple of $$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\displaystyle
k^{\varkappa}\mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi(W_{t})k^{2(2+\varkappa-d)\gamma}\Big[\int\!\!dy\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-y)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\Big]^{2}\vspace{6pt}\\
\leq\ c_{\ref{la2}}k^{\varkappa+2(2+\varkappa-d)\gamma+4-4\gamma+\delta}\,\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x).
\end{array}$$ Note that the exponent is negative iff $d\gamma>2+\delta\lbrack1+\gamma]$, hence choosing $\delta>0$ sufficiently small justifies the approximation of by .
Recall that $\,\tau=\tau_{1/k}^{y}[W]$ denotes the *first hitting time* of the ball $\,B(y,1/k)$ by our Brownian motion $\,W$ started in $\,x.$ Now note that equals $$k^{d-2}\varrho^{\gamma}\int\!\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq
t}\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\,\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tau})\Big(k^{2}\int
_{0}^{t-\tau}\!\!\!\!\!\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\,S_{t-\tau
-s}\varphi\,(\tilde{W}_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}, \label{92}$$ where the strong Markov property was used and the value for $\varkappa$ was plugged in. By Lemma \[highs\] we may choose (and henceforth fix) a value $M>1$ such that contributions to the innermost integral coming from $s>M/k^{2}$, can be bounded by $\varepsilon\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}^{\gamma}(x)$, and additionally that $$\mathcal{E}_{\iota}\Big(\int_{0}^{\infty}ds\,\vartheta_{1}(\tilde{W}_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}-\mathcal{E}_{\iota}\Big(\int_{0}^{M}ds\,\vartheta
_{1}(\tilde{W}_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\,<\ \varepsilon. \label{Mchoose}$$ Moreover, by Lemma \[la5\], if $k\geq k_{\ref{la5}}$, the contribution to (\[92\]) coming from $t-\delta\leq\tau\leq t$ can be made smaller than $\varepsilon\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)$ by choice of $\delta>0$, which we also assume fixed from now on.
We let $$k_{(\ref{k5})}\,:=\,\sqrt{M/\delta} \label{k5}$$ and note that $t-\tau\geq M/k^{2}$ whenever $t-\delta\geq\tau$ and $k\geq
k_{(\ref{k5})}$. Now let $\,k_{\ref{L.exp.conv}}\ :=\ k_{\ref{la5}}\vee
k_{\ref{replace1}}\vee k_{\ref{replace2}}\vee k_{\ref{la4}}\vee k_{(\ref{k5})}.$ It remains to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\bigg| & k^{d-2}\varrho^{\gamma}\int\!\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq t}\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tau})\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)S_{t-\tau-s}\varphi\,(\tilde{W}_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\\
& \quad\quad-\ \overline{c}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}r\;S_{r}(S_{t-r}\varphi
)^{1+\gamma}(x)\bigg|\ <\ \varepsilon\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)\quad\text{ for }\,k\geq k_{\ref{L.exp.conv}\,},\ \,x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}.\end{aligned}$$ This will be done in three steps by the triangle inequality. The steps are prepared in Lemmas \[replace1\] to \[la4\].
In the *first* step note that by Lemma \[replace1\] we have, for all $k\geq k_{\ref{L.exp.conv}}$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, $$\begin{aligned}
k^{d-2} & \varrho^{\gamma}\int\!\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq
t}\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tau})\bigg|\Big(k^{2}\int
_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)S_{t-\tau-s}\varphi
\,(\tilde{W}_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\nonumber\\
& \quad\quad-\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)S_{t-\tau}\varphi\,(y)\Big)^{\!\gamma}\bigg|\ \leq\ \varepsilon
\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x). \label{Arb1}$$ We may therefore continue, using the Markov property, $$\begin{aligned}
k^{d-2} & \varrho^{\gamma}\int\!\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq
t}\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tau})\Big(k^{2}\int
_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)S_{t-\tau}\varphi
\,(y)\Big)^{\!\gamma}\nonumber\\
& =\ k^{d-2}\varrho^{\gamma}\int\!\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq
t}\,\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-\tau}\varphi\,(y)\right) ^{\!\gamma
}\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\Big)^{\!\gamma}\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\quad\quad
\ \ \times\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{W}_{M/k^{2}}}\varphi(\tilde{\tilde{W}}_{t-\tau-M/k^{2}})\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
As a *second* step, by Lemma \[replace2\] we have, for all $k\geq
k_{\ref{L.exp.conv}}$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, $$\begin{aligned}
& k^{d-2}\varrho^{\gamma}\int\!\!dy\,\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq
t}\,\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-\tau}\varphi\,(y)\right) ^{\!\gamma}\\
& \times\bigg|\mathcal{E}_{W_{\tau}}\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{M/k^{2}}ds\,\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-y)\Big)^{\!\gamma}\mathcal{E}_{\tilde
{W}_{M/k^{2}}}\varphi(\tilde{\tilde{W}}_{t-\tau-M/k^{2}})-c_{\ref{replace2}}S_{t-\tau}\varphi\,(y)\bigg|\\[4pt]
& \leq\ \varepsilon\,\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x).\end{aligned}$$ By we have, using $\,c_{\eqref{Mchoose}}:=\mathcal{E}_{\iota
}\bigl(\int_{0}^{\infty}ds\,\vartheta_{1}(\tilde{W}_{s})\bigr)^{\!\gamma},$ $$k^{d-2}\varrho^{\gamma}\!\int\!\!dy\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\tau\leq
t}\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-\tau}\varphi\,(y)\right) ^{\!\gamma
}\Big|c_{\ref{replace2}}S_{t-\tau}\varphi\,(y)-c_{\eqref{Mchoose}}S_{t-\tau
}\varphi\,(y)\Big|\,<\ \varepsilon\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x).$$
In the *third* step we recall that, by Lemma \[la4\], for all $k\geq
k_{\ref{replace1}}$, and $x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, $$\bigg|\varrho^{\gamma}c_{\eqref{Mchoose}}k^{d-2}\!\!\int\!\!dy\!\!\int_{0}^{t}\!\!\!\pi_{x}(dr)\big(S_{t-r}\varphi\,(y)\big)^{\!1+\gamma}-c_{(\ref{ba1})}\varrho^{\gamma}\!\!\!\int_{0}^{t}\!\!S_{r}(S_{t-r}\varphi)^{1+\gamma
}(x)\bigg|<\varepsilon\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x),$$ and this completes the proof of Proposition \[L.exp.conv\].$\square$
Convergence of variances\[varlin\]
----------------------------------
In this section we establish that the variances with respect to the medium for the solutions of the linearized integral equation vanish asymptotically.
\[**Convergence of variances**\]\[L.var\]For every $\,\mu\in
\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem}}\,\ $satisfying the assumption in Theorem *\[T.fluct\],* for $\,\varphi\in\mathcal{C}_{\exp}^{+}$ and $\,t>0$, $$\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\mathsf{V}\mathrm{ar}\,k^{\varkappa}\!\!\int
\!\!\mu(dx)\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi(W_{t})\exp\!\Big [\!-k^{2-d+\varkappa
}\varrho\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\Gamma^{1}(kW_{s})\,S_{t-s}\varphi
\,(W_{s})\Big]\ =\ 0.$$
The remainder of this section is devoted to the proof of this proposition. Recalling the definition (\[not.Gamma.eps\]) of $\,\Gamma^{1},$ the variance expression in Proposition \[L.var\] equals$$\begin{aligned}
& k^{2\varkappa}\int\!\!\mu(dx)\!\int\!\!\mu(dy)\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\!\otimes\!\mathcal{E}_{y\,}\varphi(W_{t}^{1})\varphi(W_{t}^{2})\label{37}\\
& \times\Bigg(\mathsf{E}\exp\!\bigg[-\int\!\Gamma({d}z)\,k^{2-d+\varkappa
}\varrho\sum_{i=1,2}\,\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}^{i}-z)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s}^{i})\bigg ]\nonumber\\
& \qquad-\;\prod_{i=1,2}\,\mathsf{E}\exp\!\Big[-\int\!\Gamma({d}z)\,k^{2-d+\varkappa}\varrho\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}^{i}-z)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s}^{i})\Big]\Bigg ),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\,(W^{1},W^{2})$ is distributed according to $\,\mathcal{P}_{x}\!\otimes\!\mathcal{P}_{y\,}.$ Exploiting the Laplace functional (\[logL.Gamma\]) of $\,\Gamma,$ (\[37\]) can be rewritten as$$\begin{aligned}
& k^{2\varkappa}\int\!\!\mu(dx)\!\int\!\!\mu(dy)\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\!\otimes\!\mathcal{E}_{y\,}\varphi(W_{t}^{1})\varphi(W_{t}^{2})\label{written}\\
& \times\Bigg(\exp\!\bigg[-\int\!\!{d}z\ k^{(\varkappa-d)\gamma}\varrho^{\gamma}\Big(\sum_{i=1,2}\,k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta
_{1}(kW_{s}^{i}-z)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s}^{i})\Big )^{\!\gamma}\bigg]\nonumber\\
& \ \quad\ -\ \exp\!\bigg[\!-\!\int\!\!{d}z\ k^{(\varkappa-d)\gamma}\varrho^{\gamma}\!\sum_{i=1,2}\Big(k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta
_{1}(kW_{s}^{i}-z)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s}^{i})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\bigg]\Bigg).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that by the elementary inequality$$(a+b)^{\gamma}\;\leq\;a^{\gamma}+b^{\gamma}\quad\text{for}\,\ a,b\geq0,
\label{elementary}$$ the argument in the first exponential expression is not smaller than the argument in the second one. Therefore we may apply the elementary inequality$$\mathrm{e}^{-a}-\mathrm{e}^{-b}\ \leq\ b-a\quad\text{for}\,\ 0\leq a\leq b,
\label{alsoelementary}$$ and a $z$ substitution to get for the non-negative total expression in (\[written\]) the upper bound (we may drop from now on the factor $\,\varrho^{\gamma})$ $$\begin{aligned}
& k^{2\varkappa+(\varkappa-d)\gamma+d}\int\!\!{d}z\int\!\!\mu(dx)\!\int
\!\!\mu(dy)\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\!\otimes\!\mathcal{E}_{y\,}\varphi(W_{t}^{1})\varphi(W_{t}^{2})\label{121}\\
& \qquad\times\bigg[\sum_{i=1,2}\Big(k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta
_{1/k}(W_{s}^{i}-z)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s}^{i})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\nonumber\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad-\;\Big(\sum_{i=1,2}k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1/k}(W_{s}^{i}-z)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s}^{i})\Big)^{\!\gamma
}\bigg].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It remains to show that (\[121\]) converges to zero as $k\uparrow\infty.$ The proof rests solely on the fact that the square bracket expression vanishes if *one* of the motions does not hit the ball $\,B(z,1/k)$. For simplification, write now $\tau\lbrack W^{i}]$ for the first hitting time $\tau_{1/k}^{z}[W^{i}]$ of $B(z,1/k)$ by the Brownian motion $\,W^{i}$. Hence, we get the bound $$\begin{aligned}
& k^{2\varkappa+(\varkappa-d)\gamma+d}\int\!\!{d}z\int\!\!\mu(dx)\!\int
\!\!\mu(dy)\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\!\otimes\!\mathcal{E}_{y}\,\mathsf{1}_{\left\{
\tau\lbrack W^{1}]\leq t\right\} }\,\mathsf{1}_{\left\{ \tau\lbrack
W^{2}]\leq t\right\} }\\
& \qquad\times\varphi(W_{t}^{1})\,\varphi(W_{t}^{2})\sum_{i=1,2}\Big(k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1/k}(W_{s}^{i}-z)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s}^{i})\Big)^{\!\gamma},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we dropped the subtracted term. Interchanging expectation and summation, and using independence, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& k^{2\varkappa+(\varkappa-d)\gamma+d}\int\!\!{d}z\int\!\!\mu(dx)\!\int
\!\!\mu(dy)\sum_{i=1,2}\mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\left\{ \tau\lbrack
W^{i}]\leq t\right\} }\,\varphi(W_{t}^{i})\label{get}\\[1pt]
& \qquad\times\Big(k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1/k}(W_{s}^{i}-z)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s}^{i})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\,\mathcal{E}_{y}\mathsf{1}_{\left\{ \tau\lbrack W^{j}]\leq t\right\} }\,\varphi
(W_{t}^{j}),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $j=3-i$. Then we may bound (\[get\]) by$$\begin{gathered}
c_{\ref{L.bo2}}^{\gamma}k^{2\varkappa+(\varkappa-d)\gamma+d}\int
\!\!{d}z\;\tilde{\phi}^{\gamma}(z)\int\!\!\mu(dx)\!\int\!\!\mu(dy)\sum
_{i=1,2}\mathcal{E}_{x}\mathsf{1}_{\left\{ \tau\lbrack W^{i}]\leq t\right\}
}\,\varphi(W_{t}^{i})\label{getalso}\\[1pt]
\times\Big(k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1/k}(W_{s}^{i}-z)\Big)^{\!\gamma}\,\mathcal{E}_{y}\mathsf{1}_{\left\{ \tau\lbrack
W^{j}]\leq t\right\} }\,\varphi(W_{t}^{j}).\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ By Lemma \[LemmaC\], there are constants $\,c_{(\ref{Hoe1})}$ and $\,c_{(\ref{Hoe2})}$ such that, for all $\,x,y\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, $$\mathcal{E}_{y}\mathsf{1}_{\left\{ \tau\lbrack W^{j}]\leq t\right\}
}\,\varphi(W_{t}^{j})\ \leq\ c_{(\ref{Hoe1})}k^{2-d}\phi_{\lambda
_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(z)\,\big[|z-y|^{2-d}+1\big], \label{Hoe1}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_{x} & \mathsf{1}_{\left\{ \tau\lbrack W^{i}]\leq t\right\}
}\,\Big(k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1/k}(W_{s}^{i}-z)\Big)^{\!\gamma
}\varphi(W_{t}^{i})\label{Hoe2}\\
& \leq\ c_{(\ref{Hoe2})}\,\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)\big[1+|z-x|^{2-d}\big]\,k^{2-d}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Assume for the moment that $\,d\geq5.$ Then, by (\[all.d\]) and Lemma \[L.sim.id\], for each $\,\lambda>0$ there is a constant $\,c_{(\ref{da2})}=c_{(\ref{da2})}(\lambda),$ such that$$\int\!\!{d}z\ \phi_{\lambda}(z)\,\big[1+|z-x|^{2-d}\big]\,\big[1+|z-y|^{2-d}\big]\ \leq\ c_{(\ref{da2})}\,\big[1+|x-y|^{4-d}\big]. \label{da2}$$ If $\,d=3,$ the left hand side of (\[da2\]) is even bounded in $\,x,y.$ In fact by (\[all.d\]) and Cauchy-Schwarz, it suffices to consider the singularity $\,\int_{|z|\leq1}\!dz$$|z|^{2(2-d)}<\infty.$ Finally, if $\,d=4,$ by (\[all.d\]) and Lemma \[L.sim.est\], estimate (\[da2\]) holds if $\,|x-y|^{4-d}$ is replaced by $\,\log^{+}\left( |x-y|^{-1}\right) .$ If we extend definition (\[en\]) by setting $\,\mathrm{en}(x):\equiv1$ in the case $\,d=3,$ then we can combine the last three steps to obtain that for each $\,\lambda>0$ there is a constant $\,c_{(\ref{dge3})}=c_{(\ref{dge3})}(\lambda),$ so that for all $\,d\geq3,$$$\int\!\!{d}z\ \phi_{\lambda}(z)\,\big[1+|z-x|^{2-d}\big]\,\big[1+|z-y|^{2-d}\big]\ \leq\ c_{(\ref{dge3})}\,\big[1+\mathrm{en}(x-y)\big]. \label{dge3}$$
Based on , and (\[dge3\]), from (\[getalso\]) we get the upper bound $$c_{(\ref{hier})}\,k^{2\varkappa+(\varkappa-d)\gamma+d}\,k^{4-2d}\int
\!\!\mu(dx)\,\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)\int\!\!\mu(dy)\,\phi
_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(y)\,\big[1+\mathrm{en}(x-y)\big]. \label{hier}$$ By our condition on $\mu$, the latter integral is finite. Moreover, $2\varkappa+(\varkappa-d)\gamma+d+4-2d<2-d+\varkappa.$ But the last expression is negative, finishing the proof.$\square$
Upper bound for finite-dimensional distributions\[findim\]
----------------------------------------------------------
We use an induction argument to extend the result from the convergence of one-dimensional distributions to all finite dimensional distributions. Recall that we have to show that, for any $\varphi_{1},\ldots,\varphi_{n}$ and $0=t_{0}<t_{1}<\cdots<t_{n}$, in $\mathsf{P}$–probability, $$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\displaystyle
\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{n}k^{\varkappa}\big\langle X_{t_{i}}^{k}-S_{t_{i}}\mu,\,-\varphi
_{i}\big\rangle\Big ]\vspace{6pt}\\
\qquad\displaystyle
\leq\ \exp\!\Bigg[\overline{c}\,\bigg\langle
\mu,\sum_{i=1}^{n}\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t_{i}}\!dr\ S_{r}\Big(\big(\sum_{j=i}^{n}S_{t_{j}-r}\varphi_{j}\big)^{1+\gamma}\Big)\!\bigg\rangle
\Bigg].
\end{array}$$ The case $n=1$ was shown in the previous paragraphs, so we may assume that it holds for $n-1$ and show that it also holds for $n$. By conditioning on $\{X^{k}(t)\colon t\leq t_{n-1}\}$ and applying the transition functional we get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}} & \exp\!\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{n}k^{\varkappa}\big\langle X_{t_{i}}^{k}-S_{t_{i}}\mu,\,-\varphi_{i}\big\rangle\Big ]\nonumber\\
& =\ \mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\bigg[\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}k^{\varkappa
}\big\langle X_{t_{i}}^{k}-S_{t_{i}}\mu,\,-\varphi_{i}\big\rangle\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad+\ k^{\varkappa}\big\langle S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}\big\rangle-\big\langle X_{t_{n-1}}^{k},u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1})\big\rangle\bigg],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $u_{k}$ is the solution of (\[new\]) with $\varphi$ replaced by $\,\varphi_{n\,}.$ Separating the non-random terms yields $$\begin{aligned}
=\ & \exp\!\Big[\big\langle S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,k^{\varkappa}S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}-u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1})\big\rangle\Big ]\,\nonumber\\
& \times\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\bigg[\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}k^{\varkappa
}\big\langle X_{t_{i}}^{k}-S_{t_{i}}\mu,\,-\varphi_{i}\big\rangle\\
& \qquad\quad\quad\qquad+\ k^{\varkappa}\Big\langle
X_{t_{n-1}}^{k}-S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,\,-\varphi_{n-1}-k^{-\varkappa}u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1})\Big\rangle
\!\bigg].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By Theorem \[T.fluct\] for $n=1$ with starting measure $\,S_{t_{n-1}}\mu
,$ in $\mathsf{P}$–probability,$$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\displaystyle
\limsup_{k\uparrow\infty}\exp\!\Big[\big\langle S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,k^{\varkappa
}S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}-u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1})\big\rangle\Big ]\\\displaystyle
\qquad\leq\ \exp\!\bigg[\overline{c}\,\Big\langle
S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,\int_{0}^{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\!dr\ S_{r}(S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}-r}\varphi_{n})^{1+\gamma}\Big\rangle
\bigg]\vspace{2pt}\\\displaystyle
\qquad=\ \exp\!\bigg[\overline{c}\,\Big\langle
\mu,\int_{t_{n-1}}^{t_{n}}\!dr\ S_{r}(S_{t_{n}-r}\varphi_{n})^{1+\gamma}\Big\rangle
\bigg]\vspace{2pt}.
\end{array}
\label{erschterterm}$$ The remaining expectation can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\bigg[ & \sum_{i=1}^{n-2}k^{\varkappa
}\big\langle X_{t_{i}}^{k}-S_{t_{i}}\mu,\,-\varphi_{i}\big\rangle\nonumber\\
& +\ k^{\varkappa}\big\langle X_{t_{n-1}}^{k}-S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,\,-\varphi
_{n-1}-S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}\big\rangle\label{remaining}\\
& +\ k^{\varkappa}\Big\langle
X_{t_{n-1}}^{k}-S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,\ S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}-k^{-\varkappa
}u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1})\Big\rangle
\bigg].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ To dominate this term observe that, by the induction assumption, in [$\mathsf{P}$–probability]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{k\uparrow\infty} & \,\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\Big[\sum
_{i=1}^{n-2}k^{\varkappa}\big\langle X_{t_{i}}^{k}-S_{t_{i}}\mu,\,-\varphi
_{i}\big\rangle\nonumber\\
\qquad & \qquad\qquad+\ k^{\varkappa}\big\langle X_{t_{n-1}}^{k}-S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,\,-\varphi_{n-1}-S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}\big\rangle\Big ]\nonumber\\
& \leq\ \exp\!\bigg[\overline{c}\,\Big\langle\mu,\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t_{i}}\!dr\ S_{r}\Big(\big(\sum_{j=i}^{n-1}S_{t_{j}-r}\varphi_{j}\big)^{1+\gamma}\Big)\label{ind.ass}\\
& \qquad\qquad+\int_{t_{n-2}}^{t_{n-1}}\!dr\ S_{r}\Big(\big(S_{t_{n-1}-r}\varphi_{n-1}+S_{t_{n-1}-r}S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}\big)^{1+\gamma
}\Big)\Big\rangle\!\bigg].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We show below that in [$\mathsf{P}$–probability]{} the following convergence in law holds:$$\exp\!\bigg[k^{\varkappa}\left\langle _{\!_{\!_{\,_{{}}}}}X_{t_{n-1}}^{k}-S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}-k^{-\varkappa}\,u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1})\right\rangle \!\bigg]\ \underset{k\uparrow\infty
}{\Longrightarrow}\ 1. \label{to.show}$$ Observe that $\,\limsup_{m\uparrow\infty}\xi_{m}\leq a$ in probability for some $a,$ and $\zeta_{m}\Rightarrow1$ in law implies $\limsup_{m\uparrow\infty}\xi_{m}\zeta_{m}\leq a$ in probability. Hence and together imply that is asymptotically bounded from above by $$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\displaystyle
\exp\!\bigg[\overline{c}\,\Big\langle\mu,\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t_{i}}\!dr\ S_{r}\Big(\big(\sum_{j=i}^{n-1}S_{t_{j}-r}\varphi_{j}\big)^{1+\gamma}\Big)\vspace{6pt}\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\displaystyle
+\ \int_{t_{n-2}}^{t_{n-1}}\!dr\ S_{r}\Big(\big(S_{t_{n-1}-r}\varphi
_{n-1}+S_{t_{n}-r}\varphi_{n}\big)^{1+\gamma}\Big)\Big\rangle\bigg].
\end{array}
\label{zwoterterm}$$ Putting together and yields the claimed statement subject to the proof of .
To prove it suffices to show that, for any $a\geq1,$ $$\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\bigg[ak^{\varkappa}\left\langle _{\!_{\!_{\,_{{}}}}}X_{t_{n-1}}^{k}-S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,\ -S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}+k^{-\varkappa}\,u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1})\right\rangle \!\bigg] \label{to.show2}$$ converges in $\mathsf{P}$–probability to $1$. Using the Feynman-Kac representation (\[FK\]), the expectation in (\[to.show2\]) equals $$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\exp\!\bigg\langle
\mu,ak^{\varkappa}\mathcal{E}_{x}\big(S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}(W_{t_{n-1}})-k^{-\varkappa}\,u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1},W_{t_{n-1}})\big)\vspace{6pt}\\\displaystyle
\qquad\quad\times\Big(1-\exp\!\Big[-k^{2-d}\int_{0}^{t_{n-1}}\!dr\ \Gamma
^{1}(kW_{r})\,U_{k}(t_{n-1}-r,W_{r})\Big ]\Big)\!\bigg\rangle
,
\end{array}$$ where $U_{k}$ is the solution of (\[new\]) with $\varphi$ replaced by $\,a\bigl(S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}-k^{-\varkappa}\,u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1})\bigr).$ It therefore suffices to show that $$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\bigg\langle
\mu,\,ak^{\varkappa}\mathcal{E}_{x}\big(S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi
_{n}(W_{t_{n-1}})-k^{-\varkappa}\,u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1},W_{t_{n-1}})\big)\vspace{6pt}\\
\quad\displaystyle
\times\Big(1-\exp\!\Big[-k^{2-d}\int_{0}^{t_{n-1}}\!dr\ \Gamma^{1}(kW_{r})\,U_{k}(t_{n-1}-r,W_{r})\Big ]\Big)\!\bigg\rangle
\end{array}$$ converges in $L^{1}(\mathsf{P})$ to zero. As this term is non-negative and as $$U_{k}(t_{n-1}-r)\ \leq\ ak^{\varkappa}S_{t_{n}-r}\Big(S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}-k^{-\varkappa}\,u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1})\Big)\ \leq\ ak^{\varkappa
}S_{t_{n}-r}\varphi_{n}\,,$$ it finally suffices to show that $$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\mathsf{E}\,\bigg\langle
\mu,\,ak^{\varkappa}\mathcal{E}_{x}\big(S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi
_{n}(W_{t_{n-1}})-k^{-\varkappa}\,u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1},W_{t_{n-1}})\big)\vspace{6pt}\\\displaystyle
\qquad\times\ \Big(1-\exp\!\Big[-ak^{2-d+\varkappa}\int_{0}^{t_{n-1}}\!dr\ \Gamma^{1}(kW_{r})S_{t_{n}-r}\varphi_{n}(W_{r})\Big ]\Big)\!\bigg\rangle
\end{array}
\label{to.show3}$$ converges to zero. The first factor in the expectation can be expressed using the Feynman-Kac representation of $\,u_{k\,},$ which gives $$\begin{aligned}
a\int\!\! & \mu(dx)\,\mathsf{E}\mathcal{E}_{x}\biggl(k^{\varkappa
}\mathcal{E}_{W_{t_{n-1}}}\varphi_{n}(\tilde{W}_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}})\nonumber\\
& \times\Big(1-\exp\!\Big[-k^{2-d}\int_{0}^{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\!dr\ \Gamma
^{1}(k\tilde{W}_{r})u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1}-r,\tilde{W}_{r})\Big ]\Big)\label{exp01}\\
& \times\Big(1-\exp\!\Big[-ak^{2-d+\varkappa}\int_{0}^{t_{n-1}}\!dr\ \Gamma^{1}(kW_{r})S_{t_{n}-r}\varphi_{n}(W_{r})\Big ]\Big)\biggr),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which again is dominated by $$\begin{aligned}
& a\int\!\!\mu(dx)\,\mathsf{E}\mathcal{E}_{x}\biggl(k^{\varkappa}\mathcal{E}_{W_{t_{n-1}}}\varphi_{n}(\tilde{W}_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}})\nonumber\\
& \times\Big(1-\exp\!\Big[-ak^{2-d+\varkappa}\int_{0}^{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\!dr\ \Gamma^{1}(k\tilde{W}_{r})S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}-r}\varphi_{n}(\tilde{W}_{r})\Big ]\Big)\label{exp02}\\
& \times\Big(1-\exp\!\Big[-ak^{2-d+\varkappa}\int_{0}^{t_{n-1}}\!dr\ \Gamma^{1}(kW_{r})S_{t_{n}-r}\varphi_{n}(W_{r})\Big ]\Big)\biggr).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We can now multiply the factors out and obtain
\[line\]$$\begin{aligned}
a\int\!\!\mu(dx)\,{} & {}\mathsf{E}\mathcal{E}_{x}k^{\varkappa}{}\mathcal{E}_{W_{t_{n-1}}}\varphi_{n}(\tilde{W}_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}})\nonumber\\
\times\, & \bigg[\Big(1-\exp\!\Big[-ak^{2-d+\varkappa}\int_{0}^{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\!dr\ \Gamma^{1}(k\tilde{W}_{r})S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}-r}\varphi
_{n}(\tilde{W}_{r})\Big ]\Big)\label{line1}\\
& \qquad+\Big(1-\exp\!\Big[-ak^{2-d+\varkappa}\int_{0}^{t_{n-1}}\!dr\ \Gamma^{1}(kW_{r})S_{t_{n}-r}\varphi_{n}(W_{r})\Big ]\Big) \label{line2}\\
& \qquad-\Big(1-\exp\!\Big[-ak^{2-d+\varkappa}\int_{0}^{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\!dr\ \Gamma^{1}(k\tilde{W}_{r})S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}-r}\varphi_{n}(\tilde{W}_{r})\label{line3}\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-ak^{2-d+\varkappa}\int_{0}^{t_{n-1}}\!dr\ \Gamma^{1}(kW_{r})S_{t_{n}-r}\varphi_{n}(W_{r})\Big ]\Big)\bigg].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We can now determine the limit in each of the three summands to separately. For the first one we obtain from Proposition \[L.exp.conv\], as $k\uparrow\infty$,
$$\begin{array}
[c]{l}a\displaystyle
\int\mu(dx)\,{}{}\mathsf{E}\mathcal{E}_{x}k^{\varkappa}{}\mathcal{E}_{W_{t_{n-1}}}\varphi_{n}(\tilde{W}_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}})\vspace{6pt}\\
\quad\displaystyle
\times\,\Big(1-\exp\!\Big[-ak^{2-d+\varkappa}\int_{0}^{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\!dr\ \Gamma^{1}(k\tilde{W}_{r})S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}-r}\varphi_{n}(\tilde{W}_{r})\Big ]\Big)\vspace{6pt}\\\displaystyle
\;\underset{k\uparrow\infty}{\Longrightarrow}\;a\int\mu(dx)\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\,\overline{c}\int_{0}^{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\!dr\ S_{r}\big(aS_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}-r}\varphi_{n}\big)^{1+\gamma}(W_{t_{n-1}})\vspace{6pt}\\
\quad\displaystyle
=\ \overline{c}\,a^{2+\gamma}\Big\langle\mu,\int_{t_{n-1}}^{t_{n}}\!dr\ S_{r}\big(S_{t_{n}-r}\varphi_{n}\big)^{1+\gamma}\Big\rangle.
\end{array}
\label{lim1}$$
Similarly, the second one, , converges by Proposition \[L.exp.conv\], as $k\uparrow\infty$, $$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\displaystyle
a\int\!\!\mu(dx)\,{}{}\mathsf{E}\mathcal{E}_{x}k^{\varkappa}{}\mathcal{E}_{W_{t_{n-1}}}\varphi_{n}(\tilde{W}_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}})\vspace{6pt}\\
\quad\displaystyle
\times\,\Big(1-\exp\!\Big[-ak^{2-d+\varkappa}\int_{0}^{t_{n-1}}\!dr\ \Gamma
^{1}(kW_{r})S_{t_{n-1}-r}\big(S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}\big)(W_{r})\Big ]\Big)\vspace{6pt}\\\displaystyle
\;\underset{k\uparrow\infty}{\Longrightarrow}\;a\int\mu(dx)\,\overline{c}\int_{0}^{t_{n-1}}\!dr\ S_{r}\big(S_{t_{n-1}-r}(aS_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi
_{n})\big)^{1+\gamma}(x)\Big\}\vspace{6pt}\\
\quad\displaystyle
=\ \overline{c}\,a^{2+\gamma}\Big\langle\mu,\int_{0}^{t_{n-1}}\!dr\ S_{r}\big(S_{t_{n}-r}\varphi_{n}\big)^{1+\gamma}\Big\rangle.
\end{array}
\label{lim2}$$ Finally, the last expression equals, using Proposition \[L.exp.conv\] to take the limit as $k\uparrow\infty$, $$\begin{aligned}
-a\int & \mu(dx)\,{}\mathsf{E}\mathcal{E}_{x}k^{\varkappa}{}\varphi
_{n}(\tilde{W}_{t_{n}})\nonumber\\
& \times\,\Big(1-\exp\!\Big[-ak^{2-d+\varkappa}\int_{0}^{t_{n}}\!dr\ \Gamma^{1}(kW_{r})S_{t_{n}-r}\varphi_{n}(W_{r})\Big ]\Big)\label{lim3}\\
\;\underset{k\uparrow\infty}{\Longrightarrow}\; & -\,\overline
{c}\,a^{2+\gamma}\Big\langle\mu,\int_{0}^{t_{n}}\!dr\ S_{r}\big(S_{t_{n}-r}\varphi_{n}\big)^{1+\gamma}\Big\rangle.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Comparing the right hand sides of to shows that they cancel completely, which proves and completes the argument.
Lower bound: Proof of (\[fluct1’\])\[S.lower\]
==============================================
A heat equation with random inhomogeneity\[SS.heat.equ\]
--------------------------------------------------------
As motivated in Section \[SS.heuristics\], we look at the mild solution $m_{k}$ to the linear equation $$\begin{array}
[c]{c}\displaystyle
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}m_{k}(t,x)\;=\;\tfrac{1}{2}\Delta m_{k}(t,x)-k^{2-d}\,\varrho\,\Gamma^{1}(kx)\,w_{k}^{2}(t,x)\vspace{6pt}\\
\text{with initial condition }\,m_{k}(0,\,\cdot\,)=k^{\varkappa}\varphi.
\end{array}
\label{heat}$$ This is a heat equation with the time-dependent scaled random inhomogeneity $-k^{2-d}\,\varrho\,\Gamma^{1}(kx)\,w_{k}^{2}(t,x).$ We study its asymptotic fluctuation behaviour around the heat flow:
\[**Limiting fluctuations of** $m_{k}$\]\[P.heat\]Under the assumptions of Theorem *\[T.fluct\],* if $\,\varkappa=\varkappa_{\mathrm{c}\,},$ then for any $\,\varphi
\in\mathcal{C}_{\exp}^{+}$ and $\,t\geq0,$ in $\mathsf{P}$–probability,$$\liminf_{k\uparrow\infty}\left\langle _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\mu,k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi-m_{k}(t,\cdot)\right\rangle \;\geq\;\underline{c}\,\Big\langle
\mu,\int_{0}^{t}\!dr\ S_{r}\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}(S_{t-r}\varphi
)^{1+\gamma}\right) \!\Big\rangle
, \label{heat.conv}$$ where the constant $\underline{c}=\underline{c}(\gamma,\varrho)$ is given by $$\underline{c}\ :=\ \gamma\,\varrho^{\gamma}\,\frac{2\,\pi^{d/2}}{d\,G(d/2)}\,\mathcal{E}_{0}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{0}\Big[\int_{0}^{\infty
}\!dr\ \vartheta_{2}(W_{r}^{1})+\int_{0}^{\infty}\!dr\ \vartheta_{2}(W_{r}^{2})\Big ]^{\gamma-1}. \label{c.u}$$
To see how the case $n=1$ of (\[fluct1’\]) follows from Proposition \[P.heat\], we fix a sample $\Gamma.$ Recall that $$\log\,\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\left[ k^{\varkappa}\big(\langle
X_{t\,}^{k},-\varphi\rangle-\langle S_{t}\mu,-\varphi\rangle
\big)_{\!_{\!_{\,_{{}}}}}\right] =\;\left\langle \mu,\,k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi-u_{k}(t,\,\cdot\,)_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\right\rangle \!,$$ where $\,u_{k}$ solves $$k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi\,(x)\,-\,u_{k}(t,x)\ =\ k^{2-d}\varrho\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;S_{s}\bigl(\Gamma^{1}(k\,\cdot\,)\,u_{k}^{2}(t-s,\,\cdot
\,)\bigr)(x).$$ As $u_{k}^{2}\geq w_{k\,}^{2},$ we obtain from (\[heat\]),$$k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi\,(x)-u_{k}(t,x)\ \geq\ k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi\,(x)-m_{k}(t,x).$$ Hence, the case $n=1$ of (\[fluct1’\]) follows from Proposition \[P.heat\].
Proposition \[P.heat\] is proved in two steps: In Section \[SS.exp\] we show that the right hand side of (\[heat.conv\]) is an asymptotic lower bound of the expectations of the left hand side, and in Section \[SS.var\] that the variances vanish asymptotically.
Convergence of expectations\[SS.exp\]
-------------------------------------
Fix again $t\geq0\,\ $and $\,\varphi\in\mathcal{C}_{\exp\,}^{+}.$
\[**Convergence of expectations**\]\[L.conv.exp\]For $\underline{c}$ as in *(\[c.u\]),*$$\liminf_{k\uparrow\infty}\mathsf{E}\left\langle _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\mu
,k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi-m_{k}(t,\cdot)\right\rangle \;\geq\;\underline{c}\,\Big\langle
\mu,\int_{0}^{t}\!dr\ S_{r}\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}(S_{t-r}\varphi
)^{1+\gamma}\right) \!\Big\rangle
.$$
The remainder of this section is devoted to the proof of this proposition. Set$$M_{1}(x)\ :=\ \mathsf{E}\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi(x)-m_{k}(t,x)\right) \quad\text{for }\,x\in\mathbb{R}^{d},$$ and for $\,y\in\mathbb{R}^{d},\ \,0\leq s\leq t,$$$I_{s}(y,W)\ :=\ \int_{0}^{t-s}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{r}-y)\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(W_{r})\ \geq\ 0. \label{not.I}$$
\[**Dropping the exponential**\]\[L.dropping\]For each $\,\delta
>0$ and for $\,c_{\ref{la2}}$ from Lemma *\[la2\]*,$$\begin{aligned}
& \bigg|M_{1}(x)\,-\,k^{2\gamma-2}\,\gamma\,\varrho^{\gamma}\int
\!\!dz\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\nonumber\\
& \qquad\qquad\times\bigl(I_{s}(z,W^{1})+I_{s}(z,W^{2})\bigr)^{\!\gamma
-1}\bigg|\ \leq\ c_{\ref{la2}}\ 2\varrho^{2\gamma}\,k^{\delta-\varkappa}\,\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x),\end{aligned}$$ for all $\,x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $\,k\geq1.$
By (\[heat\]) and the Feynman-Kac representation (\[linprob\]),$$\begin{aligned}
& \mathsf{E}\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi\,(x)-m_{k}(t,x)\right) \ =\ k^{2-d}\,\varrho\,\mathsf{E}\mathcal{E}_{x}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\Gamma^{1}(kW_{s})\,w_{k}^{2}(t-s,W_{s})\\
& =\ k^{2-d+2\varkappa}\,\varrho\,\mathsf{E}\mathcal{E}_{x}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\Gamma^{1}(kW_{s})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\nonumber\\
& \qquad\times\exp\!\bigg[-k^{2-d+\varkappa}\varrho\int_{0}^{t-s}\!{d}r\;\Gamma^{1}(kW_{r}^{1})\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(W_{r}^{1})\nonumber\\
& \qquad\qquad\quad\ -k^{2-d+\varkappa}\varrho\int_{0}^{t-s}\!{d}r\;\Gamma^{1}(kW_{r}^{2})\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(W_{r}^{2})\bigg],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\,W^{1}$ and $\,W^{2}$ are independent Brownian motions starting from $\,W_{s\,}.$ By the definition (\[not.Gamma.eps\]) of $\,\Gamma^{1}$ this equals$$\begin{gathered}
k^{2-d+2\varkappa}\,\varrho\,\mathsf{E}\int\!\!\Gamma(dz)\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\label{monstrum.new}\\
\times\exp\!\bigg[-\int\!\!\Gamma(dy)\,k^{2-d+\varkappa}\varrho\,\Big(I_{s}(y,W^{1})+I_{s}(y,W^{2})\Big)\bigg].\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ Recall that for measurable $\,\varphi,\psi\geq0,$$$\mathsf{E}\left\langle \Gamma,\varphi\right\rangle \,\mathrm{e}^{-\left\langle
\Gamma,\psi\right\rangle }\ =\ \gamma\int\!\!dz\ \varphi(z)\,\psi^{\gamma
-1}(z)\,\exp\!\Big[-\int\!\!dy\ \psi^{\gamma}(y)\Big ] \label{Gamma.formula}$$ (cf. [@DawsonFleischmann1992.equ Section 4]) and $\,k^{2-d+2\varkappa
}k^{(2-d+\varkappa)(\gamma-1)}=k^{2\gamma-2}$ for $\,\varkappa
=\varkappa_{\mathrm{c}\,}.$ Applying this to (\[monstrum.new\]) yields$$\begin{aligned}
& k^{2\gamma-2}\,\gamma\,\varrho^{\gamma}\int\!\!dz\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\int
_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi
(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\nonumber\\
& \times\bigl(I_{s}(z,W^{1})+I_{s}(z,W^{2})\bigr)^{\!\gamma-1}\,\exp
\!\Big[-\int\!\!dy\ k^{(2-d+\varkappa)\gamma}\varrho^{\gamma}\bigl(I_{s}(y,W^{1})+I_{s}(y,W^{2})\bigr)^{\!\gamma}\Big ].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By the inequality $\,1-\mathrm{e}^{-a}\leq a$ we have$$\begin{aligned}
& \bigg|M_{1}(x)\,-\,k^{2\gamma-2}\,\gamma\,\varrho^{\gamma}\!\int
\!\!dz\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\times
\bigl(I_{s}(z,W^{1})+I_{s}(z,W^{2})\bigr)^{\!\gamma-1}\bigg|\\
& \leq\ k^{2\gamma-2}k^{(2-d+\varkappa)\gamma}\,\gamma\,\varrho^{\gamma
}\!\int\!\!dz\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\\
& \qquad\qquad\quad\quad\times\bigl(I_{s}(z,W^{1})+I_{s}(z,W^{2})\bigr)^{\!\gamma-1}\!\int\!\!dy\ \varrho^{\gamma}\bigl(I_{s}(y,W^{1})+I_{s}(y,W^{2})\bigr)^{\!\gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying (\[elementary\]) to the last integrand and using the symmetry in $W^{1},W^{2},$ we see that the right hand side in the former display does not exceed$$\begin{aligned}
& 2k^{2\gamma-2}k^{(2-d+\varkappa)\gamma}\,\gamma\,\varrho^{2\gamma}\int\!\!dz\int\!\!dy\ \ \mathcal{E}_{x}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta
_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\quad\quad\times
\bigl(I_{s}(z,W^{1})+I_{s}(z,W^{2})\bigr)^{\!\gamma-1}I_{s}(y,W^{1})^{\gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ We now drop $\,I_{s}(z,W^{2})$ and evaluate the expectation with respect to $\,W^{2},$ obtaining the upper bound$$\begin{aligned}
& 2k^{2\gamma-2}k^{(2-d+\varkappa)\gamma}\,\gamma\,\varrho^{2\gamma}\int\!\!dz\int\!\!dy\ \ \mathcal{E}_{x}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta
_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s})\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\ \times\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,I_{s}(z,W^{1})^{\gamma-1}I_{s}(y,W^{1})^{\gamma
}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Applying the Markov property at time $s$ and time-homogeneity, this equals$$\begin{aligned}
& 2k^{2\gamma-2}k^{(2-d+\varkappa)\gamma}\,\gamma\,\varrho^{2\gamma}\int\!\!dz\int\!\!dy\ \ \mathcal{E}_{x}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta
_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s})\\
& \times\varphi(W_{t})\Big(\int_{s}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{r}-z)\,S_{t-r}\varphi\,(W_{r})\Big)^{\!\gamma-1}\Big(\int_{s}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta
_{1}(kW_{r}-y)\,S_{t-r}\varphi\,(W_{r})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\!.\end{aligned}$$ The last factor can be bounded by $\,\left( \,I_{0}(y,W)\right) ^{\!\gamma
}.$ Then we integrate with respect to $s$ and obtain$$\begin{aligned}
& 2k^{2\gamma-2}k^{(2-d+\varkappa)\gamma}\,\varrho^{2\gamma}\int
\!\!dz\int\!\!dy\ \ \mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi(W_{t})\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{r}-z)\,S_{t-r}\varphi\,(W_{r})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\\
& \times\left( \,I_{0}(y,W)\right) ^{\!\gamma}\ =\ 2k^{2\gamma
-2}k^{(2-d+\varkappa)\gamma}\,\varrho^{2\gamma}\mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi
(W_{t})\Big[\int\!\!dy\ \ I_{0}(y,W)^{\gamma}\Big ]^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Using now Lemma \[la2\], we arrive at$$\begin{aligned}
& \bigg|M_{1}(x)\,-\,k^{2\gamma-2}\,\gamma\,\varrho^{\gamma}\int
\!\!dz\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\times
\bigl(I_{s}(z,W^{1})+I_{s}(z,W^{2})\bigr)^{\!\gamma-1}\bigg|\\
& \leq\ c_{\ref{la2}}\ 2\varrho^{2\gamma}\,k^{2\gamma-2}k^{(2-d+\varkappa
)\gamma}\,k^{4-4\gamma+\delta}\,\phi_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)\ =\ c_{\ref{la2}}\ 2\varrho^{2\gamma}\,k^{\delta-\varkappa}\,\phi
_{\gamma\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x),\end{aligned}$$ finishing the proof.
It remains to find the limit of$$\begin{aligned}
& k^{2\gamma-2}\,\gamma\,\varrho^{\gamma}\int\!\!dz\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\int
_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi
(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\ \,\times\bigl(I_{s}(z,W^{1})+I_{s}(z,W^{2})\bigr)^{\!\gamma-1}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Substituting $\,z\rightsquigarrow kz$ gives$$\begin{aligned}
& k^{2\gamma-2+d}\,\gamma\,\varrho^{\gamma}\int\!\!dz\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1/k}(W_{s}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\\
& \times\biggl(\int_{0}^{t-s}\!dr\left[ _{\!_{\!_{\,_{{}}}}}\vartheta
_{1/k}(W_{r}^{1}-z)\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(W_{r}^{1})+\vartheta_{1/k}(W_{r}^{2}-z)\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(W_{r}^{2})\right] \biggr)^{\!\!\gamma-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Fix $\,x,z\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $\,0<s<t$ for a while and consider$$\begin{aligned}
& g_{k}(s,x,z)\ :=\ k^{2\gamma-2+d}\,\gamma\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\,\vartheta
_{1/k}(W_{s}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\\
& \times\biggl(\int_{0}^{t-s}\!dr\left[ _{\!_{\!_{\,_{{}}}}}\vartheta
_{1/k}(W_{r}^{1}-z)\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(W_{r}^{1})+\vartheta_{1/k}(W_{r}^{2}-z)\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(W_{r}^{2})\right] \biggr)^{\!\!\gamma-1}.\end{aligned}$$
\[L.bound.of.g\]$$\liminf_{k\uparrow\infty}\,g_{k}(s,x,z)\ \geq\ \underline{c}\,p_{s}(x-z)\left( S_{t-s}\varphi\,(z)\right) ^{\!1+\gamma}.$$
The lemma immediately implies Proposition \[L.conv.exp\]. Indeed, applying Fatou’s lemma we get $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{k\uparrow\infty}\int\!\!\mu(dx)\int\!\!dz\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\ g_{k}(s,x,z)\ & \geq\ \int\!\!\mu(dx)\int\!\!dz\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\ \liminf
_{k\uparrow\infty}g_{k}(s,x,z)\\
& \geq\ \underline{c}\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\left\langle _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\mu
,\,S_{s}(S_{t-s}\varphi)^{1+\gamma}\right\rangle .\end{aligned}$$
*Proof of Lemma* \[L.bound.of.g\]. Shifting the Brownian motions,$$\begin{aligned}
g_{k}(s,x,z)\,=\,\ & k^{2\gamma-2+d}\,\gamma\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\vartheta
_{1/k}(W_{s}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1}+W_{s}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2}+W_{s}-z)\\
& \qquad\qquad\,\ \times\Big(\int_{0}^{t-s}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1/k}(W_{r}^{1}+W_{s}-2z)\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(W_{r}^{1}+W_{s}-z)\\
& +\int_{0}^{t-s}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1/k}(W_{r}^{2}+W_{s}-2z)\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(W_{r}^{2}+W_{s}-z)\Big)^{\!\gamma-1}.\end{aligned}$$ By the uniform continuity of $\varphi,$$$\lim_{k\uparrow\infty}\,\sup_{\left\vert W_{s}-z\right\vert \leq
1/k}\,\left\vert _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{i}+W_{s}-z)-\varphi
(W_{t-s}^{i})\right\vert \ =\ 0,$$ and by (\[unicont\]),$$\lim_{k\uparrow\infty}\,\sup_{\left\vert W_{s}-z\right\vert \leq
1/k}\,\left\vert _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-s-r}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{i}+W_{s}-z)-S_{t-s-r}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{i})\right\vert \ =\ 0, \label{unicont'}$$ we get$$\begin{aligned}
g_{k}(s,x,z)\ =\ & k^{2\gamma-2+d}\,\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\gamma
+o(1)\right) \,\mathcal{E}_{x}\,\vartheta_{1/k}(W_{s}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\\
& \qquad\qquad\ \,\times\Big(\int_{0}^{t-s}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1/k}(W_{r}^{1}+W_{s}-2z)\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(W_{r}^{1})\\
& +\int_{0}^{t-s}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1/k}(W_{r}^{2}+W_{s}-2z)\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(W_{r}^{2})\Big)^{\!\gamma-1}.\end{aligned}$$ By the triangle inequality, $\,\vartheta_{1/k}(W_{r}^{i}+W_{s}-2z)\leq
\vartheta_{2/k}(W_{s}^{i}-z).$ Hence,$$\begin{aligned}
g_{k}(s,x,z)\ \geq\ & k^{2\gamma-2+d}\,\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\gamma+o(1)\right) \,\mathcal{E}_{x}\,\vartheta_{1/k}(W_{s}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\\
& \quad\,\ \times\biggl(\int_{0}^{t-s}\!dr\ \vartheta_{2/k}(W_{r}^{1}-z)\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(W_{r}^{1})\\
& \quad\quad\qquad+\int_{0}^{t-s}\!dr\ \vartheta_{2/k}(W_{r}^{2}-z)\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(W_{r}^{2})\biggr)^{\!\!\gamma-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Calculating the expectation with respect to $W$ gives$$\mathcal{E}_{x}\,\vartheta_{1/k}(W_{s}-z)\ =\ \frac{\pi^{d/2}}{G(1+d/2)}\,k^{-d}\,p_{s}(x-z)\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}1+o(1)\right) \!.$$ Using (\[unicont’\]) once more we obtain$$\begin{aligned}
& g_{k}(s,x,z)\ \geq\ k^{2\gamma-2}\,\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\gamma
+o(1)\right) \,\frac{\pi^{d/2}}{G(1+d/2)}\,p_{s}(x-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\times\Big(\int_{0}^{t-s}\!dr\ \bigl[\vartheta
_{2/k}(W_{r}^{1}-z)+\vartheta_{2/k}(W_{r}^{2}-z)\bigr]\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(z)\Big)^{\!\gamma-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Define events$$A_{k}^{i}(z)\ :=\ \left\{ _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}|W_{r}^{i}-z|>1/k\ \forall
r>1/k\right\} \!.$$ Evidently,$$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\Big(\int_{0}^{t-s}\!dr\ \bigl[\vartheta_{2/k}(W_{r}^{1}-z)+\vartheta
_{2/k}(W_{r}^{2}-z)\bigr]\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(z)\Big)^{\!\gamma-1}\\
& \geq\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\\
& \quad\ \times\Big(\int_{0}^{1/k}\!dr\ \bigl[\vartheta_{2/k}(W_{r}^{1}-z)+\vartheta_{2/k}(W_{r}^{2}-z)\bigr]\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi
\,(z)\Big)^{\!\gamma-1}\mathsf{1}_{A_{k}^{1}(z)}\mathsf{1}_{A_{k}^{2}(z)}\\
& \geq\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\Big(\int_{0}^{1/k}\!\!dr\,\bigl[\vartheta_{2/k}(W_{r}^{1}-z)+\vartheta
_{2/k}(W_{r}^{2}-z)\bigr]\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi(z)\Big)^{\!\gamma-1}\\
& \quad\ -2\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\Big(\int_{0}^{1/k}\!dr\ \vartheta_{2/k}(W_{r}^{1}-z)\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(z)\Big)^{\!\gamma-1}(1-\mathsf{1}_{A_{k}^{1}(z)}).\end{aligned}$$ We calculate the expressions in the last two lines separately. For the first line we get, by the Markov property at time $1/k,$$$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\Big(\int_{0}^{1/k}\!dr\ \bigl[\vartheta_{2/k}(W_{r}^{1}-z)+\vartheta
_{2/k}(W_{r}^{2}-z)\bigr]\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(z)\Big)^{\!\gamma-1}\\
& =\mathcal{E}_{0}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{0}\Big(\int_{0}^{1/k}\!dr\ \bigl[\vartheta_{2/k}(W_{r}^{1})+\vartheta_{2/k}(W_{r}^{2})\bigr]\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(z)\Big)^{\!\gamma-1}\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\ \ \times S_{t-s-1/k}\varphi\,(z+W_{1/k}^{1})\,S_{t-s-1/k}\varphi\,(z+W_{1/k}^{2}).\end{aligned}$$ By (\[unicont\]), this equals asymptotically $$\begin{aligned}
& \left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-s}\varphi\,(z)\right) ^{1+\gamma}\mathcal{E}_{0}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{0}\Big(\int_{0}^{1/k}\!dr\ \bigl[\vartheta
_{2/k}(W_{r}^{1})+\vartheta_{2/k}(W_{r}^{2})\bigr]\,\Big)^{\!\gamma-1}\\
& =\,\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-s}\varphi\,(z)\right) ^{1+\gamma
}k^{2-2\gamma}\,\mathcal{E}_{0}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{0}\Big(\int_{0}^{k}\!dr\ \bigl[\vartheta_{2}(W_{r}^{1})+\vartheta_{2}(W_{r}^{2})\bigr]\,\Big)^{\!\gamma-1},\end{aligned}$$ where in the last step Brownian scaling was used. Therefore the first line is asymptotically equivalent to$$\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-s}\varphi\,(z)\right) ^{1+\gamma}k^{2-2\gamma
}\mathcal{E}_{0}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{0}\Big(\int_{0}^{\infty}\!\!dr\,\left[
\vartheta_{2}(W_{r}^{1})+\vartheta_{2}(W_{r}^{2})\right] \Big)^{\!\gamma-1}.
\label{first.line}$$ Turning now to the second line,$$\begin{aligned}
& 2\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\Big(\int_{0}^{1/k}\!dr\ \vartheta_{2/k}(W_{r}^{1}-z)\,S_{t-s-r}\varphi\,(z)\Big)^{\!\gamma-1}(1-\mathsf{1}_{A_{k}^{1}(z)})\\
& =\ 2\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}S_{t-s}\varphi\,(z)\right) ^{\!\gamma}\,\left(
_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}1+o(1)\right) \mathcal{E}_{z}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\Big(\int
_{0}^{1/k}\!dr\ \vartheta_{2/k}(W_{r}^{1}-z)\Big)^{\!\gamma-1}(1-\mathsf{1}_{A_{k}^{1}(z)}),\end{aligned}$$ where the expectation with respect to $W^{2}$ was evaluated, and (\[unicont\]) was used. Recalling that $\varphi$ is bounded and applying Cauchy-Schwarz we obtain an upper bound$$\begin{aligned}
& c_{(\ref{second.line})}\left( \mathcal{P}_{0}\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}A_{k}^{1}(0)^{\mathrm{c}}\right) \right) ^{1/2}\bigg[\mathcal{E}_{0}\Big(\int_{0}^{1/k}\!dr\ \vartheta_{2/k}(W_{r}^{1})\Big)^{\!2\gamma
-2}\bigg]^{1/2}\label{second.line}\\
& =\ c_{(\ref{second.line})}\,k^{2-2\gamma}\left[ _{\!_{\!_{\,_{{}}}}}\mathcal{P}_{0}\!\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}\exists r>k:\ |W_{r}|\leq1\right)
\right] ^{1/2}\bigg[\mathcal{E}_{0}\Big(\int_{0}^{k}\!dr\ \vartheta_{2}(W_{r}^{1})\Big)^{\!2\gamma-2}\bigg]^{1/2}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Since the expectation is bounded and the probability goes to zero, (\[second.line\]) is $o(k^{2-2\gamma}).$ Together with (\[first.line\]) this proves the lemma.$\square$
Convergence of variances\[SS.var\]
----------------------------------
\[**Convergence of variances**\]\[L.var’\]For every $\,\mu
\in\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tem}}\,\ $satisfying the assumption in Theorem *\[T.fluct\],* for $\,\varphi\in\mathcal{C}_{\exp}^{+}$ and $\,t>0$, $$\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\mathsf{V}\mathrm{ar}\int\!\!\mu
(dx)\,\Big [k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi(x)-m_{k}(t,x)\Big]\ =\ 0.$$
The remainder of this section is devoted to the proof of this proposition. We may set $\,\varrho=1.$ Recall that$$\begin{aligned}
& k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi(x)-m_{k}(t,x)\ =\ k^{2-d+2\varkappa}\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\int\!\!\Gamma(dz)\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\\
& \times\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\exp\Big[-k^{2-d+\varkappa}\int\!\!\Gamma
(dz)\left( I_{s}(z,W^{1})+I_{s}(z,W^{2})\right) \Big ].\end{aligned}$$ Define$$M_{2}(x,\tilde{x})\ :=\ \mathsf{E}\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi(x)-m_{k}(t,x)\right) \left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}k^{\varkappa}S_{t}\varphi(\tilde{x})-m_{k}(t,\tilde{x})\right) \!.$$ Similarly to (\[Gamma.formula\]), for measurable $\,\varphi_{1},\varphi
_{2},\psi\geq0,$$$\begin{aligned}
& \mathsf{E}\left\langle \Gamma,\varphi_{1}\right\rangle \left\langle
\Gamma,\varphi_{2}\right\rangle \,\mathrm{e}^{-\left\langle \Gamma
,\psi\right\rangle }\ =\ \gamma(1-\gamma)\int\!\!dz\ \varphi_{1}(z)\,\varphi_{2}(z)\,\psi^{\gamma-2}(z)\,\exp\!\Big[-\int\!\!dy\ \psi^{\gamma
}(y)\Big ]\\
& \qquad\qquad\ \ +\ \gamma^{2}\int\!\!dz_{1}\ \varphi_{1}(z_{1})\,\psi^{\gamma-1}(z_{1})\int\!\!dz_{2}\ \varphi_{2}(z_{2})\,\psi^{\gamma
-1}(z_{2})\,\exp\!\Big[-\int\!\!dy\ \psi^{\gamma}(y)\Big ].\end{aligned}$$ Applying this formula, we get$$M_{2}(x,\tilde{x})\ =\ M_{21}(x,\tilde{x})+M_{22}(x,\tilde{x}),$$ where$$\begin{aligned}
& M_{21}(x,\tilde{x})\ :=\ \gamma(1-\gamma)\,k^{4-2d+4\varkappa
}\,k^{(2-d+\varkappa)(\gamma-2)}\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{\tilde
{x}}\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\int_{0}^{t}\!d\tilde{s}\int\!\!dz\ \\
& \vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\vartheta_{1}(k\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\!\otimes\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\,\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}}\!\otimes
\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tilde{s}}^{1})\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tilde{s}}^{2})\\
& \qquad\times\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}I_{s}(z,W^{1})+I_{s}(z,W^{2})+I_{\tilde{s}}(z,\tilde{W}^{1})+I_{\tilde{s}}(z,\tilde{W}^{2})\right)
^{\!\gamma-2}\,\\
& \qquad\times\exp\!\bigg[-k^{\gamma(2-d+\varkappa)}\int\!\!dy\,\left(
_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}I_{s}(y,W^{1})+I_{s}(y,W^{2})+I_{\tilde{s}}(y,\tilde{W}^{1})+I_{\tilde{s}}(y,\tilde{W}^{2})\right) ^{\!\gamma}\bigg]\end{aligned}$$ and$$\begin{aligned}
& M_{22}(x,\tilde{x})\ :=\ \gamma^{2}\,k^{4-2d+4\varkappa}\,k^{(2-d+\varkappa
)(2\gamma-2)}\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{x}}\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\int_{0}^{t}\!d\tilde{s}\int\!\!dz\int\!\!d\tilde{z}\\
& \vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\vartheta_{1}(k\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}-\tilde
{z})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\!\otimes\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\,\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}}\!\otimes
\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tilde{s}}^{1})\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tilde{s}}^{2})\\
& \qquad\times\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}I_{s}(z,W^{1})+I_{s}(z,W^{2})+I_{\tilde{s}}(z,\tilde{W}^{1})+I_{\tilde{s}}(z,\tilde{W}^{2})\right)
^{\gamma-1}\\
& \qquad\times\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}I_{s}(\tilde{z},W^{1})+I_{s}(\tilde
{z},W^{2})+I_{\tilde{s}}(\tilde{z},\tilde{W}^{1})+I_{\tilde{s}}(\tilde
{z},\tilde{W}^{2})\right) ^{\gamma-1}\\
& \qquad\times\exp\!\bigg[-\!k^{\gamma(2-d+\varkappa)}\!\int\!\!dy\,\left(
_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}I_{s}(y,W^{1})+I_{s}(y,W^{2})+I_{\tilde{s}}(y,\tilde{W}^{1})+I_{\tilde{s}}(y,\tilde{W}^{2})\right) ^{\!\gamma}\bigg].\end{aligned}$$ The following Lemmas \[L.M21\] and \[L.M22\] together directly imply Proposition \[L.var’\].
\[L.M21\]$$\lim_{k\uparrow\infty}\int\!\!\mu(dx)\int\!\!\mu(d\tilde{x})\,M_{21}(x,\tilde{x})\ =\ 0$$
\[L.M22\]$$\limsup_{k\uparrow\infty}\int\!\!\mu(dx)\int\!\!\mu(d\tilde{x})\,\left[
M_{22}(x,\tilde{x})-M_{1}(x)M_{1}(\tilde{x})\right] \ \leq\ 0.$$
*Proof of Lemma* \[L.M21\]. By definition of the critical index $\varkappa=\varkappa_{\mathrm{c}\,},$$$4-2d+4\varkappa+(\gamma-2)(2-d+\varkappa)\,=\,\varkappa-2+2\gamma.$$ Dropping the exponential in $M_{21}(x,\tilde{x})$ and $I_{s}(z,W^{2})+I_{s}(z,W^{2})$ gives$$\begin{aligned}
& M_{21}(x,\tilde{x})\ \leq\ k^{\varkappa-2+2\gamma}\gamma(1-\gamma
)\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{x}}\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\int_{0}^{t}\!d\tilde{s}\int\!\!dz\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\vartheta_{1}(k\tilde
{W}_{\tilde{s}}-z)\,\\
& \mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\!\!\otimes\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\,\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}}\!\!\otimes
\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tilde{s}}^{1})\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tilde{s}}^{2})\!\bigl(I_{s}(z,W^{1})\!+\!I_{\tilde{s}}(z,\tilde{W}^{1})\bigr)^{\!\gamma-2}\!.\end{aligned}$$ By independence of all Brownian paths, it follows that the expression in the second line in the previous formula is bounded by $$S_{t-s}\varphi(W_{s})\,S_{t-\tilde{s}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}})\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tilde{s}}^{1})\left( \!_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}I_{s}(z,W^{1})+I_{\tilde{s}}(z,\tilde{W}^{1})\right) ^{\!\gamma-2}\!.$$ By the Markov property, $$\begin{aligned}
& M_{21}(x,\tilde{x})\ \leq\ k^{\varkappa-2+2\gamma}\gamma(1-\gamma
)\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{x}}\varphi(W_{t})\varphi
(\tilde{W}_{t})\\
& \qquad\times\int\!\!dz\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\int_{0}^{t}\!d\tilde{s}\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\vartheta_{1}(k\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}-z)\,S_{t-s}\varphi(W_{s})\,S_{t-\tilde{s}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}})\\
& \qquad\times\left( \int_{s}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{r}-z)\,S_{t-r}\varphi(W_{r})+\int_{\tilde{s}}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1}(k\tilde{W}_{r}-z)\,S_{t-r}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{r})\right) ^{\!\!\gamma-2}\!.\end{aligned}$$ Carrying out the integration over $s$ and $\tilde{s}$ gives$$\begin{aligned}
& k^{\varkappa-2+2\gamma}\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{x}}\varphi(W_{t})\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t})\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\int\!\!dz\Big(I_{0}(z,W)^{\gamma}+I_{0}(z,\tilde
{W})^{\gamma}-\bigl(I_{0}(z,W)+I_{0}(z,\tilde{W})\bigr)^{\!\gamma}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Changing the integration variable $k\rightsquigarrow kz$, we obtain$$\begin{aligned}
& \int\!\!\mu(dx)\int\!\!\mu(d\tilde{x})\,M_{21}(x,\tilde{x})\ \leq
\ k^{\varkappa-2+d}\int\!\!dz\int\!\!\mu(dx)\int\!\!\mu(d\tilde{x})\ \mathcal{E}_{x}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{x}}\varphi(W_{t})\varphi
(\tilde{W}_{t})\\
& \times\Bigg[\Big(k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1/k}(W_{s}-z)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}+\Big(k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-z)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(\tilde{W}_{s})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\\
& -\biggl(k^{2}\!\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\;\left[ \vartheta_{1/k}(W_{s}-z)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(W_{s})+\vartheta_{1/k}(\tilde{W}_{s}-z)\,S_{t-s}\varphi\,(\tilde{W}_{s})\right] \biggr)^{\!\gamma}\Bigg].\end{aligned}$$ The right hand side of this inequality coincides with (\[121\]), since $\,2\varkappa+(\varkappa-d)\gamma+d=\varkappa-2+d,$ hence converges to zero. $\square$
*Proof of Lemma* \[L.M22\]. Dropping some non-negative summands, we get$$\begin{aligned}
& M_{22}(x,\tilde{x})\ \leq\ k^{4\gamma-4}\,\gamma^{2}\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{x}}\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\int_{0}^{t}\!d\tilde{s}\int\!\!dz\int\!\!d\tilde{z}\\
& \vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\vartheta_{1}(k\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}-\tilde
{z})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\,\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}}\otimes
\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tilde{s}}^{1})\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tilde{s}}^{2})\\[4pt]
& \qquad\times\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}I_{s}(z,W^{1})+I_{s}(z,W^{2})\right)
^{\gamma-1}\bigl(I_{\tilde{s}}(\tilde{z},\tilde{W}^{1})+I_{\tilde{s}}(\tilde{z},\tilde{W}^{2})\bigr)^{\!\gamma-1}\\
& \qquad\times\exp\!\Big[-k^{\gamma(2-d+\varkappa)}\int\!\!dy\,\left(
_{\!_{\!_{\,}}}I_{s}(y,W^{1})+I_{s}(y,W^{2})+I_{\tilde{s}}(y,\tilde{W}^{1})+I_{\tilde{s}}(y,\tilde{W}^{2})\right) ^{\!\gamma}\Big ].\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand,$$\begin{aligned}
& M_{1}(x)\ =\ k^{2\gamma-2}\,\gamma\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\int_{0}^{t}\!{d}s\int\!\!dz\;\vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\nonumber\\
& \times\bigl(I_{s}(z,W^{1})+I_{s}(z,W^{2})\bigr)^{\!\gamma-1}\exp
\!\bigg[-\!\int\!\!dy\ k^{(2-d+\varkappa)\gamma}\bigl(I_{s}(y,W^{1})+I_{s}(y,W^{2})\bigr)^{\!\gamma}\bigg].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Taking the difference, applying inequality (\[alsoelementary\]) and using symmetry, we get$$\begin{aligned}
& M_{22}(x,\tilde{x})-M_{1}(x)M_{1}(\tilde{x})\ \leq\ k^{4\gamma-4}\,\gamma^{2}\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{x}}\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\int_{0}^{t}\!d\tilde{s}\int\!\!dz\int\!\!d\tilde{z}\\
& \vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\vartheta_{1}(k\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}-\tilde
{z})\,\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\!\otimes\mathcal{E}_{W_{s}}\varphi(W_{t-s}^{1})\varphi(W_{t-s}^{2})\,\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}}\!\otimes
\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tilde{s}}^{1})\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t-\tilde{s}}^{2})\\[4pt]
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\times\left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}I_{s}(z,W^{1})+I_{s}(z,W^{2})\right) ^{\gamma-1}\bigl(I_{\tilde{s}}(\tilde
{z},\tilde{W}^{1})+I_{\tilde{s}}(\tilde{z},\tilde{W}^{2})\bigr)^{\!\gamma-1}\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\times
k^{(2-d+\varkappa)\gamma}\,4\int\!\!dy\ \left( _{\!_{\!_{\,}}}I_{s}(y,W^{1})\right) ^{\!\gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ Dropping further non-negative summands and using again the Markov property, we get the bound$$\begin{aligned}
& 4\,k^{4\gamma-4}k^{(2-d+\varkappa)\gamma}\,\gamma^{2}\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{x}}\int_{0}^{t}\!ds\int_{0}^{t}\!d\tilde{s}\int\!\!dz\int\!\!d\tilde{z}\\
& \vartheta_{1}(kW_{s}-z)\,\vartheta_{1}(k\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}}-\tilde
{z})\,S_{t-s}\varphi(W_{s})\,\,S_{t-\tilde{s}}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{\tilde{s}})\,\varphi(W_{t})\,\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t})\\
& \times\Big(\int_{s}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{r}-z)\,S_{t-r}\varphi
(W_{r})\Big)^{\!\gamma-1}\Big(\int_{\tilde{s}}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1}(k\tilde{W}_{r}-\tilde{z})\,S_{t-r}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{r})\Big)^{\!\gamma-1}\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\times\int\!\!dy\ \Big(\int
_{0}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{r}-y)\,S_{t-r}\varphi(W_{r})\Big)^{\!\gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ Carrying out the $s$ and $\tilde{s}$ integration, we obtain$$\begin{aligned}
& 4\,k^{4\gamma-4}k^{(2-d+\varkappa)\gamma}\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\otimes
\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{x}}\varphi(W_{t})\,\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t})\int
\!\!dz\int\!\!d\tilde{z}\\
& \times\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{r}-z)\,S_{t-r}\varphi
(W_{r})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1}(k\tilde{W}_{r}-\tilde{z})\,S_{t-r}\varphi(\tilde{W}_{r})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\,\ \times\int\!\!dy\ \Big(\int_{0}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{r}-y)\,S_{t-r}\varphi(W_{r})\Big)^{\!\gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ We collect identical terms, use the boundedness of $\,\varphi,$ and obtain, up to a constant factor, the bound$$\begin{aligned}
& k^{4\gamma-4}k^{(2-d+\varkappa)\gamma}\,\mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi
(W_{t})\bigg[\int\!\!dz\,\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{r}-z)S_{t-r}\varphi(W_{r})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\bigg]^{2}\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\times\mathcal{E}_{\tilde{x}}\,\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t})\int\!\!d\tilde{z}\,\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta
_{1}(k\tilde{W}_{r}-\tilde{z})\Big)^{\!\gamma}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[L.Br.hit.occ\](b) with $\,\eta=\gamma$,$$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{E}_{\tilde{x}}\,\varphi(\tilde{W}_{t})\int\!\!d\tilde
{z}\,\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1}(k\tilde{W}_{r}-\tilde{z})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\ \\
& =\ k^{d-2\gamma}\int\!\!d\tilde{z}\ \mathcal{E}_{\tilde{x}}\,\varphi
(\tilde{W}_{t})\Big(k^{2}\int_{0}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1}(k\tilde{W}_{r}-k\tilde{z})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\ \leq\ c_{\ref{L.Br.hit.occ}}\,k^{2-2\gamma
}\,\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(\tilde{x}),\end{aligned}$$ and by Lemma \[la2\],$$\mathcal{E}_{x}\varphi(W_{t})\bigg[\int\!\!dz\,\Big(\int_{0}^{t}\!dr\ \vartheta_{1}(kW_{r}-z)S_{t-r}\varphi(W_{r})\Big)^{\!\gamma}\bigg]^{2}\,\leq\ c_{\ref{la2}}\,k^{4-4\gamma+\delta}\,\phi_{\lambda
_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x).$$ Noting that $\,4\gamma-4+(2-d+\varkappa)\gamma+6-6\gamma=-\varkappa$ and choosing $\,\delta<\varkappa,$ we obtain, up to a constant factor, the upper bound $\,k^{\delta-\varkappa}\phi_{\lambda
_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(x)\,\phi_{\lambda_{\ref{L.bo2}}}(\tilde{x}).$ The proof is completed by integration.$\square$
Lower bound for finite-dimensional distributions\[SS.fdd\]
----------------------------------------------------------
The proof is analogous to the upper bound in Section \[findim\]. Again we use induction to show that, for any $\varphi_{1},\ldots,\varphi_{n}$ and $0=t_{0}<t_{1}<\cdots<t_{n}$, in $\mathsf{P}$–probability, $$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\displaystyle
\liminf_{k\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{n}k^{\varkappa}\big\langle X_{t_{i}}^{k}-S_{t_{i}}\mu,\,-\varphi
_{i}\big\rangle\Big ]\vspace{6pt}\\
\qquad\displaystyle
\geq\ \exp\!\Bigg[\underline{c}\,\bigg\langle
\mu,\sum_{i=1}^{n}\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t_{i}}dr\ S_{r}\Big(\big(\sum_{j=i}^{n}S_{t_{j}-r}\varphi_{j}\big)^{1+\gamma}\Big)\!\bigg\rangle
\Bigg].
\end{array}
\label{130}$$ For the case $n=1$ this was shown in the previous paragraphs, so we may assume that it holds for $n-1$ and show that it also holds for $n$. By conditioning on $\{X^{k}(t)\colon t\leq t_{n-1}\}$ and applying the transition functional we get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}} & \exp\!\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{n}k^{\varkappa}\big\langle X_{t_{i}}^{k}-S_{t_{i}}\mu,\,-\varphi_{i}\big\rangle\Big ]\nonumber\\
& =\ \exp\!\Big[\big\langle S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,k^{\varkappa}S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}-u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1})\big\rangle\Big ]\,\\
& \qquad\times\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\bigg[\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}k^{\varkappa
}\big\langle X_{t_{i}}^{k}-S_{t_{i}}\mu,\,-\varphi_{i}\big\rangle\nonumber\\
& \qquad\quad\quad\qquad+\ k^{\varkappa}\Big\langle
X_{t_{n-1}}^{k}-S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,\,-\varphi_{n-1}-k^{-\varkappa}u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1})\Big\rangle
\!\bigg],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $u_{k}$ is the solution of (\[new\]) with $\varphi$ replaced by $\,\varphi_{n\,}.$ By Theorem \[T.fluct\] for $n=1$, in $\mathsf{P}$–probability,$$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\displaystyle
\liminf_{k\uparrow\infty}\exp\!\Big[\big\langle S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,k^{\varkappa
}S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}-u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1})\big\rangle\Big ]\\\displaystyle
\qquad\geq\ \exp\!\bigg[\underline{c}\,\Big\langle
\mu,\int_{t_{n-1}}^{t_{n}}\!dr\ S_{r}(S_{t_{n}-r}\varphi_{n})^{1+\gamma}\Big\rangle
\bigg].
\end{array}$$ The remaining expectation can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\bigg[ & \sum_{i=1}^{n-2}k^{\varkappa
}\big\langle X_{t_{i}}^{k}-S_{t_{i}}\mu,\,-\varphi_{i}\big\rangle\nonumber\\
& +\ k^{\varkappa}\big\langle X_{t_{n-1}}^{k}-S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,\,-\varphi
_{n-1}-S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}\big\rangle\\
& +\ k^{\varkappa}\Big\langle
X_{t_{n-1}}^{k}-S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,\ S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}-k^{-\varkappa
}u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1})\Big\rangle
\bigg].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ To estimate this term from below observe that, by the induction assumption, in [$\mathsf{P}$–probability]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{k\uparrow\infty} & \,\mathbb{E}_{\mu_{k}}\!\exp\!\Big[\sum
_{i=1}^{n-2}k^{\varkappa}\big\langle X_{t_{i}}^{k}-S_{t_{i}}\mu,\,-\varphi
_{i}\big\rangle\nonumber\\
\qquad & \qquad\qquad+\ k^{\varkappa}\big\langle X_{t_{n-1}}^{k}-S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,\,-\varphi_{n-1}-S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}\big\rangle\Big ]\nonumber\\
& \geq\ \exp\!\bigg[\underline{c}\,\Big\langle\mu,\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t_{i}}\!dr\ S_{r}\Big(\big(\sum_{j=i}^{n-1}S_{t_{j}-r}\varphi_{j}\big)^{1+\gamma}\Big)\\
& \qquad\qquad+\int_{t_{n-2}}^{t_{n-1}}\!dr\ S_{r}\Big(\big(S_{t_{n-1}-r}\varphi_{n-1}+S_{t_{n-1}-r}S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}\big)^{1+\gamma
}\Big)\Big\rangle\!\bigg].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In (\[to.show\]) it was shown that in [$\mathsf{P}$–probability]{}, $$\exp\!\bigg[k^{\varkappa}\left\langle _{\!_{\!_{\,_{{}}}}}X_{t_{n-1}}^{k}-S_{t_{n-1}}\mu,S_{t_{n}-t_{n-1}}\varphi_{n}-k^{-\varkappa}\,u_{k}(t_{n}-t_{n-1})\right\rangle \!\bigg]\ \underset{k\uparrow\infty
}{\Longrightarrow}\ 1.$$ As $\,\liminf_{m\uparrow\infty}\xi_{m}\geq a$ in probability, for some $a\geq0,$ and $\zeta_{m}\Rightarrow1$ in law, implies $\liminf
_{m\uparrow\infty}\xi_{m}\zeta_{m}\geq a$ in probability, this completes the proof.$\square$
*Acknowledgement.* The authors are grateful for the hospitality at the University of Bath repectively the Weierstrass Institute.
[^1]: K.F. and V.W.: Supported by the DFG
[^2]: P.M.: Supported by EPSRC grant EP/C500229/1 and an Advanced Research Fellowship
[^3]: WIAS preprint No. 1052 of August 17, 2005,ISSN 0946–8633,bounds13.tex
[^4]: Corresponding author: Klaus Fleischmann
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Metabolomic based approaches have gained much attention in recent years due to their promising potential to deliver objective tools for assessment of food intake. In particular, multiple biomarkers have emerged for single foods. However, there is a lack of statistical tools available for combining multiple biomarkers to infer food intake. Furthermore, there is a paucity of approaches for estimating the uncertainty around biomarker based prediction of intake.
Here, to facilitate inference on the relationship between multiple metabolomic biomarkers and food intake in an intervention study conducted under the A-DIET research programme, a latent variable model, multiMarker, is proposed. The proposed model draws on factor analytic and mixture of experts models, describing intake as a continuous latent variable whose value gives raise to the observed biomarker values. We employ a mixture of Gaussian distributions to flexibly model the latent variable. A Bayesian hierarchical modelling framework provides flexibility to adapt to different biomarker distributions and facilitates prediction of the latent intake along with its associated uncertainty.
Simulation studies are conducted to assess the performance of the proposed multiMarker framework, prior to its application to the motivating application of quantifying apple intake.
author:
- 'Silvia D’Angelo, Lorraine Brennan and Isobel Claire Gormley'
bibliography:
- 'bibl.bib'
title: |
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Inferring food intake from multiple biomarkers\
using a latent variable model</span>
---
[**Keywords: Latent variable models, factor analysis, mixture of experts, metabolomics, ordinal regression**]{}
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Dietary biomarkers have emerged in recent years as objective measures of food intake ([@Baldrick2011]). A dietary biomarker is a small molecule called a metabolite that can provide information on the level of intake of a food ([@Gao2017], [@Dragsted2018]). In recent years, many biomarkers have emerged for a range of foods. The importance of such biomarkers stems from the fact that classical dietary assessment approaches rely on self-reported data which can be subjective and biased, and such issues are well documented in the literature (e.g. [@Bingham2002], [@Kipnis2002], [@Subar2003], [@Lloyd2019], [@Siddique2019]). As a consequence, dietary biomarkers have emerged as a potential objective tool to aid food intake assessment. As the biomarker field progressed and the analytical tools improved, the number of biomarkers identified as potential biomarkers of intake has increased. Indeed, there are now multiple biomarkers for individual foods. However, there is a paucity of statistical tools for modelling the relationship between multiple biomarkers and food intake. The work to date has employed biomarkers as panels to classify intake into categories, e.g. consumers and non-consumers. For example, [@Garcia-Aloy2017] propose a panel of biomarkers for cocoa intake, which is employed to estimate cocoa consumption or non-consumption through a forward stepwise logistic regression model. [@Rothwell2014] propose a partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) approach to distinguish between low and high consumption of coffee in a sample of individuals, using a panel of three coffee-specific biomarkers. Recent work by [@Vazquez2019] on discovery and validation of banana intake biomarkers also employs a PLS-DA approach to detect low, medium and high consumption of banana. The proposed panel of biomarkers proved to be effective in distinguishing between low and high consumers, while medium consumers were difficult to separate from the two extremal groups. [@Gurdeniz2016] present a PLS-DA approach to detect beer intake (consumers versus non-consumers) using a panel of aggregated biomarkers. While the aforementioned approaches avail of a panel of biomarkers, they provide a categorical quantification of intake, not an estimation of the quantity of intake, nor its associated uncertainty.
The A-DIET research programme ([www.ucdnutrimarkers.com/a-diet](www.ucdnutrimarkers.com/a-diet)) aims to identify new metabolomic biomarkers of dietary intake, and here provides the motivating context. Data from a panel of four novel metabolomic biomarkers were collected from an intervention study, where a group of participants consumed three different food quantities (of apple), over a three week period. The statistical challenge is to infer the relationship between the biomarkers and food intake, and to predict intake from the panel of biomarkers alone.
Here, to infer the relationship between multiple biomarkers and food intake we have developed the “multiMarker” model. MultiMarker relies on a factor analytic latent variable construct [@Knott1999] to capture the relationship between the panel of observed biomarkers and the unobserved intake. The distribution of the latent factor (i.e. the unobserved food intake) is expressed through a flexible mixture model. Moreover, to improve prediction, multiMarker avails of a mixture of experts framework ([@Jacobs1991], [@Gormley2019]), such that the biomarker data first informs the predicted level of intake (relative to the most likely food quantity), with the more refined predicted intake then resulting from the factor analytic aspect of multiMarker. The model is developed in a Bayesian framework, naturally allowing for uncertainty quantification and therefore providing more informed quantification of intake.
Traditional factor analysis models assume that the correlation structure between a collection of observed variables can be represented in terms of a linear combination of a lower number of latent variables, the factors [@Knott1999]. The latent variable(s) are often assumed to follow a Gaussian distribution, and many extensions have been proposed. Allowing an infinite number of factors to facilitate greater modelling flexibility has been proposed by [@Bhattacharya2011], and [@Murphy2020] extend the framework to an infinite mixture of infinite factor analysers. When in the presence of an heterogeneous population, [@Montanari2010] proposed an heteroscedastic factor mixture analysis model, where factors are distributed according to a mixture of multivariate Gaussian distributions. Relaxations of the Gaussianity assumption for the factors have been considered by many authors, see for example [@McLachlan2007], [@Murray2014] and [@Lin2016]. An extension of the factor mixture analysis approach to multivariate binary response data has been considered by [@Cagnone2012]. [@Galimberti2009] propose an approach to dimensionality reduction in factor mixture analysis models, where factor loadings are shrunk through a penalized likelihood approach. Robustification of factor analysis models was addressed by [@Pison2003], who introduced a method to address outliers. A further issue with factor analytic models is non-identifiability, see for example [@Lopes2004], [@Rockova2016] and [@FS2018].
While much factor analytic research has focused on two common issues, the number of factors to employ and the distribution to adopt, attempting to model the scale of the latent factors has received little attention. Typically the latent factors are perceived as instrumental tools to achieve a lower-dimensional representation of the data at hand. On the contrary, motivated by the application, our approach is focused on a single latent variable that is a proxy for the latent intake. Information on the scale of this latent variable is available and necessary in order to provide practically useful quantification of intake. While the availability of such information also ensures the multiMarker model is identifiable, unlike general factor analytic models, it adds complexity to inferring the latent variable which is no longer a simple instrument. Modelling the latent factor via a mixture model allows for a flexible framework, but introduces the issue of properly modelling mixture weights. Indeed, mixture components have the role of locating different regions in the intake range for the latent variable, where the order of such regions is relevant and should not be ignored. To this end, we embed the model for the latent variable in a mixture of experts framework, where the weights are modelled as functions of the observed biomarkers. Further, when modelling the weights we directly account for the ordinal nature of the food quantity data via an ordinal regression model [@Agresti1999], employing the robust Cauchit link function ([@Morgan1992]). Prediction of the latent intake and its associated uncertainty is available through the latent variable’s posterior predictive distribution.
In what follows, Section \[sec:appleIntro\] details the motivating application of inferring food (specifically apple) intake. Section \[sec:modello\] outlines our proposed multiMarker framework and develops an efficient Metropolis-within-Gibbs sampling strategy for Bayesian inference. Section \[sec:sim\] provides details of a thorough simulation study exploring the performance of the proposed framework across a series of realistic settings. The multiMarker framework is applied in the motivating context of inferring apple intake in Section \[sec:apples\], with the concluding Section \[sec:discussion\] discussing the application outcomes, the multiMarker framework and possible extensions. An R package, multiMarker, is freely available through [www.r-project.org](www.r-project.org) to facilitate widespread use of the method, and with which all results presented herein were produced.
Modelling the relationship between food intake and multiple metabolomic biomarkers: apple intake as an example {#sec:appleIntro}
==============================================================================================================
In the present work we develop a model to estimate the relationship between apple intake and $P=4$ urinary biomarkers, identified using an untargeted metabolomics approach [@McNamara2020]. The four urinary biomarkers are: Xylose, Epicatechin Sulfate, $[($4-$\{$3-\[2-(2,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-2-oxoethyl\]-4,6-dihydroxy-2-methyoxyphenyl$\}$-2-methylbut-2-en-1-yl)oxy\] sulfonic acid, and Glucodistylin. Throughout the paper we will refer to the third biomarker as $(4-3-[2-(2,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-2-oxoethyl]-DHMPMB-SA)$.
The data were collected as part of an intervention study, where a group of $32$ participants consumed different quantities of apple daily, over a three week intervention period. The intervention study was conducted as part of the A-DIET research programme ([www.ucdnutrimarkers.com/a-diet](www.ucdnutrimarkers.com/a-diet)), which aims to identify new metabolomic biomarkers of dietary intake. Data was available following consumption of $D = 3$ apple quantities: $50$, $100$ and $300$ grams. Each intervention week was followed by a resting week. Biomarker data was available following consumption of $50$, $100$ and $300$ grams, respectively for $29$, $28$ and $29$ participants, leading to a total of $n = 86$ observations. Throughout the paper we will treat the $n = 86$ observations as independent and this assumption is assessed in Section \[sec:apples\]. The original values for Epicatechin Sulfate, $(4-3-[2-(2,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-2-oxoethyl]-DHMPMB-SA)$ and Glucodistylin caused computational instability (most values were larger than $10^7$) and consequently were scaled (see Appendix C). However, the transformation did not alter the correlations between the four biomarkers. A visualization of the data is given in Figure \[fig:applesdata0\]. Three of the four urinary biomarkers have similar median values for the first two apple quantities, and all biomarkers are highly variable for the 300 grams apple quantity. Also, the boxplots corresponding to different apple quantities partially overlap, indicating that such quantities can not be completely separated by biomarker values.
The intervention data are used to model the relationship between the panel of biomarkers and apple intake (in grams). We also examine the ability of the model to predict apple consumption at a participant level, using only the metabolomic biomarker measurements.
![Biomarker levels following consumption of different quantities of apple. Boxplots for the $n=86$ observations on the four biomarkers, for the three apple quantities ($50$, $100$ and $300$ grams).[]{data-label="fig:applesdata0"}](ybp_apples_dp.pdf)
The multiMarker model {#sec:modello}
=====================
To quantify food (in this case apple) intake from a panel of biomarkers we propose a factor analytic framework termed multiMarker. The proposed framework learns the relationship between the multiple biomarkers and food quantity data and facilitates prediction of intake when only biomarker data are observed.
Model specification {#sec:modello_dettagli}
-------------------
Consider a biomarker matrix $Y$ of dimension $(n\times P)$, storing $P$ different biomarkers measurements on a set of $n$ independent observations. The $D$ food quantities considered in the intervention study are denoted by $\mathbf{X}=\{X_1, \dots, X_d, \dots, X_D\}$. Elements in $\mathbf{X}$ are ordered such that $X_d < X_{d+1}$. We assume that the biomarker measurements are related to an unobserved, continuous intake value, for which the food quantities are proxies, leading to the following factor analytic model: $$y_{ip} = \alpha_p + \beta_p z_i +\epsilon_{ip}, \quad \forall \quad i=1,\dots,n, \quad p = 1, \dots,P,
\label{eq:marker_dose}$$ where the (one dimensional) latent variable $z_i$ denotes the latent intake of observation $i$.
The $\alpha_p$ and $\beta_p$ parameters characterize, respectively, the intercept and the scaling effect for the $p^{\text{th}}$ biomarker. We assume a truncated Gaussian prior distribution, $\alpha_p \thicksim \mathcal{N}_{[0, \infty]}\bigl(\mu_{\alpha}, \sigma_{\alpha}^2 \bigr)$, for the intercept parameters. The non-negative assumption is required as biomarker levels can not be negative. The $p^{\text{th}}$ scaling parameter $\beta_p$ captures the effect of an increment in consumption of a given food on the observed level of biomarker $p$ and a truncated Gaussian prior distribution is also assumed, $ \beta_p \thicksim \mathcal{N}_{[0, \infty]}\bigl(\mu_{\beta}, \sigma_{\beta}^2 \bigr)$.
The error term $\epsilon_p$ is the variability associated with the $p^{\text{th}}$ biomarker; a precise biomarker will have a value close to zero. As is common in factor analytic models, we assume that $\epsilon_{ip} \thicksim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma_p^2)$, where $\sigma_p^2$ serves as a proxy for the precision of the $p^{\text{th}}$ biomarker. Hence, the likelihood function conditional on $\mathbf{z}=(z_1,\dots,z_n)^{T}$ is: $$\ell (\mathbf{Y}\mid \alpha, \beta, \mathbf{z}, \Sigma)
= \sum_{p=1}^P\sum_{i=1}^n \Biggl( -\frac{1}{2} \log\bigl( 2\pi\sigma_p^2\bigr) -\frac{1}{2\sigma_p^2} \bigl( y_{ip} - \alpha_p -\beta_pz_i\bigr)^2 \Biggr),
\label{eq:likel}$$ where $\Sigma = diag(\sigma_1^2, \dots, \sigma_P^2)$. As stated, the quantities of interest $\mathbf{z} = (z_1,\dots,z_{n})^{T}$ cannot be directly measured, only their discretizations (the food quantities from the intervention study) are available which are therefore employed to inform the distribution of the latent intakes. Thus, differently from standard factor analytic models, here the scale of the latent variable plays a central role, and its accurate recovery is a central requirement of the analysis.
Modelling the latent intakes
----------------------------
To specify a prior distribution for the latent intakes, we exploit the information available in the food quantities from the intervention study. It is reasonable to assume that the latent intake of the $i^{\text{th}}$ observation, $z_i$, will be distributed around its corresponding consumed food quantity. Thus we assume a mixture of $D$ truncated Gaussian distributions as the prior distribution for the latent intakes: $$z_i \thicksim \sum_{d=1}^D \pi_d \mathcal{N}_{[0,\infty]}\bigl( X_d, \sigma_d^2 \tau_d\bigr)
\label{eq:zprior}$$ The use of truncated distributions follows naturally from the definition of intake, which is non-negative. The $d^{\text{th}}$ component in the mixture model represents the distribution of the intakes of the observations who were administered the $d^{\text{th}}$ food quantity, and is therefore centered at $X_d$. The variances $\sigma_1^2, \dots, \sigma_D^2$ represent food quantity-specific intake variability, with lower values suggesting higher consumption-compliance. As the focus here is on recovering the latent variable in its innate scale, the $\tau_d$ parameters serve as food quantity-specific scaling factors. These parameters account for large or small gaps between subsequent food quantities and, also, indirectly, for the possible difference in scale between the latent intakes and the biomarkers. Given the application context, here the mixture weights $\pi=(\pi_1, \dots, \pi_D )$ are known as they represent the proportion of observations that have consumed each food quantity.
An MCMC algorithm for parameter estimation {#sec:MCMC}
------------------------------------------
We adopt a Bayesian approach to estimate the hierarchical model’s parameters, implemented through a Metropolis within Gibbs Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm. At each iteration of the algorithm, latent intakes and model parameters are sequentially updated from full conditional distributions. Hyperprior distributions are assumed on the prior parameters with the corresponding hyperparameter values fixed based on the data at hand, following an empirical Bayes approach. Hyperparameter specifications are reported in the Appendix A.1. Figure \[fig:modelloClust\] provides a graphical representation of the multiMarker model, with the update steps of the MCMC algorithm detailed below.
[cc]{}
### Biomarker-specific regression parameters
For the $p^{\text{th}}$ biomarker the truncated Gaussian prior distributions of both $\alpha_p$ and $\beta_p$ are combined with the likelihood function leading to the full conditional distributional distributions of $\alpha_p$ and $\beta_p$: $$\alpha_p \thicksim \mathcal{N}_{[0, \infty]} \bigl( \mu_{\alpha_p}^*, \sigma_{\alpha_p}^{2*}\bigr); \quad \beta_p \thicksim \mathcal{N}_{[0, \infty]} \bigl( \mu_{\beta_p}^*, \sigma_{\beta_p}^{2*}\bigr)$$ where $$\sigma_{\alpha_p}^{2*} = \frac{\sigma_p^2 \sigma_{\alpha}^2}{n\sigma_{\alpha}^2 + \sigma_p^2}; \mu_{\alpha_p}^* = \sigma_{\alpha_p}^{2*}\Biggl[\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n \bigl( y_{ip} -\beta_pz_i \bigr)}{\sigma_p^2} +\frac{\mu_{\alpha}}{\sigma_{\alpha}^{2}} \Biggr]; \quad
\sigma_{\beta_p}^{2*} = \frac{\sigma_p^2 \sigma_{\beta}^2}{\sigma_{\beta}^2 \sum_{i=1}^n z_i^2 + \sigma_p^2}; \mu_{\beta_p}^* = \sigma_{\beta_p}^{2*}\Biggl[\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n z_i\bigl( y_{ip} -\alpha_p\bigr)}{\sigma_p^2} +\frac{\mu_{\beta}}{\sigma_{\beta}^{2}} \Biggr]$$
### Error term’s variance parameter
Assuming an inverse gamma prior distribution for the $p^{\text{th}}$ variance term $\sigma_p^2$, with shape parameter $\nu_{P1}$ and scale parameter $\nu_{P2}$, leads to the following full conditional distribution: $$\sigma_p^2 \thicksim Inv\Gamma \Biggl(\nu_{P1}^{*}= \frac{n}{2} +\nu_{P1}, \quad\nu_{P2}^{*}=\quad \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^n (y_{ip} -\alpha_p -\beta_p z_i)^2 + \nu_{P2}\Biggr)$$
### Latent intakes {#sec:lat_int_fc}
To derive the full conditional distribution for the latent intake, we exploit the complete data representation of its prior distribution: $$z_i \mid \dots \thicksim \prod_{d=1}^D \Bigl[ \pi_d \mathcal{N}_{[0,\infty]} (X_d, \sigma_d^2\tau_d)\Bigr]^{c_{id}}, \quad
c_{id} = \begin{cases}
1 \quad \text{if observation $i$ consumed food quantity $X_d$}, \\
0 \quad \text{otherwise, for } $d =1, \dots, D$. \\
\end{cases}$$ where the observation labels $c_i=\{ c_{i1}, \dots, c_{iD}\}$ and the mixture weights $\pi_d$ are known, given the structure of the intervention study. Thus for observation $i$ who consumed quantity $X_d$ and has biomarkers $y_i$, we may sample the corresponding latent intake value from: $$z_i \mid \dots \thicksim \mathcal{N}_{[0,\infty]} \bigl( \mu_{id}^*, \sigma_{id}^{2*}\bigr), \quad \text{with} \quad
\sigma_{id}^{2*} = \Biggl( \sum_{p=1}^P \frac{\beta_p^2 \tau_d \sigma_d^2 +\sigma_p^2/P}{\tau_d \sigma_d^2 \sigma_p^2} \Biggr)^{-1},\quad
\mu_{id}^* = \sigma_{id}^{2*} \Biggl[\sum_{p=1}^P \frac{\beta_p\bigl( y_{ip} -\alpha_p\bigr)}{\sigma_p^2} + \frac{X_{d}}{\tau_d\sigma_{d}^{2}} \Biggr]$$ Further, assuming an inverse gamma prior distribution on the components’ variance parameters, $\sigma_d^2 \thicksim Inv \Gamma \bigl( \nu_{z1}, \nu_{z2}\bigr)$, the full conditional distribution is: $$\sigma_d^2 \thicksim Inv \Gamma \bigl( \nu_{z1}^*, \nu_{z2}^*\bigr) , \quad \text{with} \quad
\nu_{z1}^* = \frac{n_d }{2} + \nu_{z1}, \quad \nu_{z2}^* = \nu_{z2} + \frac{\tau_d \sum_{i =1}^n \mathds{1}(x_i = X_d)(z_i -x_d)^2 }{2\tau_d},$$ where $n_d = \sum_{i=1}^n c_{id}$. The $\tau_d$ parameters are fixed according to food quantity values ($\tau_d= \frac{x_d}{d^2}$) to account for different gaps between these and allow for good coverage of the latent intakes’ range.
### Nuisance parameters
To allow for the uncertainty in the parameters of the prior distributions of $\alpha_p$ and $\beta_p$, hyperprior distributions are specified for $\mu_{\alpha}$, $\mu_{\beta}$ and $\sigma_{\beta}^2$. Specifically, $\mu_{\alpha} \thicksim \mathcal{N}_{[0,\infty]} \bigl( m_{\alpha}, \tau_{\alpha}\sigma_{\alpha}^2 \bigr)$, $\mu_{\beta} \thicksim \mathcal{N}_{[0,\infty]} \bigl( m_{\beta}, \tau_{\beta}\sigma_{\beta}^2 \bigr)$, and $ \sigma_{\beta}^2 \thicksim Inv\Gamma \bigl(\nu_{\beta 1},\nu_{\beta 2} \bigr)$, leading to the following full conditionals: $$\mu_{g} \thicksim \mathcal{N}_{[0,\infty]} \bigl( \mu_g^*, \sigma_g^{2*} \bigr), \quad \text{with} \quad
\sigma_g^{2*} = \frac{\tau_{g} \sigma_{g}^2}{ \tau_{g} P +1 }, \quad \mu_g^* = \sigma_g^{2*} \Bigl[ \frac{\tau_{g} \sum_{p=1}^P g_p +m_g}{\tau_g\sigma_g^2}\Bigr],$$ $$\sigma_{\beta}^2 \thicksim Inv \Gamma \bigl(\nu_{\beta1}^*, \nu_{\beta2}^* \bigr), \quad \text{with} \quad
\nu_{\beta1}^* = \frac{P+1+2\nu_{\beta1}}{2}, \quad \nu_{\beta2}^* = \nu_{\beta2} +\frac{\tau_\beta \sum_{p=1}^P (\beta_p -\mu_{\beta})^2 +(\mu_{\beta} -m_{\beta})^2}{2 \tau_\beta},$$ where $g = \alpha, \beta$. The set of hyperparameters $\bigl(m_{\alpha},m_{\beta}, \tau_{\alpha},\tau_{\beta}, \nu_{\beta 1},\nu_{\beta 2} \bigr)$ needs to be fixed in advance; some practical guidelines are outlined in Appendix A.1. Finally, we fix the value of $\sigma_{\alpha}^2=1$, for identifiability.
Predicting latent intakes
-------------------------
While the multiMarker framework infers the relationship between biomarker and food quantity data from an intervention study, the aim is then to predict food intake when only biomarker data are available.
Let us assume there are $n^{*}$ observations for which biomarker data have been measured but no information on their consumed food quantity is available. To predict the latent intake $z_j^{*}$ for observation $j$, $j=1,\dots,n^{*}$, with biomarker data $y_j^{*}=(y_{j1}^{*},.\dots,y_{jP}^{*})^{T}$, we reconsider the log-likelihood (\[eq:likel\]) as a function of the latent intakes given the biomarker data: $$p (z_j^{*} \mid \alpha, \beta, \Sigma, y_j^{*}) = \sum_{p=1}^P \Biggl( -\frac{1}{2} \log\bigl( 2\pi\sigma_p^2\bigr) -\frac{\beta_p^2}{2\sigma_p^2} \biggl( z_{j}^{*} -\bigl( \frac{y_{jp}^{*} - \alpha_p}{\beta_p} \bigr) \biggr)^2 \Biggr)
\label{eq:loglik_pred}$$ That is, $ p (z_j^{*} \mid \dots)$ is the truncated Gaussian distribution $z_j^{*} \thicksim \mathcal{N}_{[0, \infty]} \bigl( \mu_z, \sigma_z^2 \bigr)$, where $\sigma_z^2 = \bigl( \sum_{p=1}^P\frac{\beta_p^2}{\sigma_p^2} \bigr)^{-1}$ and $\mu_z = \sigma_z^2 \bigl( \sum_{p=1}^P \frac{\beta_p(y_{jp}^{*} - \alpha_p)}{\sigma_p^2 }\bigr)$. Thus we now treat the latent intakes as the response data, regressed on the biomarker data. Then, combining (\[eq:loglik\_pred\]) and (\[eq:zprior\]) we derive the sampling distribution for $z_j^{*}$: $$p(z_j^{*} \mid \Omega) = \mathcal{N}_{[0, \infty]} \bigl( \mu_z, \sigma_z^2 \bigr) \sum_{d=1}^D \pi_d \mathcal{N}_{[0,\infty]}\bigl( X_d, \sigma_d^2 \tau_d\bigr) =
\sum_{d=1}^D \pi_d \mathcal{N}_{[0, \infty]} \biggl( \frac{\mu_z\sigma_d^2\tau_d + X_d\sigma_z^2}{\sigma_d^2\tau_d +\sigma_z^2}, \bigl( \frac{1}{\sigma_d^2\tau_d } + \frac{1}{\sigma_z^2} \bigr)^{-1} \biggr)
\label{eq:zsamplingPred}$$ where $\Omega = \{ \pi_1, \dots, \pi_D, \mu_{z1}, \dots, \mu_{zD}, \sigma_{zq}^2, \dots , \sigma_{zD}^2\}$, $\mu_{zd} = \frac{\mu_z\sigma_d^2\tau_d + X_d\sigma_z^2}{\sigma_d^2\tau_d +\sigma_z^2}$ and $\sigma_{zd}^2 =\bigl( \frac{1}{\sigma_d^2\tau_d } + \frac{1}{\sigma_z^2} \bigr)^{-1}$, for $d=1,\dots,D$. Combining (\[eq:zsamplingPred\]) with the posterior distribution of the multiMarker model (see Appendix A.3) provides the posterior predictive distribution for $z_j^{*}$: $$p(z_j^{*}\mid \mathbf{z}) \propto \int p(z_j^{*} \mid \Omega, \mathbf{z}) p(\Omega \mid \mathbf{z}) \,d\Omega = \int p(z_j^{*} \mid \Omega) p(\Omega \mid \mathbf{z}) \,d\Omega
\label{eq:posteriorpred}$$ where $p(\Omega \mid \mathbf{z})$ is the posterior distribution. Here $p(z_j^{*} \mid \Omega)$ is a mixture distribution with weights $\pi=\{\pi_d\}_{d=1}^D$. As in the prediction setting only biomarker data are available, no food quantity information can be used to assign participants to different mixture components and so the weights are unknown. Replacing the weights with the fixed values from the intervention study would bias the predictions, as the food quantity consumption pattern of the $n^{*}$ participants may be very different from that of the $n$ participants used to train the multiMarker model. Thus in the multiMarker model we model the weights as a function of the observed biomarker values, to facilitate flexible and adaptive predictions.
### Modelling components’ weights {#sec:model_weights}
Given the inherent ordering of the food quantities $X_1, \dots, X_D$ in the intervention study, we employ an ordinal regression model with Cauchit link function to model the weights $\pi$. The Cauchit link function is more robust than the standard logit or probit link functions and thus is suited to the often highly variable biomarker data. The parameters of the ordinal regression model are inferred from the intervention study data using a slightly modified specification of the multiMarker model, and then used later in the prediction step. Specifically, in the multiMarker model with ordinal regression coefficients denoted $\theta$ and $\gamma$, we now assume: $$p(\pi\mid \theta, \gamma, \mathbf{Y}, \mathbf{c}) = \prod_{i =1}^n\prod_{d=1}^D \pi_d( \theta_d, \gamma, y_i)^{c_{id}} = \prod_{i =1}^n \prod_{d=1}^D \Bigl[Pr(x_i \leq X_d\mid \theta_{d}, \gamma, y_i) - Pr(x_i \leq X_{d -1} \mid \theta_{d-1}, \gamma, y_i) \Bigr]^{c_{id}}
\label{eq:weights}$$ where $Pr(x_i \leq X_d\mid \theta_{d}, \gamma, y_i) = \frac{1}{\pi} \Bigl[ \arctan{ \Bigl(\frac{1}{2} (\theta_d + \gamma y_i) \Bigr)+ \frac{\pi}{2}}\Bigr]$ is the probability that participant $i$ consumed less than or equal to the food quantity $X_d$, given its $P$ biomarker measurements $y_i$, expressed through a Cauchit link. The vector $\theta=\{-\infty = \theta_0, \theta_1, \dots,\theta_d,\dots,\theta_D= \infty\}$ contains food quantity-specific intercepts. The $\gamma$ parameter is a $P$ dimensional scaling coefficient for the biomarkers, expressing the contribution of each to the determination of the mixture weights. These ordinal regression parameters are updated via a Metropolis Hastings step using random walk proposal distributions within the MCMC algorithm. Details on their initialization are deferred to Appendix A.2. Estimation of these weights-specific parameters requires intervention study data, and hence it is performed simultaneously with, yet independently of, that of multiMarker model parameters (see Section \[sec:MCMC\]). We refer to this joint procedure as the learning phase of the multiMarker framework.
The model in (\[eq:weights\]) is similar to a mixture of experts model, a type of mixture model in which parameters are modelled as a function of observed covariates. However, here the mixture weights are modelled as a function of the observed response variable, as in the prediction step this variable changes its role to serve as a predictor.
Given the parametrization for the mixture weights $\pi$ in (\[eq:weights\]), we update the sampling distribution for $z_j^{*}$ (\[eq:zsamplingPred\]) to: $$p(z_j^{*} \mid \Omega, y_{j}^{*}) =\sum_{d=1}^D \pi_d( \theta_d, \gamma, y_j^{*}) \mathcal{N}_{[0, \infty]} (\mu_{zd} , \sigma_{zd}^2)
\label{eq:zsamplingPredW}$$ where the definition of $\Omega$ is updated to $\Omega = \{ \theta, \gamma, c_j, \mu_{z1}, \dots, \mu_{zD}, \sigma_{zq}^2, \dots , \sigma_{zD}^2\}$, and $y_j^{*}$ are the biomarkers’ data for observation $j$. Finally, considering the updated definition of $\Omega$ and that of $p(z_j^{*} \mid \Omega, y_{j}^{*})$, we can rewrite the posterior predictive distribution (\[eq:posteriorpred\]) as: $$p(z_j^{*}\mid \mathbf{z}, y_{j}^{*}) \propto\int p(z_j^{*} \mid \Omega, y_{j}^{*}) p(\Omega \mid \mathbf{z}) \,d\Omega
\label{eq:posteriorpredW}$$ We sample from the posterior predictive distribution (\[eq:posteriorpredW\]) in three steps. First, relevant model parameters, $\Omega$, are sampled from their full conditional and proposal distributions, the parameters of which are estimated in the learning phase. Second, the labels $c_{jd}$, $d=1,\dots,D$, are computed, using current sampled weights parameter values and novel biomarker data $y_{j}^{*}$, for $j=1,\dots,n^{*}$. Specifically, at the $t^{\text{th}}$ iteration we have that $c_{jd}^{(t)}=1$, if $\arg\max_s \pi_s( \theta_s^{(t)}, \gamma^{(t)}, y_j^{*}) = \pi_d( \theta_d^{(t)}, \gamma^{(t)}, y_j^{*}) $, and $c_{jd}^{(t)}=0$ otherwise. Last, predicted latent intake values are sampled from (\[eq:zsamplingPredW\]), conditioning on the current labelsand sampled model parameters $\Omega$. We refer to the above three step procedure as the prediction phase of the multiMarker framework. This three-step sampler results in more refined latent intake predictions. Indeed, not inferring the $n^{*}$ labels and obtaining predictions by averaging across the whole mixture distribution (\[eq:zsamplingPredW\]) leads to predicted intake values closer to the food quantities’ sample mean $\bar{X}_d = \frac{1}{D}\sum_{d} X_d$. This results in poor predictions for observations that are more likely to belong to a component located near small or large food quantity values. A schematic representation of the model for the components’ weights and of that for latent intake predictions is given in Figure \[fig:modelloClustPred\].
Simulation study {#sec:sim}
================
Several simulation scenarios have been constructed to analyze the properties of the proposed approach. Performance is assessed both from estimation and prediction perspectives. The terms “train” and “test” are used to refer, respectively, to different simulated data employed in the learning and the prediction phases. To represent a variety of real-world scenarios, different sample sizes, numbers of biomarkers and food quantity values have been considered. To depict common experimental settings, the number of biomarkers considered is $P=(3,6)$, and the number of food quantities is $D=(3,6)$. The sample sizes of the training datasets considered are $n=(30, 60, 99, 150)$, ranging from a low sample size scenario to a larger sample size. The test sets have ${\lfloor 0.4\times n \rfloor}$ observations.
Three different specifications are considered for the $\alpha_p$ and $\beta_p$ parameters, to represent different types of biomarker measures. Also, across the $P$ biomarkers, three different specifications are considered for $\sigma_p^2$, to explore the impact of increasing biomarker variability: small (*scenario 1*), mixed (*scenario 2*) or large (*scenario 3*) range of variance values. Finally, the mixture components’ parameters $(X_d,\sigma_d^2, \pi_d)$ employed reflect real-world intervention study scenarios: “food quantities with stable increments” (“stable incremenents”), “food quantities with increasing increments” (“increasing increments”), and “food quantities with decreasing increments” (“decreasing increments”). Two settings are implemented for the components’ variances $\sigma_d^2$, corresponding to low and high variability. We set $\pi_d \approx \frac{1}{D}$ when simulating training datasets. Combinations of these settings (20 simulated datasets for each) are used to investigate different aspects of performance in three simulation studies detailed below. Figure \[fig:exampledata\] illustrates two simulated training datasets with low and high biomarkers’ variability levels.
For the MCMC algorithm (Sections \[sec:MCMC\] and \[sec:model\_weights\]), $30000$ iterations were run, both in the learning and the prediction phases, with the first $6000$ being discarded. The $\tau_d$ parameters are fixed such that $\tau_d = \frac{X_d}{d^2}$ to account for different gaps between the intervention studies’ food quantities, and to allow for good coverage of the latent intakes range. As discussed in Section \[sec:MCMC\] hyperparameters are fixed according to the observed data with automatic procedures, allowing non-statisticians to easily use the proposed approach. Further details on the simulation settings, hyperparameter specifications and initializations are deferred to Appendix A.1 and Appendix B.
In the absence of comparable approaches for intake quantification in the presence of multiple biomarker data, we compare our results with those obtained using Bayesian linear regression (BLR) and partial least squares (PLS) regression. In BLR, the food quantities are regressed on a linear combination of the biomarkers in the training data with the resulting parameters used to predict intake in the test data. In PLS, the food quantities are regressed on a dimensionally reduced representation of the biomarker data in the training set.
Simulation Study I: exploring biomarkers’ variability {#sec:sim1}
------------------------------------------------------
Simulation study I assesses performance under increasing noise levels in the $P$ biomarkers. In the case where $P = D = 3$, we compare results from the three biomarker variability scenarios. Table \[tab:sim3\_abs\_err\] (Simulation Study I columns) reports the median absolute errors in grams between true and estimated and predicted latent intakes.
Overall, for estimated intakes, absolute error values are quite low, with median values ranging from $7$g in scenario 1 (small biomarker variability) to $14$g in scenario 3 (large biomarker variability). Notably, the within-scenario error variability is low, and in all cases is commensurate with the median error. Moreover, the absolute errors are relatively stable across increasing noise levels $\sigma_p^2$, suggesting robustness of the approach to biomarker variability. Table \[tab:sim3\_abs\_err\] also shows that the estimated absolute errors under BLR and PLS are higher and more uncertain than those obtained using the multiMarker approach. Also, the BLR and PLS errors increase with increasing biomarker variability $\sigma_p^2$.
In terms of prediction the multiMarker approach performs well, but with larger errors in Scenario 3; however, the data simulated under Scenario 3 are extreme and unlikely to be seen in real applications (see Figure \[fig:exampledata\]). The BLR prediction errors are much larger and more variable. Under PLS, the errors are comparable with the proposed approach however, as is borne out in the application (see Section \[sec:apples\]), error values under PLS tend to be relatively low as predicted values tend to be close to the food quantities’ sample mean. While such mean-prediction tendency yields good results in terms of median absolute error values, it corresponds to a lack of precision in the predictions, with more extreme intakes being predicted in the middle of the intake range.
Simulation Study II: impact of the number of food quantities {#sec:sim2}
-------------------------------------------------------------
While a small number of food quantities (e.g. $D = 3$) is practical and cost efficient a larger $D$ could increase the coverage of the intake range. Thus Simulation Study II investigates the impact of larger $D$ on intake estimation and prediction. We analyse simulated data with $P = 3$ biomarkers and $D = 6$ food quantities, and compare results with Simulation Study I where $D = 3$.
Table \[tab:sim3\_abs\_err\] (Simulation Study II columns) reports the absolute errors computed between estimated and predicted latent intakes and the truth where $D = 6$. As observed in Simulation Study I, the errors under BLR are large and uncertain when compared to the multiMarker and PLS approaches which perform similarly when the number of food quantities is large.
The multiMarker approach performs similarly in Simulation Studies I and II where $D = 3$ or $D = 6$ respectively. This suggests that the predictive benefit of employing of a larger number of food quantities is minimal. Also, recalling that the the errors in Table \[tab:sim3\_abs\_err\] are summaries of a large variety of simulation settings, with different food quantities and sample sizes, suggests that modelling the latent intake range with a mixture distribution is a flexible and adaptive approach. Finally, in Simulation Studies I and II all of the other multiMarker parameters (see Section \[sec:modello\]) have been recovered within a $99\%$ credible interval.
Simulation study III: intake quantification under model misspecification {#sec:sim3}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The multiMarker model (\[sec:modello\]) assumes that the relationship between the latent intakes and the observed biomarkers is linear. To assess the performance of the proposed approach in the presence of model misspecification, we have simulated data according to the settings used in Simulation Studies I and II, but this time using a non-linear generating relationship between the intakes and the biomarkers: $$y_{ip} = \alpha_p + \beta_p z_i^2 +\epsilon_{ip}, \quad \forall \quad i=1,\dots,n, \quad p = 1, \dots,P
\label{eq:marker_dose2}$$ Here the scaling coefficients $\beta_p$ have been re-scaled to $10\%$ of the values used in Simulation Studies I and II (see Appendix B), to obtain simulated biomarker data ranges similar to those in the two previous Simulation Studies.
Table \[tab:sim3\_abs\_err\] (Simulation Study III columns) again reports the absolute errors between estimated and predicted latent intakes and the true values. Here, error values are low and similar to those computed under Simulation Studies I and II. Indeed, median error values are always lower than $50$g in the prediction setting, indicating that true intakes can still be recovered quite well, even when the underlying model is misspecified. This is due to the role of the mixture distribution on the latent intake, which anchors the intakes around the food quantities. However, the model parameters are hardly ever recovered and often overestimated, indicating that the model misspecification is absorbed by their estimates. The price of biased parameters estimates is a relatively low one to pay in this context, as our goal is to obtain reliable predictions of intake. Further, the range of errors confidence intervals is narrower in Simulation Study III than in the previous two studies. However, the results of the present study and those from Simulation Study I and II can only be partially compared. Indeed, recall that hyperparameters values are fixed across all Simulation Studies to allow comparability between parameter estimates. For a given set of hyperparameters values, the quadratic relationship between intakes and biomarkers in Simulation Study III produces biomarker data which tend to exhibit greater separation in biomarker distributions between food quantities that are far apart from each other, when compared to biomarker data from Simulation Studies I and II (see Appendix B).
Finally, comparison with the BLR and PLS results yields similar conclusions to those presented in Simulation Studies I and II. Further discussion of the Simulation Studies is deferred to Appendix B.
-- ------- --- -- --------- --------- ---------- -- --------- --------- ---------- -- -------- -------- --------- --
Model S.1 S.2 S.3 S.1 S.2 S.3 S.1 S.2 S.3
E 7(7) 8(6) 14(11) 8(7) 7(6) 10(6) 8(10) 9 (8) 16(5)
P 7(16) 9(21) 31(57) 8(27) 10(38) 41(48) 8(15) 9(13) 36(9)
E 8(25) 10(33) 40(47) 9(25) 11(33) 40(41) 14(3) 14(7) 39(5)
P 29(151) 69(255) 135(103) 43(153) 82(257) 125(142) 98(28) 69(82) 108(20)
E 8(25) 14(34) 40(47) 9(25) 15(35) 41(41) 14(3) 14(7) 47(5)
P 9(26) 15(37) 42(50) 9(29) 15(38) 44(42) 14(3) 15(9) 50(5)
-- ------- --- -- --------- --------- ---------- -- --------- --------- ---------- -- -------- -------- --------- --
: Simulation studies’ results. Median ($95\%$ CI width) absolute error values (in grams) computed between true and estimated (E) or predicted (P) latent intakes. The values are reported for the three simulation studies (I,II,III) and the three biomarkers’ variability scenarios (S.1,S.2,S.3). Results for the multiMarker (MM) model are reported, as well as those from Bayesian linear regression (BLR) and PLS (PLS) regression. []{data-label="tab:sim3_abs_err"}
Application of the multiMarker framework to biomarkers associated with apple intake {#sec:apples}
===================================================================================
As detailed in Section \[sec:appleIntro\], the motivating application was to infer the relationship between four biomarkers and apple intake from an intervention study, with a view to predicting intake when only the four biomarkers are available. The multiMarker framework was employed to infer the relationship between the biomarkers and food intake, using $30000$ MCMC iterations and discarding the first $6000$, on a Intel(R) Core(TM) [email protected] computer. Model hyperparameters were fixed as discussed in Appendix A.1.
Here we use leave-one-out cross validation to assess predictive performance on the apple data. Thus, $n = 86$ models were fitted, each with a different set of $(n-1)$ observations. In each case, the intake for the left out observation was then predicted using its biomarker data only. The MCMC algorithms were run several times and demonstrated no substantial difference in the parameters and latent intake predictions. The computation time was approximately $3.47$ minutes per model in the learning phase, and $6.78$ seconds per data set in the prediction phase. Details of Expected Sample Size (ESS) values are available in Appendix C.
Results from the leave-one-out cross validation procedure are shown in Figure \[fig:applesdata1\]. Figure \[fig:applesdata1\](a) shows boxplots of the median predicted intakes, computed from the latent intake posterior predictive distributions, split according to the true allocated apple quantity. Intake predictions are concentrated around the true apple intake quantities, with increasing variability in the predictions observed for those allocated the third quantity of $300$ grams. This is not unexpected, as biomarker values related to the third apple quantity are quite variable (see Figure \[fig:applesdata0\]). Only a few observations have predictions far from their true apple quantities. Indeed, the median absolute difference between predicted intakes and actual intake is $62$ grams for the $50$ grams apple quantity group, $33$ grams for the $100$ grams quantity and $123$ grams for the $300$ grams quantity. Differences between apple quantities and median predicted intake values are further visualized in Figure \[fig:applesdata1\](b). The $95\%$ credible intervals for these differences are illustrated, showing that in general the latent intake posterior predictive distributions include the true apple quantity values. Overall, there is good agreement between apple quantities and predicted intake, especially within observations allocated the $50$ and $100$ grams quantities.
To further visualize the results, Figure \[fig:appledata2\] presents posterior predictive intake distributions, for 6 observations, two for each apple quantity. Plots on the left side of Figure \[fig:appledata2\] correspond to accurately predicted intakes, while those on the right are poorly predicted. When intakes are correctly inferred, the range of the posterior predictive distribution does not incorporate apple quantities far from the truth (e.g. observations $13$, $32$ and $82$). For poorly predicted intakes from the $50$ or $100$ gram apple quantities, the estimated posterior predictive distributions have much higher uncertainty (e.g. observations $1$ and $39$). For observations allocated to the $300$ grams apple quantity, those with poor predictions tend to have notably underestimated predicted intakes (e.g. observation $73$), with a relatively narrow associated posterior predictive distribution range. Similar posterior predictive distributions to those presented in Figure \[fig:appledata2\] have been obtained for the remaining observations. Notably the observations with accurate predictions had largest posterior mean apple quantity probability of the correct apple quantity while for those poorly predicted this was not the case.
For comparative purposes, BLR and PLS regression were also used to predict apple intake via leave-one-out cross validation. Similar to the observed performance in the simulation studies, both methods proved unable to give precise intake predictions, with most predictions around the average of the three apple quantities ($\approx 150$ grams). Furthermore, $95\%$ credible intervals obtained using BLR are more than twice the size of those obtained under the multiMarker framework, indicating low reliability of the predictions. Further, the uncertainty quantification under PLS regression was not useful, as the constructed $95\%$ confidence intervals via cross validation yielded very narrow ranges. Further details on these results are deferred to Appendix C.
To assess whether treating the $n = 86$ observations as independent was appropriate, we repeated the learning phase using slightly modified versions of the dataset. Specifically, we constructed modified versions of the original dataset such that the same participant appeared only once i.e. each subject is present in only in one apple quantity, which was selected at random. This procedure was repeated $100$ times, and each time the multiMarker model was fitted to the modified dataset. Table \[tab:apple\_par\] presents the posterior median parameter estimates obtained from fitting the model to the original data and to the modified datasets. For the $\alpha_p$, $\beta_p$, $\sigma_p$ parameters, dimensions 1 to 4 correspond to the four biomarkers, while for the $\sigma_d$ parameter the dimensions correspond to the three apple quantities. It is clear that the median estimates are similar. Also, posterior medians of the parameters from the original data are always contained in the corresponding $95\%$ credible intervals inferred from the modified datasets. These results suggest the inference is robust to our assumption of independence between the $n = 86$ observations.
------ ----------- -- --------------- --------------- --------------- ----------------- --
Data Dimension $\alpha_p$ $\beta_p$ $\sigma_p$ $\sigma_d$
1 0.351 (0.725) 0.002 (0.004) 1.486 (0.411) 4.145 (2.763)
2 0.673 (0.855) 0.003 (0.005) 1.501 (0.430) 6.734 (6.774)
3 0.875 (1.009) 0.005 (0.005) 1.652 (0.497) 10.429 (13.220)
4 1.005 (0.943) 0.004 (0.005) 1.588 (0.505) -
1 0.409 (0.953) 0.002 (0.005) 1.503 (0.784) 3.834 (3.446)
2 0.659 (1.231) 0.003 (0.005) 1.509 (0.781) 5.857 (7.026)
3 0.851 (1.526) 0.005 (0.006) 1.689 (0.882) 9.634 (18.109)
4 0.933 (1.527) 0.004 (0.008) 1.624 (0.856) -
------ ----------- -- --------------- --------------- --------------- ----------------- --
: Posterior median ($95\%$ CI width) parameter values inferred from the original apple data, and average posterior median (average $95\%$ CI width) parameter values inferred from the modified apple datasets.[]{data-label="tab:apple_par"}
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Motivated by the need to infer the relationship between metabolomic biomarkers and food intake to faciltate future intake predictions, we have introduced the general and flexible multiMarker framework. The proposed framework builds upon two classical regression models, multiple linear regression and ordinal regression, combining them in the wider frameworks of factor analysis and mixture of experts models. The developed multiMarker framework facilitates inference of the relationship between multiple biomarkers and food quantities, and allows for prediction of intake from multiple biomarkers data. The multiMarker framework advances on current approaches which focus on categorical intake quantification by providing more detailed predictions. Moreover, as the method is embedded in a Bayesian framework, uncertainty quantification is available, which is an important concern in both the application domain and in a prediction context.
Although the proposed approach has been motivated by the specifications of the A-DIET study, the overall multiMarker framework is general and designed to be accessible to non-statisticians. In the multiMarker framework, the extra layer of complexity introduced by the latent variable and associated model parameters bestows the advantage of more refined estimates and allows the model to adapt to different scenarios in the data. Furthermore, modelling the weights of the mixture distribution using a mixture of experts framework guides the quantitative prediction, informing the latter on which part of the intake range is to be considered when predicting intake. Unlike previous approaches, we explicitly model the ordinal nature of the food quantities.
The multiMarker framework ability to model the relationship between biomarkers and food intake and to predict food intake from biomarker data was demonstrated on apple data collected under the motivating A-DIET research programme. Leave-one-cross validation results showed that generally intake predictions were concentrated around the true apple quantities. Comparison with existing regression models showed that the multiMarker framework was able not only to provide useful uncertainty quantification, but also much more reliable apple intake predictions.
The proposed approach was also assessed in an extensive simulation study, where a large variety of biomarker data have been generated to check model performances under, among other things, different levels of biomarker or intake variability. Furthermore, performances under model misspecification have been verified. In all of the cases the framework performed well, as intake values and their range were recovered with low error, even in a model misspecification context.
The proposed framework allows quantification of any unobserved quantity of interest for which prior information on its scale is observed (here, food quantities) and for which proxies can be measured (here, biomarkers). Furthermore, the observed variables’ scales are not relevant to recover that of the latent variable. Indeed, a collection of hyperparameters has been introduced to directly regulate different ranges between the biomarkers. Such a feature is appealing for researchers, as biomarkers for the same intake could correspond to quite different measurement ranges, due to their sources (blood, urine, etc), the instrument used for collection and so on.
Although designed for a particular problem, the quantification of apple intake from a panel of urinary biomarkers, the proposed method has general applicability outside of nutrition. Indeed, the framework could have applicability in any scenario where multiple outcomes are associated with an unobserved variable of interest, such as in toxicology or social science studies. Possible extensions to the proposed model are many and varied, including explicitly modelling the repeated biomarker measurements in the same group of participants. Further, the introduction of subject-specific covariates in the latent intake mixture weights, to allow a more flexible fit of the model, would be feasible. Thus there is much potential in the use of latent variable models to infer food intake.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Supported by a research grant from the European Research Council (ERC)(647783) and a Science Foundation Ireland grant (SFI$/$12$/$RC$/$2289$\_$P2).\
We would like to acknowledge the help of the following people with respect to the Apple Biomarker data:\
Aoife E. McNamara, Cassandra Collins, Pedapati S. C. Sri Harsha and Diana Gonzalez-Pena.
Posterior distribution and MCMC algorithm
=========================================
Considering the multiMarker model’s likelihood, prior and hyperprior distributions, the posterior distribution is: $$\begin{split}
P(\Omega \mid \mathbf{Y}) & =
L(\mathbf{Y} \mid \alpha, \beta, \mathbf{z}, \Sigma) p(\alpha \mid \mu_{\alpha}, \sigma_{\alpha}^2) p(\mu_{\alpha} \mid m_{\alpha}, \tau_{\alpha}, \sigma_{\alpha}^2)p(\beta \mid \mu_{\beta}, \sigma_{\beta}^2) p(\mu_{\beta} \mid m_{\beta}, \tau_{\beta},\sigma_{\beta}^2) p(\sigma_{\beta}^2\mid \nu_{\beta1}, \nu_{\beta2})\\
& p(\mathbf{z} \mid \pi, X_1, \dots, X_D, \pi, \sigma_1^2, \dots, \sigma_D^2)
p(\pi \mid \theta, \gamma, \mathbf{Y}, c) p(\gamma) p(\theta)
p(\sigma_1^2, \dots, \sigma_D^2 \mid \nu_{z1}, \nu_{z2}) p(\Sigma\mid \nu_{p1}, \nu_{p2}) \\
\end{split}$$ where for brevity $\Omega$ denotes the set of model parameters.
Hyperparameter settings
------------------------
Given an observed dataset, hyperparameter values are fixed automatically according to the following procedures. The overall means $m_{\alpha}$ and $m_{\beta}$ are fixed, respectively, as the estimated intercept and slope coefficient of the multiple linear regression defined using biomarkers as response variable and food quantity values as predictor. Variances’ hyperparameters are fixed differently according to the parameter to which they refer: $(\nu_{\beta 1},\nu_{\beta 2})=(2,3 )$, $(\nu_{p 1},\nu_{p 2})=(1,n )$, and $(\nu_{z 1},\nu_{z 2})=(\{D, \dots, 1\},n )$. Regarding the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ vector of parameters, their values are initialized solving the following system of equations: $$\sum_{(x_i = X_d)} (y_{ip}) \approx \alpha_p + \beta_p x_d \quad \text{for} \quad p=1, \dots, P \quad \text{and} \quad d=1,\dots,D.$$ Biomarkers’ error variances are initialized exploiting the definition of estimated error variances under the factor analytic model, adjusted for the extra variability brought in by the latent intakes prior distribution: $\Sigma = \widehat{V(\mathbf{Y})} - \frac{1}{D}\beta \beta^{T} $. Last, mixture components’ variance parameters are initialized with the following values: $$\sigma_d^2 = \frac{1}{P}\sum_{p=1}^P \frac{ \widehat{V(Y_{pd})} -\sigma_{\alpha}^2 - \sigma_p^2 }{\sigma_{\beta}^2}$$ where $\widehat{V(Y_{pd})}= \hat{var}\bigl(\mathds{1}(x_i = X_d) y_{ip}\bigr)$.
Components’ weights
-------------------
The prior distributions for the $\theta = \{ \theta_0, \theta_1, \dots, \theta_D\}$ weights’ parameters are defined to represent the constrained characteristic of ordinal data, that is: $X_1 < \dots < X_d < \dots < X_D$. These constraints correspond to the following in terms of model parameters: $\theta_0 < \dots < \theta_d < \dots < \theta_D$. A natural choice for the corresponding prior distributions is the following: $$\theta_d \thicksim \mathcal{N}_{(\theta_{d-1}, \theta_{d+1)} } \bigl( 0, \sigma_{\theta_d}^2\bigr), \quad \text{for } \quad d=1, \dots D-1$$ Given the above prior distributions, $\theta_d$ parameters are updated with a random walk Metropolis Hastings step inside the MCMC algorithm. Hyperparameters $\sigma_{\theta_d}^2$, $d=1,\dots, (D-1)$, are fixed to some value $\sigma_{\theta_d}^2<=2$. Small variations around this threshold have been tested and did not produce any substantial difference in the $\theta_d$ parameter estimates. Further, biomarkers’ intercepts $\gamma = \{\gamma_1, \dots, \gamma_P\}$ have been given standard Gaussian prior distributions. Parameter estimates are initialized via their corresponding estimates obtained with the *ordinalNet* package, available on CRAN (<https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinalNet>).
Latent intake posterior predictive distribution
-----------------------------------------------
In Section 3.4 we have introduced a sampling distribution for the latent intakes, to be used in a prediction framework. This distribution was derived as the product of two terms, the first being the log-likelihood of the model, expressed as a function of the latent intakes: $$\begin{split}
\ell (y_j^{*} \mid \alpha, \beta, z_j^{*}, \Sigma) & = p (z_j^{*} \mid \alpha, \beta, y_j^{*}, \Sigma) = \sum_{p=1}^P p(z_{j}^{*}\mid \alpha_p, \beta_p, y_j^{*}, \sigma_p^2)\\
& = \sum_{p=1}^P \Biggl( -\frac{1}{2} \log\bigl( 2\pi\sigma_p^2\bigr) -\frac{1}{2\sigma_p^2} \biggl( z_{j}^{*}\beta_p -\bigl( y_{jp}^{*} - \alpha_p \bigr) \biggr)^2 \Biggr)\\
& = \sum_{p=1}^P \Biggl( -\frac{1}{2} \log\bigl( 2\pi\sigma_p^2\bigr) -\frac{\beta_p^2}{2\sigma_p^2} \biggl( z_{j}^{*} -\bigl( \frac{y_{jp}^{*} - \alpha_p}{\beta_p} \bigr) \biggr)^2 \Biggr)\\
& \propto \sum_{p=1}^P \Biggl( -\frac{\beta_p^2}{2\sigma_p^2} \biggl( z_{j}^{*} -\bigl( \frac{y_{jp}^{*} - \alpha_p}{\beta_p} \bigr) \biggr)^2 \Biggr)\\
& \propto -\frac{1}{2} z_j^{*2} \biggl( \sum_{p=1}^P \frac{\beta_p^2}{\sigma_p^2}\biggr) +z_j^{*} \biggl( \sum_{p=1}^P
\frac{ \beta_p(y_{jp}^{*} - \alpha_p)}{ \sigma_p^2}\biggr)
= - \frac{1}{2\sigma_z^2}z_j^{*2} + \frac{\mu_z}{\sigma_z^2}z_j^{*},
\end{split}$$ The second term is the mixture distribution presented in Section 3.2. The product of these two terms can be expressed as a mixture distribution: $$\begin{split}
p(z_j^{*} \mid \Omega) & = \mathcal{N}_{[0, \infty]} \bigl( \mu_z, \sigma_z^2 \bigr) \sum_{d=1}^D \pi_d \mathcal{N}_{[0,\infty]}\bigl( X_d, \sigma_d^2 \tau_d\bigr)
= \sum_{d=1}^D \pi_d \mathcal{N}_{[0, \infty]} \bigl( \mu_z, \sigma_z^2 \bigr) \mathcal{N}_{[0,\infty]}\bigl( X_d, \sigma_d^2 \tau_d\bigr) \\
& =
\sum_{d=1}^D \pi_d \mathcal{N}_{[0, \infty]} \biggl( \frac{\mu_z\sigma_d^2\tau_d + X_d\sigma_z^2}{\sigma_d^2\tau_d +\sigma_z^2}, \bigl( \frac{1}{\sigma_d^2\tau_d } + \frac{1}{\sigma_z^2} \bigr)^{-1} \biggr) = \sum_{d=1}^D \pi_d \mathcal{N}_{[0, \infty]} (\mu_{zd}, \sigma_{zd}^2) \\
\end{split}$$ where $\Omega = \{ \mu_{z1}, \dots, \mu_{zD}, \sigma_{zq}^2, \dots , \sigma_{zD}^2\}$. Combining $p(z_j^{*} \mid \Omega)$ with the posterior distribution of the multiMarker model provides the posterior predictive distribution for $z_j^{*}$: $p(z_j^{*}\mid \mathbf{z}) \propto \int p(z_j^{*} \mid \Omega) p(\Omega \mid \mathbf{z}) \,d\Omega$, where $$p(\Omega \mid \mathbf{z}) = L(\mathbf{Y} \mid \alpha, \beta, \mathbf{z}, \Sigma) p(\alpha \mid \mu_{\alpha}, \sigma_{\alpha}^2)p(\beta \mid \mu_{\beta}, \sigma_{\beta}^2) p(\mathbf{z} \mid \{X_d, \sigma_d^2, \tau_d, \pi_d\}_{d=1}^D )
p(\Sigma\mid \nu_{p1}, \nu_{p2})$$
When the parametrization for the components weights introduced in Section 3.4.1 is considered, the posterior predictive distribution for $z_j^{*}$ is updated to: $p(z_j^{*}\mid \mathbf{z}, y_{j}^{*}) \propto \int p(z_j^{*} \mid \Omega, y_j^{*}) p(\Omega \mid \mathbf{z}) \,d\Omega$, where $$\begin{split}
p(\Omega \mid \mathbf{z}) = & L(\mathbf{Y} \mid \alpha, \beta, \mathbf{z}, \Sigma) p(\alpha \mid \mu_{\alpha}, \sigma_{\alpha}^2)p(\beta \mid \mu_{\beta}, \sigma_{\beta}^2) p(\Sigma\mid \nu_{p1}, \nu_{p2}) \\
& p(\mathbf{z} \mid \{X_d, \sigma_d^2, \tau_d, \pi_d\}_{d=1}^D )
p(\{ \pi_d\}_{d=1}^D \mid \theta, \gamma, \mathbf{Y}, c)
p(\theta)p(\gamma)
\end{split}$$
Additional simulation study details
===================================
In the simulation studies described in the paper, biomarkers’ intercepts and scale coefficients $(\alpha,\beta)$ are sampled from their prior distributions with hyperparameters: $$\{\mu_{\alpha},\mu_{\beta}, \sigma_{\alpha^2}, \sigma_{\beta}^2\}= \{(1, 0.01, 1,0.01 ), (20, 0.1, 4, 0.1 ),(100, 1, 14, 1 )\}$$ These hyperparameter specifications correspond to small, mixed and large range biomarker values, and are used to represent different types of biomarker measures (as for example measurements coming from different instruments or measurements non normalised by osmolality). Regarding the error variance terms $\sigma_p^2$, these values are sampled from Inverse Gamma distributions with expected values dependent on the biomarkers’ range considered: $(1,3,15)$ for small variances and $(3,20,100)$ for large ones, respectively in the small, mixed and large biomarkers’ range frameworks. Values for $X_d$ are sampled from $D$ zero-truncated Gaussian distributions with means $\mu_{X_d}$ ranging in between $30$ and $250$, with $\mu_{X_d} < \mu_{X_{d+1}}$. Three different settings are explored to represent “food quantities with stable increments”, “food quantities with increasing increments”, and “food quantities with decreasing increments”. In the first setting (“stable increments”), means $\mu_{X_d}$ are equispaced, that is $d(\mu_{X_{d-1}},\mu_{X_d}) = d(\mu_{X_{d}},\mu_{X_{d+1}}) $. Instead, in the second and third settings we have that $d(\mu_{X_{d-1}},\mu_{X_d}) < d(\mu_{X_{d}},\mu_{X_{d+1}}) $ and $d(\mu_{X_{d-1}},\mu_{X_d}) > d(\mu_{X_{d}},\mu_{X_{d+1}}) $, respectively. Values for $\sigma_d^2$ are sampled from Inverse Gamma distributions with either expected value of $10$ (small variances) or of $14$ (large variances).
Simulation study III
--------------------
Figure \[fig:exampledataSS3\] reports an example of a comparison between biomarker data simulated in Simulation Study I (linear relationship) and Simulation Study III (non-linear relationship), obtained using similar specifications of the model parameters. In the example, $n=60$ is considered, under the “increasing increments” food quantities setting.
![Simulation study I and III. Examples of simulated biomarker data ($P=3,D=3$) under the small (scenario 1) biomarkers’ variability scenario, and Simulation Study I (black boxplots) and Simulation Study III (grey boxplots). Here, $n=60$ with “increasing increments” in food quantities.[]{data-label="fig:exampledataSS3"}](comparison_SS3.pdf){width="17.3cm" height="10cm"}
Comparison with PLS and Bayesian linear regression models
---------------------------------------------------------
To compare the three Simulation Studies, Figure \[fig:sim\_abs\_err\_comp12\] presents the median prediction absolute error ratios[^1] obtained using either PLS or Bayesian linear regression models, and the multiMarker model. In approximately 50$\%$ of the cases, prediction error values from a Bayesian linear regression model are up to ten times those from the multiMarker model. For the other half of the cases, Bayesian linear regression performs up to 50 times worse than the proposed one in terms of prediction error, with greater differences observed in Simulation Study I. PLS regression performs worse than the multiMarker model in approximately 85$\%$ of the simulations, with prediction error values up to two to four times those of the proposed model. In the $15\%$ of cases in which the error ratio values favor the PLS model, error values from the multiMarker framework are always less than twice those obtained with PLS regression.
Apple intake data
=================
Data scaling
------------
The original values for Epicatechin Sulfate, $(4-3-[2-(2,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-2-oxoethyl]-DHMPMB-SA)$ and Glucodistylin biomarkers caused computational instability (most values were larger than $10^7$) and consequently were scaled. Given a biomarker $p$, the corresponding scaled values $\tilde{y}_{ip}$ are computed as follows: $$\tilde{y}_{ip} = \frac{y_{ip} - \bar{y_{p}}}{sd(y_{p})} + 2 \bigg| \min_{i=1,\dots,n} \Bigl(\frac{y_{ip}- \bar{y_{p}}}{sd(y_{p})} \Bigr)\bigg|$$ where $y_{ip}$ are the original measurements, $i=1,\dots,n$. The original measurements mean and standard deviation are denoted with $\bar{y_{p}}$ and $sd(y_{p})$, respectively. The transformation did not alter the correlations between the four biomarkers.
Comparison to BLR and PLS regression
------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:applesdata1-extra\] reports plots that are analogous to those in Figure 5 of the paper, obtained using either BLR or PLS regression, for a comparison.
MCMC diagnostics
----------------
Table \[tab:ESSApp\] reports a summary of the ESS (Expected Sample Size) values for the model parameters (30000 MCMC iterations considered). Figures \[fig:applesdata1-extra1\] and \[fig:applesdata1-extra2\] report, respectively, the estimated posterior distributions for the $\alpha_p$ and $\beta_p$ parameters, $p=1,\dots,P$, in the apple intake data. In addition, Figures \[fig:applesdata1-extra3\] and \[fig:applesdata1-extra4\] report, respectively, the trace plots for the estimated $\alpha_p$ and $\beta_p$ parameters, $p=1,\dots,P$, in the apple intake data.
-------- -- ---------------- --------------- -------------------- ---------- --------- -------------- -------------- ------- ---------- ---------- --
$\mu_{\alpha}$ $\mu_{\beta}$ $\sigma_{\beta}^2$ $\alpha$ $\beta$ $\sigma_p^2$ $\sigma_d^2$ $z$ $\gamma$ $\theta$
min 1813 14786 14586 5233 5381 18105 1008 19380 12469 11202
median 1813 14786 14586 6524 6659 19069 1094 26310 12554 11575
Max 1813 14786 14586 18238 18917 20001 1293 28141 12639 12812
-------- -- ---------------- --------------- -------------------- ---------- --------- -------------- -------------- ------- ---------- ---------- --
: Apple data. Summary of the ESS (Expected Sample Size) values for the model parameters ($30000$ MCMC iterations considered).[]{data-label="tab:ESSApp"}
[^1]: Absolute errors are computed between the estimated or predicted intakes and the true ones.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'On the reference tetrahedron $\widehat K$, we define three projection-based interpolation operators on $H^2(\widehat K)$, ${\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$, and ${\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})$. These operators are projections onto spaces of polynomials, they have the commuting diagram property and feature the optimal convergence rate as the polynomial degree increases in $H^{1-s}(\widehat K)$, $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$, $\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})$ for $0 \leq s \leq 1$.'
author:
- 'J.M. Melenk[^1]'
- 'C. Rojik'
bibliography:
- 'maxwell.bib'
title: 'On commuting $p$-version projection-based interpolation on tetrahedra'
---
Introduction
============
Operators that approximate a given function by a (piecewise) polynomial are fundamental tools in numerical analysis. The case of scalar functions is rather well-understood and many such approximation operators exist both for fixed order approximation where accuracy is achieved by refining the mesh, the so-called $h$-version, and the $p$-version, where accuracy is obtained by increasing the polynomial degree $p$; for the $p$-version in an $H^1$-conforming setting we refer to [@babuska-suri94; @SchwabhpBook; @apel-melenk17] and references therein. For the approximation of vector-valued functions, specifically, the approximation in the spaces ${\mathbf H}(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ and ${\mathbf H}(\operatorname{div})$, the situation is less mature since the approximation operators should satisfy, in addition to having certain approximation properties, also the requirement to be projections and to have a commuting diagram property. While various operators with all these desirable properties were developed for the $h$-version, optimal results in the $p$-version are missing in the literature. The present paper is devoted to the analysis of a $p$-version projection-based interpolation operator that has the optimal polynomial approximation properties under suitable regularity assumptions.
High order polynomial projection-based interpolation operators — a phrase that first appeared in [@hiptmair-acta Sec. [3]{}] — with the projection and commuting diagram properties have been developed by L. Demkowicz and several coworkers, [@demkowicz-babuska03; @demkowicz-buffa05; @demkowicz-cao05; @demkowicz-monk-vardapetyan-rachowicz00]; a very nice and comprehensive presentation of these results can be found in [@demkowicz08], which will also be the basis for the present work. The projection-based interpolation operators presented in [@demkowicz08] are a) projections, b) have the commuting diagram property, and c) admit element-by-element construction. The last point means that the operators are defined elementwise by specifying them on the reference element and that the appropriate interelement continuity is ensured by defining the interpolant in terms of pertinent traces: for scalar functions, the projection-based interpolant interpolates at the vertices and its restriction to an edge or a face is fully determined by the restriction of the function to that edge or face; for the ${\mathbf H}(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$-conforming interpolant, its tangential component on an edge or face is completely determined by the tangential trace of the function on that edge or face; for the ${\mathbf H}(\operatorname{div})$-conforming interpolant, the normal component on a face is fully dictated by the normal component of the function on that face. Such a construction is only possible under additional regularity assumptions beyond the minimal ones (which would be $H^1$, ${\mathbf H}(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ or ${\mathbf H}(\operatorname{div})$). Indeed, in 3D, the construction described in [@demkowicz08] requires the regularity $H^{1+s}$ with $s > 1/2$ for scalar functions, ${\mathbf H}^s(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ with $s > 1/2$ and ${\mathbf H}^s(\operatorname{div})$ with $s > 0$ for the vectorial ones. Under these regularity assumptions, it is shown in [@demkowicz08 Thm. [5.3]{}] that the projection-based interpolation operator has, up to logarithmic factors, the optimal algebraic convergence properties (as $p \rightarrow \infty$), for functions with finite Sobolev regularity as measured by $s$. In the present work, we remove the logarithmic factors, i.e., we show optimal rates of convergence, under the more stringent regularity assumption $s \ge 1$ (cf. Theorem \[thm:projection-based-interpolation\] for the case of tetrahedra and Theorem \[thm:projection-based-interpolation-2d\] for the case of triangles).
The projection-based interpolation operator analyzed in the present work is of the type studied in [@demkowicz08]. Correspondingly, many tools used in [@demkowicz08] are also employed here, most notably, the polynomial lifting operators developed for tetrahedra in [@demkowicz-gopalakrishnan-schoeberl-I; @demkowicz-gopalakrishnan-schoeberl-II; @demkowicz-gopalakrishnan-schoeberl-III] and for the simpler case of triangles in [@ainsworth-demkowicz09]; we mention in passing that suitable polynomial lifting operators are also available for the case of the cube [@costabel-dauge-demkowicz07]. Another tool that [@demkowicz08] uses are right inverses of the gradient, curl and div operators (“Poincaré maps”). Here, we utilize a more recent and powerful variant, namely, the regularized right inverses of [@costabel-mcintosh10]. This breakthrough paper [@costabel-mcintosh10] allows for stable decompositions of functions in ${\mathbf H}(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ and ${\mathbf H}(\operatorname{div})$ with appropriate mapping properties in scales of Sobolev spaces and is an essential component in the analysis of the $p$-version in ${\mathbf H}(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$, [@bespalov-heuer09; @hiptmair08; @boffi-costabel-dauge-demkowicz-hiptmair11]. The distinguishing technical difference between [@demkowicz08] and the present work, which is responsible for the removal of the logarithmic factor, is the treatment of the non-local norms on the boundary. Non-local norms on the boundary are written in [@demkowicz08] (following [@demkowicz-buffa05]) as a sum of contributions over the boundary parts (that is, faces in 3D and edges in 2D); in finite-dimensional spaces of piecewise polynomials, this localization procedure is possible at the price of logarithmic factors. Instead of localizing a non-local norm, the approach taken here is to realize the non-local norm by interpolating between two norms related to integer order Sobolev norms, which both can be localized, i.e., written as sums of contributions over boundary parts. In turn, this requires to analyze the error of the projection-based interpolation in two norms instead of a single one. The estimate in the stronger norm is obtained by a best approximation argument as done in [@demkowicz08], the estimate in the weaker norm is obtained by a duality argument.
We close the introduction with some notation. The gradient operator $\nabla$ for scalar functions $u$ and the divergence operator $\operatorname{div}$ for $\mathbb{R}^d$-valued functions $\mathbf{u}$ are defined in the usual way: $\nabla u = (\partial_{x_1} u,\ldots,\partial_{x_d} u)^\top$ and $\operatorname{div} {\mathbf u} = \sum_{i=1}^d \partial_{x_i} {\mathbf u}_i$. For $d = 3$ and ${\mathbb R}^3$-valued functions ${\mathbf u}$ the $\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}$-operator is defined by $\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf u} :=
(\partial_{x_2} {\mathbf u}_3 - \partial_{x_3} {\mathbf u}_2,
-(\partial_{x_1} {\mathbf u}_3 - \partial_{x_3} {\mathbf u}_1),
\partial_{x_1} {\mathbf u}_2 - \partial_{x_2} {\mathbf u}_1)^\top$. For $d = 2$ we distinguish between the scalar-valued and vector-valued curl operator: for a scalar function $u$, we define $\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} u := (\partial_{x_2} u,-\partial_{x_1} u)^\top$ and for an ${\mathbb R}^2$-valued function ${\mathbf u}$ we set $\operatorname{{curl}} {\mathbf u} := \partial_{x_1} {\mathbf u}_2-\partial_{x_2} {\mathbf u}_1$. For Lipschitz domains $\omega \subset {\mathbb R}^d$ ($d \in \{1,2,3\}$) and scalar functions, we employ the usual Sobolev spaces $H^s(\omega)$, $s \ge 0$, as defined, e.g., in [@Mclean00]. The $H^s(\omega)$-seminorm, $s \ge 0$, will be denoted $|\cdot|_{H^s(\omega)}$ and the full norm $\|\cdot\|_{H^s(\omega)}$. The dual space of $H^s(\omega)$, $s \ge 0$, is denoted $\widetilde H^{-s}(\omega)$ and equipped with the norm $$\label{eq:def-negative-norm}
\|u\|_{\widetilde H^{-s}(\omega)}:= \sup_{v \in H^s(\omega)} \frac{(u,v)_{L^2(\omega)}}{\|v\|_{H^s(\omega)}},$$ where $(\cdot,\cdot)_{L^2(\omega)}$ denotes the (extended) $L^2(\omega)$-scalar product. Vector-valued analogs ${\mathbf H}^s(\omega)$ are defined to be elements of $H^s(\omega)$ componentwise and also the dual norm $\|\cdot\|_{\widetilde {\mathbf H}^{-s}(\omega)}$ is defined analogously to (\[eq:def-negative-norm\]). We will make use of the fact that the Sobolev scales $H^s(\omega)$ and $\widetilde H^{-s}(\omega)$ are interpolation spaces, [@Mclean00]. For $s \ge 0$ and $d = 3$, we set ${\mathbf H}^s(\omega,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}) = \{{\mathbf u} \in {\mathbf H}^s(\omega)\,|\,
\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf u} \in {\mathbf H}^s(\omega)\}$ and ${\mathbf H}^s(\omega,\operatorname{div}) = \{{\mathbf u} \in {\mathbf H}^s(\omega)\,|\,
\operatorname{div} {\mathbf u} \in H^s(\omega)\}$; for $d = 2$ we have ${\mathbf H}^s(\omega,\operatorname{curl}) = \{{\mathbf u} \in {\mathbf H}^s(\omega)\,|\,
\operatorname{curl} {\mathbf u} \in H^s(\omega)\}$. For $s \ge 0$, we define $$\|{\mathbf u}\|^2_{\widetilde {\mathbf H}^{-s}(\omega,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})} :=
\|{\mathbf u}\|^2_{\widetilde {\mathbf H}^{-s}(\omega)} +
\|\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf u}\|^2_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\omega)}$$ and analogously the norms $\|{\mathbf u}\|^2_{\widetilde {\mathbf H}^{-s}(\omega,\operatorname{div})}$ and $\|{\mathbf u}\|^2_{\widetilde {\mathbf H}^{-s}(\omega,\operatorname{curl})}$. The space $H^{1/2}(\partial\omega)$ will be understood as the trace space of $H^1(\omega)$ and $H^{-1/2}(\partial\omega)$ denotes its dual. The spaces ${\mathbf H}_0(\omega,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ and ${\mathbf H}_0(\omega,\operatorname{div})$ are the subspaces of ${\mathbf H}(\omega,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}):={\mathbf H}^0(\omega,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ and ${\mathbf H}(\omega,\operatorname{div}) := {\mathbf H}^0(\omega,\operatorname{div})$ with vanishing tangential or normal trace, defined as the closure of $(C^\infty_0(\omega))^d$ under the norms $\|\cdot\|_{{\mathbf H}(\omega,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}$ and $\|\cdot\|_{{\mathbf H}(\omega,\operatorname{div})}$. $H^1_0(\omega)$ is the subspace of $H^1(\omega)$ of functions with vanishing trace.
Projection based interpolation {#sec:thm:projection-based-interpolation}
==============================
Throughout the paper $\widehat{K} \subset {\mathbb R}^3$ denotes a reference tetrahedron. The sets $\mathcal{F}(\widehat{K})$, $\mathcal{E}(\widehat{K})$ and $\mathcal{V}(\widehat{K})$ denote the sets of faces, edges, and vertices of $\widehat{K}$, respectively. In the two-dimensional case, we use the notation $\widehat{f}\subset {\mathbb R}^2$ for a reference triangle, and $\mathcal{E}(\widehat{f})$ and $\mathcal{V}(\widehat{f})$ for the sets of edges and vertices of $\widehat{f}$. We set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:maximal-angle}
\widehat{s}&:=\frac{\pi}{\omega_{max}(\widehat f)}, \quad \pi > \omega_{max}(\widehat f):=\text{maximal interior angle of } \widehat{f}. \end{aligned}$$ $\widehat{e} = (-1,1) \subset \mathbb{R}$ denotes the reference edge. We also need the tangential trace and tangential component operators: For a sufficiently smooth function ${\mathbf u}$ on $\widehat K$ we set $\Pi_{\tau} {\mathbf u} := ({\mathbf n} \times {\mathbf u}|_{\partial \widehat K}) \times {\mathbf n}$ and $\gamma_\tau {\mathbf u} := {\mathbf n} \times {\mathbf u}|_{\partial\widehat K}$, where ${\mathbf n}$ denotes the outer normal vector of $\widehat K$. We fix the orientation of each face $f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat K)$ by defining its normal vector ${\mathbf n}_f$ to coincide with the (outer) normal vector of $\widehat K$ on $f$. In turn, this fixes the orientation of the boundary $\partial f$ and for each face $f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat K)$ we will write $\Pi_{\tau,f}$ for the (in-plane) tangential trace on $\partial f$, i.e., for each edge $e \in {\mathcal E}(f)$ and its unit tangential vector ${\mathbf t}_e$ (with orientation matching the orientation of $f$) we set $(\Pi_{\tau,f} {\mathbf u})|_{e} = {\mathbf u}|_e \cdot {\mathbf t}_e$ for sufficiently smooth tangential fields ${\mathbf u}$.
We have the integration by parts formula $$\label{eq:integration-by-parts}
(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf u},{\mathbf v})_{L^2(\widehat K)} =
(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf v},{\mathbf u})_{L^2(\widehat K)}
- (\Pi_\tau {\mathbf u},\gamma_\tau {\mathbf v})_{L^2(\partial \widehat K)}
\qquad \forall {\mathbf u}, {\mathbf v} \in {\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K),$$ which actually extends to ${\mathbf u}$, ${\mathbf v} \in {\mathbf H}(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$, [@Monkbook Thm. [3.29]{}]. (In this case, the $L^2(\partial\widehat K)$-inner product is replaced with a duality pairing, which we will still denote by $(\cdot,\cdot)_{L^2(\partial\widehat K)}$.) In 2D, we have the integration by parts formula (Stokes formula) $$\label{eq:2d-stokes}\int_{\widehat f} \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} v
\cdot{\mathbf{F}} = \int_{\widehat f} v \operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{F}} -
\int_{\partial \widehat f} v {\mathbf{F}} \cdot{\mathbf{t}},$$ where the boundary $\partial\widehat f$ and, therefore, tangential vectors, are oriented counterclockwise.
For each face $f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat K)$ and $s \ge 0$ we define the Sobolev spaces $H^s(f)$ as well as ${\mathbf H}_T^s(f,\operatorname{curl})$ by identifying the face $f$ with a subset of ${\mathbb R}^2$ via an affine congruence map. The subscript $T$ indicates that *tangential* fields are considered. Also the spaces $H^s(e)$ on an edge $e \in {\mathcal E}(\widehat K)$ are defined by such an identification.
Function spaces on the reference element
----------------------------------------
For $\nu \in \{\widehat K, \widehat f, \widehat e, \mathbb{R}^3, \mathbb{R}^2, \mathbb{R}\}$, we denote by ${\mathcal P}_p(\nu)$ the space of polynomials of (total) degree $p$ in $d$ variables, where $d$ is the dimension of the manifold $\nu$. For faces $f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat K)$ or edges $e \in {\mathcal E}(\widehat K)$, we define ${\mathcal P}_p(f)$ or ${\mathcal P}_p(e)$ by identifying $f$ or $e$ with $\widehat f$ or $\widehat e$ via an affine map. Further polynomial spaces are defined in the following subsection.
### Spaces on the reference tetrahedron and reference triangle
On $\widehat{K}$ we introduce the classical Nédélec type I and Raviart-Thomas elements of degree $p\geq0$ (see, e.g., [@Monkbook; @hiptmair-acta; @nedelec80]): $$\begin{aligned}
W_{p}(\widehat{K}) & :=\operatorname*{span}\{x^{\alpha
}\,|\,|\alpha|\leq p\},\label{eq:RTp}\\
\mathbf{Q}_{p}(\widehat{K}) &
:=\{\mathbf{p}(\mathbf{x})+\mathbf{x}\times\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{x})\,|\,\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q}\in({\mathcal{P}}_{p}(\widehat{K}))^{3}\},\\
\mathbf{V}_{p}(\widehat{K}) & :=\{\mathbf{p}(\mathbf{x})+{q}(\mathbf{x})\mathbf{x}\,|\,\mathbf{p}\in({\mathcal{P}}_{p}(\widehat{K}))^{3},{q}\in{\mathcal{P}}_{p}(\widehat{K})\}.\end{aligned}$$ Recall the exact sequences on the continuous level (cf., e.g., [@costabel-mcintosh10] and Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\minCDarrowwidth15pt
\begin{CD} \mathbb{R} @> \operatorname*{id} >> H^2(\widehat K) @> \nabla >> \mathbf{H}^1(\widehat K, \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}) @> \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} >> \mathbf{H}^1(\widehat K, \operatorname*{div}) @> \operatorname*{div} >> H^1(\widehat K) @> \operatorname*{0} >> \{0\} \end{CD}\end{aligned}$$ and on the discrete level (see, e.g., [@demkowicz08 (57)]) $$\begin{aligned}
\minCDarrowwidth15pt
\begin{CD} \mathbb{R} @> \operatorname*{id} >> W_{p+1}(\widehat{K}) @> \nabla >> \mathbf{Q}_{p}(\widehat{K}) @> \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} >> \mathbf{V}_{p}(\widehat{K}) @> \operatorname*{div} >> W_{p}(\widehat{K}) @> \operatorname*{0} >> \{0\} \end{CD}.\end{aligned}$$ In this paper, we present projection operators ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$, ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$, ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$, $\widehat{\Pi}_{p}^{L^{2}}$ that enjoy the commuting diagram property $$\minCDarrowwidth14pt
\begin{CD} \mathbb{R} @> \operatorname*{id} >> H^2(\widehat K) @> \nabla >> \mathbf{H}^1(\widehat K, \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}) @> \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} >> \mathbf{H}^1(\widehat K, \operatorname*{div}) @> \operatorname*{div} >> H^1(\widehat K) @> \operatorname*{0} >> \{0\}\\ @. @VV {\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}V @VV {\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}V @VV {\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}V @VV \widehat \Pi^{L^2}_p V \\ \mathbb{R} @> \operatorname*{id} >> W_{p+1}(\widehat K) @> \nabla >> {\mathbf Q}_p(\widehat K) @> \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} >> {\mathbf V}_p(\widehat K) @> \operatorname*{div} >> W_p(\widehat K) @> \operatorname*{0} >>\{0\}\end{CD} \label{eq:commuting-diagram-hinten}$$ In the two-dimensional setting, the Nédélec type I elements are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2d-nedelec}
\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{f}) := \{\mathbf{p}(\mathbf{x}) + q({\mathbf x}) (y,-x)^T \, | \, \mathbf{p} \in (\mathcal{P}_p(\widehat{f}))^2, q\in \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_p(\widehat{f})\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}_p(\widehat{f})$ denotes the homogeneous polynomials of degree $p$. Here we have shorter exact sequences of the forms (cf., e.g., [@costabel-mcintosh10] and Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh-2d\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{CD} \mathbb{R} @> \operatorname*{id} >> H^{3/2}(\widehat f) @> \nabla >> \mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat f, \operatorname*{curl}) @> \operatorname*{curl} >> H^{1/2}(\widehat f) @> \operatorname*{0} >> \{0\} \end{CD}\end{aligned}$$ on the continuous level and $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{CD} \mathbb{R} @> \operatorname*{id} >> W_{p+1}(\widehat f) @> \nabla >> \mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{f}) @> \operatorname*{{curl}} >> W_p(\widehat f) @> \operatorname*{0} >> \{0\} \end{CD}\end{aligned}$$ on the discrete level (see, e.g., [@demkowicz08 (30)]). We present projection operators ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}$, ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}$, $\widehat{\Pi}_p^{L^2}$ that satisfy the commuting diagram property $$\begin{CD} \mathbb{R} @> \operatorname*{id} >> H^{3/2}(\widehat f) @> \nabla >> \mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat f, \operatorname*{curl}) @> \operatorname*{curl} >> H^{1/2}(\widehat f) @> \operatorname*{0} >> \{0\}\\ @. @VV {\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}V @VV {\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}V @VV \widehat \Pi^{L^2}_p V \\ \mathbb{R} @> \operatorname*{id} >> W_{p+1}(\widehat f) @> \nabla >> {\mathbf Q}_p(\widehat f) @> \operatorname*{curl} >> W_p(\widehat f) @> \operatorname*{0} >>\{0\}\end{CD} \label{eq:commuting-diagram-2d}$$
### Trace spaces on the boundary {#sec:trace_spaces}
We will need the traces of the spaces $W_{p+1}(\widehat{K})$, $\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{K})$ and $\mathbf{V}_p(\widehat{K})$ on various parts of the boundary. For faces $f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K})$ the corresponding spaces are defined by trace operations: $$W_{p+1}(f):=W_{p+1}(\widehat{K})|_{f},\quad{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(f):=(\Pi_{\tau
}{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{K}))|_{f},\quad{V}_{p}(f):=\mathbf{V}_{p}(\widehat{K})\cdot\mathbf{n}_{f},$$ where $\Pi_{\tau}$ is the tangential component and $\mathbf{n}_{f}$ the outer normal vector of $f$. These trace spaces are well-known objects: Identifying a face $f$ with the reference triangle $\widehat f$ via an affine bijection, the space $W_{p+1}(f)$ is isomorphic to the space ${\mathcal{P}}_{p+1}({\mathbb{R}}^{2})$ of bivariate polynomials of (total) degree $p+1$; the space ${\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(f)$ turns out to be the space of type-I Nédélec elements on triangles; ${V}_{p}(f)$ is isomorphic to the space ${\mathcal{P}}_{p}({\mathbb{R}}^{2})$. Lowering the dimension even further, we introduce for each edge $e\in{\mathcal{E}}(\widehat{K})$ the spaces $$W_{p+1}(e):=W_{p+1}(\widehat{K})|_{e},\quad{Q}_{p}(e):=\mathbf{Q}_{p}(\widehat{K})\cdot\mathbf{t}_{e},$$ where $\mathbf{t}_{e}$ is the tangential vector of the edge $e$. Similar to the case of the faces, the space $W_{p+1}(e)$ can be identified with the univariate polynomials of degree $p+1$ and ${Q}_{p}(e)$ with the univariate polynomials of degree $p$. We will require spaces of functions vanishing on the boundary in the appropriate sense and set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K})& :=W_{p+1}(\widehat{K})\cap H_{0}^{1}(\widehat{K}), &
\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{K})&:=\{\mathbf{u}\in{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{K})\,|\,\Pi_{\tau}\mathbf{u}=0\},\\
\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_{p}(\widehat{K})&:=\{\mathbf{u}\in{\mathbf{V}}_{p}(\widehat{K})\,|\,\mathbf{n}\cdot\mathbf{u}=0\},
& W^{aver}_p(\widehat K)&:= \{u \in W_{p+1}(\widehat K)\,|\, \int_{\widehat K} u = 0\}.\end{aligned}$$ Corresponding spaces on lower-dimensional manifolds are defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathring{W}_{p+1}(f) &:=W_{p+1}(f)\cap H_{0}^{1}(f),
& \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(f)& :=\{\mathbf{u}\in{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(f)\,|\,\Pi_{\tau,f}\mathbf{u}=0\},\\
\mathring{V}_{p}(f) &:=\{u \in V_{p}(f)\,|\, \int_{f} u = 0\}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we set for edges $e\in{\mathcal{E}}(\widehat{K})$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathring{W}_{p+1}(e):=W_{p+1}(e)\cap H_{0}^{1}(e),
\qquad\mathring{Q}_{p}(e):=\{u \in Q_{p}(e)\,|\, \int_e u = 0\}. \end{aligned}$$ By [@hiptmair08 eq. (4.16)] (actually, [@hiptmair08] uses the tangential trace operator $\gamma_{\tau}$ instead of $\Pi_{\tau}$ in the definition of the spaces ${\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(f)$ and correspondingly identifies the space ${\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(f)$ with a Raviart-Thomas space instead of a Nédélec space) or [@demkowicz-buffa05] we have the following diagrams for $\widehat K$, its faces $f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K})$, and edges $e\in{\mathcal{E}}(\widehat{K})$ $$\minCDarrowwidth15pt
\begin{CD} \{0\} @>\operatorname{Id} >> \mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat K) @> \nabla >> \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat K) @> \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} >> \mathring{\mathbf{V}}_p(\widehat K) @> \operatorname*{div} >> W^{aver}_p(\widehat K) @> 0 >> \{0\} \\ \{0\} @>\operatorname{Id} >> \mathring{W}_{p+1}(f) @> \nabla_f >> \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(f) @> \operatorname*{curl}_f >> \mathring{V}_p(f) @> 0 >> \{0\} \\ \{0\} @> \operatorname{Id}>> \mathring{W}_{p+1}(e) @> \nabla_e >> \mathring{Q}_p(e) @> 0 >> \{0\} \end{CD} \label{eq:commuting-diagram-bc}$$ In this diagram (and in what follows), the operators $\nabla_{f}$, $\nabla
_{e}$ represent surface gradients on a face $f$ and tangential differentiation on an edge $e$, respectively. The operator $\operatorname*{curl}_{f}$ is the surface curl on face $f$. (Recall that the orientation of $f$ has been fixed to match that of $\partial \widehat K$.) For the reference triangle $\widehat f$ we set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{f}) &:= W_{p+1}(\widehat{f}) \cap H_0^1(\widehat{f}), &\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat f) &:= \{\mathbf{u} \in \mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat f) \, | \, \mathbf{u} \cdot \mathbf{t}_e = 0 \, \forall e\in\mathcal{E}(\widehat{f})\}, \\
\mathring{V}_{p}(\widehat{f}) &:=\{u \in V_{p}(\widehat{f})\,|\, \int_{\widehat{f}} u = 0\}.\end{aligned}$$ One again looks at shortened sequences, namely, [@demkowicz08 (33)], $$\begin{CD} \{0\} @>\operatorname{Id} >> \mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat f) @> \nabla >> \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat f) @> \operatorname*{{curl}} >> \mathring{V}_p(\widehat f) @> 0 >> \{0\} \\ \{0\} @>\operatorname{Id} >> \mathring{W}_{p+1}(e) @> \nabla_e >> \mathring{Q}_p(e) @> 0 >> \{0\} \end{CD} \label{eq:commuting-diagram-bc-2d}$$
Definition of the operators ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$, ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$, ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$ {#sec:def-operators}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The definition of the operators ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$, ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$, ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$ is very similar to the definition in [@demkowicz-buffa05; @demkowicz08], the difference being that we perform all projections using $L^2$-based inner products whereas [@demkowicz-buffa05; @demkowicz08] employs inner products for fractional Sobolev spaces.
The interpolants may be thought of as being defined through a sequence of constrained optimizations in which the value on a $j+1$-dimensional subsimplex $S$ is determined as the solution of a minimization problem where the values on the $j$-dimensional boundary subsimplices of $S$ have already been fixed. For example, the operator ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$ starts with fixing the vertex values, then determines the value on all edges, then on all faces, and finally in the interior of $\widehat K$.
We refer the reader to Section \[sec:commuting\] for the proof that the regularity requirements on the functions $u$, ${\mathbf u}$ in the following definitions are indeed sufficient to render Definitions \[def:hatPigradcom\]–\[def:hatPidivcom\] meaningful.
### The operators in 3D {#sec:3d-operators}
In the following definition of ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$ we can interpret the sequence of conditions as first fixing the values in the vertices in (\[eq:Pi\_grad-d\]), then on the edges by (\[eq:Pi\_grad-c\]), then on the faces by (\[eq:Pi\_grad-b\]), and finally in the interior by (\[eq:Pi\_grad-a\]):
\[def:hatPigradcom\] ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}:H^{2}(\widehat{K})\rightarrow W_{p+1}(\widehat{K})$ is given by
\[eq:Pi\_grad\] $$\begin{aligned}
u(V)-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u(V) & =0\quad \forall
V\in{\mathcal{V}}(\widehat{K}),
\label{eq:Pi_grad-d}\\
(\nabla_{e}(u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u),\nabla
_{e}v)_{L^{2}(e)} & =0\quad\forall v\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(e)\quad\forall
e\in{\mathcal{E}}(\widehat{K}),
\label{eq:Pi_grad-c}\\
(\nabla_{f}(u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u),\nabla
_{f}v)_{L^{2}(f)} & =0\quad\forall v\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(f)\quad\forall
f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K}),
\label{eq:Pi_grad-b}\\
(\nabla(u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u),\nabla v)_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} & =0\quad\forall v\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K}).
\label{eq:Pi_grad-a}\end{aligned}$$
In the following definition of ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$ we can interpret the sequence of conditions as fixing the interpolant first on the edges by (\[eq:Pi\_curl-f\]), (\[eq:Pi\_curl-e\]); then on the faces by (\[eq:Pi\_curl-d\]), (\[eq:Pi\_curl-c\]); and finally in the interior by (\[eq:Pi\_curl-b\]), (\[eq:Pi\_curl-a\]).
\[def:hatPicurlcom\] ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}:\mathbf{H}^{1}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}})\rightarrow\mathbf{Q}_{p}(\widehat{K})$ is given by
\[eq:Pi\_curl\] $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathbf{t}}_{e}\cdot(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}),1)_{L^{2}(e)} & =0\quad\forall e\in{\mathcal{E}}(\widehat{K}),
\label{eq:Pi_curl-f}\\
(\mathbf{t}_{e}\cdot(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}),\nabla_{e}v)_{L^{2}(e)} & =0\quad\forall v\in\mathring
{W}_{p+1}(e)\quad\forall e\in{\mathcal{E}}(\widehat{K}),
\label{eq:Pi_curl-e}\\
(\Pi_{\tau}(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}),\nabla_{f}v)_{L^{2}(f)} & =0\quad\forall v\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(f)\quad\forall f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K}),
\label{eq:Pi_curl-d}\\
(\operatorname{curl}_{f}\Pi_{\tau}(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}),\operatorname{curl}_{f}\mathbf{v})_{L^{2}(f)} & =0\quad\forall\mathbf{v}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(f)\quad\forall f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K}),
\label{eq:Pi_curl-c}\\
((\mathbf{u}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}),\nabla
v)_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} & =0\quad\forall v\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K}),
\label{eq:Pi_curl-b}\\
(\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}),\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{v})_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} & =0\quad
\forall\mathbf{v}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{K}).
\label{eq:Pi_curl-a}\end{aligned}$$
In the following definition of ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$ we can interpret the sequence of conditions as fixing the interpolant first on the faces by (\[eq:Pi\_div-d\]), (\[eq:Pi\_div-c\]) and then in the interior by (\[eq:Pi\_div-b\]), (\[eq:Pi\_div-a\]).
\[def:hatPidivcom\] ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}:\mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})\rightarrow\mathbf{V}_{p}(\widehat{K})$ is given by
\[eq:Pi\_div\] $$\begin{aligned}
(\mathbf{n}_{f}\cdot(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\mathbf{u}),1)_{L^{2}(f)} & =0\quad\forall f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K}),
\label{eq:Pi_div-d}\\
(\mathbf{n}_{f}\cdot(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\mathbf{u}),{v})_{L^{2}(f)} & =0\quad\forall v\in\mathring{V}_{p}(f)\quad\forall f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K}),
\label{eq:Pi_div-c}\\
((\mathbf{u}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\mathbf{u}),\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{v})_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} & =0\quad
\forall\mathbf{v}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{K}),
\label{eq:Pi_div-b}\\
(\operatorname*{div}(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\mathbf{u}),\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{v})_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} &
=0\quad\forall\mathbf{v}\in\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_{p}(\widehat{K}).
\label{eq:Pi_div-a}\end{aligned}$$
$\widehat{\Pi}_p^{L^{2}}:L^{2}(\widehat{K}) \rightarrow
W_{p}(\widehat{K})$ is given by $$\label{eq:Pi_L^2}(u - \widehat{\Pi}_p^{L^{2}} u,v)_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} = 0
\qquad\forall v \in W_{p}(\widehat{K}).$$
### The operators in 2D
For the reference triangle $\widehat f$, the 2D-operators are defined as follows:
${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}:H^{3/2}(\widehat{f}) \rightarrow W_{p+1}(\widehat{f})$ is given by
\[eq:Pi\_grad-2d\] $$\begin{aligned}
u(V)-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u(V) & =0\quad\forall
V\in{\mathcal{V}}(\widehat{f}),
\label{eq:Pi_grad-2d-c}\\
(\nabla_{e}(u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u),\nabla
_{e}v)_{L^{2}(e)} & =0\quad\forall v\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(e)\quad\forall
e\in{\mathcal{E}}(\widehat{f}),
\label{eq:Pi_grad-2d-b}\\
(\nabla(u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u),\nabla v)_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} & =0\quad\forall v\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{f}).
\label{eq:Pi_grad-2d-a}\end{aligned}$$
${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}:\mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat{f},\operatorname*{curl}) \rightarrow \mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{f})$ is given by
\[eq:Pi\_curl-2d\] $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathbf{t}}_{e}\cdot(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}\mathbf{u}),1)_{L^{2}(e)} & =0\quad\forall e\in{\mathcal{E}}(\widehat{f}),
\label{eq:Pi_curl-2d-d}\\
(\mathbf{t}_{e}\cdot(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}\mathbf{u}),\nabla_{e}v)_{L^{2}(e)} & =0\quad\forall v\in\mathring
{W}_{p+1}(e)\quad\forall e\in{\mathcal{E}}(\widehat{f}),
\label{eq:Pi_curl-2d-c}\\
((\mathbf{u}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}\mathbf{u}),\nabla
v)_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} & =0\quad\forall v\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{f}),
\label{eq:Pi_curl-2d-b}\\
(\operatorname*{curl}(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}\mathbf{u}),\operatorname*{curl}\mathbf{v})_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} & =0\quad
\forall\mathbf{v}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{f}).
\label{eq:Pi_curl-2d-a}\end{aligned}$$
The operator $\widehat{\Pi}_p^{L^2}:L^{2}(\widehat{f}) \rightarrow W_p(\widehat{f})$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
(u-\widehat{\Pi}_p^{L^2}u,v)_{L^2(\widehat{f})} = 0 \qquad \forall v\in W_p(\widehat{f}).\end{aligned}$$
\[relation of 2D and 3D\] Up to identifying a face $f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat K)$ with a reference triangle $\widehat f \subset {\mathbb R}^2$ via an affine *congruence* map, the 2D operators ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}$, ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}$ coincide with the restrictions to the face $f$ of ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$, ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above defined projection-based interpolation operators have the special feature that the trace of the interpolant on a $j$-dimensional subsimplex of $\widehat K$ is fully determined by the trace on the subsimplex of the function ${\bf u}$. This observation implies that the above operators admit so-called “element-by-element” constructions:
\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-ii\] As described in more detail in [@melenk-sauter18 Sec. [8]{}], the operators ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$, ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$, ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$, $\widehat{\Pi}_{p}^{L^{2}}$ admit element-by-element constructions. That is, given a regular triangulation ${\mathcal T}$, one can construct operators $\Pi
_{p+1}^{\operatorname*{grad}}$, $\Pi_{p}^{\operatorname*{curl}}$, $\Pi
_{p}^{\operatorname*{div}}$, $\Pi_{p}^{L^{2}}$, which are defined elementwise using the operators ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$, ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$, ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$, $\widehat{\Pi}_{p}^{L^{2}}$, that map into the standard spaces of piecewise polynomials $W_{p+1}({\mathcal T})$, Nédélec spaces ${\mathbf Q}_p({\mathcal T})$, or Raviart-Thomas spaces ${\mathbf V}_p({\mathcal T})$. These operators are linear projection operators and, for smooth $\partial\Omega$, enjoy the commuting diagram property $$\minCDarrowwidth15pt
\begin{CD} \mathbb{R} @> \operatorname*{id} >> H^2(\Omega) @> \nabla >> \mathbf{H}^1(\Omega, \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}) @> \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} >> \mathbf{H}^1(\Omega, \operatorname*{div}) @> \operatorname*{div} >> H^1(\Omega) @> \operatorname*{0} >> \{0\}\\ @. @VV \Pi^{\operatorname*{grad}}_{p+1} V @VV \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl}}_p V @VV \Pi^{\operatorname*{div}}_{p} V @VV \Pi^{L^2}_p V \\ \mathbb{R} @> \operatorname*{id} >> W_{p+1}(\mathcal{T}) @> \nabla >> {\mathbf Q}_p(\mathcal{T}) @> \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} >> {\mathbf V}_p(\mathcal{T}) @> \operatorname*{div} >> W_p(\mathcal{T}) @> \operatorname*{0} >>\{0\}\end{CD}
\label{eq:commuting-diagram-global}$$ This is a direct consequence of Theorem \[thm:projection-based-interpolation\], (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-i\]) and the fact that the operators are constructed element by element. An analogous statement about element-by-element constructions holds for meshes in 2d.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main results
------------
The following Theorems \[thm:projection-based-interpolation\], \[thm:projection-based-interpolation-2d\] are our main results.
\[thm:projection-based-interpolation\] Assume that all interior angles of the 4 faces of the reference tetrahedron $\widehat K$ are smaller than $2\pi/3$. Then there are constants $C_s$, $C_{s,k}$ (depending only on $s$, $k$, and $\widehat K$) such that:
(i) \[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-i\] The operators ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$, ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$, ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$, $\widehat{\Pi}^{L^2}_p$ are well-defined, projections, and the diagram (\[eq:commuting-diagram-hinten\]) commutes.
(ii) \[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-iii\] For all $\varphi\in H^{2}(\widehat{K})$ there holds $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert\varphi-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}\varphi\Vert
_{H^{1-s}(\widehat{K})}&\leq C_{s}p^{-(1+s)}\inf_{v\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{K})}\Vert\varphi-v\Vert_{H^{2}(\widehat{K})},\qquad
s\in\lbrack0,1], \\
\Vert \nabla(\varphi-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}\varphi)\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K})}&\leq
C_{s}p^{-(1+s)} \inf_{v \in W_{p+1}(\widehat K)} \Vert \varphi -v\Vert_{H^{2}(\widehat{K})}, \qquad s\in [0,1].\end{aligned}$$
(iii) \[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-iv\] For all ${\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ there holds $$\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}\leq C_s p^{-(1+s)}\inf_{\mathbf{v}\in\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{K})}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{1}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}, \qquad s\in [0,1].$$
(iv) \[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-v\] For all $k\geq1$ and all ${\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})$ with $\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{u}}\in {\mathbf V}_p(\widehat K) \supset
({\mathcal{P}}_{p}(\widehat{K}))^{3}$ there holds $$\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}\leq C_{s,k}p^{-(k+s)}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert
_{\mathbf{H}^{k}(\widehat{K})}, \qquad s\in [0,1].
\label{eq:lemma:projection-based-interpolation-approximation-10}$$ If $p\geq k-1$, then $\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}$ can be replaced with the seminorm $|{\mathbf{u}}|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}$.
(v) \[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-vi\] For all ${\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1/2}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})$ there holds $$\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}\leq C_s p^{-(1/2+s)}\inf_{{\mathbf{v}}\in\boldsymbol{V}_{p}(\widehat{K})}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1/2}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}, \qquad s\in [0,1].$$
(vi) \[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-vii\] For all $k\geq1$ and all ${\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})$ with $\operatorname*{div}{\mathbf{u}}\in {\mathcal{P}}_{p}(\widehat{K})$ there holds $$\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}\leq C_{s,k}p^{-(k+s)}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert
_{\mathbf{H}^{k}(\widehat{K})}, \qquad s\in [0,1].
\label{eq:lemma:projection-based-interpolation-approximation-15}$$ If $p\geq k-1$, then $\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}$ can be replaced with the seminorm $|{\mathbf{u}}|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}$.
Inspection of the proof of Theorem \[thm:projection-based-interpolation\] shows that the following holds, if the condition on the angles of the faces of $\widehat K$are dropped: Items (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-i\]), (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-vi\]) still hold and items (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-iii\]), (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-iv\]), (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-v\]), (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-vii\]) hold for $s \in [0, s')$ where $s' > 0$ depends on the angles of the faces of $\widehat K$. In particular, the choice $s = 0$ is always admissible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-i\]) is shown in Lemmas \[lemma:Pi\_grad-well-defined\], \[lemma:Pi\_curl-well-defined\], \[lemma:Pi\_div-well-defined\] and Theorem \[thm:diagram-commutes\]. For (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-iii\]) see Theorem \[lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D\]. Item (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-iv\]) is shown in Theorem \[thm:duality-again\] and (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-v\]) in Lemma \[lemma:better-regularity\]. Statement (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-vi\]) is given in Theorem \[thm:duality-again-div\], and (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-vii\]) in Lemma \[lemma:better-regularity-div\].
The projection property of the operators ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$, ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$, ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$ together with the best approximation property of Lemma \[lemma:Pgrad1d\] implies:
\[cor:thm:projection-based-interpolation\] Assume that all interior angles of the $4$ faces of $\widehat K$ are smaller than $2\pi/3$. For $k \ge 1$ and $s\in [0,1]$ there are constants $C_{s,k}$ depending only on $k$, $s$, and the choice of $\widehat K$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cor:thm:projection-based-interpolation-1}
\|\varphi - {\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}\varphi\|_{H^{1-s}(\widehat K)} &\leq C_{s,k} p^{-(k+s)}\|\varphi\|_{H^{k+1}(\widehat K)}, \\
\label{eq:cor:thm:projection-based-interpolation-2}
\|{\mathbf u} - {\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf u}\|_{\widetilde{\mathbf H}^{-s}(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}
&\leq C_{s,k} p^{-(k+s)}\|{\mathbf u}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{k}(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}, \\
\label{eq:cor:thm:projection-based-interpolation-3}
\|{\mathbf u} - {\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}{\mathbf u}\|_{\widetilde{\mathbf H}^{-s}(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})}
&\leq C_{s,k} p^{-(k+s)}\|{\mathbf u}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{k}(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})}. \end{aligned}$$
The estimate (\[eq:cor:thm:projection-based-interpolation-1\]) follows directly from Theorem \[thm:projection-based-interpolation\], (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-iii\]) and the best approximation result Lemma \[lemma:Pgrad1d\]. For the proof of the estimate (\[eq:cor:thm:projection-based-interpolation-2\]) we write, with Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-like-decomp\], ${\mathbf u} = \nabla \varphi + {\mathbf z}$ with $\|\varphi\|_{H^{k+1}(\widehat K)} \lesssim \|{\mathbf u}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{k}(\widehat K,{\mathbf{curl}})}$ and $\|{\mathbf z}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{k+1}(\widehat K)} \lesssim
\|\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf u}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{k}(\widehat K)}$. From Theorem \[thm:projection-based-interpolation\], (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-iv\]) and Lemma \[lemma:Pgrad1d\] we infer $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathbf u} &- {\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf u}\|_{\widetilde {\mathbf H}^{-s}(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}) }
\lesssim p^{-(1+s)}\!\!\!\!\!\! \inf_{\substack{v \in W_{p+1}(\widehat K), \\{\mathbf q} \in {\mathbf Q}_p(\widehat K)} }
\! \|\nabla \varphi + {\mathbf z} - (\nabla v +{\mathbf q})\|_{{\mathbf H}^{1}(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}
\\
& \quad \lesssim p^{-(1+s)} \left[\inf_{v \in W_{p+1}(\widehat K)} \|\varphi - v\|_{H^{2}(\widehat K)} +
\inf_{{\mathbf q} \in {\mathbf Q}_p(\widehat K)}
\|{\mathbf z} - {\mathbf q}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{2}(\widehat K)}\right]
\\
&\stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:Pgrad1d}}}{\lesssim}
p^{-(1+s)-(k+1-2)} \left[ \|\varphi\|_{H^{k+1}(\widehat K)} + \|{\mathbf z}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{k+1}(\widehat K)}\right]
\lesssim p^{-(s+k)} \|{\mathbf u}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{k}(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}.\end{aligned}$$ The bound (\[eq:cor:thm:projection-based-interpolation-3\]) is shown similarly using for ${\mathbf u} \in {\mathbf H}^k(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})$ the decomposition ${\mathbf u} = \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\boldsymbol \varphi} + {\mathbf z}$ with $\|{\boldsymbol \varphi} \|_{{\mathbf H}^{k+1}(\widehat K)}
\lesssim \|{\mathbf u}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{k}(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})}$ and $ \| {\mathbf z}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{k+1}(\widehat K)}
\lesssim \|\operatorname{div} {\mathbf u} \|_{H^{k}(\widehat K)}$ of Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-decomposition-div\] and arguing with Theorem \[thm:projection-based-interpolation\], (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-vi\]) and Lemma \[lemma:Pgrad1d\] to get $$\begin{aligned}
& \|{\mathbf u} - {\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}{\mathbf u}\|_{\widetilde {\mathbf H}^{-s}(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})} \\
& \quad \lesssim p^{-(1/2+s)} \inf_{{\mathbf q} \in {\mathbf Q}_p(\widehat K) , {\mathbf v} \in {\mathbf V}_p(\widehat K)}
\|\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\boldsymbol\varphi} + {\mathbf z} - (\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf q} +{\mathbf v})\|_{{\mathbf H}^{1/2}(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})}
\\
&\quad \lesssim p^{-(1/2+s)} \left[\inf_{{\mathbf q} \in {\mathbf Q}_p(\widehat K)}
\|{\boldsymbol\varphi} - {\mathbf q}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{3/2}(\widehat K)} +
\inf_{{\mathbf v} \in {\mathbf V}_p(\widehat K)}
\|{\mathbf z} - {\mathbf v}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{3/2}(\widehat K)}\right] \\
&\quad \stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:Pgrad1d}}}{\lesssim}
p^{-(s+k)} \|{\mathbf u}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{k}(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})}.
\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
\[thm:projection-based-interpolation-2d\] For a reference triangle $\widehat{f} \subset {\mathbb R}^2$ with $\widehat s$ given by there are constants $C_{s,k}$ depending only on $s$, $k$, and the choice of $\widehat f$ such that the following holds:
(i) \[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-i-2d\] The operators ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}$, ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}$, $\widehat{\Pi}^{L^2}_p$ are well-defined, projections, and the diagram (\[eq:commuting-diagram-2d\]) commutes.
(ii) \[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-ii-2d\] For all $\varphi\in
H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})$ there holds $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert\varphi-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}\varphi\Vert
_{H^{1-s}(\widehat{f})}& \leq
C_{s,k}p^{-(1/2+s)}\inf_{v\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{f})}\Vert\varphi-v\Vert_{H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})},\qquad
s\in [0,1], \\
\Vert\varphi-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}\varphi\Vert
_{\widetilde H^{1-s}(\widehat{f})}& \leq
C_{s,k}p^{-(1/2+s)}\inf_{v\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{f})}\Vert\varphi-v\Vert_{H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})},\qquad
s\in [1,\widehat{s}), \\
\Vert \nabla(\varphi-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}\varphi)\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{f})}& \leq
C_{s,k}p^{-(1/2+s)}\inf_{v \in W_{p+1}(\widehat f)} \Vert \varphi -v \Vert_{H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})} ,
\qquad s \in [0,\widehat{s}).\end{aligned}$$
(iii) \[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-iii-2d\] For all ${\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1/2}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})$ there holds $$\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}\leq C_{s,k} p^{-(1/2+s)}\inf_{\mathbf{v}\in\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{f})}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}, \qquad s\in [0,\widehat{s}).$$
(iv) \[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-iv-2d\] For all $k\geq1$ and all ${\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{f})$ with $\operatorname*{curl}{\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathcal{P}}_{p}(\widehat{f})$ there holds $$\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}\leq C_{s,k}p^{-(k+s)}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert
_{\mathbf{H}^{k}(\widehat{f})}, \qquad s\in [0,\widehat{s}).
\label{eq:lemma:projection-based-interpolation-approximation-2d-10}$$ If $p\geq k-1$, then $\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{f})}$ can be replaced with the seminorm $|{\mathbf{u}}|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{f})}$.
The proof of (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-i-2d\]) follows by arguments very similar to those given in [@demkowicz08] and the arguments for the 3D case that are worked out in Section \[sec:commuting\] below. Item (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-ii-2d\]) is shown in Theorem \[lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D\] and item (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-iii-2d\]) in Lemma \[lemma:Picurl-face\]. For (\[item:thm:projection-based-interpolation-iv-2d\]), see Lemma \[lemma:better-regularity-2d\].
The following corollary is the two-dimensional analog of Corollary \[cor:thm:projection-based-interpolation\]:
\[cor:thm:projection-based-interpolation-2d\] For $k \ge 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cor:thm:projection-based-interpolation-2d-10}
\|\varphi - {\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}\varphi\|_{H^{1-s}(\widehat f)} &\leq C_{s,k} p^{-(k+s)}\|\varphi\|_{H^{k+1}(\widehat f)}, \qquad s\in [0,1],\\
\label{eq:cor:thm:projection-based-interpolation-2d-12}
\|\varphi - {\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}\varphi\|_{\widetilde H^{1-s}(\widehat f)} &\leq C_{s,k} p^{-(k+s)}\|\varphi\|_{H^{k+1}(\widehat f)}, \qquad s\in [1,\widehat{s}),\\
\label{eq:cor:thm:projection-based-interpolation-2d-20}
\|{\mathbf u} - {\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}{\mathbf u}\|_{\widetilde{\mathbf H}^{-s}(\widehat f,\operatorname{curl})}
&\leq C_{s,k} p^{-(k+s)}\|{\mathbf u}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{k}(\widehat f,\operatorname{curl})}, \qquad s\in [0,\widehat{s}).\end{aligned}$$
The proof follows as in Corollary \[cor:thm:projection-based-interpolation\], relying on Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-like-decomp-2d\] for (\[eq:cor:thm:projection-based-interpolation-2d-20\]).
Well-definedness of the projection operators and commuting diagram property {#sec:commuting}
===========================================================================
We show that the operators introduced in Section \[sec:def-operators\] are well-defined. The arguments are mostly well-established and included for completeness’ sake.
\[lemma:Pi\_grad-well-defined\] For $u \in H^2(\widehat K)$ there holds $u|_e \in H^1(e)$ for each $e \in {\mathcal E}(\widehat K)$ and $\|u\|_{H^1(e)} \lesssim \|u\|_{H^2(\widehat K)}$. The operator ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$ is well-defined.
We claim that for $u \in H^2(\widehat K)$ one has $u|_e \in H^1(e)$ for each edge $e \in {\mathcal E}(\widehat K)$. This follows from the trace theorem: a two-fold trace estimate (from $\widehat K$ to the faces and then from the faces to the edges) shows that the trace operator maps $H^{2+\varepsilon}(\widehat K)\rightarrow H^{1+\varepsilon}(e)$ for sufficiently small $\varepsilon > 0$ and $\varepsilon < 0$. Interpolation then asserts $H^2(\widehat K) \rightarrow H^1(e)$. For the well-definedness of ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$, we first see that (\[eq:Pi\_grad\]) represents a square linear system: We have $\operatorname*{dim}W_{p+1}(\widehat{K}) =\frac{1}{6}(p+4)(p+3)(p+2)$ and the number of conditions is $\frac{1}{6}p(p-1)(p-2)+4\frac{(p-1)p}
{2}+6p+4=\operatorname*{dim}W_{p+1}(\widehat{K}).$ Next, we show uniqueness. For $u = 0$ condition (\[eq:Pi\_grad-d\]) shows ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u(V) = 0$ for all vertices $V \in {\mathcal V}(\widehat K)$. The conditions (\[eq:Pi\_grad-c\]) then imply that ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u = 0$ on all edges of $\widehat K$; next (\[eq:Pi\_grad-b\]) leads to ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u = 0$ vanishing on all faces of $\widehat K$ and finally (\[eq:Pi\_grad-a\]) shows ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u = 0$. Thus, ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$ is well-defined.
\[lemma:Pi\_curl-well-defined\] For ${\mathbf u} \in {\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ there holds ${\mathbf u} \cdot {\mathbf t}_e \in L^2(e)$ for each edge $e \in {\mathcal E}(\widehat K)$ and $\|{\mathbf u} \cdot {\mathbf t}_e\|_{L^2(e)}
\lesssim \|{\mathbf u}\|_{{\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}$. The operator ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$ is well-defined.
For ${\mathbf u} \in {\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ the trace theorem gives, for each face $f$, $\Pi_\tau {\mathbf u} \in {\mathbf H}^{1/2}(f,\operatorname{curl}_f)$. The argument at the outset of the proof of Lemma \[lemma:Picurl-edge\] shows ${\mathbf t}_e \cdot {\mathbf u} \in L^2(e)$. To see that ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$ is well-defined, we assert that (\[eq:Pi\_curl\]) represents a square linear system and that ${\mathbf u} = 0$ implies ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf u} = 0$. In order to count the number of conditions in (\[eq:Pi\_curl\]) we introduce the notation $\displaystyle
\operatorname{ker}\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}=\{\mathbf{q}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K}):\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{q}=\mathbf{0}\},
$ and observe in view of the exactness of the sequence (\[eq:commuting-diagram-bc\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{dim}\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{K})&=\operatorname*{dim}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{K})\!+\!\operatorname*{dim}\operatorname*{ker}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}=\operatorname*{dim}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{K})+\operatorname*{dim}\nabla\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K}).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the number of conditions in (\[eq:Pi\_curl-b\]), (\[eq:Pi\_curl-a\]) equals $\operatorname*{dim}\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{K})$. Analogously, we argue with the exactness of the second sequence in (\[eq:commuting-diagram-bc\]) that for each face $f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat K)$ the number of conditions in (\[eq:Pi\_curl-d\]), (\[eq:Pi\_curl-c\]) equals $\operatorname*{dim}\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(f)$. Finally, we check that for each edge $e \in {\mathcal E}(\widehat K)$ the number of conditions in (\[eq:Pi\_curl-e\]) is $p$ and that the number of conditions in (\[eq:Pi\_curl-f\]) equals $6$. In total, the number of conditions in (\[eq:Pi\_curl\]) coincides with $\operatorname*{dim}\mathbf{Q}_{p}(\widehat{K})$. We conclude that (\[eq:Pi\_curl\]) represents a square system of equations. As in the case of Lemma \[lemma:Pi\_grad-well-defined\], see that ${\mathbf u} = 0$ implies ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf u} = 0$ in the following way: (\[eq:Pi\_curl-f\]), (\[eq:Pi\_curl-e\]) imply that the tangential component of ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf u}$ vanishes on all edges of $\widehat K$. From that, (\[eq:Pi\_curl-d\]), (\[eq:Pi\_curl-c\]) together with the exact sequence property (\[eq:commuting-diagram-bc-2d\]) gives that the tangential component $\Pi_\tau {\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf u}$ vanishes on all faces of $\widehat K$. Finally, (\[eq:Pi\_curl-b\]), (\[eq:Pi\_curl-a\]) together with again the exact sequence property (\[eq:commuting-diagram-bc\]) yields ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf u} = 0$.
\[lemma:Pi\_div-well-defined\] For ${\mathbf u} \in {\mathbf H}^{1/2}(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})$ there holds ${\mathbf u} \cdot {\mathbf n}_f \in L^2(f)$ for each face $f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat K)$ and $\|{\mathbf u}\cdot {\mathbf n}_f\|_{L^2(f)} \lesssim \|{\mathbf u}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{1/2}(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})}$. The operator ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$ is well-defined.
We first show that for ${\mathbf u} \in {\mathbf H}^{1/2}(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})$ the normal trace ${\mathbf n}_f \cdot {\mathbf u} \in L^2(f)$ for each face $f$. To that end, we write with the aid of Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-decomposition-div\] ${\mathbf u}=\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\boldsymbol \varphi} + {\mathbf z}$ with ${\boldsymbol \varphi}$, ${\mathbf z} \in {\mathbf H}^{3/2}(\widehat K)$. We have ${\mathbf n}_f \cdot {\mathbf z} \in {\mathbf H}^1(f)$. Noting ${\boldsymbol \varphi}|_f \in {\mathbf H}^1(f)$ (cf. also the proof of Lemma \[lemma:traces-2d\]) and $({\mathbf n}_f \cdot \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\boldsymbol \varphi})|_f
= \operatorname{curl}_f (\Pi_\tau {\boldsymbol \varphi})|_f$, we conclude that $({\mathbf n}_f \cdot \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\boldsymbol \varphi})|_f
\in L^2(f)$. To see that ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$ is well-defined, we check the number of conditions in (\[eq:Pi\_div\]) and show uniqueness. In view of the exactness of the sequence in (\[eq:commuting-diagram-bc\]) we get, using the notation $\displaystyle \operatorname{ker}\operatorname{div}=\{\mathbf{v}\in\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_p(\widehat{K}):\operatorname{div}\mathbf{v}=0\},
$ the equality $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{dim}\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_{p}(\widehat{K})=\operatorname*{dim}\operatorname*{div}\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_{p}(\widehat{K})+\operatorname*{dim}\operatorname*{ker}\operatorname*{div}=\operatorname*{dim}\operatorname*{div}\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_{p}(\widehat{K})+\operatorname*{dim}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{K}),\end{aligned}$$ so that the number of conditions in (\[eq:Pi\_div-b\]), (\[eq:Pi\_div-a\]) equals $\operatorname*{dim}\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_{p}(\widehat{K})$. Furthermore, the number of conditions in (\[eq:Pi\_div-d\]), (\[eq:Pi\_div-c\]) is $4\operatorname*{dim}W_{p}(f)$ so that $$\operatorname*{dim}\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_{p}(\widehat{K})+4\operatorname*{dim}W_{p}(f)=\frac{1}{2}(p+2)(p+1)p+4\frac{(p+1)(p+2)}{2}=\operatorname*{dim}\mathbf{V}_{p}(\widehat{K}).$$ To see that ${\mathbf u}= 0$ implies ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}{\mathbf u} = 0$, we note that conditions (\[eq:Pi\_div-d\]), (\[eq:Pi\_div-c\]) produce ${\mathbf n}_f \cdot {\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}{\mathbf u} = 0$ for all faces $f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat K)$. The exact sequence property (\[eq:commuting-diagram-bc\]) and conditions (\[eq:Pi\_div-b\]), (\[eq:Pi\_div-a\]) then imply ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}{\mathbf u} = 0$.
\[lemma:traces-2d\] For $u\in H^{3/2}(\widehat f)$ there holds $\nabla_e u \in L^2(e)$ for each edge $e \in {\mathcal E}(\widehat f)$ and $\|\nabla_e u\|_{L^2(e)} \lesssim \|u\|_{H^{3/2}(\widehat f)}$. For ${\mathbf u} \in {\mathbf H}^{1/2}(\widehat f,\operatorname*{curl})$ there holds ${\mathbf u} \cdot {\mathbf t}_e \in L^2(e)$ for each edge $e \in {\mathcal E}(\widehat f)$ and $\|{\mathbf u} \cdot {\mathbf t}_e\|_{L^2(e)} \lesssim \|{\mathbf u}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{1/2}(\widehat f,\operatorname*{curl})}$. The operators ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}$ and ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}$ are well-defined.
We only show the assertions for the traces. For $\varepsilon > 0$ sufficiently small, the trace theorem implies $u|_e \in H^{1+\varepsilon}(e)$ for $u \in H^{3/2+\varepsilon}(\widehat f)$ and $u|_e \in H^{1-\varepsilon}(e)$ for $u \in H^{3/2-\varepsilon}(\widehat f)$. By interpolation, $u|_e \in H^1(e)$ for $u \in H^{3/2}(\widehat f)$. Any ${\mathbf u} \in {\mathbf H}^{1/2}(\widehat f,\operatorname*{curl})$ can be written as ${\mathbf u} = \nabla \varphi + {\mathbf z}$ with $\varphi \in H^{3/2}(\widehat f)$ and ${\mathbf z} \in {\mathbf H}^{3/2}(\widehat f)$ by Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-like-decomp-2d\]. Hence, ${\mathbf u} \cdot {\mathbf t}_e = \nabla_e \varphi|_e + {\mathbf z}|_e \cdot {\mathbf t}_e \in L^2(e)$.
\[thm:diagram-commutes\] The diagrams and commute.
We will only show the arguments for the 3D case as the 2D case is shown with similar arguments. The proof follows the arguments given in [@demkowicz08].
*Proof of $ {\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\nabla= \nabla{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$:* Let $\mathbf{u}=\nabla\varphi$ for some $\varphi\in H^{2}(\widehat{K})$. We first claim $${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\nabla\varphi=\nabla\varphi_{p}\quad\text{for some }\varphi_{p}\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{K}).
\label{eq:thm:diagram-commutes-10}$$ For each edge $e$ with endpoints $V_{1}$, $V_{2}$, we compute $\int_{e}\mathbf{u}\cdot\mathbf{t}_{e}=\varphi(V_{1})-\varphi(V_{2})$, so that we get from (\[eq:Pi\_curl-f\]) for each face $f$ (and orienting the tangential vectors of the edges $e \in {\mathcal{E}}(f)$ so that $f$ is always “on the left”) $$\int_{\partial f}\Pi_{\tau,f}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}=\sum_{e\subset\partial f}\int_{e}\mathbf{u}\cdot\mathbf{t}_{e}=0. \label{eq:thm:diagram-commutes-20}$$ We conclude with integration by parts in view of $\operatorname{curl}_{f}\Pi_{\tau}\mathbf{u}=\operatorname*{curl}_{f}\Pi_{\tau}\nabla\varphi=0$ $$\int_{f}\operatorname{curl}_{f}\Pi_{\tau}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}=\int_{\partial f}\Pi_{\tau,f}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}\overset{\text{(\ref{eq:thm:diagram-commutes-20})}}{=}0.
\label{eq:thm:diagram-commutes-30}$$ Furthermore, the exact sequence property (\[eq:commuting-diagram-bc\]) gives us $\operatorname{curl}_{f}\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(f)=\mathring{V}_{p}(f)$ so that (\[eq:Pi\_curl-c\]) leads to $$\operatorname{curl}_{f}\Pi_{\tau}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}=\operatorname*{const}. \label{eq:thm:diagram-commutes-40}$$ (\[eq:thm:diagram-commutes-30\]), (\[eq:thm:diagram-commutes-40\]) together imply $\operatorname*{curl}_{f}\Pi_{\tau}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}=0$ so that on each face $(\Pi_{\tau
}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u})|_{f}$ is a gradient of a polynomial: $(\Pi_{\tau}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u})|_{f}=\nabla\varphi_{p,f}$ for some $\varphi_{p,f}\in W_{p+1}(f)$ for each face $f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K})$.
We claim that this piecewise polynomial can be chosen to be continuous on $\partial\widehat{K}$. Fix a vertex $V\in{\mathcal{V}}(\widehat{K})$. By fixing the constant of the polynomials $\varphi_{p,f}$ we may assume that $\varphi_{p,f}(V)=0$ for each face $f$ that has $V$ as a vertex. From (\[eq:Pi\_curl-f\]), (\[eq:Pi\_curl-e\]) we conclude that $\varphi_{p,f}$ is continuous across all edges $e$ that have $V$ as an endpoint. Hence, the piecewise polynomial $\varphi_{p}$ given by $\varphi_{p}|_{f}=\varphi_{p,f}$ is continuous in all vertices of $\widehat{K}$. We conclude that $\varphi_{p}$ is continuous on $\partial\widehat{K}$. This continuous, piecewise polynomial $\varphi_{p}$ has, by [@munoz-sola97; @demkowicz-gopalakrishnan-schoeberl-I], a polynomial lifting to $\widehat{K}$ (again denoted $\varphi_{p}\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{K})$). We note $
{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}-\nabla\varphi_{p}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{K})
$ so that (\[eq:Pi\_curl-a\]) with test function $\mathbf{v}={\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}-\nabla\varphi_{p}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{K})$ implies$$\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}=0.
\label{eq:thm:diagram-commutes-50}$$ Since the second line of (\[eq:commuting-diagram-hinten\]) expresses an exact sequence property, we conclude that (\[eq:thm:diagram-commutes-10\]) holds.
We now show that ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\nabla
\varphi=\nabla{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}\varphi$. From (\[eq:thm:diagram-commutes-10\]) we get ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\nabla\varphi=\nabla\varphi_{p}$ for some $\varphi_{p}\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{K})$. We fix the constant in the function $\varphi_{p}$ by stipulating $\varphi_{p}(V)=\varphi(V)$ for one selected vertex $V\in{\mathcal{V}}(\widehat{K})$. From (\[eq:Pi\_curl-f\]), we then get $\varphi(V^{\prime})=\varphi_{p}(V^{\prime})$ for all vertices $V^{\prime
}\in{\mathcal{V}}(\widehat{K})$. Next, (\[eq:Pi\_grad-c\]) and (\[eq:Pi\_curl-e\]) imply ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}\varphi=\varphi_{p}$ on all edges $e\in{\mathcal{E}}(\widehat{K})$. Comparing (\[eq:Pi\_grad-b\]) and (\[eq:Pi\_curl-d\]) reveals $\nabla_{f}{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}\varphi=\Pi_{\tau}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\nabla\varphi$ on each face $f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K})$. Finally, comparing (\[eq:Pi\_grad-a\]) with (\[eq:Pi\_curl-b\]) shows ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\nabla\varphi=\nabla{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}\varphi$.
*Proof of $\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}={\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}$*: First, we show $$\operatorname*{div}{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}=0. \label{eq:thm:commuting-diagram-90}$$ To see this, we note from the second line of (\[eq:commuting-diagram-hinten\]) that $\operatorname*{div}{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{u}}\in W_{p}(\widehat{K})$. Additionally, $$\int_{\partial\widehat{K}}{\mathbf{n}}\cdot{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}\overset{\text{(\ref{eq:Pi_div-d})}}{=}\int_{\partial\widehat{K}}{\mathbf{n}}\cdot\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}=\int_{\widehat{K}}\operatorname*{div}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}=0. \label{eq:thm:commuting-diagram-110}$$ Finally, the exact sequence property of the first line of diagram (\[eq:commuting-diagram-bc\]) informs us that $\operatorname*{div}:\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_{p}(\widehat{K})\rightarrow W^{aver}_p(\widehat K)$ is surjective. Hence, we get from (\[eq:Pi\_div-a\]) that $\operatorname*{div}{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}=0$, i.e., indeed the claim (\[eq:thm:commuting-diagram-90\]) holds. Next, (\[eq:thm:commuting-diagram-90\]) and the exact sequence property of (\[eq:commuting-diagram-hinten\]) imply, for some $\mathbf{u}_{p}\in\mathbf{Q}_{p}(\widehat{K})$, $${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}=\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}_{p}. \label{eq:thm:commuting-diagram-100}$$ We next claim ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}=\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}$. To that end, we ascertain that $\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}\in{\mathbf{V}}_{p}(\widehat{K})$ satisfies the equations (\[eq:Pi\_div\]) for ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}$, i.e., that
\[eq:Pi\_div-10\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Pi_div-d-10}(\mathbf{n}_{f}\cdot(\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}-\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}),1)_{L^{2}(f)} &
=0\quad\forall f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K}), \\
(\mathbf{n}_{f}\cdot(\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}-\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}),{v})_{L^{2}(f)} &
=0\quad\forall v\in\mathring{V}_{p}(f)\quad\forall f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K}),
\label{eq:Pi_div-c-10}\\
(\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}-\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{v})_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} & =0\quad\forall\mathbf{v}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{K}),
\label{eq:Pi_div-b-10}\\
(\operatorname*{div}(\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}-\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}),\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{v})_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} & =0\quad\forall\mathbf{v}\in
\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{K}).
\label{eq:Pi_div-a-10}\end{aligned}$$ (\[eq:Pi\_div-a-10\]) is obviously satisfied and (\[eq:Pi\_div-b-10\]) is a rephrasing of (\[eq:Pi\_curl-a\]). Noting $\mathbf{n}_{f}\cdot
\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}=\operatorname{curl}_{f}\Pi_{\tau}$, we rephrase (\[eq:Pi\_div-c-10\]) as
$$(\operatorname{curl}_{f}\Pi_{\tau}(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}),v)_{L^{2}(f)}=0\quad\forall v\in
\mathring{V}_{p}(f)
\quad \forall f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat{K}).
\label{eq:Pi_div-b-10-10}$$
In view of the exact sequence property of (\[eq:commuting-diagram-bc\]), we have $\mathring{V}_{p}(f) = \operatorname{curl}_{f}\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(f)$ so that (\[eq:Pi\_curl-c\]) implies (\[eq:Pi\_div-b-10-10\]). Finally, (\[eq:Pi\_div-d-10\]) is seen by an integration by parts: $$(\operatorname{curl}_{f}\Pi_{\tau}(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}),1)_{L^{2}(f)}=\sum_{e\subset\partial
f}(\Pi_{\tau}(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}),\mathbf{t}_{e})_{L^{2}(e)}\overset{\text{(\ref{eq:Pi_curl-f})}}{=}0.$$
*Proof of $\operatorname*{div}{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}=\widehat{\Pi}_{p}^{L^{2}}\operatorname*{div}$:* Again, this follows from the exact sequence property (\[eq:commuting-diagram-bc\]). We check that $\operatorname*{div}{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\mathbf{u}$ satisfies (\[eq:Pi\_L\^2\]). To that end, we note $$(\operatorname*{div}{\mathbf{u}}-\operatorname*{div}{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}{\mathbf{u}},1)_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}=\int_{\partial\widehat{K}}\mathbf{n}\cdot({\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}{\mathbf{u}})\overset{\text{(\ref{eq:Pi_div-d})}}{=}0.$$ Furthermore, the exact sequence property (\[eq:commuting-diagram-bc\]) implies that every $w\in W^{aver}_{p}(\widehat{K})$ has the form $w=\operatorname*{div}{\mathbf{w}}$ for some $\mathbf{w}\in\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_{p}(\widehat{K})$. Hence, for any $w \in W^{aver}_p(\widehat{K})$ $$(\operatorname*{div}{\mathbf{u}}-\operatorname*{div}{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\mathbf{u},w)_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}=(\operatorname*{div}{\mathbf{u}}-\operatorname*{div}{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\mathbf{u},\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{w})_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}\overset{\text{(\ref{eq:Pi_div-a})}}{=}0.$$ for all $w \in W^{aver}_p(\widehat{K})$. This proves (\[eq:commuting-diagram-hinten\]) in the three-dimensional setting.
Stability of the projection operators in one space dimension
============================================================
In one dimension, the following result holds true.
\[lemma:demkowicz-grad-1D\] Let $\widehat{e}=(-1,1)$. Let $\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname*{grad},1d}:H^{1}(\widehat{e})\rightarrow{\mathcal{P}}_{p}(\widehat e)$ be defined by
\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-1D-10\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-1D-10-a}
((u-\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname*{grad},1d}u)^{\prime},v^{\prime})_{L^{2}(\widehat{e})} &
=0\qquad\forall v\in{\mathcal{P}_{p}(\widehat e)}\cap H_{0}^{1}(\widehat{e}),\\
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-1D-10-b}
u(\pm1) & =(\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname*{grad},1d}u)(\pm1).\end{aligned}$$
Then for every $s\ge 0$ there is a constant $C_{s}>0$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-1D-20-a}
\Vert u-\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname*{grad},1d}u\Vert_{H^{1-s}(\widehat{e})}
&\leq C_{s} p^{-s} \inf_{v \in {\mathcal P}_p(\widehat e)} \Vert u - v\Vert_{H^{1}(\widehat{e})}, \qquad
\mbox{if $s \in [0,1]$}, \\
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-1D-20-b}
\Vert u-\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname*{grad},1d}u\Vert_{\widetilde H^{1-s}(\widehat{e})}
&\leq C_{s} p^{-s} \inf_{v \in {\mathcal P}_p(\widehat e)} \Vert u - v\Vert_{H^{1}(\widehat{e})}, \qquad
\mbox{if $s \ge 1$}, \\
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-1D-20-c}
\Vert (u-\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname*{grad},1d}u)^\prime\Vert_{\widetilde H^{-s}(\widehat{e})}
&\leq C_{s} p^{-s} \inf_{v \in {\mathcal P}_p(\widehat e)} \Vert u - v\Vert_{H^{1}(\widehat{e})}, \qquad
\mbox{if $s \ge 0$}.\end{aligned}$$
The case $s = 0$ in (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-1D-20-a\]) reflects the $p$-uniform $H^1$-stability of $\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname*{grad},1d}$ and the projection property of $\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname*{grad},1d}$. More specifically, to see the stability, i.e., $$\label{eq:pigrad-H1-stable}
\|\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname{grad},1d} u\|_{H^1(\widehat e)} \leq C \|u\|_{H^1(\widehat e)}
\qquad \forall u \in H^1(\widehat e),$$ let ${\mathcal L} u \in {\mathcal P}_1(\widehat e)$ interpolate $u$ in the endpoints $\pm 1$ and note $\|{\mathcal L} u\|_{H^1(\widehat e)} \lesssim \|u\|_{H^1(\widehat e)}$ by Sobolev’s embedding theorem. Since $u - {\mathcal L}u \in H^1_0(\widehat e)$ (and thus $\widehat \Pi_p^{\operatorname{grad},1d}(u - {\mathcal L}u) \in H^1_0(\widehat e)$) the orthogonality implies $|\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname*{grad},1d} (u - {\mathcal L} u)|_{H^1(\widehat e)}
\leq |u - {\mathcal L} u|_{H^1(\widehat e)}$. A Poincaré inequality yields $\|\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname*{grad},1d} (u - {\mathcal L} u)\|_{H^1(\widehat e)}
\lesssim \|u - {\mathcal L} u\|_{H^1(\widehat e)}$. Writing $\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname*{grad},1d} u =
\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname*{grad},1d} (u - {\mathcal L} u) +
\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname*{grad},1d} {\mathcal L} u =
\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname*{grad},1d} (u - {\mathcal L} u) +
{\mathcal L} u$ finishes the proof of . The projection property of $\widehat \Pi_p^{\operatorname{grad},1d}$ yields for any $v \in {\mathcal P}_p(\widehat e)$ that $u - \widehat \Pi_p^{\operatorname{grad},1d} u =
u -v - \widehat \Pi_p^{\operatorname{grad},1d} (u-v)$. From this and follows the estimate (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-1D-20-a\]) for $s = 0$. To see for $s\ge 1$, one proceeds by a duality argument. We set $\widetilde{e}:=u-\widehat{\Pi}_p^{\operatorname*{grad},1d}u$ and $t=-(1-s)\ge 0$ and estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert\widetilde{e}\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-t}(\widehat{e})} = \operatorname*{sup}_{v\in H^t(\widehat{e})} \frac{(\widetilde{e},v)_{L^2(\widehat{e})}}{\Vert v\Vert_{H^t(\widehat{e})}}.\end{aligned}$$ For every $v\in H^t(\widehat{e})$, there exists a unique solution $z\in H^{t+2}(\widehat{e}) \cap H_0^1(\widehat{e})$ of $$\begin{aligned}
-z^{\prime\prime} = v \text{ in } \widehat{e}, \qquad z=0 \text{ on }\partial\widehat{e},\end{aligned}$$ which satisfies $\Vert z\Vert_{H^{t+2}(\widehat{e})} \lesssim \Vert v\Vert_{H^t(\widehat{e})}$. Using integration by parts, the orthogonality condition , and the estimate for $s=0$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&|(\widetilde{e},v)_{L^2(\widehat{e})}| = |(\widetilde{e}^\prime,z^\prime)_{L^2(\widehat{e})}|
\stackrel{\eqref{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-1D-10-a}}{ \leq }
\Vert\widetilde{e}^\prime\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{e})} \operatorname*{inf}_{\pi\in\mathcal{P}_p(\widehat{e}) \cap H_0^1(\widehat{e})} \Vert z^\prime-\pi^\prime\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{e})} \\
&\quad \lesssim \Vert \widetilde e^\prime \Vert_{L^2(\widehat{e})} p^{-(t+1)} \Vert z\Vert_{H^{t+2}(\widehat{e})}
\stackrel{\text{(\ref{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-1D-20-a}) with $s = 0$}}{\lesssim}
p^{-(t+1)} \inf_{v \in {\mathcal P}_p(\widehat e)} \Vert u - v \Vert_{H^1(\widehat{e})} \Vert v\Vert_{H^t(\widehat{e})},\end{aligned}$$ which implies for $s\ge 1$. Noting that $\Vert\cdot\Vert_{\widetilde H^0(\widehat e)} = \Vert\cdot\Vert_{L^2(\widehat e)} = \Vert\cdot\Vert_{H^0(\widehat e)}$, the cases $s \in(0,1)$ follow by interpolation. Finally, is shown by similar duality arguments, just use the dual problem $$\begin{aligned}
-z^{\prime\prime} = v-\overline{v} \text{ in } \widehat{e}, \qquad z^\prime = 0 \text{ on }\partial\widehat{e}.\end{aligned}$$
Stability of the projection operators in two space dimensions
=============================================================
Preliminaries
-------------
We recall the following unconstrained approximation results:
\[lemma:Pgrad1d\] Let $K$ be a fixed $d$-dimensional simplex in ${\mathbb R}^d$, $d \in \{1,2,3\}$. Fix $r \ge 0$. Then there are approximation operators $J_p:\mathbf{H}^r(K) \rightarrow ({\mathcal P}_p)^d$ such that $$\|{\mathbf u} - J_p {\mathbf u}\|_{\mathbf{H}^s(K)} \leq C (p+1)^{-(r-s)} \|{\mathbf u}\|_{\mathbf{H}^r(K)},
\qquad \forall p \in {\mathbb N}_0, \quad 0 \leq s \leq r.$$
The scalar case $d = 1$ is well-known, see, e.g., [@melenk_nshpinterpolation_article Thm. [5.1]{}]. The case $d > 1$ follows from a componentwise application of the case $d = 1$.
We need a shift theorem for the Laplacian:
\[lemma:shift-theorem\] Let $\widehat f \subset {\mathbb R}^2$ be a triangle and $\widehat{s}$ be given by . For every $s \in [0,\widehat{s}-1)$ there is $C_s > 0$ such that the following shift theorems are true:
(i) For every $v\in H^s(\widehat{f})$ the solution $z$ of the problem $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta z=v \text{ in } \widehat{f}, \quad z=0 \text{ on } \partial\widehat{f}, \end{aligned}$$ satisfies $z\in H^{s+2}(\widehat{f}) \cap H_0^1(\widehat{f})$ with the estimate $\Vert z\Vert_{H^{s+2}(\widehat{f})} \leq C_s \Vert v\Vert_{H^s(\widehat{f})}$.
(ii) For every $v\in H^s(\widehat{f})$ and $g \in L^2(\partial\widehat f)$ with $g|_{e} \in H^{s+1/2}(e)$ $\forall e \in {\mathcal E}(\widehat f)$ that satisfies additionally the compatibility condition $\int_{\widehat f} v + \int_{\partial \widehat f} g = 0$, the solution $z$ of the problem $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta z=v \text{ in } \widehat{f}, \quad \partial_n z=g \text{ on } \partial\widehat{f},
\qquad \int_{\widehat f} z = 0, \end{aligned}$$ satisfies $z \in H^{s+2}(\widehat f)$ and $\|z\|_{H^{s+2}(\widehat f)} \leq C_s \left[ \|v\|_{H^s(\widehat f)} + \sum_{e \in {\mathcal E}(\widehat f)}
\|g\|_{H^{s+1/2}(e)}\right]$.
*1st step:* It follows from [@Grisvard85; @dauge88; @rojikdiss] that both regularity assertions are satisfied for the case of homogeneous Dirichlet and Neumann conditions (i.e., $g = 0$). The key observation for that is that the leading corner singularities for both the homogeneous Dirichlet and Neumann problem are in $H^{\widehat{s}+1-\varepsilon}(\widehat f)$ for every $\varepsilon > 0$ as can be seen from their explicit representation, [@Grisvard85 Sec. 4, 5], [@grisvard92 p. [82]{}].
*2nd step:* For the case of inhomogeneous Neumann conditions $g \ne 0$, one constructs a vector field ${\boldsymbol \sigma} \in {\mathbf H}^{s+1}(\widehat f)$ such that ${\boldsymbol \sigma} \cdot {\mathbf n} = g$ on $\partial \widehat f$. It is easy to construct such a vector field away from the vertices, and near the vertices, an affine coordinate change together with a Piola transformation for ${\boldsymbol \sigma}$ reduces the construction to one in a quarter plane, where each component of ${\boldsymbol \sigma}$ can be constructed separately by lifting from one of the coordinate axes. Next, one solves the two problems $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta z_0 &= v + \operatorname{div} {\boldsymbol \sigma} \quad \mbox{ in $\widehat f$},
\qquad \partial_n z_0 = 0 \quad \mbox{ on $\partial \widehat f$}, \\
-\Delta \widetilde z_0 &= \operatorname{curl } {\boldsymbol \sigma} \quad \mbox{ in $\widehat f$},
\qquad \widetilde z_0 = 0 \quad \mbox{ on $\partial \widehat f$}. \end{aligned}$$ From the first step, one has that $z_0$, $\widetilde z_0 \in H^{s+2}(\widehat f)$. It remains to see that $\nabla z = {\boldsymbol \sigma} - \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} \widetilde z_0 + \nabla z_0$. The difference ${\boldsymbol \delta}:= \nabla z -
({\boldsymbol \sigma} - \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} \widetilde z_0 + \nabla z_0)$ satisfies $\operatorname{div} {\boldsymbol \delta} = 0 = \operatorname{curl} {\boldsymbol \delta}$ and ${\boldsymbol \delta} \cdot {\mathbf n} = 0 $ on $\partial \widehat f$. From $\operatorname{curl}{\boldsymbol \delta} = 0$ we get ${\boldsymbol \delta}= \nabla \varphi$ for some $\varphi$, and $\operatorname{div} {\boldsymbol \delta}= 0$ produces $-\Delta \varphi = 0$. Together with ${\boldsymbol \delta} \cdot {\mathbf n} = 0 $ we conclude that $\nabla \varphi = 0$.
\[lemma:Pgrad2d\] Let $P^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}u\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{f})$ be defined by
\[eq:lemma:Pgrad2d\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:Pgrad2d-a}
(\nabla(u-P^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}u),\nabla v)_{L^2(\widehat{f})} &= 0 \qquad \forall v\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{f}),\\
(u-P^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}u,1)_{L^2(\widehat{f})} &= 0.
\label{eq:lemma:Pgrad2d-b}\end{aligned}$$
Then, for $r>1$, there holds $\displaystyle
\Vert u-P^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}u\Vert_{H^1(\widehat{f})} \leq C_r p^{-(r-1)} \Vert u\Vert_{H^r(\widehat{f})}.
$
\[lemma:Pcurl2d\] Let $P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{u}}\in\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{f})$ be defined by
\[eq:lemma:Pcurl2d-a\]$$\begin{aligned}
(\operatorname{curl}({\mathbf{u}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{u}}),\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{v}})_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} & =0\qquad\forall
{\mathbf{v}}\in\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{f}),\\
({\mathbf{u}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{u}},\nabla v)_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}
& =0\qquad\forall v\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{f}).\end{aligned}$$ Then, for $r>0$, there holds
$\displaystyle \Vert{\mathbf{u}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}\leq C_r p^{-r}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{r}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}.
$
The next lemma provides right inverses for the differential operators $\nabla$ and $\operatorname{curl}$.
\[\]\[lemma:mcintosh-2d\] Let $B\subset\widehat{f}$ be a ball. Let $\theta\in C_{0}^{\infty}(B)$ with $\int_{B}\theta=1$. Define the operators $$\begin{aligned}
{R}^{\operatorname*{grad}}{\mathbf{u}}(\mathbf{x}) & :=\int_{{\mathbf{a}}\in B} \theta(\mathbf{a})\int_{t=0}^{1}{\mathbf{u}}(\mathbf{a}+t(\mathbf{x}-{\mathbf{a}}))\,dt\cdot(\mathbf{x}-{\mathbf{a}})\,d{\mathbf{a}},\\
{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}{u}(\mathbf{x}) & :=\int_{{\mathbf{a}}\in
B} \theta(\mathbf{a}) \int_{t=0}^{1}t{u}(\mathbf{a}+t(\mathbf{x}-{\mathbf{a}}))\,dt \, \left(\begin{array}{c}-(\mathbf{x}_2-\mathbf{a}_2)\\\mathbf{x}_1-\mathbf{a}_1\end{array}\right)\,d{\mathbf{a}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then:
(i) \[item:lemma:mcintosh-2d-i\] For $u\in L^2(\widehat{f})$, there holds $\operatorname*{curl}{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}{u}=u$.
(ii) \[item:lemma:mcintosh-2d-ii\] For ${\mathbf{u}}$ with $\operatorname*{curl}{\mathbf{u}}=0$, there holds $\nabla{R}^{\operatorname*{grad}}{\mathbf{u}}={\mathbf{u}}$.
(iii) \[item:lemma:mcintosh-2d-iii\] If ${\mathbf{u}}\in\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{f})$, then ${R}^{\operatorname*{grad}}{\mathbf{u}}\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{f})$.
(iv) \[item:lemma:mcintosh-2d-iv\] If ${u}\in V_p(\widehat{f})$, then ${\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}{u}\in\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{f})$.
(v) \[item:lemma:mcintosh-2d-v\] For every $k\geq0$, the operators ${R}^{\operatorname*{grad}}$ and ${\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}$ are bounded linear operators $\mathbf{H}^{k}(\widehat{f})\rightarrow H^{k+1}(\widehat{f})$ and $H^{k}(\widehat{f})\rightarrow \mathbf{H}^{k+1}(\widehat{f})$, respectively.
Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh-2d\] can now be used to construct regular Helmholtz-like decompositions.
\[lemma:helmholtz-like-decomp-2d\] Let $s \ge0$. Then each ${\mathbf{u}}
\in{\mathbf{H}}^{s}(\widehat{f},\operatorname*{curl})$ can be written as ${\mathbf{u}} = \nabla\varphi+ {\mathbf{z}}$ with $\varphi\in H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})$, ${\mathbf{z}} \in{\mathbf{H}}^{s+1}(\widehat{f})$.
With the aid of the operators ${\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}$, $R^{\operatorname*{grad}}$ of Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh-2d\], we write $\displaystyle
{\mathbf{u}}=\nabla R^{\operatorname*{grad}}({\mathbf{u}}-{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}(\operatorname*{curl}{\mathbf{u}}))+{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}(\operatorname*{curl}{\mathbf{u}}).
$ The mapping properties of ${\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}$ and $R^{\operatorname*{grad}}$ of Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh-2d\] then imply the result.
\[lemma:helmholtz-like-decomp-2d-v2\] Let $\widehat f \subset {\mathbb R}^2$ be a triangle. Let $s \in [1,\widehat{s})$ with $\widehat{s}$ given by . Then each ${\mathbf{u}}
\in{\mathbf{H}}^{s}(\widehat{f})$ can be written as ${\mathbf{u}} = \nabla\varphi+ \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}z$ with $\varphi\in H^{s+1}(\widehat{f}) \cap H^1_0(\widehat{f})$, $z\in H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})$ with $(z,1)_{L^2(\widehat f)} = 0$ and satisfying $\|\varphi\|_{H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})} + \|z\|_{H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})} \lesssim \|\mathbf{u}\|_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{f})}$.
We define $\varphi,z\in H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})$ as the solutions of the equations
$$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta\varphi & =-\operatorname{div}{\mathbf{u}},\quad\varphi
=0\quad\text{on }\partial \widehat{f},
\label{eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-20a}\\
-\Delta z & =\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{u}},\quad\partial_{n}z=-{\mathbf{t}}\cdot({\mathbf{u}}-\nabla\varphi)\quad\text{on }\partial \widehat{f},\quad\int_{\widehat{f}}z=0.
\label{eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-20b}$$
Here, ${\mathbf{t}}$ denotes the unit tangent vector on $\partial \widehat{f}$ oriented such that $\widehat{f}$ is on the left. We note that (\[eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-20b\]) is a Neumann problem; integration by parts (cf. ) shows that the solvability condition is satisfied. By Lemma \[lemma:shift-theorem\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\Vert\varphi\Vert_{H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})}\lesssim\Vert\operatorname{div}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{H^{s-1}(\widehat{f})} \lesssim \|\mathbf{u}\|_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{f})},\qquad\Vert z\Vert_{H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})}\lesssim\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{s}(\widehat{f})}.
$$ The representation ${\mathbf u} = \nabla \varphi + \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} z$ follows as at the end of the proof of Lemma \[lemma:shift-theorem\]: ${\boldsymbol \delta}:= {\mathbf u} - (\nabla \varphi + \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} z)$ satisfies $\operatorname{div} {\boldsymbol \delta} = 0 =
\operatorname{curl} {\boldsymbol \delta}$, and ${\mathbf t} \cdot {\boldsymbol \delta} = 0$ so that ${\boldsymbol \delta} = 0$.
\[discrete Friedrichs inequality in 2D\]\[lemma:discrete-friedrichs\] Let $\widehat f \subset {\mathbb R}^2$ be a triangle. There exists $C > 0$ independent of $p$ and ${\mathbf{u}}$ such that $$\label{eq:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-2d}\|{\mathbf{u}}\|_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} \leq C
\|\operatorname{curl} {\mathbf{u}}\|_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}$$ in the following two cases:
(i) \[item:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-i\] ${\mathbf{u}}\in
\mathbf{Q}_{p}(\widehat{f})$ satisfies $({\mathbf{u}},\nabla v)_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}=0$ for all $v\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{f})$.
(ii) \[item:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-ii\] ${\mathbf{u}} \in
\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{f})$ satisfies $({\mathbf{u}}, \nabla v)_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} = 0$ for all $v \in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{f})$.
Statement (\[item:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-i\]) is proved in [demkowicz-buffa05]{} or [@demkowicz08 Lemma [4.1]{}]. Statement (\[item:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-ii\]) is shown with similar techniques: Using the operators $R^{\operatorname*{grad}}$ and ${\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}$ of Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh-2d\], we decompose ${\mathbf{u}}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{f})$ as $${\mathbf{u}}=\nabla\psi+{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{u}}),\qquad\psi:=R^{\operatorname*{grad}}({\mathbf{u}}-{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{u}})).$$ Since ${\mathbf{u}}\in\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{f})$ we have $\psi\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{f})$. The property ${\mathbf{u}}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{f})$ implies with the tangential vector ${\mathbf{t}}$ on the boundary $\partial \widehat{f}$ $${\mathbf{t}}\cdot\nabla\psi=-{\mathbf{t}}\cdot{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{u}}).$$ Since $\psi$ is continuous at the vertices of $\widehat{f}$, we infer $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi|_{H^{1/2}(\partial \widehat{f})} & \lesssim|\psi|_{H^{1}(\partial \widehat{f})}= \|{\mathbf{t}}\cdot{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{u}})\|_{L^{2}(\partial \widehat{f})}\leq\|{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{u}})\|_{L^{2}(\partial \widehat{f})}\\
& \lesssim\Vert{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{u}})\Vert_{H^{1/2}(\partial \widehat{f})}\lesssim\Vert{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{u}})\Vert_{H^{1}(\widehat{f})}\lesssim\Vert\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}.$$ Next, we decompose $\psi=\psi_{0}+{\mathcal{L}^{\operatorname{grad},2d}}(\psi|_{\partial \widehat{f}})$, where ${\mathcal{L}^{\operatorname{grad},2d}}:H^{1/2}(\partial \widehat{f})\rightarrow H^{1}(\widehat{f})$ is the lifting operator of [@babuska-craig-mandel-pitkaranta91]. The lifting ${\mathcal L}^{\operatorname{grad},2d}$ of [@babuska-craig-mandel-pitkaranta91] is such that $\psi \in W_{p+1}(\widehat{f})$ implies ${\mathcal L}^{\operatorname{grad},2d}(\psi|_{\partial\widehat{f}}) \in W_{p+1}(\widehat f)$ so that $\psi_0 \in \mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat f)$. Since furthermore ${\mathcal L}^{\operatorname{grad},2d} 1 = 1$, we deduce $\|\nabla {\mathcal L}^{\operatorname{grad},2d} \psi\|_{L^2(\widehat f)} \lesssim |\psi|_{H^{1/2}(\partial \widehat f)}$ and estimate $$\begin{aligned}
& \Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}^{2} =({\mathbf{u}},\nabla\psi_{0}+\nabla{\mathcal{L}^{\operatorname{grad},2d}}(\psi|_{\partial \widehat{f}})+{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{u}}))_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} \\
& \quad =({\mathbf{u}},\nabla{\mathcal{L}^{\operatorname{grad},2d}}(\psi|_{\partial \widehat{f}})+{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{u}}))_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\\
& \quad \leq\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\left\{ \Vert\nabla{\mathcal{L}^{\operatorname{grad},2d}}(\psi|_{\partial \widehat{f}})\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}+\Vert{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{u}})\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\right\} \\
& \quad \leq\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\left\{ |\psi|_{H^{1/2}(\partial \widehat{f})}+\Vert{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{u}})\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\right\} \lesssim\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\Vert\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}.
\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
Stability of the operator $\protect{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D\] Let $\widehat f\subset{\mathbb R}^2$ be a triangle and $\widehat{s}$ be given by . For every $s\in [0,\widehat{s})$ there is $C_{s}>0$ such that for $u\in H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})$
\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10\]$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10-a}\Vert u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u\Vert_{H^{1-s}(\widehat{f})}& \leq
C_{s}p^{-(1/2+s)}\!\!\!\inf_{v \in {\mathcal P}_{p+1}(\widehat f)} \Vert u -v \Vert_{H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})}
\,\,\mbox{ if $s \in [0,1]$}, \\
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10-b}\Vert u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u\Vert_{\widetilde H^{1-s}(\widehat{f})}& \leq
C_{s}p^{-(1/2+s)}\!\!\!\inf_{v \in {\mathcal P}_{p+1}(\widehat f)} \Vert u -v \Vert_{H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})}
\,\,\mbox{ if $s \in [1,\widehat{s})$}, \\
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10-c}\Vert \nabla(u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u)\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{f})}& \leq
C_{s}p^{-(1/2+s)}\!\!\!\inf_{v \in {\mathcal P}_{p+1}(\widehat f)} \Vert u -v \Vert_{H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})}
\,\,\mbox{ if $s \in [0,\widehat{s})$}.\end{aligned}$$
By the projection property of ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}$ it suffices to show the estimates (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10-a\]), (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10-b\]), (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10-c\]) for the special case $v = 0$ in the infimum.
*1st step:* We show (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10-a\]) for the case $s = 0$. The trace theorem gives $u \in H^1(e)$ for each edge $e \in {\mathcal E}(\widehat f)$ with $\|u\|_{H^1(e)} \lesssim \|u\|_{H^{3/2}(\widehat f)}$ (cf. Lemma \[lemma:traces-2d\]). By Lemma \[lemma:demkowicz-grad-1D\], we have for every edge $e\in{\mathcal{E}}(\widehat{f})$ $$\Vert u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u\Vert_{H^{1-s}(e)}\leq Cp^{-s}\Vert u\Vert_{H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})},\qquad s\in\lbrack0,1].$$ Since ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u$ is piecewise polynomial and continuous on $\partial\widehat{f}$, we infer in particular for $s = 0$ and $s=1$ the bounds $$\Vert u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u\Vert_{H^{1-s}(\partial\widehat{f})}\leq
Cp^{-s}\Vert u\Vert_{H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})},
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-15}$$ and then, by interpolation, also for the intermediate $s\in(0,1)$.
To show (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10-a\]) for $s=0$, we first observe that $P^{\operatorname*{grad},2d} u - {\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u$ is discrete harmonic, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla \underbrace{(P^{\operatorname{grad},2d} u - {\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u)
}_{=:\delta_p \in W_{p+1}(\widehat f)} ,\nabla v)_{L^2(\widehat f)} = 0
\qquad \forall v \in \mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat f).\end{aligned}$$ With the continuous, polynomial preserving lifting ${\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname{grad},2d}:H^{1/2}(\partial\widehat{f}) \rightarrow H^1(\widehat{f})$ of [@babuska-craig-mandel-pitkaranta91] we then get $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\nabla \delta_p ,\nabla (\delta_p-{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname{grad},2d} \delta_p)\right)_{L^2(\widehat f)} = 0\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-17}
|\delta_p|_{H^1(\widehat{f})}^2 \!=\! (\nabla \delta_p,\nabla \delta_p)_{L^2(\widehat{f})}
\!=\! (\nabla \delta_p ,\nabla({\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname{grad},2d}\delta_p))_{L^2(\widehat{f})}
\!\lesssim\! |\delta_p|_{H^1(\widehat{f})} |\delta_p|_{H^{1/2}(\partial\widehat{f})}.
\!\!
\!\!
\!\!$$ We infer from Lemma \[lemma:Pgrad2d\], , and for the seminorm $|\cdot|_{H^1(\widehat{f})}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-2d-105}
& |u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u|_{H^1(\widehat{f})} \leq |u-P^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}u|_{H^1(\widehat{f})} + |P^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u|_{H^1(\widehat{f})} \\
\nonumber
&\qquad \stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:Pgrad2d},(\ref{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-17}) }}{\lesssim} p^{-1/2} \Vert u\Vert_{H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})} + \Vert P^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u\Vert_{H^{1/2}(\partial\widehat{f})} \\
\nonumber
&\qquad
\stackrel{\eqref{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-15}}{ \lesssim}
p^{-1/2} \Vert u\Vert_{H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})} + \Vert u-P^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}u\Vert_{H^1(\widehat{f})}
\lesssim p^{-1/2} \Vert u\Vert_{H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})},\end{aligned}$$ which is (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10-a\]) for $s=0$.
*2nd step:* We next show the estimate (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10-b\]) for $s \in [1,\widehat{s})$ by a duality argument. Let $\widetilde{e}=u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u$, and set $t=-(1-s)$. To estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-2d-15}
\Vert\widetilde{e}\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-t}(\widehat{f})} = \operatorname*{sup}_{v\in H^t(\widehat{f})} \frac{(\widetilde{e},v)_{L^2(\widehat{f})}}{\Vert v\Vert_{H^t(\widehat{f})}}\end{aligned}$$ let $v\in H^t(\widehat{f})$ and $z\in H^{t+2}(\widehat{f})\cap H_{0}^{1}(\widehat{f})$ solve (cf. Lemma \[lemma:shift-theorem\]) $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta z=v\quad\text{in }\widehat{f},\qquad z|_{\partial
\widehat{f}}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Note the *a priori* estimate $\Vert z\Vert_{H^{t+2}(\widehat{f})}\leq
C\Vert v\Vert_{H^t(\widehat{f})}$. Integration by parts yields $$(\widetilde{e},v)_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}=\int_{\widehat{f}}\nabla\widetilde{e}\cdot\nabla z-\int_{\partial\widehat{f}}\partial
_{n}z\widetilde{e}. \label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-2d-100}$$ For the first term in (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-2d-100\]) we get by the orthogonality properties satisfied by $\widetilde{e}$, Lemma \[lemma:Pgrad1d\], and $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left\vert \int_{\widehat{f}}\nabla z\cdot\nabla\widetilde{e}\right\vert
&
\leq\inf_{\pi\in{\mathcal{P}}_{p}\cap H_{0}^{1}(\widehat{f})}\Vert z-\pi
\Vert_{H^{1}(\widehat{f})}\Vert\nabla\widetilde{e}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}
\lesssim p^{-(t+1)}\Vert z\Vert_{H^{t+2}(\widehat{f})}\Vert\nabla
\widetilde{e}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} \\
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-2d-17}
&\lesssim p^{-(t+1)} \Vert\nabla
\widetilde{e}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} \Vert v\Vert_{H^t(\widehat{f})}
\stackrel{\text{(\ref{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10-a}), $s=0$}}{\lesssim} p^{-(1/2+s)} \Vert u\Vert_{H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})} \Vert v\Vert_{H^t(\widehat{f})}.\end{aligned}$$ For the second term in we use Lemma \[lemma:demkowicz-grad-1D\] to obtain for each edge $e\in\mathcal{E}(\widehat{f})$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
|(\partial_n z,\widetilde{e})_{L^2(e)}|
&\lesssim \Vert\widetilde{e}\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-(t+1/2)}(e)} \Vert\partial_n z\Vert_{H^{t+1/2}(e)} \lesssim p^{-(3/2+t)} \Vert u\Vert_{H^{1}(e)} \Vert z\Vert_{H^{t+2}(\widehat{f})} \\
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-2d-19}
& \lesssim p^{-(1/2+s)} \Vert u\Vert_{H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})} \Vert v\Vert_{H^t(\widehat{f})}.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-2d-17\]) and (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-2d-19\]) in (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-2d-15\]) yields (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10-b\]) for $s\in [1,\widehat{s})$.
*3rd step:* The estimate (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10-a\]) for $s \in (0,1)$ follows by interpolation between $s = 0$ (cf. 1st step) and $s = 1$, noting that and coincide for $s = 1$.
*4th step:* We show the estimate for $s\in [1,\widehat{s})$ again by duality. We set $\widetilde{e}:=u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}u$ and need an estimate for $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-2d-21}
\|\nabla\widetilde{e}\|_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{f})} = \operatorname*{sup}_{\mathbf{v}\in \mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{f})} \frac{(\nabla\widetilde{e},\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{f})}}{\|\mathbf{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{f})}}.\end{aligned}$$ According to Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-like-decomp-2d-v2\], any $\mathbf{v}\in \mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{f})$ can be decomposed as $\mathbf{v}=\nabla\varphi+\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} z$ with $\varphi \in H^{s+1}(\widehat{f}) \cap H^1_0(\widehat{f})$, $z\in H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})$. Integration by parts then gives $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla\widetilde{e},\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{f})} \!=\! (\nabla\widetilde{e},\nabla\varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{f})} \!+\! (\nabla\widetilde{e},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} z)_{L^2(\widehat{f})} \!=\! (\nabla\widetilde{e},\nabla\varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{f})} \!+\! (\mathbf{t}\cdot \nabla\widetilde{e},z)_{L^2(\partial\widehat{f})}.\end{aligned}$$ For the first term, we use Lemma \[lemma:Pgrad1d\] and (applied with $s=0$) to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left| (\nabla\widetilde{e},\nabla\varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{f})}\right|\! \lesssim \|\nabla\widetilde{e}\|_{L^2(\widehat{f})} \!\inf_{\pi\in \mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{f})}\!\! \|\varphi-\pi\|_{H^1(\widehat{f})} \lesssim p^{-(s+1/2)} \|u\|_{H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})} \|\mathbf{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{f})},\end{aligned}$$ analogously to . To treat the second term, we note that $z\in H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})$ implies $z\in H^{s+1/2}(e)$ for each edge $e\in\mathcal{E}(\widehat{f})$ and get $$\begin{aligned}
&\left| (\mathbf{t}\cdot \nabla\widetilde{e},z)_{L^2(e)}\right| =
\left| (\nabla_e\widetilde{e},z)_{L^2(e)} \right|
\lesssim \|\nabla_e \widetilde{e}\|_{\widetilde{H}^{-(s+1/2)}(e)} \|z\|_{H^{s+1/2}(e)} \\
&\quad \stackrel{\text{Lemma~\ref{lemma:demkowicz-grad-1D}}}{\lesssim} p^{-(s+1/2)} \|u\|_{H^1(e)} \|z\|_{H^{s+1/2}(e)} \lesssim p^{-(s+1/2)} \|u\|_{H^{3/2}(\widehat{f})} \|\mathbf{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{f})}.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the last two estimates in yields for $s\in [1,\widehat{s})$.
*5th step:* The estimate for $s\in (0,1)$ follows by interpolation between $s = 0$ and $s = 1$.
Stability of the operator $\protect{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following two lemmas present the duality arguments that are needed later on to estimate negative Sobolev norms.
\[lemma:picurl-negative-I\] Let ${\mathbf{E}}\in \mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat{f},\operatorname*{curl})$ satisfy the orthogonality conditions
\[eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-orth\] $$\begin{aligned}
(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}},\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{v}})_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} & =0\qquad\forall{\mathbf{v}}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{f}),
\label{eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-orth-a}\\
({\mathbf{E}},\nabla\varphi)_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} & =0\qquad\forall\varphi\in
\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{f}),
\label{eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-orth-b}\\
({\mathbf{E}}\cdot{\mathbf{t}}_{e},\nabla_{e}\varphi)_{L^{2}(e)} &
=0\qquad\forall\varphi\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(e) \quad\forall e\in{\mathcal{E}}(\widehat{f}),
\label{eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-orth-c}\\
({\mathbf{E}}\cdot{\mathbf{t}_e},1)_{L^{2}(e)} & =0\qquad\forall
e\in{\mathcal{E}}(\widehat{f}).
\label{eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-orth-d}$$ Then, for $s\in [0,\widehat{s})$, there holds $\displaystyle
\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{f})}
\leq C_s p^{-s}\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}.$
Before proceeding with the proof, we point out that Lemma \[lemma:traces-2d\] shows that ${\mathbf E} \cdot {\mathbf t}_e \in L^2(e)$ so that the conditions , are meaningful.
*1st step:* We may restrict to the case $s \ge 1$ as the case $s = 0$ is trivial and the remaining cases $s \in (0,1)$ follow then by an interpolation argument.
*2nd step:* By Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-like-decomp-2d-v2\], any ${\mathbf{v}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{s}(\widehat{f})$ can be decomposed as $${\mathbf{v}}=\nabla\varphi+\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}z,
\label{eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-10}$$ with $\varphi \in H^{s+1}(\widehat{f}) \cap H^1_0(\widehat{f})$ and $z\in H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})$ with $(z,1)_{L^2(\widehat f)} = 0$ as well as $\|\varphi\|_{H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})} +
\|z\|_{H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})} \lesssim \|{\mathbf v}\|_{{\mathbf H}^s(\widehat f)}$. Integration by parts (cf. ) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-100}
({\mathbf{E}},{\mathbf{v}})_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}&=
({\mathbf{E}},\nabla \varphi)_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}+({\mathbf{E}},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}z)_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} \\
\nonumber
&=
({\mathbf{E}},\nabla \varphi)_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}
+ (\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}},z)_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}-\int_{\partial \widehat{f}}z{\mathbf{E}}\cdot{\mathbf{t}}. \end{aligned}$$ We estimate each of the three terms separately.
*3rd step:* Using the orthogonalities satisfied by ${\mathbf{E}}$ and $\varphi\in H_{0}^{1}(\widehat{f})\cap H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})$ we obtain for the first term in (\[eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-100\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl|
({\mathbf{E}},\nabla\varphi)_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\bigr|
&=
\bigl| \inf_{w\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{f})}({\mathbf{E}},\nabla(\varphi-w))_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} \bigr|
\lesssim p^{-s}
\|\varphi\|_{H^{s+1}(\widehat f)}
\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\Vert
_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\\
& \lesssim p^{-s}\Vert
{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{f})}\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\Vert
_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname*{curl})}.\end{aligned}$$
*4th step:* The term $(z,{\mathbf{E}}\cdot{\mathbf{t}})_{L^{2}(\partial
\widehat{f})}$ in (\[eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-100\]) can be treated using the orthogonalities satisfied by ${\mathbf{E}}$: Using that $z\in H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})$ so that $z\in C(\partial \widehat{f})$ and $z\in H^{s+1/2}(e)$ for each edge $e\in{\mathcal{E}}(\widehat{f})$ and the orthogonality properties (\[eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-orth-c\]), (\[eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-orth-d\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert \int_{\partial \widehat{f}}{\mathbf{E}}\cdot{\mathbf{t}}z\right\vert &
\!=\!\!\inf_{w\in W_{p}(\widehat{f})}\!\left\vert \int_{\partial\widehat{f}}{\mathbf{E}}\cdot{\mathbf{t}}(z-w)\right\vert \lesssim\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\cdot{\mathbf{t}}\Vert_{H^{-1/2}(\partial \widehat{f})}\!\inf_{w\in W_{p}(\widehat{f})}\!\Vert z-w\Vert
_{H^{1/2}(\partial \widehat{f})}\\
& \lesssim p^{-s}\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\cdot{\mathbf{t}}\Vert_{H^{-1/2}(\partial
\widehat{f})}\Vert z\Vert_{H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})}\lesssim p^{-s}\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\Vert
_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}\Vert \mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{s}(\widehat{f})},\end{aligned}$$ where, in the final step, we used the continuity of the tangential trace map, i.e., $\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\cdot{\mathbf{t}}\Vert_{H^{-1/2}(\partial \widehat{f})}\lesssim
\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}$ (cf., e.g., [@demkowicz08 [eq. (154)]{}]).
*5th step:* For the second term in (\[eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-100\]), we introduce an auxiliary function ${\mathbf{z}}$ with the following key properties: $$\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{z}}=z,\quad{\mathbf{z}}\cdot{\mathbf{t}}=0.$$ Such a function can be obtained as ${\mathbf{z}}=\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\widetilde{z}$, where $\widetilde{z}$ solves the following Neumann problem (note that the solvability condition is satisfied since $\int_{\widehat{f}}z=0$) $$-\Delta\widetilde{z}=z\quad\mbox{ in }\widehat{f},\qquad\partial_{n}\widetilde{z}=0\quad\mbox{ on }\partial \widehat{f}.$$ By Lemma \[lemma:shift-theorem\], $\|\widetilde z\|_{H^{s+1}(\widehat f)}
\lesssim \|z\|_{H^{s-1}(\widehat f)}$. Thus, $\|{\mathbf z}\|_{{\mathbf H}^s(\operatorname*{curl},\widehat f)}
\lesssim \|z\|_{H^{s+1}(\widehat f)}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}},z)_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} & =(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}},\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{z}})_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\overset{\text{(\ref{eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-orth-a})}}{=}\inf
_{{\mathbf{w}}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{f})}(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}},\operatorname{curl}({\mathbf{z}}-{\mathbf{w}}))_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}.\end{aligned}$$ Now note that there exists a continuous, polynomial-preserving lifting $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}:H^{-1/2}(\partial \widehat{f}) \rightarrow {\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{f},\operatorname*{curl})\end{aligned}$$ that is in $p$ uniformly bounded, cf. [@ainsworth-demkowicz09] and [@demkowicz08 eq. (164)]. Hence, it follows $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}(P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{z}} \cdot \mathbf{t}) - P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{z}} \in \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{f}).\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
\|\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}(P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{z}} \cdot \mathbf{t})\|_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})} &\lesssim \|P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{z}} \cdot \mathbf{t}\|_{H^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat{f})} = \|(\mathbf{z}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{z}}) \cdot \mathbf{t}\|_{H^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat{f})} \\
&\lesssim \|\mathbf{z} - P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{z}}\|_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}\end{aligned}$$ by the properties of the lifting operator and a trace inequality, cf. [@demkowicz08 eq. (154)], we get with Lemma \[lemma:Pcurl2d\] and Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-like-decomp-2d-v2\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-IMPORTANT}
&(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}},z)_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} \leq \|\operatorname{curl}\mathbf{E}\|_{L^2(\widehat{f})} \|\mathbf{z}-(P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{z}} - \boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}(P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{z}} \cdot \mathbf{t}))\|_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})} \\
&\qquad \lesssim \|\mathbf{E}\|_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})} \left(\|\mathbf{z}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{z}}\|_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})} + \|\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}(P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{z}} \cdot \mathbf{t})\|_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}\right) \\
&\qquad \stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:Pcurl2d}}}{\lesssim} \|\mathbf{E}\|_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})} p^{-s} \Vert{\mathbf{z}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{s}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})} \\
&\qquad \stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:helmholtz-like-decomp-2d-v2}}}{\lesssim} p^{-s} \Vert\mathbf{E}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}\Vert{\mathbf{v}} \Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{s}(\widehat{f})}.\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma:picurl-negative-II\] Let ${\mathbf{E}}\in\mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat{f},\operatorname*{curl})$ satisfy (\[eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-orth-a\]), (\[eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-orth-d\]). Then, for $s\in [0,\widehat{s})$, there holds $\displaystyle
\Vert\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-s}(\widehat{f})}\leq C_s p^{-s}\Vert\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}. $
As in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:picurl-negative-I\], we restrict to $s \ge 1$ since again the case $s = 0$ is trivial and we argue by interpolation for $s \in (0,1)$. Let $v\in H^{s}(\widehat{f})$ and $\overline{v}:=(\int_{\widehat{f}}v)/|\widehat{f}|\in{\mathbb{R}}$ be its average. Integration by parts yields $$(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}},v)_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}=(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}},v-\overline{v})_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}+\overline{v}({\mathbf{E}}\cdot{\mathbf{t}},1)_{L^{2}(\partial \widehat{f})}\overset{(\ref{eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-orth-d})}{=}(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}},v-\overline{v})_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}.$$ Next, we define the auxiliary function $\varphi\in H^{1}(\widehat{f})$ as the solution of $$-\Delta\varphi=v-\overline{v}\quad\mbox{ in }\widehat{f},\qquad\partial_{n}\varphi=0\quad\mbox{ on }\partial \widehat{f},$$ and set ${\mathbf{v}}:=\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\varphi$. We note that Lemma \[lemma:shift-theorem\] implies $\|\varphi\|_{H^{s+1}(\widehat{f})} \lesssim \|v-\overline{v}\|_{H^{s-1}(\widehat f)}
\lesssim \|v\|_{H^s(\widehat f)}$. We observe $\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{v}}=-\Delta
\varphi=v-\overline{v}$ in $\widehat{f}$ and ${\mathbf{t}}\cdot{\mathbf{v}}=-\partial_{n}\varphi=0$ on $\partial \widehat{f}$ so that integration by parts gives $$\begin{aligned}
(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}},v-\overline{v})_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})} &
=(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}},\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{v}})_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\overset{(\ref{eq:lemma:picurl-negative-I-orth-a})}{=}\inf_{{\mathbf{w}}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{f})}(\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}},\operatorname{curl}({\mathbf{v}}-{\mathbf{w}}))_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\\
&
\!\!\!
\!\!\!
\!\!\!
\stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:Pcurl2d}}}{\lesssim}
\!\!\!\!\!
p^{-s}\Vert\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\Vert{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{s}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}\lesssim p^{-s}\Vert\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\Vert v\Vert_{H^{s}(\widehat{f})}.
\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
After the next lemma about approximation on edges $e\in\mathcal{E}(\widehat{f})$, we can prove the stability results in 2D stated in Theorem \[thm:projection-based-interpolation-2d\].
\[lemma:Picurl-edge\] For each edge $e\in{\mathcal{E}}(\widehat{f})$ we have for ${\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1/2}(\widehat{f},\operatorname*{curl})$ and $s \ge 0$ $$\Vert({\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}{\mathbf{u}})\cdot{\mathbf{t}}_{e}\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-s}(e)}\leq C_{s} p^{-s}\inf_{v \in {\mathcal P}_p(e)} \Vert{\mathbf{u}}\cdot{\mathbf{t}}_{e} - v\Vert_{L^{2}(e)}.
\label{eq:lemma:Picurl-edge-20}$$
We point out that Lemma \[lemma:traces-2d\] shows that ${\mathbf u} \cdot {\mathbf t}_e \in L^2(e)$.
We recall that on edges, the operator ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}$ is simply the $L^{2}$-projection. Thus, (\[eq:lemma:Picurl-edge-20\]) holds for $s=0$. For $s>0$, (\[eq:lemma:Picurl-edge-20\]) is shown by a standard duality argument. Let $\widetilde{e}:=\left( {\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}{\mathbf{u}}\right)
\cdot{\mathbf{t}}_{e}$ be the error and $v\in H^{s}(e)$. Identifying $e$ with the interval $(0,L)$ of length $L = \operatorname{diam} e$, we observe that a function $w\in \mathcal{P}_p(e)$ can be decomposed into $w(x)=\overline{w}+\left(\int_0^x w(t)\,dt-x \overline{w}\right)^\prime$, where $\overline{w}$ denotes the average of $w$ on $e$. Note that $\int_0^x w(t)\,dt - x \overline{w} \in \mathring W_{p+1}(e)$. Hence, $(\widetilde{e},w)_{L^2(e)} = 0$ by and , and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(\widetilde{e},v)_{L^{2}(e)}&=
\inf_{w\in \mathcal{P}_p(e)} (\widetilde{e},v-w)_{L^{2}(e)}
\leq \Vert\widetilde{e}\Vert_{L^2(e)}
\inf_{w\in{\mathcal{P}}_{p}(e)} \Vert v-w\Vert _{L^{2}(e)} \\
& \lesssim p^{-s} \Vert\widetilde{e}\Vert_{L^{2}(e)} \Vert v\Vert_{H^{s}(e)}.
\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma:Picurl-face\] For ${\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1/2}(\widehat{f},\operatorname*{curl})$ there holds for $s \in [0,\widehat{s})$ $$\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}
\leq C_s p^{-(1/2+s)}\inf_{{\mathbf v} \in {\mathbf Q}_p(\widehat f)}
\Vert{\mathbf{u} - \mathbf{v} }\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat{f},\operatorname*{curl})}.$$
By the projection property of ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}$, it suffices to show the bound with ${\mathbf v} = 0$ in the infimum.
*1st step:* As discussed in [@demkowicz08 Sec. [4.2]{}] (which relies on [@ainsworth-demkowicz09]) there is a polynomial-preserving lifting $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}\!:\!H^{-1/2}(\partial \widehat{f})\!\rightarrow\!
{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{f},\operatorname*{curl})$ that is uniformly (in $p$) bounded.
*2nd step:* Let $P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{u}}$ be the polynomial best approximation of Lemma \[lemma:Pcurl2d\]. Following the procedure suggested in [@demkowicz08], we define $${\mathbf{E}}:=P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}{\mathbf{u}}
\in \mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{f}).$$ Note ${\mathbf{E}}-\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}({\mathbf{E}}\cdot \mathbf{t})\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{f})$. We get from the orthogonalities (\[eq:Pi\_curl-c\]) and (\[eq:lemma:Pcurl2d-a\]) $$(\operatorname{curl}({\mathbf{E}}-\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}({\mathbf{E}}\cdot\mathbf{t})),\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}})_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}=0.
\label{eq:lemma:Picurl-face-10}$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}^{2}
&\stackrel{\eqref{eq:lemma:Picurl-face-10}}{=}
\left( \operatorname{curl}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}({\mathbf{E}}\cdot\mathbf{t}),\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}}\right)
_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\\
& \leq
\Vert
\operatorname{curl}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}({\mathbf{E}}\cdot\mathbf{t})\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\Vert\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})},\end{aligned}$$ from which we obtain with the stability properties of the lifting operator $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}$ $$\Vert\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\lesssim\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\cdot\mathbf{t}\Vert_{H^{-1/2}(\partial \widehat{f})}.
\label{eq:lemma:Picurl-face-20}$$
*3rd step:* With the discrete Friedrichs inequality of Lemma \[lemma:discrete-friedrichs\], (\[item:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-ii\]) we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:Picurl-face-30}
\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}
& \leq\Vert{\mathbf{E}}-\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}({\mathbf{E}}\cdot\mathbf{t})\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}+\Vert\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}({\mathbf{E}}\cdot\mathbf{t})\Vert
_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\\
& \lesssim\Vert\operatorname{curl}({\mathbf{E}}-\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}({\mathbf{E}}\cdot\mathbf{t}))\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}+\Vert\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}({\mathbf{E}}\cdot\mathbf{t})\Vert
_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}\nonumber \\
& \lesssim\Vert\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{f})}+\Vert\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}({\mathbf{E}}\cdot\mathbf{t})\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}\overset{\text{(\ref{eq:lemma:Picurl-face-20})}}{\lesssim}\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\cdot\mathbf{t}\Vert_{H^{-1/2}(\partial \widehat{f})}.
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
*4th step:* Lemmas \[lemma:Pcurl2d\], \[lemma:Picurl-edge\] and $\|{\mathbf u} \cdot {\mathbf t}_e \|_{L^2(e)}
\lesssim \|{\mathbf u}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{1/2}(\widehat f)}$ (cf. Lemma \[lemma:traces-2d\]) give $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})} & \lesssim\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}+\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})} \\
\nonumber
& \overset{\text{(\ref{eq:lemma:Picurl-face-20}),(\ref{eq:lemma:Picurl-face-30})}}{\lesssim}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}+\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\cdot\mathbf{t}\Vert
_{H^{-1/2}(\partial \widehat{f})}\\
\nonumber
& \lesssim\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}\!+\!\Vert(({\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}{\mathbf{u}})\cdot\mathbf{t})\Vert_{H^{-1/2}(\partial
\widehat{f})} \\
\label{eq:lemma:Picurl-face-200}& \overset{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:Pcurl2d},~\ref{lemma:Picurl-edge}}}{\lesssim}p^{-1/2}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1/2}(\widehat{f},\operatorname*{curl})}.\end{aligned}$$ *5th step:* From Lemmas \[lemma:picurl-negative-I\] and \[lemma:picurl-negative-II\] we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})} \!\lesssim\! p^{-s} \Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}
\!\!\stackrel{(\ref{eq:lemma:Picurl-face-200})}{\lesssim}\!\!
p^{-(1/2+s)}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat{f},\operatorname*{curl})},\end{aligned}$$ which concludes the proof.
If $\operatorname{curl}{\mathbf u}$ is a polynomial, we have the following result.
\[lemma:better-regularity-2d\] For all $k\geq1$ and all ${\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{f})$ with $\operatorname*{curl}{\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathcal{P}}_{p}(\widehat{f})$ there holds $$\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})}\leq C_{s,k}p^{-(k+s)}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert
_{\mathbf{H}^{k}(\widehat{f})}, \qquad s\in [0,\widehat{s}).
\label{eq:proposition:better-regularity-2d}$$ If $p\geq k-1$, then the full norm $\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{f})}$ can be replaced with the seminorm $|{\mathbf{u}}|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{f})}$.
We employ the regularized right inverses of the operators $\nabla$ and $\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}$ and proceed as in [@hiptmair08 Lemma [5.8]{}]. We write, using the decomposition of Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-like-decomp-2d\], $${\mathbf{u}}=\nabla R^{\operatorname*{grad}}({\mathbf{u}}-{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}\operatorname*{curl}{\mathbf{u}})+{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}\operatorname*{curl}{\mathbf{u}}=:\nabla
\varphi+{\mathbf{v}}$$ with $\varphi\in H^{k+1}(\widehat{f})$ and ${\mathbf{v}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{f})$ together with $$\Vert\varphi\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\widehat{f})}+\Vert{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{f})}\leq C\left( \Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{f})}+\Vert\operatorname*{curl}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{H}^{k-1}(\widehat{f})}\right) \leq C\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{f})}.
\label{eq:lemma:projection-based-interpolation-approximation-100-2d}$$ The assumption $\operatorname*{curl}{\mathbf{u}}\in {\mathcal P}_p(\widehat f)$ and Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh-2d\], (\[item:lemma:mcintosh-2d-iv\]) imply ${\mathbf{v}}={\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}\operatorname*{curl}{\mathbf{u}}\in
\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{f})$; since ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}$ is a projection, we conclude ${\mathbf{v}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}{\mathbf{v}}=0$. Thus, with the commuting diagram property $\nabla{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}}={\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}\nabla$ and the bound (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10-c\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert(\operatorname{I}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}){\mathbf{u}}\Vert
_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})} &= \Vert(\operatorname{I}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p})\nabla\varphi+\underbrace{(\operatorname{I}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}){\mathbf{v}}}_{=0}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{f},\operatorname{curl})} \\
&= \Vert\nabla(\operatorname{I}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},2d}_{p+1}})\varphi\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{f})}
\stackrel{(\ref{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D-10-c})}{\lesssim} p^{-(k+s)}\Vert\varphi\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\widehat{f})}.\end{aligned}$$ The proof of (\[eq:proposition:better-regularity-2d\]) is complete in view of (\[eq:lemma:projection-based-interpolation-approximation-100-2d\]). Replacing $\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{f})}$ with $|{\mathbf{u}}|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{f})}$ is possible since the projector ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},2d}_p}$ reproduces polynomials of degree $p$.
Stability of the projection operators in three space dimensions
===============================================================
Preliminaries
-------------
For the approximation properties of ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$, we need the following approximation results.
\[\] \[lemma:Pgrad3d\] Let $P^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}u\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{K})$ be defined by the conditions
\[eq:lemma:Pgrad3d\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:Pgrad3d-a}
(\nabla(u-P^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}u),\nabla v)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} &= 0 \qquad \forall v\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{K}),\\
(u-P^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}u,1)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} &= 0.
\label{eq:lemma:Pgrad3d-b}\end{aligned}$$
Then, for $r>1$, there holds $\displaystyle
\Vert u-P^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}u\Vert_{H^1(\widehat{K})} \leq C_r p^{-(r-1)} \Vert u\Vert_{H^r(\widehat{K})}.
$
\[\] \[lemma:Pcurl3d\] Let $P^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}{\mathbf{u}}\in\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{K})$ be defined by
\[eq:lemma:Pcurl3d\] $$\begin{aligned}
(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}({\mathbf{u}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}{\mathbf{u}}),\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{v}})_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} & =0\qquad
\forall{\mathbf{v}}\in\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{K}),
\label{eq:lemma:Pcurl3d-a}\\
({\mathbf{u}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}{\mathbf{u}},\nabla v)_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} & =0\qquad\forall v\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{K}).
\label{eq:lemma:Pcurl3d-b}$$
Then, for $r>0$, there holds $\displaystyle
\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}\leq C_{r}p^{-r}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{r}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}. $
\[\] \[lemma:Pdiv3d\] Let $P^{\operatorname*{div},3d}{\mathbf{u}}\in\mathbf{V}_{p}(\widehat{K})$ be defined by the conditions
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:Pdiv3d}
(\operatorname{div}({\mathbf{u}}-P^{\operatorname*{div},3d}{\mathbf{u}}),\operatorname{div}{\mathbf{v}})_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} & =0\qquad
\forall{\mathbf{v}}\in\mathbf{V}_p(\widehat{K}),\\
({\mathbf{u}}-P^{\operatorname*{div},3d}{\mathbf{u}},\operatorname*{div} \mathbf{v})_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} & =0\qquad\forall \mathbf{v}\in \mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{K}).
\label{eq:lemma:Pdiv3d-20}\end{aligned}$$
Then, for $r > 0$, there holds $\displaystyle
\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-P^{\operatorname*{div},3d}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}\leq C_{r}p^{-r}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{r}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}.
$
In the next lemma, right inverses for the differential operators are recalled.
\[\]\[lemma:mcintosh\] Let $B\subset\widehat{K}$ be a ball. Let $\theta\in C_{0}^{\infty}(B)$ with $\int_{B}\theta=1$. Define the operators $$\begin{aligned}
{R}^{\operatorname*{grad}}{\mathbf{u}}(\mathbf{x}) & :=\int_{{\mathbf{a}}\in B} \theta(\mathbf{a})\int_{t=0}^{1}{\mathbf{u}}(\mathbf{a}+t(\mathbf{x}-{\mathbf{a}}))\,dt\cdot(\mathbf{x}-{\mathbf{a}})\,d{\mathbf{a}},\\
{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}{\mathbf{u}}(\mathbf{x}) & :=\int_{{\mathbf{a}}\in
B} \theta(\mathbf{a}) \int_{t=0}^{1}t{\mathbf{u}}(\mathbf{a}+t(\mathbf{x}-{\mathbf{a}}))\,dt\times(\mathbf{x}-{\mathbf{a}})\,d{\mathbf{a}},\\
{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{div}}{u}(\mathbf{x}) & :=\int_{{\mathbf{a}}\in B} \theta(\mathbf{a})\int_{t=0}^{1}t^2 u(\mathbf{a}+t(\mathbf{x}-{\mathbf{a}}))\,dt (\mathbf{x}-{\mathbf{a}})\,d{\mathbf{a}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then:
(i) \[item:lemma:mcintosh-i\] For ${\mathbf{u}}$ with $\operatorname*{div}{\mathbf{u}}=0$, there holds $\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}{\mathbf{u}}={\mathbf{u}}$.
(ii) \[item:lemma:mcintosh-ii\] For ${\mathbf{u}}$ with $\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{u}}=0$, there holds $\nabla{R}^{\operatorname*{grad}}{\mathbf{u}}={\mathbf{u}}$.
(iii) \[item:lemma:mcintosh-iii\] For $u\in L^2(\widehat{K})$, there holds $\operatorname*{div}{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{div}}u=u$.
(iv) \[item:lemma:mcintosh-iv\] If ${\mathbf{u}}\in\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{K})$, then ${R}^{\operatorname*{grad}}{\mathbf{u}}\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{K})$.
(v) \[item:lemma:mcintosh-v\] If ${\mathbf{u}}\in\mathbf{V}_{p}(\widehat{K})$, then ${\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}{\mathbf{u}}\in\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{K})$.
(vi) \[item:lemma:mcintosh-vi\] If $u\in W_p(\widehat{K})$, then $\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname*{div}}u\in \mathbf{V}_p(\widehat{K})$.
(vii) \[item:lemma:mcintosh-vii\] For every $k\geq0$, the operators ${R}^{\operatorname*{grad}}$, ${\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}$ and ${\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{div}}$ are bounded linear operators $\mathbf{H}^{k}(\widehat{K})\rightarrow H^{k+1}(\widehat{K})$, $\mathbf{H}^{k}(\widehat{K})\rightarrow \mathbf{H}^{k+1}(\widehat{K})$ and $H^{k}(\widehat{K})\rightarrow \mathbf{H}^{k+1}(\widehat{K})$, respectively.
The right inverses of Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh\] can be used to construct regular Helmholtz-like decompositions of functions in ${\mathbf{H}}^{s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}})$ and ${\mathbf{H}}^{s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})$.
\[lemma:helmholtz-like-decomp\] Let $s \ge0$. Then each ${\mathbf{u}}
\in{\mathbf{H}}^{s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}})$ can be written as ${\mathbf{u}} = \nabla\varphi+ {\mathbf{z}}$ with $\varphi\in H^{s+1}(\widehat{K})$, ${\mathbf{z}} \in{\mathbf{H}}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})$ satisfying $\Vert\varphi\Vert_{H^{s+1}(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}$ and $\Vert\mathbf{z}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \Vert\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K})}$.
With the aid of the operators ${\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}$, $R^{\operatorname*{grad}}$ of Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh\], we write $\displaystyle
{\mathbf{u}}=\nabla R^{\operatorname*{grad}}({\mathbf{u}}-{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}(\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{u}}))+{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}(\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{u}})
=:\nabla \varphi + {\mathbf z}.
$ The stability properties of the operators $\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname{curl}}$ and $R^{\operatorname{grad}}$ give $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert\varphi\Vert_{H^{s+1}(\widehat{K})}^2 &\lesssim \Vert\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname{curl}}(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u})\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K})}^2 \lesssim \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K})}^2 + \Vert\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname{curl}}(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u})\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})}^2 \\
&\lesssim \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K})}^2 + \Vert\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K})}^2 = \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}^2,\\
\Vert\mathbf{z}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})} &= \Vert\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname{curl}}(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u})\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \Vert\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K})}.
\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma:helmholtz-like-decomp-v2\] Let $s \in [0,1]$. Then each ${\mathbf{u}}
\in{\mathbf{H}}^{s}(\widehat{K})$ can be written as ${\mathbf{u}} = \nabla\varphi+ \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{z}$ with $\varphi\in H^{s+1}(\widehat{K}) \cap H^1_0(\widehat{K})$, $\mathbf{z} \in \mathbf{H}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})$ and $\|\varphi\|_{H^{s+1}(\widehat{K})} + \|\mathbf{z}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \|\mathbf{u}\|_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K})}$.
We define $\varphi\in H^{1}_0(\widehat{K})$ as the solution of the problem $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta\varphi=-\operatorname{div}\mathbf{u}, \quad \varphi=0 \text{ on }\partial\widehat{K}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\operatorname{div}:H^1(\widehat{K}) \rightarrow L^2(\widehat{K})$ and $\operatorname{div}:L^2(\widehat{K}) \rightarrow (H^1_0(\widehat{K}))^\prime =: H^{-1}(\widehat{K})$ the convexity of $\widehat{K}$ gives $\varphi \in H^1_0(\widehat{K})$ if $s = 0$ and $\varphi \in H^2(\widehat{K}) \cap H^1_0(\widehat{K})$ if $s = 1$. By interpolation $\varphi \in H^{s+1}(\widehat{K}) \cap H^1_0(\widehat{K})$ with $\|\varphi \|_{H^{s+1}(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \|{\mathbf u}\|_{{\mathbf H}^s(\widehat K)}$. With the operator $\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname{curl}}$ of Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh\], we define $\mathbf{z}:=\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname{curl}}(\mathbf{u}-\nabla\varphi)\in\mathbf{H}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})$. Noting $\operatorname{div}(\mathbf{u}-\nabla\varphi)=0$, we have ${\mathbf u} = \nabla \varphi+ \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf z}$ by Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh\], (\[item:lemma:mcintosh-i\]). The stability property of $\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname{curl}}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\mathbf{z}\|_{\mathbf{H}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})} = \|\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname{curl}}(\mathbf{u}-\nabla\varphi)\|_{\mathbf{H}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \|\mathbf{u}-\nabla\varphi\|_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \|\mathbf{u}\|_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K})}.
\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma:helmholtz-decomposition-div\] Let $s \geq 0$. Then each ${\mathbf{u}}
\in{\mathbf{H}}^{s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})$ can be written as ${\mathbf{u}} = \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} \boldsymbol{\varphi}+ {\mathbf{z}}$ with $\boldsymbol{\varphi}\in \mathbf{H}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})$, ${\mathbf{z}} \in{\mathbf{H}}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})$ satisfying $\Vert\boldsymbol{\varphi}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})}$ and $\Vert\mathbf{z}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \Vert\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{u}\Vert_{H^s(\widehat{K})}$.
With the operators $\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname*{curl}}$ and $\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname*{div}}$ of Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh\], we write $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{u}}=\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} \mathbf{R}^{\operatorname*{curl}}({\mathbf{u}}-{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{div}}(\operatorname*{div}{\mathbf{u}}))+{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{div}}(\operatorname*{div}{\mathbf{u}})
=:\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} \boldsymbol{\varphi} + {\mathbf z}.\end{aligned}$$ The stability properties of $\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname*{curl}}$ and $\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname*{div}}$ imply $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert\boldsymbol{\varphi}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})} &\lesssim \Vert \mathbf{u}-\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname*{div}}(\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{u})\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K})} + \Vert\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname{div}}(\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{u})\Vert_{H^{s+1}(\widehat{K})} \\
&\lesssim \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K})} + \Vert\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{u}\Vert_{H^s(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^s(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})}, \\
\Vert\mathbf{z}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})} &= \Vert\mathbf{R}^{\operatorname*{div}}(\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{u})\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{s+1}(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \Vert\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{u}\Vert_{H^s(\widehat{K})}.
\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
We now state the Friedrichs inequalities for the operators $\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}$ and $\operatorname{div}$.
\[discrete Friedrichs inequality for $\mathbf{H}(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ in 3D, \] \[lemma:discrete-friedrichs-3d\] There exists $C > 0$ independent of $p$ and ${\mathbf{u}}$ such that $$\label{eq:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-3d}\|{\mathbf{u}}\|_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}
\leq C \|\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf{u}}\|_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}$$ in the following two cases:
(i) \[item:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-3d-i\] ${\mathbf{u}}\in
\mathbf{Q}_{p,\perp}(\widehat{K}) := \{ {\mathbf v} \in \mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat K)\colon({\mathbf{v}},\nabla \psi)_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}=0 \quad \forall \psi\in W_{p+1}(\widehat{K})\}$,
(ii) \[item:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-3d-ii\] ${\mathbf{u}} \in
\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p,\perp}(\widehat{K}):=\{ {\mathbf v} \in \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat K)\colon
({\mathbf v},\nabla \psi)_{L^2(\widehat K)} = 0 \quad \forall \psi \in \mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat K)\}$.
\[discrete Friedrichs inequality for $\mathbf{H}(\operatorname*{div})$\]
\[lemma:discrete-friedrichs-div\] There exists $C > 0$ independent of $p$ and ${\mathbf{u}}$ such that $$\label{eq:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-div-3d}\|{\mathbf{u}}\|_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} \leq C
\|\operatorname{div} {\mathbf{u}}\|_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}$$ in the following two cases:
(i) \[item:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-div-i\] ${\mathbf{u}}\in
\mathbf{V}_{p}(\widehat{K})$ satisfies $({\mathbf{u}},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} \mathbf{v})_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}=0$ for all $\mathbf{v}\in \mathbf{Q}_{p}(\widehat{K})$,
(ii) \[item:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-div-ii\] ${\mathbf{u}} \in
\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_p(\widehat{K})$ satisfies $({\mathbf{u}}, \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} \mathbf{v})_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} = 0$ for all $\mathbf{v} \in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p,\perp}(\widehat{K})$.
The statement (\[item:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-div-i\]) is taken from [@demkowicz08 Lemma [5.2]{}]. It is also shown in [@demkowicz08 Lemma [5.2]{}] that the Friedrichs inequality (\[eq:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-div-3d\]) holds for all ${\mathbf u}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:item:lemma-discrete-friedrichs-div-ii-alternative}
{\mathbf{u}} \in
\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_p(\widehat{K})
\text{ satisfies } ({\mathbf{u}}, \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} \mathbf{v})_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} = 0
\text{ for all } \mathbf{v} \in \mathring{{\mathbf Q}}_{p}(\widehat K).\end{aligned}$$ To see that the condition (\[item:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-div-ii\]) in Lemma \[lemma:discrete-friedrichs-div\] suffices, assume that ${\mathbf u}$ satisfies the condition (\[item:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-div-ii\]) in Lemma \[lemma:discrete-friedrichs-div\] and write ${\mathbf v} \in \mathring{\mathbf Q}_p(\widehat{K})$ as $\mathbf{v}=\Pi_{\nabla \mathring{W}_{p+1}}\mathbf{v} + (\mathbf{v}-\Pi_{\nabla \mathring{W}_{p+1}}\mathbf{v})$, where $\Pi_{\nabla \mathring{W}_{p+1}}$ denotes the $L^2$-projection onto $\nabla \mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K}) \subset \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K})$. Then observe that ${\mathbf v} - \Pi_{\nabla \mathring{W}_{p+1}}\mathbf{v} \in
\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p,\perp}(\widehat K)$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
(\mathbf{u},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} =
(\mathbf{u},\underbrace{\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}(\Pi_{\nabla \mathring{W}_{p+1}}\mathbf{v}}_
{=0} )
)_{L^2(\widehat{K})}
+ \underbrace{ (\mathbf{u},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}(\mathbf{v}-\Pi_{\nabla \mathring{W}_{p+1}}\mathbf{v})
)_{L^2(\widehat{K})}
}_{=0
\text{ since ${\mathbf v} - \Pi_{\nabla \mathring{W}_{p+1}} \mathbf {v} \in \mathring{\mathbf Q}_{p,\perp}(\widehat{K})$}} = 0; \end{aligned}$$ hence, ${\mathbf u}$ satisfies in fact (\[eq:item:lemma-discrete-friedrichs-div-ii-alternative\]). Thus, it satisfies the Friedrichs inequality (\[eq:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-div-3d\]).
Stability of the operator $\protect{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three-dimensional analog of Theorem \[lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D\] is:
\[lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D\] Assume that all interior angles of the 4 faces of $\widehat K$ are smaller than $2\pi/3$. Then, for every $s\in [0,1]$ there is $C_s > 0$ such that for all $u\in H^2(\widehat{K})$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D-10}
\Vert u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u\Vert_{H^{1-s}(\widehat{K})}&\leq
C_{s}p^{-(1+s)} \inf_{v \in W_{p+1}(\widehat K)} \Vert u -v\Vert_{H^{2}(\widehat{K})}, \\
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D-20}
\Vert \nabla(u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u)\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K})}&\leq
C_{s}p^{-(1+s)} \inf_{v \in W_{p+1}(\widehat K)} \Vert u -v\Vert_{H^{2}(\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$
Additionally, holds for $s = 0$ without the conditions on the angles of the faces of $\widehat K$.
The proof proceeds along the same lines as in the 2D case. First, we observe from the projection property of ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}$ that it suffices to show (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D-10\]), with $v = 0$ in the infimum. Next, the trace theorem implies $u|_{f} \in H^{3/2}(f)$ for every face $f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat K)$. From Theorem \[lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D\] we get, for every face $f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K})$ and $s\in\lbrack0,1]$, $$\Vert u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u\Vert_{H^{1-s}(f)}\leq Cp^{-(1/2+s)}\Vert u\Vert_{H^{2}(\widehat{K})}.$$ Since $u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u\in
C(\partial\widehat{K})$, we conclude $$\Vert u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u\Vert_{H^{1-s}(\partial \widehat{K})}\leq
Cp^{-(1/2+s)}\Vert u\Vert_{H^{2}(\widehat{K})}
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D-120}$$ for $s\in\{0,1\}$ and then, by interpolation for all $s\in\lbrack0,1]$. Next, we show for $s=0$ (from which for $s=0$ follows). As in the 2D case, we use Lemma \[lemma:Pgrad3d\], the estimate , the fact that $P^{\operatorname{grad},3d} u - {\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u$ is discrete harmonic, and the polynomial preserving lifting of [@munoz-sola97], to arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber |u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u|_{H^{1}(\widehat{K})} &\leq |u-P^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}u|_{H^1(\widehat{K})} + |P^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u|_{H^1(\widehat{K})} \\
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D-145} &\lesssim p^{-1} \Vert u\Vert_{H^2(\widehat{K})} + \Vert P^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u\Vert_{H^{1/2}(\partial\widehat{K})} \\
\nonumber &\lesssim p^{-1} \Vert u\Vert_{H^2(\widehat{K})} + \Vert u-P^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}u\Vert_{H^1(\widehat{K})}
\lesssim p^{-1} \Vert u\Vert_{H^2(\widehat{K})}.
$$ The $L^{2}$-estimate, i.e., the case $s = 1$ in (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D-10\]), is obtained by a duality argument: Let $z\in
H^{2}(\widehat{K})\cap H_{0}^{1}(\widehat{K})$ be given by $$-\Delta z=\widetilde{e}:=u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u\quad
\mbox {on $\widehat K$},\qquad z|_{\partial\widehat{K}}=0.$$ Integration by parts leads to $$\Vert\widetilde{e}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}^{2}=\int_{\widehat{K}}\nabla
z\cdot\nabla\widetilde{e}-\int_{\partial\widehat{K}}\partial_{n}z\widetilde{e}. \label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D-200}$$ For the first term in (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D-200\]) we use the orthogonality properties satisfied by $\widetilde{e}$ and to get $$|(\nabla z,\nabla\widetilde{e})_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}| \leq \operatorname*{inf}_{\pi\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K})} \Vert z-\pi\Vert_{H^1(\widehat{K})} \Vert\nabla\widetilde{e}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \lesssim p^{-1}\Vert\widetilde{e}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}\Vert\nabla\widetilde{e}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}. \label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D-500}$$ For the second term in (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D-200\]), we use Theorem \[lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D\] for each face $f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat K)$. The assumptions on the angles of the faces of $\widehat K$ imply that Theorem \[lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D\] is applicable with $s = 3/2$ (since the pertinent $\widehat s > 3/2 = \pi/(2 \pi/3)$) to give $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D-510}|(\partial_n z,\widetilde{e})_{L^2(f)}|
&\leq \Vert\partial_n z\Vert_{H^{1/2}(f)} \Vert\widetilde{e}\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-1/2}(f)}
\lesssim p^{-2} \Vert\partial_n z\Vert_{H^{1/2}(f)} \Vert u\Vert_{H^{3/2}(f)}\\
\nonumber
&\lesssim p^{-2} \Vert\widetilde{e}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \Vert u\Vert_{H^2(\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D-500\]), (\[eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D-510\]) in gives the desired estimate for $s = 1$. An interpolation argument completes the proof for the intermediate values $s\in(0,1)$.
We show the estimate for $s=1$ by duality. Again, we set $\widetilde{e}:=u-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}u$ and need an estimate for $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D-700}
\|\nabla\widetilde{e}\|_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-1}(\widehat{K})} = \operatorname*{sup}_{\mathbf{v}\in \mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})} \frac{(\nabla\widetilde{e},\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}}{\|\mathbf{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})}}.\end{aligned}$$ According to Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-like-decomp-v2\], any $\mathbf{v}\in \mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})$ can be decomposed as $\mathbf{v}=\nabla\varphi+\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} \mathbf{z}$ with $\varphi\in H^2(\widehat{K}) \cap H^1_0(\widehat{K})$ and $\mathbf{z}\in \mathbf{H}^2(\widehat{K})$. Integration by parts then gives $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla\widetilde{e},\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} = (\nabla\widetilde{e},\nabla\varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} + (\Pi_\tau \nabla\widetilde{e},\gamma_\tau \mathbf{z})_{L^2(\partial\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ For the first term, we use Lemma \[lemma:Pgrad1d\] and (applied with $s=0$) to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl| (\nabla\widetilde{e},\nabla\varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{K})}\bigr| \lesssim \|\nabla\widetilde{e}\|_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \operatorname*{inf}_{\pi\in \mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K})} \|\varphi-\pi\|_{H^1(\widehat{K})} \lesssim p^{-2} \|u\|_{H^2(\widehat{K})} \|\mathbf{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})},\end{aligned}$$ imitating . To treat the second term, we note that $\mathbf{z}\in \mathbf{H}^2(\widehat{K})$ implies $\mathbf{z}\in \mathbf{H}^{3/2}(f)$ for each face $f\in\mathcal{F}(\widehat{K})$. Thus, Theorem \[lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D\] is again applicable with $s=3/2$, and we get $$\begin{aligned}
&\bigl| (\Pi_\tau \nabla\widetilde{e},\gamma_\tau \mathbf{z})_{L^2(f)} \bigr| =
\bigl| (\nabla_f\widetilde{e},\gamma_\tau \mathbf{z})_{L^2(f)} \bigr| \lesssim \|\nabla_f \widetilde{e}\|_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-3/2}(f)} \|\gamma_\tau\mathbf{z}\|_{\mathbf{H}^{3/2}(f)} \\
&\quad \stackrel{\text{Thm.~\ref{lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D}}}{\lesssim}
p^{-2} \|u\|_{H^{3/2}(f)} \|{\mathbf z}\|_{H^2(\widehat{K})} \lesssim p^{-2} \|u\|_{H^2(\widehat{K})} \|\mathbf{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the last two estimates in yields for $s=1$. The estimate for $s\in (0,1)$ now follows by interpolation.
Stability of the operator $\protect{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:Picurl-face\], a key ingredient is the existence of a polynomial preserving lifting operator from the boundary to the element with the appropriate mapping properties and an additional orthogonality property. For ${\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$, a lifting operator has been constructed in [@demkowicz-gopalakrishnan-schoeberl-II]. We formulate a simplified version of their results and also explicitly modify that lifting to ensure a convenient orthogonality property.
\[lemma:Hcurl-lifting\] Introduce on the trace space $\Pi_{\tau}{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ the norm $$\Vert{\mathbf{z}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{X}}^{-1/2}}:=\inf\{\Vert{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}\,|\,\Pi_{\tau
}{\mathbf{v}}={\mathbf{z}}\}.$$ There exists $C >0$ (independent of $p \in {\mathbb N}$) and, for each $p \in {\mathbb N}$, a lifting operator ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p:\Pi_\tau {\mathbf Q}_p(\widehat{K}) \rightarrow {\mathbf Q}_p(\widehat K)$ with the following properties:
(i) \[item:lemma:Hcurl-lifting-i\] $\Pi_\tau {\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p(\Pi_\tau {\mathbf z}) =
\Pi_\tau {\mathbf z}$ for all ${\mathbf z} \in {\mathbf Q}_p(\widehat K)$.
(ii) \[item:lemma:Hcurl-lifting-ii\] There holds $\displaystyle\Vert
{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p{\mathbf{z}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}\leq C\Vert{\mathbf{z}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{X}}^{-1/2}}.$
(iii) \[item:lemma:Hcurl-lifting-iia\] There holds the orthogonality $(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p\mathbf{z},\nabla v)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} = 0$ for all $v\in \mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K})$.
(iv) \[item:lemma:Hcurl-lifting-iii\] Let ${\mathbf T}:= \Pi_\tau {\mathbf H}^{2}(\widehat{K})$. A function ${\mathbf{z}}\in{\mathbf{T}}$ is in ${L}^2(\partial\widehat{K})$, facewise in ${\mathbf H}^{3/2}_{T}$, and $$\displaystyle\Vert{\mathbf{z}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{X}}^{-1/2}}\leq
C\sum_{f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K})}\left[ \Vert{\mathbf{z}}\Vert
_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_T^{-1/2}(f)}+\Vert\operatorname{curl}_{f}{\mathbf{z}}\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-1/2}(f)}\right] .$$
Here, we recall from that $\|\cdot\|_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_T^{-1/2}(f)}$ is defined to be dual to $\|\cdot\|_{{\mathbf{H}}_T^{1/2}(f)}$.
The lifting operator $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}:\Pi_\tau({\mathbf H}(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})) \rightarrow {\mathbf H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}})$ constructed in [@demkowicz-gopalakrishnan-schoeberl-II] has the desired polynomial preserving property (\[item:lemma:Hcurl-lifting-i\]) and continuity property (\[item:lemma:Hcurl-lifting-ii\]), [demkowicz-gopalakrishnan-schoeberl-II]{}. To ensure (\[item:lemma:Hcurl-lifting-iia\]) we define the desired lifting operator by $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p\mathbf{z} := \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{w}_0$, where $\mathbf{w}_0$ is defined by the following saddle point problem: Find $\mathbf{w}_0\in \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K})$ and $\varphi\in \mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K})$ such that for all $\mathbf{q}\in \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K})$ and all $\mu\in \mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K})$
\[eq:lemma:saddle-point-curl\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:saddle-point-curl-a}
(\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{w}_0,\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{q})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} + (\mathbf{q},\nabla\varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} & = (\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}\mathbf{z}),\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{q})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}
\\
\label{eq:lemma:saddle-point-curl-b}
(\mathbf{w}_0,\nabla\mu)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} & = (\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}\mathbf{z},\nabla\mu)_{L^2(\widehat{K})}.
$$
Problem is uniquely solvable: We define the bilinear forms $a(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{q}):=(\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{w},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{q})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}$ and $b(\mathbf{w},\varphi) := (\mathbf{w},\nabla\varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{K})}$ for $\mathbf{w}, \mathbf{q}\in \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K})$ and $\varphi\in \mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K})$. Coercivity of $a$ on the kernel of $b$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{ker}b=
\{\mathbf{q}\in \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K})\colon (\mathbf{q},\nabla\mu)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} = 0 \, \forall\mu\in \mathring{W}_{p+1}\} = \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p,\perp}(\widehat K),\end{aligned}$$ follows from the Friedrichs inequality (Lemma \[lemma:discrete-friedrichs-3d\]) by $$\begin{aligned}
a(\mathbf{v},\mathbf{v})&=\Vert\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{v}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})}^2 \geq \frac{1}{2C^2} \Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})}^2 + \frac{1}{2}\Vert\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{v}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})}^2 \\
&\geq \operatorname*{min}\{\frac{1}{2C^2},\frac{1}{2}\}\Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}})}^2\end{aligned}$$ for all $\mathbf{v}\in \operatorname*{ker}b$. Next, we show the inf-sup condition $$\begin{aligned}
\operatornamewithlimits{inf}_{\varphi\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K})} \operatornamewithlimits{sup}_{\mathbf{w}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K})} \frac{b(\mathbf{w},\varphi)}{\Vert\mathbf{w}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}})} \Vert\varphi\Vert_{H^1(\widehat{K})}} \geq C.\end{aligned}$$ Given $\varphi\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K})$, choose $\mathbf{w}=\nabla\varphi\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K})$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{b(\mathbf{w},\varphi)}{\Vert\mathbf{w}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}})} \Vert\varphi\Vert_{H^1(\widehat{K})}} = \frac{\Vert\nabla\varphi\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})}^2}{\Vert\nabla\varphi\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \Vert\varphi\Vert_{H^1(\widehat{K})}} \geq C\end{aligned}$$ by Poincaré’s inequality. Thus, the saddle point problem has a unique solution $(\mathbf{w}_0,\varphi) \in \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K}) \times \mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat K)$. In fact, taking ${\mathbf q} = \nabla \varphi$ in (\[eq:lemma:saddle-point-curl-a\]) reveals $\varphi = 0$. The lifting operator $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p$ now obviously satisfies (\[item:lemma:Hcurl-lifting-i\]) and (\[item:lemma:Hcurl-lifting-iia\]) by construction. For (\[item:lemma:Hcurl-lifting-ii\]) note that the solution $\mathbf{w}_0$ satisfies the estimate $\Vert\mathbf{w}_0\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}})} \lesssim \Vert f\Vert + \Vert g\Vert$, where $f(\mathbf{v})=(\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}\mathbf{z}),\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}$, $g(v)=(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}\mathbf{z},\nabla v)_{L^2(\widehat{K})}$, and $\Vert \cdot \Vert$ denotes the operator norm. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert f\Vert =\!\! \operatornamewithlimits{sup}_{\Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}})} \leq 1} \! |(\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}\mathbf{z}),\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}| \leq \Vert\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}\mathbf{z})\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \Vert\mathbf{z}\Vert_{\mathbf{X}^{-1/2}}.\end{aligned}$$ The estimate $\displaystyle \Vert g\Vert \lesssim \Vert\mathbf{z}\Vert_{\mathbf{X}^{-1/2}}
$ is shown in a similar way. Hence, (\[item:lemma:Hcurl-lifting-ii\]) follows from $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p\mathbf{z}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}})} \leq \Vert\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}\mathbf{z}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}})} + \Vert\mathbf{w}_0\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}})} \lesssim \Vert\mathbf{z}\Vert_{\mathbf{X}^{-1/2}}.\end{aligned}$$ We now show (\[item:lemma:Hcurl-lifting-iii\]), proceeding in several steps. *1st step:* Clearly, ${\mathbf z}$ is in $L^2(\partial \widehat K)$ and facewise in ${\mathbf H}^{3/2}_T$. The surface curl of ${\mathbf z} \in {\mathbf T}$, denoted $\operatorname{curl}_{\partial\widehat K} {\mathbf z}$, is defined by ${\mathbf n} \cdot \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} \widetilde{\mathbf z} \in H^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat K)$ for any lifting $\widetilde{\mathbf z} \in {\mathbf H}(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ of ${\mathbf z}$. This definition is indeed independent of the lifting since the difference ${\boldsymbol \delta}$ of two liftings is in ${\mathbf H}_0(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ and by the deRham diagram (see, e.g., [@Monkbook eqn. (3.60)]) we then have $\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\boldsymbol \delta} \in {\mathbf H}_0(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})$. Furthermore, since an ${\mathbf H}^2$-lifting of ${\mathbf z}$ exists, $\operatorname{curl}_{\partial\widehat K} {\mathbf z} \in H^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat K)$ is facewise in ${\mathbf H}_T^{1/2}$ and coincides facewise with $\operatorname{curl}_f {\mathbf z}$.
*2nd step:* We construct a particular lifting ${\mathbf Z} \in {\mathbf H}(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ of ${\mathbf z} \in {\mathbf X}^{-1/2}$ and will use $\|{\mathbf z}\|_{{\mathbf X}^{-1/2}} \leq \|{\mathbf Z}\|_{{\mathbf H}(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}$. This lifting ${\mathbf Z}$ is taken to be the solution of the following (constrained) minimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
& \mbox{ Minimize } \|\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf Y}\|_{L^2(\widehat{K})}
\mbox{ under the constraints} \\
& \mbox{$\Pi_\tau {\mathbf Y} = {\mathbf z}$ \qquad and \qquad $({\mathbf Y} ,\nabla \varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} = 0$
for all $\varphi \in H^1_0(\widehat{K})$.}\end{aligned}$$ This minimization problem can be solved with the method of Lagrange multipliers as was done in (\[eq:lemma:saddle-point-curl\]). Without repeating the arguments, we obtain, in strong form, the problem: Find $({\mathbf Z},\varphi) \in {\mathbf H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}) \times H^1_0(\widehat{K})$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}
\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf Z} + \nabla \varphi = 0 \quad \mbox{ in $\widehat{K}$},
\qquad
\operatorname{div} {\mathbf Z} = 0 \quad \mbox{ in $\widehat{K}$},
\qquad \Pi_\tau {\mathbf Z} = {\mathbf z}. \end{aligned}$$ As was observed above, the Lagrange multiplier $\varphi$ in fact vanishes so that we conclude that the minimizer ${\mathbf Z}$ solves $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf Z} = 0, \qquad
\operatorname{div} {\mathbf Z} = 0,
\qquad \Pi_\tau {\mathbf Z} = {\mathbf z}. \end{aligned}$$ *3rd step:* We bound ${\mathbf w}:= \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf Z}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:X-1/2-vs-H-1/2-curl-40-vorn}
\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf w} = 0 , \qquad
\operatorname{div} {\mathbf w} = 0, \qquad
{\mathbf n} \cdot {\mathbf w} = \operatorname{curl}_{\partial\widehat{K}} {\mathbf z}. \end{aligned}$$ From $\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf w} = 0$, we get that ${\mathbf w}$ is a gradient: ${\mathbf w} = \nabla \psi$. The second and third conditions in (\[eq:lemma:X-1/2-vs-H-1/2-curl-40-vorn\]) show $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta \psi = 0 \qquad \partial_n \psi = {\mathbf n} \cdot {\mathbf w} =
\operatorname{curl}_{\partial\widehat{K}} {\mathbf z}.\end{aligned}$$ The integrability condition is satisfied since $( {\mathbf n} \cdot {\mathbf w},1)_{L^2(\partial\widehat{K})}
= (\operatorname{div} {\mathbf w},1)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} = 0$. Thus we conclude by standard [*a priori*]{} estimates for the Laplace problem $$\label{eq:lemma:X-1/2-vs-H-1/2-curl-45-vorn}
\|\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf Z}\|_{L^2(\widehat{K})} =
\|{\mathbf w}\|_{L^2(\widehat{K})} = \|\nabla \psi\|_{L^2(\widehat{K})}
\lesssim \|\operatorname{curl}_{\partial\widehat{K}} {\mathbf z}\|_{H^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat{K})}.$$ *4th step:* To bound ${\mathbf Z}$, we write it with the operators ${\mathbf R}^{\operatorname{curl}}$ and $R^{\operatorname{grad}}$ of Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh\] as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:X-1/2-vs-H-1/2-curl-50-vorn}
& {\mathbf Z} = \nabla \phi + \widetilde {\mathbf z},
\qquad \widetilde {\mathbf z}:= {\mathbf R}^{\operatorname{curl}}(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf Z}),
\qquad \phi := R^{\operatorname{grad}} ({\mathbf Z} - \mathbf{R}^{\operatorname{curl}}(\operatorname{\mathbf {curl}} \widetilde {\mathbf z})), \\
\label{eq:lemma:X-1/2-vs-H-1/2-curl-100-vorn}
& \mbox{ with }
\|\widetilde {\mathbf z}\|_{H^1(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \|\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf Z}\|_{L^2(\widehat{K})}
\lesssim \|\operatorname{curl}_{\partial\widehat{K}} {\mathbf z}\|_{H^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ For the control of $\phi$, we proceed by an integration by parts argument. Noting that $\operatorname{div} {\mathbf Z} = 0$, we have $$\nabla \phi + \widetilde {\mathbf z} = {\mathbf Z}
= \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf R}^{\operatorname{curl}} ({\mathbf Z})
= \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf R}^{\operatorname{curl}} (\nabla \phi)
+ \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf R}^{\operatorname{curl}} (\widetilde {\mathbf z}).$$ With the integration by parts formula (\[eq:integration-by-parts\]) (which is actually valid for functions in ${\mathbf H}(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ as shown in [@Monkbook Thm. [3.29]{}]) we get $$(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf Z}, {\mathbf v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}
\stackrel{(\ref{eq:integration-by-parts})}{= }
({\mathbf Z}, \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}
- ({\mathbf z}, \gamma_\tau {\mathbf v})_{L^2(\partial \widehat{K})}.$$ Selecting ${\mathbf v} = {\mathbf R}^{\operatorname{curl}}(\nabla \phi) \in {\mathbf H}^1(\widehat{K})$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf Z},{\mathbf R}^{\operatorname{curl}}(\nabla \phi) )_{L^2(\widehat{K})} &=
(\nabla \phi + \widetilde {\mathbf z}, \nabla \phi + \widetilde {\mathbf z} - \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf R}^{\operatorname{curl}}(\widetilde {\mathbf z}))_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \\
&\quad - ({\mathbf z}, \gamma_\tau {\mathbf R}^{\operatorname{curl}}(\nabla \phi))_{L^2(\partial \widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ In view of the mapping property ${\mathbf R}^{\operatorname{curl}}:L^2(\widehat{K}) \rightarrow {\mathbf H}^1(\widehat{K})$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:X-1/2-vs-H-1/2-curl-200-vorn}
\|\nabla \phi\|^2_{L^2(\widehat{K})} &\lesssim
\|\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf Z}\|_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \|\nabla \phi\|_{L^2(\widehat{K})} +
\|\widetilde{\mathbf z}\|_{L^2(\widehat K)}
\|\widetilde{\mathbf z} - \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf R}^{\operatorname{curl}} (\widetilde{\mathbf z})\|_{L^2(\widehat K)} \\
\nonumber
& \quad \mbox{} +
\|\widetilde {\mathbf z} - \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf R}^{\operatorname{curl}}(\widetilde {\mathbf z})\|_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \|\nabla \phi\|_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \\
\nonumber
& \quad \mbox{}+
\|\widetilde {\mathbf z} \|_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \|\nabla \phi\|_{L^2(\widehat{K})} +
\left| ({\mathbf z},\gamma_\tau {\mathbf R}^{\operatorname{curl}}(\nabla \phi))_{L^2(\partial\widehat K)} \right|.\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[eq:lemma:X-1/2-vs-H-1/2-curl-50-vorn\]), (\[eq:lemma:X-1/2-vs-H-1/2-curl-100-vorn\]), (\[eq:lemma:X-1/2-vs-H-1/2-curl-200-vorn\]) shows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:X-1/2-vs-H-1/2-curl-500-vorn}
\|{\mathbf Z}\|_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}
&\lesssim \|\widetilde {\mathbf z}\|_{L^2(\widehat K)} +
\|\nabla \phi\|_{L^2(\widehat K)} + \|\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf Z}\|_{L^2(\widehat K)} \\
\nonumber
& \lesssim \sup_{{\mathbf v} \in {\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K)}
\frac{ ({\mathbf z},\gamma_\tau {\mathbf v})_{L^2(\partial \widehat K)}}
{\|{\mathbf v}\|_{{\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K)}}
+ \|\operatorname{curl}_{\partial \widehat K} {\mathbf z}\|_{H^{-1/2}(\partial \widehat K)}.\end{aligned}$$ *5th step:* Since ${\mathbf z}$ and $\operatorname{curl}_{\partial\widehat{K}} {\mathbf z}$ are actually $L^2$-functions, the norm $\|\cdot\|_{{\mathbf X}^{-1/2}}$ can be estimated in a localized fashion: The continuity of the inclusions $H^{1/2}(\partial\widehat{K}) \subset \prod_{f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat{K})} H^{1/2}(f)$ and $\gamma_\tau {\mathbf H}^{1}(\widehat{K}) \subset
\prod_{f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat{K})} {\mathbf H}_T^{1/2}(f)$ implies
\[eq:lemma:X-1/2-vs-H-1/2-curl-550-vorn\] $$\begin{aligned}
\|\operatorname{curl}_{\partial \widehat{K}} {\mathbf z}\|_{H^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat{K})} & \lesssim
\sum_{f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat{K})} \|\operatorname{curl}_f {\mathbf z}\|_{\widetilde{H}^{-1/2}(f)}, \\
\sup_{{\mathbf v} \in {\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K)}
\frac{({\mathbf z},\gamma_\tau {\mathbf v})_{L^2(\partial\widehat K)}}
{\|{\mathbf v}\|_{{\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K)}} & \lesssim
\sum_{f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat{K})} \|{\mathbf z}\|_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-1/2}_T(f)}. \end{aligned}$$
We finally obtain the desired estimate $$\|{\mathbf z} \|_{{\mathbf X}^{-1/2}}
\lesssim \|{\mathbf Z}\|_{{\mathbf H}(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}) }
\stackrel{\text{(\ref{eq:lemma:X-1/2-vs-H-1/2-curl-500-vorn}),
(\ref{eq:lemma:X-1/2-vs-H-1/2-curl-550-vorn})}}{\lesssim}\sum_{f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat K)}
\|{\mathbf z}\|_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-1/2}_T(f)} +
\|\operatorname{curl}_f {\mathbf z}\|_{\widetilde{H}^{-1/2}(f)}.$$ This concludes the proof. We mention that an alternative proof of the assertion (\[item:lemma:Hcurl-lifting-iii\]) could be based on the intrinsic characterization of the trace spaces of ${\mathbf H}(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ given in [@BuffaCiarlet2001; @BuffaCiarlet2001b].
\[thm:H1curl-approximation\] Let $\widehat K$ be a fixed tetrahedron. Then there exists $C>0$ independent of $p$ such that for all ${\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ $$\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}\leq Cp^{-1}\inf_{{\mathbf v} \in {\mathbf Q}_p(\widehat K)}
\Vert{\mathbf{u}} - \mathbf{v}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}.
\label{eq:thmH1curl-approximation-10}$$
*1st step:* Since ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$ is a projection operator, it suffices to show the bound with ${\mathbf v} = 0$ in the infimum.
*2nd step:* Write, with the operators $R^{\operatorname*{grad}}$, ${\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}$ of Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh\], the function ${\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ as ${\mathbf{u}}=\nabla\varphi+{\mathbf{v}}$ with $\varphi\in H^{2}(\widehat{K})$ and ${\mathbf{v}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{2}(\widehat{K})$. We have $\Vert\varphi
\Vert_{H^{2}(\widehat{K})}\lesssim\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}$ and $\Vert{\mathbf{v}}\Vert
_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}(\widehat{K})}\lesssim\Vert\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}(\widehat{K})}$. From the commuting diagram property, we readily get $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert\nabla\varphi-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\nabla
\varphi\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}\!&=\Vert
\nabla(\varphi-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}\varphi)\Vert
_{{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}\!=|\varphi-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}\varphi|_{H^{1}(\widehat{K})} \\
& \stackrel{\text{Thm.~\ref{lemma:demkowicz-grad-3D}}}{\lesssim} p^{-1}\Vert\varphi\Vert_{H^{2}(\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ *3rd step:* We claim $$\Vert\Pi_{\tau}({\mathbf{v}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}})\Vert_{{\mathbf{X}}^{-1/2}}\leq Cp^{-1}\Vert{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}(\widehat{K})}. \label{eq:thm:H1curl-approximation-30}$$ To see this, we note ${\mathbf{v}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{2}(\widehat{K})$ and estimate with Lemma \[lemma:Hcurl-lifting\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\Vert\Pi_{\tau}({\mathbf{v}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}})\Vert_{{\mathbf{X}}^{-1/2}}\lesssim\\
& \sum_{f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K})}\Vert\Pi_{\tau}({\mathbf{v}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}})\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_T^{-1/2}(f)}+\Vert\operatorname{curl}_{f}(\Pi_{\tau}({\mathbf{v}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}}))\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-1/2}(f)}.\end{aligned}$$ We consider each face $f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K})$ separately. Lemmas \[lemma:picurl-negative-I\], \[lemma:picurl-negative-II\], \[lemma:Picurl-face\] imply with the aid of the continuity of the trace $\Pi_\tau: {\mathbf H}^2(\widehat K) \rightarrow {\mathbf H}^{3/2}_T(f) \subset {\mathbf H}^{1/2}(f,\operatorname{curl})$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert\Pi_{\tau}({\mathbf{v}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v})}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}_T^{-1/2}(f)} &\!\!\!\!
\stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:picurl-negative-I}}}{\lesssim} \!\!p^{-1/2}\Vert\Pi_{\tau
}({\mathbf{v}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}})\Vert
_{{\mathbf{H}}(f,\operatorname{curl})}\\
& \!\!\!\! \stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:Picurl-face}}}{\lesssim}
\!\!
p^{-1/2-1/2}\Vert\Pi_{\tau}{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1/2}(f,\operatorname{curl})}\lesssim p^{-1}\Vert{\mathbf{v}}\Vert
_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}(\widehat{K})},\\
\Vert\operatorname{curl}(\Pi_{\tau}({\mathbf{v}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}}))\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-1/2}(f)} &
\!\!\!\!
\stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:picurl-negative-II}}}{\lesssim}
\!\!
p^{-1/2}\Vert\operatorname{curl}(\Pi_{\tau}({\mathbf{v}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}}))\Vert_{L^{2}(f)}\\
& \lesssim p^{-1/2-1/2} \Vert\Pi_{\tau}{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1/2}(f,\operatorname{curl})} \lesssim p^{-1}\Vert{\mathbf{v}}\Vert
_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}(\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$
*4th step:* Since ${\mathbf{v}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{2}(\widehat{K})$, the approximation $P^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}{\mathbf{v}}\in
\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{K})$ given by Lemma \[lemma:Pcurl3d\] satisfies $$\Vert{\mathbf{v}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}\leq Cp^{-1}\Vert{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}(\widehat{K})}. \label{eq:thm:H1curl-approximation-10c}$$ We note $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert{\mathbf{v}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})} & \leq\Vert
{\mathbf{v}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}
+\Vert{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}\\
& \leq p^{-1}\Vert{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}(\widehat{K})}+\Vert{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}.\end{aligned}$$ For the term $\Vert{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}$, we introduce the abbreviation ${\mathbf{E}}:={\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}{\mathbf{v}}\in\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{K})$ and observe that the orthogonality conditions (\[eq:Pi\_curl-b\]), (\[eq:Pi\_curl-a\]) satisfied by ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}}$ and the conditions (\[eq:lemma:Pcurl3d-a\]), (\[eq:lemma:Pcurl3d-b\]) satisfied by $P^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}{\mathbf{v}}$, lead to two orthogonalities:
\[eq:orth-3d\]$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:orth-3d-a}(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{E}},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{w}})_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}& =0\quad\forall{\mathbf{w}}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}(\widehat{K}),\\
\label{eq:orth-3d-b}({\mathbf{E}},\nabla w)_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}&=0\quad\forall w\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K}). \end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[lemma:Hcurl-lifting\], the orthogonality condition $$\begin{aligned}
(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p\Pi_\tau \mathbf{E},\nabla w)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} = 0 \quad \forall w\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K})\end{aligned}$$ holds. Hence, the discrete Friedrichs inequality of Lemma \[lemma:discrete-friedrichs-3d\] is applicable to $\mathbf{E}-\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p\Pi_\tau \mathbf{E}$, and we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})} & \leq\Vert{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p\Pi_{\tau}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}+\Vert{\mathbf{E}}-{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p\Pi_{\tau
}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}\label{eq:thm:H1curl-approximation-100}\\
\nonumber
& \lesssim\Vert{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p\Pi_{\tau}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}+\Vert\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}({\mathbf{E}}-{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p\Pi_{\tau}{\mathbf{E}})\Vert
_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}\\
\nonumber
&\lesssim\Vert{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}\Pi_{\tau}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}+\Vert\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}
\\
\nonumber
& \lesssim\Vert\Pi_{\tau}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{X}}^{-1/2}}+\Vert\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ Using again the lifting $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p$ of Lemma \[lemma:Hcurl-lifting\] and , we get $$\Vert\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}\leq
\Vert\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}}^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p\Pi_{\tau
}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{L^{2}(\widehat{K})}\lesssim\Vert\Pi_{\tau}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{X}}^{-1/2}}. \label{eq:thm:H1curl-approximation-200}$$ We conclude the proof by observing $$\begin{aligned}
& \Vert{\mathbf{v}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})} \leq\Vert{\mathbf{v}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}+\Vert{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}
\\
&\quad \overset{(\ref{eq:thm:H1curl-approximation-100}),(\ref{eq:thm:H1curl-approximation-200})}
{\lesssim}
\Vert {\mathbf v}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}
+\Vert\Pi_{\tau}{\mathbf{E}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{X}}^{-1/2}}\\
& \quad \lesssim
\Vert{\mathbf{v}}-P^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}+\Vert\Pi_{\tau}({\mathbf{v}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}})\Vert_{{\mathbf{X}}^{-1/2}}
\!\!\!\!
\overset{(\ref{eq:thm:H1curl-approximation-30}),(\ref{eq:thm:H1curl-approximation-10c})}{\lesssim}
\! \!\!\!
p^{-1}\Vert{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}(\widehat{K})}.
\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
For negative norm estimates $\|{\mathbf u} - {\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf u}\|_{\widetilde {\mathbf H}^{-s}(\widehat K,
\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}$ with $s \ge 0$ we need the following Helmholtz decompositions:
\[lemma:helmholtz-3d\] Any ${\mathbf v} \in {\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K)$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:helmholtz-3d-10}
{\mathbf v} & = \nabla \varphi_0 + \operatorname{\mathbf{ curl}} \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf z}_0, \\
\label{eq:lemma:helmholtz-3d-20}
{\mathbf v} & = \nabla \varphi_1 + \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf z}_1,\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi_0 \in H^2(\widehat K) \cap H^1_0(\widehat K)$ and ${\mathbf z}_0 \in {\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}) \cap {\mathbf H}_0(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ and where $\varphi_1 \in H^2(\widehat K)$ and ${\mathbf z}_1 \in {\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}) \cap {\mathbf H}_0(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ together with the estimates $$\begin{aligned}
\|\varphi_0\|_{H^2(\widehat K)} +
\|{\mathbf z}_0\|_{{\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}
& \leq C \|{\mathbf v}\|_{{\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K)}, \\
\|\varphi_1\|_{H^2(\widehat K)} +
\|{\mathbf z}_1\|_{{\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}
& \leq C \|{\mathbf v}\|_{{\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K)}. \end{aligned}$$
Before proving these decompositions, we recall the continuous embeddings $$\label{eq:saranen}
{\mathbf H}_0(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}) \cap {\mathbf H}(\widehat K,\operatorname{div}) \subset {\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K)
\quad \mbox{ and } \quad
{\mathbf H}(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}) \cap {\mathbf H}_0(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})
\subset {\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K),$$ which hinge on the convexity of $\widehat K$ (see [@birman-solomyak87; @saranen82] and the discussion in [@Monkbook Rem. [3.48]{}]).
We construct the decomposition (\[eq:lemma:helmholtz-3d-20\]): We define $\varphi_1 \in H^1(\widehat K)$ as the solution of $$-\Delta \varphi_1 = -\operatorname{div} {\mathbf v} \quad \mbox{ in $\widehat K$},
\qquad \partial_n \varphi_1 = {\mathbf n} \cdot {\mathbf v} \quad \mbox{ on $\partial \widehat K$.}$$ The contribution ${\mathbf z}_1$ is defined by the following saddle point problem: Find $({\mathbf z}_1, \psi) \in {\mathbf H}_0(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}) \times H^1_0(\widehat K)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf z}_1,
\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf w})_{L^2(\widehat K)} - (\nabla \psi,{\mathbf w})_{L^2(\widehat K)} & =
(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf v} ,{\mathbf w})_{L^2(\widehat K)} \qquad \forall {\mathbf w} \in {\mathbf H}_0(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}),
\\
( {\mathbf z}_1,\nabla q)_{L^2(\widehat K)} &=0 \qquad \forall q \in H^1_0(\widehat K). \end{aligned}$$ This problem is uniquely solvable, we have $\psi = 0$ (since $\operatorname{div} \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf v} =0$) and the [*a priori*]{} estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathbf z}_1\|_{{\mathbf H}(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}},\widehat K)}
\lesssim \|\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf v}\|_{L^2(\widehat K)}
\lesssim \|{\mathbf v}\|_{{\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K)}.\end{aligned}$$ (In the proof of Lemma \[lemma:Hcurl-lifting\], we considered a similar problem in a discrete setting; here, the appeal to the discrete Friedrichs inequality of Lemma \[lemma:discrete-friedrichs-3d\] needs to replaced with that to the continuous one, [@Monkbook Cor. [3.51]{}].) From $\operatorname{div} {\mathbf z}_1 = 0$ and (\[eq:saranen\]), we furthermore infer $\|{\mathbf z}_1\|_{{\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K)} \lesssim \|{\mathbf v}\|_{{\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K)}$. The representation (\[eq:lemma:helmholtz-3d-20\]) is obtained from the observation that the difference ${\boldsymbol\delta}:= {\mathbf v} - \nabla \varphi_1 - \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf z}_1$ satisfies, by construction, $\operatorname{div} {\boldsymbol \delta} = 0$, $\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}{\boldsymbol\delta} = 0$, ${\mathbf n} \cdot {\boldsymbol\delta} =
({\mathbf n} \cdot {\mathbf v} - \partial_n\varphi_1) - {\mathbf n} \cdot \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf z}_1 =
0 - \operatorname{curl}_{\partial\widehat K} \Pi_\tau {\mathbf z}_1 = 0 - 0 = 0$ so that again (\[eq:saranen\]) (specifically, in the form [@Monkbook Cor. [3.51]{}]) implies ${\boldsymbol \delta} = 0$. Finally, from ${\mathbf v} \in {\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K)$, $\varphi_1 \in H^2(\widehat K)$ and the representation (\[eq:lemma:helmholtz-3d-20\]), we infer $\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf z}_1 \in {\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K)$.
We construct the decomposition (\[eq:lemma:helmholtz-3d-10\]): We define $\varphi_0 \in H^1_0(\widehat K)$ as the solution of $$-\Delta \varphi_0 = -\operatorname{div} {\mathbf v} \quad \mbox{ in $\widehat K$},
\qquad \varphi_0 = 0 \quad \mbox{ on $\partial \widehat K$.}$$ Next, we define $({\mathbf z}_0,\psi) \in {\mathbf H}_0(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}) \times H^1_0(\widehat K)$ as the solution of the saddle point problem $$\begin{aligned}
(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf z}_0,
\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf w})_{L^2(\widehat K)} - (\nabla \psi,{\mathbf w})_{L^2(\widehat K)} & =
({\mathbf v} - \nabla \varphi_0,{\mathbf w})_{L^2(\widehat K)} \quad \forall {\mathbf w} \in {\mathbf H}_0(\widehat K,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}),
\\
( {\mathbf z}_0,\nabla q)_{L^2(\widehat K)} &=0 \qquad \forall q \in H^1_0(\widehat K). \end{aligned}$$ Again, this problem is uniquely solvable and, in fact $\psi = 0$ (since $\operatorname{div} ({\mathbf v} - \nabla \varphi_0) = 0$). We have $\|{\mathbf z}_0\|_{{\mathbf H}(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}},\widehat K)}
\lesssim \|{\mathbf v} - \nabla \varphi_0\|_{L^2(\widehat K)} \lesssim \|{\mathbf v}\|_{L^2(\widehat K)}$. Since $\operatorname{div} {\mathbf z}_0 = 0$, we get from (\[eq:saranen\]) that $\|{\mathbf z}_0\|_{{\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K)} \lesssim \|{\mathbf v}\|_{L^2(\widehat K)}$. Finally, an integration by parts reveals $$\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}
\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf z_0} = {\mathbf v} - \nabla \varphi_0,$$ which is the representation (\[eq:lemma:helmholtz-3d-10\]).
We control the approximation error in negative Sobolev norms.
\[thm:duality-again\] Assume that all interior angles of the 4 faces of $\widehat K$ are smaller than $2\pi/3$. Then for $s \in [0,1]$ and all $\mathbf{u}\in \mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ there holds the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert\mathbf{u}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}
\leq C_s p^{-(1+s)} \inf_{{\mathbf v} \in {\mathbf Q}_p(\widehat{K})} \Vert\mathbf{u} - \mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}.\end{aligned}$$
By the familiar argument that ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$ is a projection, we may restrict the proof to the case ${\mathbf v} = 0$ in the infimum. The case $s = 0$ is covered by Theorem \[thm:H1curl-approximation\]. In the remainder of the proof, we will show the case $s = 1$ as the case $s \in (0,1)$ then follows by an interpolation argument.
We write $\mathbf{E}:=\mathbf{u}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\mathbf{u}$ for simplicity. By definition we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:duality-again-100}
\Vert\mathbf{E}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-1}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}
& \sim \Vert\mathbf{E}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-1}(\widehat{K})} + \Vert\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{E}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-1}(\widehat{K})} \\
\nonumber
&=
\operatorname*{sup}_{\mathbf{v}\in\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})} \frac{(\mathbf{E},\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}}{\Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})}} +
\operatorname*{sup}_{\mathbf{v}\in\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})} \frac{(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} \mathbf{E},\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}}{\Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})}}. \end{aligned}$$ We start with estimating the first supremum in (\[eq:lemma:duality-again-100\]). According to Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-3d\], any $\mathbf{v}\in\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})$ can be decomposed as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}=\nabla\varphi + \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{z}\end{aligned}$$ with $\varphi\in H^2(\widehat{K}) \cap H_0^1(\widehat{K})$ and $\mathbf{z}\in\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}) \cap \mathbf{H}_0(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$. We also observe $\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{z}\in \mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$. Thus by Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-like-decomp\] we can further decompose $\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{z}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:duality-again-25}
\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{z} = \nabla\varphi_2 + \mathbf{z}_2\end{aligned}$$ with $\varphi_2\in H^2(\widehat{K})$ and $\mathbf{z}_2 \in \mathbf{H}^2(\widehat{K})$. We estimate each term in the decomposition $(\mathbf{E},\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} =
(\mathbf{E},\nabla\varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} +
(\mathbf{E},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{z})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}$ separately. Using the orthogonality condition and Theorem \[thm:H1curl-approximation\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\bigl|(\mathbf{E},\nabla\varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{K})}\bigr| &=
\bigl| \operatorname*{inf}_{w\in\mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K})} (\mathbf{E},\nabla(\varphi-w))_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \bigr|\lesssim p^{-1} \Vert\varphi\Vert_{H^2(\widehat{K})} \Vert\mathbf{E}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \\
\label{eq:lemma:duality-again-30}
&\lesssim p^{-1} \Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{H^1(\widehat{K})} \Vert\mathbf{E}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})} \lesssim p^{-2} \Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{H^1(\widehat{K})} \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}.\end{aligned}$$ Integration by parts and (\[eq:lemma:duality-again-25\]) give $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&(\mathbf{E},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{z})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}
=
(\mathbf{E},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{z}_2)_{L^2(\widehat{K})}
\\ \nonumber & \quad
=
(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} \mathbf{E},\mathbf{z}_2)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} +
(\Pi_\tau \mathbf{E},\gamma_\tau \mathbf{z}_2)_{L^2(\partial \widehat{K})} \\
\nonumber
& \quad =
(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} \mathbf{E},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} \mathbf{z})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} -
(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} \mathbf{E},\nabla \varphi_2)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} +
(\Pi_\tau \mathbf{E},\gamma_\tau \mathbf{z}_2)_{L^2(\partial \widehat{K})} \\
\label{eq:lemma:duality-again-50}
& \quad =
(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} \mathbf{E},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} \mathbf{z})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} -
({\mathbf n} \cdot \operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} \mathbf{E},\varphi_2)_{L^2(\partial \widehat{K})} +
(\Pi_\tau \mathbf{E},\gamma_\tau \mathbf{z}_2)_{L^2(\partial \widehat{K})}. \end{aligned}$$ We estimate these three terms separately. For the first term in (\[eq:lemma:duality-again-50\]), we use the orthogonality and Theorem \[thm:H1curl-approximation\] to get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:duality-again-52}
& \bigl| (\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{E},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{z})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}
\bigr| = \bigl| \operatorname*{inf}_{\mathbf{w}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K})} (\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{E},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}(\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{w}))_{L^2(\widehat{K})}
\bigr|\\
\nonumber
& \qquad \qquad \lesssim p^{-1} \Vert\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{E}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \Vert\mathbf{z}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})} \\
\nonumber
&
\qquad
\qquad
\lesssim p^{-1} \Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{H^1(\widehat{K})} \Vert\mathbf{E}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}
\lesssim p^{-2} \Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{H^1(\widehat{K})} \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})},\end{aligned}$$ cf. also the proof of Lemma \[lemma:picurl-negative-I\] for the approximation arguments (use the lifting of Lemma \[lemma:Hcurl-lifting\]). For the second term in (\[eq:lemma:duality-again-50\]), we note that $\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf E} \in {\mathbf H}^1(\widehat K)$ so that the integral over $\partial\widehat K$ can be split into a sum of face contributions and $({\mathbf n} \cdot
\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf E})|_f = \operatorname*{curl}_f \Pi_\tau {\mathbf E}$. We also observe that our assumption on the angles of the faces of $\widehat K$ allows us to select $s = 3/2$ in Lemmas \[lemma:picurl-negative-II\] and \[lemma:Picurl-face\] since the pertinent $\widehat s$ satisfies $\widehat s > 3/2 = \pi/(2 \pi/3)$. We get for each face contribution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:duality-again-61}
\bigl| (\operatorname{curl}_f\Pi_\tau\mathbf{E},\varphi_2)_{L^2(f)}\bigr|
& \stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:picurl-negative-II}}}{\lesssim} p^{-3/2} \Vert\operatorname{curl}_f\Pi_\tau\mathbf{E}\Vert_{L^2(f)} \Vert\varphi_2\Vert_{H^{3/2}(f)} \\
&\stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:Picurl-face}}}{\lesssim} p^{-2} \Vert\Pi_\tau\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\operatorname{curl},f)} \Vert\varphi_2\Vert_{H^2(\widehat{K})}
\\ \nonumber &
\lesssim p^{-2} \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}},\widehat{K})} \Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, for the third term in (\[eq:lemma:duality-again-50\]) we infer with Lemmas \[lemma:picurl-negative-I\], \[lemma:Picurl-face\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:duality-again-54}
\left| (\Pi_\tau\mathbf{E},\gamma_\tau\mathbf{z}_2)_{L^2(f)}\right|
&\stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:picurl-negative-I}}}{\lesssim} p^{-3/2} \Vert\Pi_\tau\mathbf{E}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(f,\operatorname{curl})} \Vert\gamma_\tau\mathbf{z}_2\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{3/2}(f)}\\
\nonumber
&\stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:Picurl-face}}}{\lesssim} p^{-2}\Vert\Pi_\tau\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{1/2}(f,\operatorname{curl})} \Vert\mathbf{z_2}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^2(\widehat{K})} \\
\nonumber
& \lesssim p^{-2} \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})} \Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ Adding and over all faces and taking note of (\[eq:lemma:duality-again-52\]) shows that we estimate the first supremum (\[eq:lemma:duality-again-100\]) in the desired fashion.
To estimate the second supremum in (\[eq:lemma:duality-again-100\]), we decompose $\mathbf{v}\in\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}=\nabla\varphi+\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{z}\end{aligned}$$ with $\varphi\in H^2(\widehat{K})$ and $\mathbf{z} \in \mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}) \cap \mathbf{H}_0(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ according to Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-3d\]. Thus we have to control the expression $(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{E},\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} = (\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{E},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{z})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} + (\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{E},\nabla\varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{K})}$. Using the orthogonality condition and Theorem \[thm:H1curl-approximation\], the first term is estimated by $$\begin{aligned}
\bigr| (\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{E}&,\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{z})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}
\bigr| =\bigl| \operatorname*{inf}_{\mathbf{w}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K})} (\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{E},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}(\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{w}))_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \bigr| \\
& \lesssim p^{-1} \Vert\mathbf{E}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})} \Vert\mathbf{z}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}
\lesssim p^{-2} \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})} \Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}.\end{aligned}$$ For the second term, an integration by parts yields in view of $\operatorname{curl}_f \Pi_\tau {\mathbf E} = {\mathbf n} \cdot \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\mathbf E}$ $$\begin{aligned}
(\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{E},\nabla\varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} = \sum_{f\in\mathcal{F}(\widehat{K})}(\operatorname{curl}_f\Pi_\tau\mathbf{E},\varphi)_{L^2(f)},
$$ where the decomposition into face contributions is again permitted by the regularity of ${\mathbf E}$ and $\varphi$. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl| (\operatorname{curl}_f\Pi_\tau\mathbf{E},\varphi)_{L^2(f)}\bigr|\! \lesssim p^{-3/2} \Vert\Pi_\tau\mathbf{E}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(f,\operatorname{curl})} \Vert\varphi\Vert_{H^{3/2}(f)}\! \lesssim p^{-2} \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})} \Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})}\end{aligned}$$ by Lemmas \[lemma:picurl-negative-II\] and \[lemma:Picurl-face\], which finishes the proof.
For functions ${\mathbf u}$ with discrete $\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}$, we have the following result.
\[lemma:better-regularity\] Assume that all interior angles of the $4$ faces of $\widehat K$ are smaller than $2 \pi/3$. Then for all $k\geq1$ and all ${\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})$ with $\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{u}}\in {\mathbf V}_p(\widehat K) \supset ({\mathcal{P}}_{p}(\widehat{K}))^{3}$ $$\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}\leq C_{s,k}p^{-(k+s)}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert
_{\mathbf{H}^{k}(\widehat{K})}, \qquad s\in [0,1].
\label{eq:proposition:better-regularity}$$ If $p\geq k-1$, then $\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}$ can be replaced with the seminorm $|{\mathbf{u}}|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}$. Moreover, holds for $s =0$ without the conditions on the angles of the faces of $\widehat K$.
We employ the regularized right inverses of the operators $\nabla$ and $\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}$ and proceed as in Lemma \[lemma:better-regularity-2d\]. We write, using the decomposition of Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-like-decomp\], $\displaystyle
{\mathbf{u}}=\nabla R^{\operatorname*{grad}}({\mathbf{u}}-{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{u}})+{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{u}}=:\nabla
\varphi+{\mathbf{v}}$ with $\varphi\in H^{k+1}(\widehat{K})$ and ${\mathbf{v}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})$ together with $$\Vert\varphi\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\widehat{K})}+\Vert{\mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}\lesssim \Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}+\Vert\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k-1}(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}.
\label{eq:lemma:projection-based-interpolation-approximation-100}$$ The assumption $\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{u}}\in {\mathbf V}_p(\widehat K)$ and Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh\], (\[item:lemma:mcintosh-v\]) imply ${\mathbf{v}}={\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{curl}}\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}{\mathbf{u}}\in
\mathbf{Q}_p(\widehat{K})$; furthermore, since ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$ is a projection, we have ${\mathbf{v}}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}{\mathbf{v}}=0$. With the commuting diagram property $\nabla{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}}={\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}\nabla$ and we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert(\operatorname{I}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}){\mathbf{u}}\Vert
_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})} &= \Vert(\operatorname{I}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p})\nabla\varphi+\underbrace{(\operatorname{I}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}){\mathbf{v}}}_{=0}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})} \\
&= \Vert\nabla(\operatorname{I}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{grad},3d}_{p+1}})\varphi\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K})}\lesssim p^{-(k+s)}\Vert\varphi\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ The proof of (\[eq:proposition:better-regularity\]) is complete in view of (\[eq:lemma:projection-based-interpolation-approximation-100\]). Replacing $\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}$ with $|{\mathbf{u}}|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}$ is possible since the projector ${\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p}$ reproduces polynomials of degree $p$.
Stability of the operator $\protect{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to Lemma \[lemma:Picurl-edge\], we have:
\[lemma:Pidiv-face\] For ${\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1/2}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})$ and $s \ge 0$ we have for each face $f\in{\mathcal{F}}(\widehat{K})$ $$\Vert({\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}{\mathbf{u}})\cdot{\mathbf{n}}_{f}\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-s}(f)}\leq C_s p^{-s}\inf_{v \in V_p(f)}
\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\cdot{\mathbf{n}}_{f} - v\Vert_{L^{2}(f)}.
\label{eq:lemma:Pidiv-face-20}$$
We first show that for ${\mathbf u} \in {\mathbf H}^{1/2}(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})$ the normal trace ${\mathbf n}_f \cdot {\mathbf u} \in L^2(f)$ for each face $f$. To that end, we write with the aid of Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-decomposition-div\] ${\mathbf u} = \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\boldsymbol \varphi} + {\mathbf z}$ with ${\boldsymbol \varphi}$, ${\mathbf z} \in {\mathbf H}^{3/2}(\widehat K)$. We have ${\mathbf n}_f \cdot {\mathbf z} \in {\mathbf H}^1(f)$. Noting ${\boldsymbol \varphi}|_f \in {\mathbf H}^1(f)$ and $({\mathbf n}_f \cdot \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\boldsymbol \varphi})|_f
= \operatorname{curl}_f (\Pi_\tau {\boldsymbol \varphi})|_f$, we conclude that $({\mathbf n}_f \cdot \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\boldsymbol \varphi})|_f \in L^2(f)$.
Note that and imply that on faces the operator ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$ is the $L^2$-projection onto $V_p(f)$. Thus, holds for $s=0$. The case $s>0$ follows by a duality argument. To that end define $\tilde{e}:=\left(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\mathbf{u}\right)\cdot \mathbf{n}_f$. We observe that each $w\in \mathcal{P}_p(f)$ can be written as $w=\overline{w}+(w-\overline{w})$ with $\overline{w}$ being the average of $w$ on $f$. Since $w-\overline{w} \in \mathring{V_p}(f)$, and imply $(\tilde{e},w)_{L^2(f)} =0$ for any $w \in \mathcal{P}_p(f)$. Thus we have for arbitrary $v \in H^s(f)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl|(\tilde{e},v)_{L^2(f)}\bigr| &= \bigl|\inf_{w\in \mathcal{P}_p(f)} (\tilde{e},v-w)_{L^2(f)} \bigr|
\leq \Vert\tilde{e}\Vert_{L^2(f)} \inf_{w\in\mathcal{P}_p(f)} \Vert v-w\Vert_{L^2(f)} \\
& \lesssim p^{-s} \Vert\tilde{e}\Vert_{L^2(f)} \Vert v\Vert_{H^s(f)}.
\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
As in the analysis of the operators in the previous sections, the existence of a polynomial preserving lifting operator from the boundary $\partial\widehat{K}$ to $\widehat{K}$ with appropriate properties plays an important role. Such a lifting operator has been constructed in [@demkowicz-gopalakrishnan-schoeberl-III]. Paralleling Lemma \[lemma:Hcurl-lifting\] we modify that lifting slightly to explicitly ensure an additional orthogonality property.
\[lemma:lifting-operator-div\] Denote the (normal) trace space of ${\mathbf V}_p(\widehat K)$ by $$V_p(\partial \widehat K):= \{v \in L^2(\partial \widehat K)\,|\,
\exists {\mathbf v} \in {\mathbf V}_p(\widehat K) \text{ such that } {\mathbf n}_f \cdot {\mathbf v}|_f = v|_f
\quad
\forall f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat K)\}.$$ There exist $C > 0$ (independent of $p$) and, for each $p \in {\mathbb N}_0$ a lifting operator $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_p:
V_p(\partial\widehat K) \rightarrow {\mathbf V}_p(\widehat K)$ with the following properties:
(i) \[item:lemma:Hdiv-lifting-i\] ${\mathbf n}_f \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_pz = z|_f$ for each $f \in {\mathcal F}(\widehat K)$ and $z \in V_p(\partial \widehat K)$.
(ii) \[item:lemma:Hdiv-lifting-iii\] There holds $\Vert\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_p z
\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})}
\leq C\Vert z\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat{K})}$.
(iii) \[item:lemma:Hdiv-lifting-iv\] There holds the orthogonality $(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_pz,\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} = 0$ for all $\mathbf{v}\in \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K})$.
Recall the space $\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p,\perp}(\widehat K) =\{\mathbf{q}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K})
\colon\!(\mathbf{q},\nabla\psi)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \!= 0 \, \forall \psi\in \mathring{W}_{p+1}(\widehat{K})\}$ defined in Lemma \[lemma:discrete-friedrichs-3d\]. Let $z\in \widetilde{H}^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat{K})$ be a function with the property $z|_f \in V_p(f)$ for all faces $f\in\mathcal{F}(\widehat{K})$. We define the lifting operator $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_pz:=\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{div}}z-\mathbf{w}_0$, where $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{div}}:
H^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat K) \rightarrow {\mathbf H}(\widehat K,\operatorname*{div})$ denotes the lifting operator from [@demkowicz-gopalakrishnan-schoeberl-III] and $\mathbf{w}_0$ is determined by the following saddle point problem: Find $\mathbf{w}_0\in \mathring{\mathbf{V}}_p(\widehat{K})$ and $\boldsymbol{\varphi}\in \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p,\perp}(\widehat{K})$ such that
\[eq:lemma:saddle-point-div\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:saddle-point-div-a}
(\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{w}_0,\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} + (\mathbf{v},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\boldsymbol{\varphi})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} & = (\operatorname*{div}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{div}}z),\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \quad \forall\mathbf{v}\in \mathring{\mathbf{V}}_p(\widehat{K}) \\
\label{eq:lemma:saddle-point-div-b}
(\mathbf{w}_0,\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\boldsymbol{\mu})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} & = (\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{div}}z,\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\boldsymbol{\mu})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \qquad \forall\boldsymbol{\mu}\in \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p,\perp}(\widehat{K}).\end{aligned}$$
Unique solvability of Problem is seen as follows: Define the bilinear forms $a(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{q}):=(\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{w},\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{q})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}$ and $b(\mathbf{w},\boldsymbol{\varphi}):=(\mathbf{w},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\boldsymbol{\varphi})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}$ for $\mathbf{w},\mathbf{q}\in\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_p(\widehat{K})$ and $\boldsymbol{\varphi}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p,\perp}(\widehat{K})$. Coercivity of $a$ on the kernel of $b$, $\operatorname*{ker}b=\{\mathbf{v}\in\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_p(\widehat{K}): (\mathbf{v},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} \boldsymbol{\mu})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} = 0 \, \forall \boldsymbol{\mu}\in \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p,\perp}(\widehat{K})\}$, follows from the Friedrichs inequality for the divergence operator (cf. Lemma \[lemma:discrete-friedrichs-div\]) since for $ {\mathbf v} \in \operatorname*{ker} b$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
a(\mathbf{v},\mathbf{v})&=\Vert\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{v}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})}^2 \geq \frac{1}{2C^2} \Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})}^2 + \frac{1}{2}\Vert\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{v}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})}^2 \\
&\geq \operatorname*{min}\{\frac{1}{2C^2},\frac{1}{2}\}\Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Next, the inf-sup condition for $b$ follows easily by considering, for given $\boldsymbol{\varphi}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p,\perp}(\widehat{K})$, the function $\mathbf{w}=\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\boldsymbol{\varphi}\in\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_p(\widehat{K})$ in $b({\mathbf w},{\boldsymbol{\varphi}})$ and using the Friedrichs inequality for the $\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}$ (Lemma \[lemma:discrete-friedrichs-3d\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{b(\mathbf{w},\boldsymbol{\varphi})}{\Vert\mathbf{w}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})} \Vert\boldsymbol{\varphi}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}})}} = \frac{\Vert\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\boldsymbol{\varphi}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})}^2}{\Vert\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\boldsymbol{\varphi}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \Vert\boldsymbol{\varphi}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}})}}
\stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:discrete-friedrichs-3d}}}{\geq} C. \end{aligned}$$ Thus, the saddle point problem has a unique solution $(\mathbf{w}_0, {\boldsymbol\varphi}) \in
\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_p(\widehat{K}) \times \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_{p,\perp}(\widehat K)$. In fact, selecting ${\mathbf v} = \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}} {\boldsymbol \varphi}$ in (\[eq:lemma:saddle-point-div-a\]) shows ${\boldsymbol \varphi} = 0$. The lifting operator $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_p$ now obviously satisfies (\[item:lemma:Hdiv-lifting-i\]) and (\[item:lemma:Hdiv-lifting-iv\]) by construction, cf. [@demkowicz-gopalakrishnan-schoeberl-III Theorem 7.1] for the properties of the operator $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{div}}$. For (\[item:lemma:Hdiv-lifting-iii\]) note that the solution $\mathbf{w}_0$ satisfies the estimate $\Vert\mathbf{w}_0\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})} \lesssim \Vert f\Vert + \Vert g\Vert$, where $f(\mathbf{v})=(\operatorname*{div}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{div}}z),\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}$, $g(v)=(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{div}}z,\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} \mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}$, and $\Vert \cdot \Vert$ denotes the operator norm. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert f\Vert = \operatorname*{sup}_{\Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})} \leq 1} |(\operatorname*{div}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{div}}z),\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}| \leq \Vert\operatorname*{div}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{div}}z)\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \Vert z\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ The estimate $\displaystyle
\Vert g\Vert \lesssim \Vert z\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat{K})}
$ is shown similarly. Hence, (\[item:lemma:Hdiv-lifting-iii\]) follows from $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_p z\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})} \leq \Vert\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}^{\operatorname*{div}}z\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})} + \Vert\mathbf{w}_0\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})} \lesssim \Vert z\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat{K})}.
\qquad
\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
\[thm:H1div-approximation\] Let $\widehat K$ be a fixed tetrahedron. There exists $C>0$ independent of $p$ such that for all ${\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1/2}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})$ $$\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}\leq Cp^{-1/2}\inf_{{\mathbf v} \in {\mathbf V}_p(\widehat K)}
\Vert{\mathbf{u} - \mathbf{v}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1/2}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}.
\label{eq:thmH1div-approximation-10}$$
*1st step:* By the projection property of ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$, it suffices to show (\[eq:thmH1div-approximation-10\]) for ${\mathbf v} = 0$.
*2nd step:* As shown in Lemma \[lemma:Pidiv-face\], $\mathbf{u}\cdot \mathbf{n}_f \in L^2(f)$ on each face $f\in \mathcal{F}(\widehat{K})$. Thus we get from Lemma \[lemma:Pidiv-face\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thm:H1div-approximation-12}
\Vert({\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}{\mathbf{u}})\cdot{\mathbf{n}}_{f}\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-1/2}(f)}\lesssim p^{-1/2}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\cdot{\mathbf{n}}_{f}\Vert_{L^2(f)}
\lesssim p^{-1/2} \|{\mathbf u}\|_{{\mathbf H}^{1/2}(\widehat K,\operatorname{div})}. \end{aligned}$$
*3rd step:* The difference ${\mathbf u} - {\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}{\mathbf u}$ is estimated using the approximation $P^{\operatorname{div},3d} {\mathbf u}$ of Lemma \[lemma:Pdiv3d\]. We abbreviate $\mathbf{E}:={\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\mathbf{u}-P^{\operatorname*{div},3d}\mathbf{u}\in \mathbf{V}_p(\widehat{K})$. Since ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\mathbf{u}$ satisfies the orthogonality conditions and , and $P^{\operatorname*{div},3d}\mathbf{u}$ satisfies the conditions and , we have the two orthogonality conditions
\[eq:thm:H1div-approximation-20\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thm:H1div-approximation-20-a}
(\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{E},\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} &= 0 \qquad \forall \mathbf{v}\in \mathring{\mathbf{V}}_p(\widehat{K}),
\\
\label{eq:thm:H1div-approximation-20-b}
(\mathbf{E},\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}
&= 0 \qquad \forall \mathbf{v}\in \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K}).\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[lemma:lifting-operator-div\], the orthogonality condition $$(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_p(\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{n}),\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} = 0 \qquad \forall \mathbf{v}\in \mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K})$$ holds; hence the discrete Friedrichs inequality (Lemma \[lemma:discrete-friedrichs-div\], (\[item:lemma:discrete-friedrichs-div-ii\])) can be applied to $\mathbf{E}-\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_p(\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{n}) \in \mathring{\mathbf{V}}_p(\widehat{K})$. Thus, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thm:H1div-approximation-30}
\begin{split}
\Vert\mathbf{E}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})} &\leq \Vert\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_p(\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{n})\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})} + \Vert\mathbf{E}-\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_p
(\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{n})\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \\
&\lesssim \Vert\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{n}\Vert_{H^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat{K})} + \Vert\operatorname*{div}(\mathbf{E}-\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_p(\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{n}))\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \\
&\lesssim \Vert\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{n}\Vert_{H^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat{K})} + \Vert\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{E}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ *4th step:* Using , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thm:H1div-approximation-40}
\Vert\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{E}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})}^2 = (\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{E},\operatorname*{div}\boldsymbol{\mathcal{L}}^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_p(\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{n}))_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \Vert\operatorname*{div}\mathbf{E}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \Vert\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{n}\Vert_{H^{-1/2}(\partial\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[eq:thm:H1div-approximation-30\]), (\[eq:thm:H1div-approximation-40\]) we arrive at $$\label{eq:thm:H1div-approximation-100}
\|{\mathbf E}\|_{{\mathbf H}(\widehat K ,\operatorname{div})}
\lesssim \|{\mathbf E} \cdot {\mathbf n}\|_{H^{-1/2}(\partial \widehat K)}.$$ *5th step:* The triangle inequality and the continuity of the normal trace operator give $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert \mathbf{u}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\mathbf{u}&\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})}
\leq \Vert\mathbf{u} - P^{\operatorname{div,3d}}{\mathbf u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})}
+ \Vert\mathbf{E}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})} \\
&\stackrel{(\ref{eq:thm:H1div-approximation-100})}{\lesssim}
\Vert\mathbf{u} - P^{\operatorname{div,3d}}{\mathbf u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})}
+ \Vert\mathbf{E}\cdot{\mathbf n}\Vert_{H^{-1/2}(\partial \widehat{K})} \\
&\lesssim \Vert\mathbf{u} - P^{\operatorname{div},3d} \mathbf{u} \Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})}
+ \sum_{f\in\mathcal{F}(\widehat{K})}\Vert(\mathbf{u}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\mathbf{u})\cdot\mathbf{n}_f\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-1/2}(f)} \\
&\overset{\eqref{eq:thm:H1div-approximation-12},\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:Pdiv3d}}}{\lesssim} p^{-1/2}\Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat{K},\operatorname*{div})}.
\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
Considering the approximation error in negative Sobolev norms is the next step.
\[thm:duality-again-div\] Let $\widehat K$ be a fixed tetrahedron. For $s \in [0,1]$ and for all $\mathbf{u}\in \mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})$ there holds the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert\mathbf{u}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}
\leq C_s p^{-1/2-s} \inf_{{\mathbf v} \in {\mathbf V}_p(\widehat K)} \Vert\mathbf{u} - \mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}.\end{aligned}$$
In view of the projection property of ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$, we restrict to showing the estimate with ${\mathbf v} = 0$. The case $s = 0$ is shown in Theorem \[thm:H1div-approximation\]. We will therefore merely focus on the case $s = 1$ as the case $s \in (0,1)$ follows by interpolation.
We write $\mathbf{E}:=\mathbf{u}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}\mathbf{u}$ for simplicity. By definition we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:duality-again-div-10}
\Vert\mathbf{E}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-1}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})} &\sim
\Vert\mathbf{E}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-1}(\widehat{K})} + \Vert\operatorname{div}\mathbf{E}\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-1}(\widehat{K})}
\\
\nonumber
&=
\operatorname*{sup}_{\mathbf{v}\in\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})} \frac{(\mathbf{E},\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}}{\Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})}} +
\operatorname*{sup}_{{v}\in{H}^1(\widehat{K})} \frac{(\operatorname{div} \mathbf{E},{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}}{\Vert{v}\Vert_{{H}^1(\widehat{K})}}.\end{aligned}$$ We start with estimating the first supremum in (\[eq:lemma:duality-again-div-10\]). We write $\mathbf{v}\in\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}=\nabla\varphi + \operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{z}\end{aligned}$$ with $\varphi\in H^2(\widehat{K})$ and $\mathbf{z}\in\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}) \cap \mathbf{H}_0(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})$ according to Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-3d\] and have to bound the two terms in $(\mathbf{E},\mathbf{v})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} = (\mathbf{E},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{z})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} + (\mathbf{E},\nabla\varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{K})}$. For the first term, Theorem \[thm:H1div-approximation\] yields $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl|(\mathbf{E},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}\mathbf{z})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}\bigr|
&= \bigl|\operatorname*{inf}_{\mathbf{w}\in\mathring{\mathbf{Q}}_p(\widehat{K})} (\mathbf{E},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}(\mathbf{z}-\mathbf{w}))_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \bigr| \lesssim p^{-1} \Vert\mathbf{E}\Vert_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \Vert\mathbf{z}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})} \\
&\lesssim p^{-3/2} \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})} \Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})},\end{aligned}$$ where the infimum is estimated as in Lemma \[lemma:picurl-negative-I\], without repeating the arguments here. For the second term, we employ integration by parts to get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:duality-again-div-40}
(\mathbf{E},\nabla\varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} = -(\operatorname{div}\mathbf{E},\varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} + \sum_{f\in\mathcal{F}(\widehat{K})} (\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{n}_f,\varphi)_{L^2(f)}\end{aligned}$$ Denote by $\overline{\varphi}:=(\int_{\widehat{K}}\varphi)/|\widehat{K}|$ the average of $\varphi$. Integration by parts gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:duality-again-div-60}
(\operatorname{div}\mathbf{E},\varphi)_{L^2(\widehat{K})} = (\operatorname{div}\mathbf{E},\varphi-\overline{\varphi})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} + \overline{\varphi}(\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{n},1)_{L^2(\partial\widehat{K})} \!\overset{\eqref{eq:Pi_div-d}}{=}\! (\operatorname{div}\mathbf{E},\varphi-\overline{\varphi})_{L^2(\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ We then define the auxiliary function $\psi$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\psi=\varphi-\overline{\varphi}, \qquad \partial_n\psi=0 \text{ on }\partial\widehat{K}\end{aligned}$$ and set $\boldsymbol{\Phi}:=\nabla\psi$. Since $\operatorname{div}\boldsymbol{\Phi}=\Delta\psi=\varphi-\overline{\varphi}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lemma:duality-again-div-80}
\big| (\operatorname{div}\mathbf{E}&,\varphi-\overline{\varphi})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \big|
= \big| (\operatorname{div}\mathbf{E},\operatorname{div}\boldsymbol{\Phi})_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \big| \\
&\overset{\eqref{eq:Pi_div-a}}{=}
\bigl|
\operatorname*{inf}_{\mathbf{w}\in\mathring{\mathbf{V}}_p(\widehat{K})} (\operatorname{div}\mathbf{E},\operatorname{div}(\boldsymbol{\Phi}-\mathbf{w}))_{L^2(\widehat{K})} \bigr|
\label{eq:lemma:duality-again-div-82}
\lesssim p^{-1} \Vert\mathbf{E}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}
\Vert\boldsymbol{\Phi}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})} \\
&\lesssim p^{-3/2} \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}
\Vert\varphi \Vert_{H^1(\widehat{K})}
\nonumber
\lesssim p^{-3/2} \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}
\Vert{\mathbf v}\Vert_{{\mathbf H}^1(\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, only estimates for the boundary terms in are missing. The orthogonality properties and as well as Lemma \[lemma:Pidiv-face\] lead to $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl|(\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{n},\varphi)_{L^2(f)}\bigr|
&= \bigl| \operatorname*{inf}_{w\in V_p(f)} (\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{n},\varphi-w)_{L^2(f)} \bigr|
\lesssim p^{-1} \Vert\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{n}\Vert_{\widetilde{H}^{-1/2}(f)} \Vert\varphi\Vert_{H^{3/2}(f)} \\
&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:Pidiv-face}}}{\lesssim}\!\! p^{-3/2} \Vert\mathbf{u}\cdot\mathbf{n}\Vert_{L^2(f)} \Vert\varphi\Vert_{H^2(\widehat{K})} \lesssim p^{-3/2} \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{1/2}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})} \Vert\mathbf{v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^1(\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have estimated the first term of .
We now handle the second supremum in (\[eq:lemma:duality-again-div-10\]). Such estimates have already been derived in and ; we merely have to note that the function $\varphi$ in these lines satisfied $\varphi\in H^2(\widehat{K})$, but $H^1(\widehat{K})$-regularity is indeed sufficient as is visible in (\[eq:lemma:duality-again-div-82\]).
For functions whose divergence is a polynomial, we get the following result similar to Lemma \[lemma:better-regularity\].
\[lemma:better-regularity-div\] Assume that all interior angles of the $4$ faces of $\widehat K$ are smaller than $2\pi/3$. For all $k\geq1$, $s \in [0,1]$, and all ${\mathbf{u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})$ with $\operatorname*{div}{\mathbf{u}}\in {\mathcal{P}}_{p}(\widehat{K})$ there holds $$\Vert{\mathbf{u}}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}\leq C_{s,k}p^{-(k+s)}\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert
_{\mathbf{H}^{k}(\widehat{K})}.
\label{eq:proposition-better-regularity-div}$$ If $p\geq k-1$, then $\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}$ can be replaced with the seminorm $|{\mathbf{u}}|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}$. Moreover, holds for $s = 0$ without the conditions on the angles of the faces of $\widehat K$.
We write, using the decomposition of Lemma \[lemma:helmholtz-decomposition-div\], $\displaystyle
{\mathbf{u}}=\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}} \mathbf{R}^{\operatorname*{curl}}({\mathbf{u}}-{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{div}}\operatorname*{div}{\mathbf{u}})+{\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{div}}\operatorname*{div}{\mathbf{u}}=:\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}
\boldsymbol{\varphi}+{\mathbf{z}}$ with $\boldsymbol{\varphi}\in \mathbf{H}^{k+1}(\widehat{K})$ and ${\mathbf{z}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})$ together with $$\Vert\boldsymbol{\varphi}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{k+1}(\widehat{K})}+\Vert{\mathbf{z}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})} \lesssim \Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}+\Vert\operatorname*{div}{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{H^{k-1}(\widehat{K})} \leq C\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}.
\label{eq:lemma:projection-based-interpolation-approximation-200}$$ The assumption $\operatorname*{div}{\mathbf{u}}\in {\mathcal{P}}_{p}(\widehat K)$ and Lemma \[lemma:mcintosh\], (\[item:lemma:mcintosh-vi\]) imply ${\mathbf{z}}={\mathbf{R}}^{\operatorname*{div}}\operatorname*{div}{\mathbf{u}}\in
\mathbf{V}_p(\widehat{K})$; furthermore, since ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$ is a projection, we conclude ${\mathbf{z}}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}{\mathbf{z}}=0$. Thus, we get from the commuting diagram $$\begin{aligned}
& \Vert(\operatorname{I}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}){\mathbf{u}}\Vert
_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}=\Vert(\operatorname{I}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}})\operatorname*{\mathbf{curl}}\boldsymbol{\varphi}+\underbrace{(\operatorname{I}-{\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}){\mathbf{z}}}_{=0}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}\\
&\qquad = \Vert\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}}(\operatorname{I}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p})\boldsymbol{\varphi}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{div})}
\leq
\Vert(\operatorname{I}-{\widehat \Pi^{\operatorname*{curl},3d}_p})\boldsymbol{\varphi}\Vert_{\widetilde{\mathbf{H}}^{-s}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})} \\
& \qquad
\stackrel{\text{Thm.~{\ref{thm:duality-again}}}}{\lesssim}
p^{-(1+s)}
\inf_{{\mathbf v} \in {\mathbf Q}_p(\widehat K)} \Vert\boldsymbol{\varphi} -{\mathbf v}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^{1}(\widehat{K},\operatorname{\mathbf{curl}})}
\stackrel{\text{Lem.~\ref{lemma:Pgrad1d}},\eqref{eq:lemma:projection-based-interpolation-approximation-200}}
{\lesssim} p^{-(k+s)} \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert_{\mathbf{H}^k(\widehat{K})}.\end{aligned}$$ Replacing $\Vert{\mathbf{u}}\Vert_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}$ with $|{\mathbf{u}}|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{k}(\widehat{K})}$ follows from the observation that the projector ${\widehat\Pi^{\operatorname*{div},3d}_{p}}$ reproduces polynomials of degree $p$.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
---------------
JMM is grateful to his colleague Joachim Schöberl (TU Wien) for inspiring discussions on the topic of the paper and, in particular, for pointing out the arguments of Theorem \[lemma:demkowicz-grad-2D\]. CR acknowledges the support of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under grant P 28367-N35.
[^1]: {([email protected], [email protected])} Institut für Analysis und Scientific Computing, Technische Universität Wien, Wiedner Hauptstrasse 8-10, A-1040 Wien, Austria.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'D. Pourbaix[^1]'
- 'G.R. Knapp'
- 'J.E. Gunn'
- 'R.H. Lupton'
- 'Ž. Ivezić'
- 'C. Siopis'
- 'M. Rigaux'
- 'A. Rubbens'
bibliography:
- 'articles.bib'
- 'books.bib'
date: 'Received 11 April 2016 / Accepted 11 May 2016'
title: Robust detection of CID double stars in SDSS
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The Sloan Digital Sky Survey [SDSS; @York-2000:a; @Alam-2015:a and references therein] has revolutionised stellar astronomy since the late 90’s by providing homogeneous and deep ($r < 22.5$) photometry in five passbands [$u$, $g$, $r$, $i$, and $z$; @Fukugita-1996:a; @Gunn-1998:a; @Hogg-2001:a; @Smith-2002:b; @Doi-2010:a] accurate to 1-2% [@Padmanabhan-2008:a]. The sky coverage, 14555 deg$^2$ in the Northern Galactic Cap, results in photometric measurements for over 260 million stars and 208 million galaxies. Astrometric positions are accurate to better than 0.1 arcsec per coordinate (rms) for point sources with $r<20.5^m$ [@Pier-2003:a], and the morphological information from the images allows robust star-galaxy separation to $r \sim$ 21.5$^m$ [@Lupton-2003:a]. The successive SDSS data releases [e.g., @Abazajian-2003:a; @Abazajian-2004:a; @Abazajian-2005:a; @Adelman-McCarthy-2007:a] have provided the position of an increasing number of stars in the five photometric bands. Up to SDSS DR7 [@Abazajian-2009:a], for any given object, the positions at only one epoch were available. Since SDSS DR8 [@Aihara-2011:a], repeated observations have been reported.
SDSS has been extensively used for extragalactic investigations, however other groups have taken advantage of it for stellar astrophysical purpose, especially binaries [@Silvestri-2007:a; @Clark-2012:a]. Thanks to the multiple photometric bands, colour-colour outlier detection was the first method adopted to filter the double stars out [@Raymond-2003:a; @Smolcic-2004:a; @Augusteijn-2008:a; @Liu-2012:a]. The photometric and spectroscopic capabilities of SDSS were also combined to detect photometrically well behaved objects [@Szkody-2002:a; @Szkody-2003:a; @Szkody-2003:b; @Szkody-2004:a; @Szkody-2005:a], including post-common envelope binaries [@Schreiber-2010:a; @Nebot-2011:a; @Rebassa-2012:a]. Spectroscopic binaries have also been detected thanks to the variability of their radial velocity [@Pourbaix-2005:a; @Morganson-2015:a].
SDSS pairs composed of a white dwarf and a main sequence (typically M) star have been quite intensively investigated [see @2012MNRAS.423..320R and references therein] over the past 10 years. These systems offer the combination of two stars at very distinct stages of their evolution but with a similar brightness, and distinctive colours. Their value for our understanding of stellar evolution is therefore what also makes them rather easy to detect through unusual colours.
The detection of unresolved double stars through the wavelength dependence of the position of the photocentre (Colour Induced Displacement double stars, CID) was suggested by @Christy-1983:a and @Sorokin-1985:a and successfully applied to the SDSS DR2 and DR5 observations [@Pourbaix-2004:a; @Pourbaix-2008:a]. The same technique has lately been applied to the USNO-B1 dataset [@Jayson-2016:a]. However, in all these investigations, the positions are measured at one epoch only, thus preventing any confirmation of what could simply be a false detection. Although the detection of CID double stars requires 2+ photometric filters, it only relies upon the position measured through these filters, not the colour itself. This method can therefore be applied to probe the whole stellar locus for binaries, with the exception of twins. The more distinct the colour of the components, the farther apart their photocentres, so white dwarf + M dwarf are, again, among the privileged systems. However, assuming the astrometry through the two filters can be tied up, there is no constraint on the type of the components as the detection capability is simply limited by the astrometric precision.
Taking advantage of the availability of repeated observations since DR8, we here present the multiple detection of CID double stars based on public SDSS data only. The initial selection of the sample is described in Sect. \[sec:observations\]. The CID criteria to be fulfilled are described in Sect. \[sec:CID1results\]. The nature of the components is considered in Sect. \[sec:CIDnature\]. Finally, the time variability of the CID feature is analysed in Sect. \[sec:CIDtime\].
Observational data {#sec:observations}
==================
All the data to be analysed come from one single table, PhotoObjAll, which contains more than one billion rows. The number of rows has remained unchanged for the past five data releases but some bug fixes might have occurred so, from now on, DR12 data [@Alam-2015:a] are going to be assumed. A significant improvement introduced in DR9 from the viewpoint of this investigation is related to the differential chromatic correction (DCR). @Pier-2003:a describe how DCR is calibrated and corrected but the DR9 astrometry page[^2] mentions that DCR has been fully accounted for from DR9 on only. The results of @Pourbaix-2008:a were therefore still affected by some colour terms unaccounted for.
Successive selections are required to clean up the sample initially composed of PhotoObjAll. Only the observations of objects belonging to the Star view are considered. The same filtering as introduced by @Pourbaix-2004:a was applied: an observation was removed if any of the flags [*saturated*]{}, [*bright*]{}, [*edge*]{}, or [*nodeblend*]{} was set or if the precision on $u$, $g$, $r$, $i$, or $z$ was larger than 0.1, 0.05, 0.1, 0.05, and 0.05 respectively.
There are 25797735 stars that fulfil these criteria. For them, the standard deviation of the offsets with respect to the $r$ position in $z$ for both $\alpha\cos\delta$ and $\delta$ are 21 mas. For the $u$ band, the standard deviation in $\alpha\cos\delta$ and $\delta$ are 42 mas and 44 mas respectively. These four values are based on the central 99% of the offsets. Despite this 1% clipping, the scatter of the offsets in $u$ is 30% larger than derived by @Pier-2003:a. Both the right ascensions (together) and declinations (together) are correlated at the level 0.16 whereas the correlation between any right ascension and any declination is always 1 order of magnitude smaller.
CID filtering {#sec:CID1results}
=============
\
The idea behind Colour Induced Displacement double stars is that the wavelength-dependent photocentres should be aligned along the two stars rather than being randomly distributed around some median position [@Pourbaix-2004:a]. Even though the positions in two photometric bands are enough to notice a displacement [@Jayson-2016:a], three positions are necessary to assess the alignment. Among the five photometric bands from SDSS, $u$ and $z$ are the furthest apart in terms of wavelength, whereas $r$ is more central.
The results of the previous section used in a simulation reveal that about 1 single star out of 600000 could accidentally have its $u$ and $z$ positions more than 0.4 apart and aligned to more than 177.5. (actually, cosine lower than -0.999). In a sample of 10 million observations, we thus anticipate 16 such false detections. However, the probability of the same single star to be observed twice with the same features on its positions is about $3\,10^{-12}$.
There are stellar observations which match the criteria on separation ($>=0.4$), orientation ($>=177.5$) and photometric quality. They correspond to distinct objects (Table \[tab:CIDcandidates\]) whose accepted CID observations are listed in Table \[tab:CIDobservations\]. The location of these points in a dereddened colour-colour diagram is plotted in Fig. \[fig:colcolCID\]. For the sake of comparison, the stellar locus based on 10% of the Star entries, with the same photometric properties (ranges and precisions) as the CID candidates is plotted as well. Even though the photometric distribution of the CID candidates essentially overlap with the locus of the regular stars, it also leaks on the upper left region of the latter (Fig. \[fig:colcolCID\]). We shall come back to this point in Sect. \[sec:CIDnature\].
thingId RA() Dec () $N$ $u^*$ $g^*$ $r^*$ $i^*$ $z^*$
---------- ---------- ---------- ----- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
15431000 212.8479 -13.1359 2 19.60 18.32 17.58 16.68 16.14
: \[tab:CIDcandidates\]Identified CID with their thingId, position, and SDSS dereddened magnitude for the five photometric bands. $N$ is the number of observations flagged as CID. The whole table is available in electronic version only.
--------- --------------------- ---------- -------------------- ------------------ -------------------- ------------------
thingId objectid MJD $\Delta\alpha^*_u$ $\Delta\delta_u$ $\Delta\alpha^*_z$ $\Delta\delta_z$
() () () ()
523314 1237668627303039488 53527.23 -0.0081 +0.0111 +0.2453 -0.3173
--------- --------------------- ---------- -------------------- ------------------ -------------------- ------------------
In terms of distribution over the sky, there is a small excess of CID detections close to the equator with respect to the parent population. That is however consistent with a criterion partly based on $\Delta\alpha\cos\delta$ where $\Delta\alpha$ stands for the difference of offsets in right ascension in the $u$ and $z$ bands. For an object close to the equator, that quantity and therefore the separation between the $u$ and $z$ photocentres are more likely to exceed any adopted threshold.
So far, the adopted methodology is the same as in @Pourbaix-2004:a and the change in the number of candidates is only caused by the substantial increase of the number of stars observed. Since DR8, some stars have been observed on several occasions, making possible the search for CID candidates among them. It is worth noting that a detection does not necessarily mean a photometric observation (valid or not). The number of observations stored in PhotoObjAll thus often turns out to be lower than publicised by the field [*nDetect*]{}. For instance, if one considers the stars detected 5+ times, they account for nearly 76 million detections but PhotoObjAll only contains 66 million observations for them. Further imposing that a star was detected more than once, we are left with objects with 2+ CID-like observations (i.e. with a much lower risk of being false detections). The position of these confirmed CID candidates in the colour-colour diagram together with the stellar locus is plotted in Fig. \[fig:colcolconfCID\]. Their location on the sky is listed in Table \[tab:confCID\].
thingId RA() Dec () N Spec Image
----------- ------------ ------------ --- ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15431000 212.847899 -13.135926 2 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=212.847899646762&dec=-13.1359263119831)
22550603 117.733729 -10.479184 2 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=117.733729777588&dec=-10.4791846419856)
45706433 324.637702 -5.054417 2 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=324.637702303223&dec=-5.05441696472427)
47860353 324.727576 -4.391773 2 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=324.727576075877&dec=-4.39177349560784)
68189740 5.546124 -1.128588 3 M4 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=5.5461429&dec=-1.1286179)
69946683 320.716211 -1.097230 2 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=320.716211667961&dec=-1.09723079708579)
74734108 94.881818 -0.996007 2
83883365 323.069439 -0.426253 3 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=323.069439511884&dec=-0.426253213274254)
84696684 57.788778 -0.480402 2
85303451 351.483366 -0.499383 2
93807459 70.608754 -0.206033 3 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=70.6087542129561&dec=-0.206033067889766)
94010862 47.522422 -0.050319 2
94025347 94.805658 -0.158900 2 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=94.8056580100082&dec=-0.158900454839095)
96981424 17.849609 0.159764 5 M2\* [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=17.849581&dec=0.1598125)
103499550 74.703028 0.215468 2
106358786 15.923339 0.525698 3 M2\*
107874362 346.798161 0.477047 2 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=346.798161533339&dec=0.477047597165135)
115775052 13.577270 0.962821 4 M4\* [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=13.5772700334341&dec=0.962821822084125)
116724303 81.454729 1.005443 4 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=81.4547299331792&dec=1.00544392941365)
116891499 358.869452 1.006782 2 M1
116995966 348.090035 1.024174 5 M3\* [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=348.09&dec=1.024175)
119480169 324.594285 1.062909 2
121325158 15.037479 1.142725 4 M1\*
121351015 21.482147 1.075074 4
121561453 55.658241 1.149527 3 M3\* [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=55.6582412192943&dec=1.14952751343703)
122233016 9.736654 1.114130 3 M4
132088747 261.203461 2.253603 2
184456091 27.072581 8.015645 2 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=27.0725815968507&dec=8.01564557255167)
186374149 203.360705 8.254411 2 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=203.360705933828&dec=8.25441108363379)
200646968 126.409171 9.857400 2 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=126.409171258216&dec=9.85740076447783)
220442434 125.558020 12.243735 2 M3\* [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=125.55803&dec=12.243746)
259525347 251.906928 16.610724 2 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=251.906928488818&dec=16.6107243705808)
274459969 236.094783 18.549545 2 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=236.094783053253&dec=18.549545482691)
337204518 120.918335 25.924343 2
395512014 341.514497 33.791220 3 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=341.514497230845&dec=33.7912204905931)
405351640 121.363021 35.285873 2
429504180 253.606452 39.296835 2 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=253.606452061869&dec=39.2968356882463)
451341367 122.130724 43.010222 2 M4.5III\*
486944679 247.731754 50.049775 2 [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=247.731754914187&dec=50.0497754254427)
490371322 133.634605 50.857572 2 M4.5III\* [SkyServer](http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=133.634605474341&dec=50.8575727133433)
: \[tab:confCID\]Confirmed CID candidates where thingId denotes the unique SDSS identifier, RA and Dec are the right ascension and declination (2000.0). N is the number of observations flagged as CID. Spec is the optical spectral classification listed by the DR12 Science Archive Server, \* indicates the presence of some prominent Balmer lines. The link points directly to the image of the object on DR12 SkyServer. The URL of the image is http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr12/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?ra=RA&dec=Dec where RA and Dec are the values listed in the second and third columns. The live links are available in the on-line version of this paper.
Tentative nature of the components {#sec:CIDnature}
==================================
As already stated in Sect. \[sec:CID1results\], the ($u^*-g^*$,$g^*-r^*$) locus of the CID overlaps with the single star one with a distinctive leakage towards the upper left corner of the latter. The contour line shows that the flooding is not continuous but instead represents a bridge between the M and white dwarfs [@Smolcic-2004:a]. The three CID depicted in Fig. \[fig:monotonicEvol\] belong to this category.
A second leakage of the single star locus on its lower left end results from an overcorrection of the galactic extinction [@1998ApJ...500..525S] for objects close to the galactic plane. Regardless of how unrealistic some of these dereddened colours are, they cannot be responsible for the CID status. Indeed, the criteria to be considered as a CID are purely astrometric. Even though some spurious astrometric results can sometime come from a wrong chromatic correction [@Pourbaix-2003:b], any chromatic correction is based on the observed colours, not the dereddened ones. So, even if some dereddened colours might be wrong, the positions should nevertheless always be accurate.
With respect to the single star stellar locus, the CID candidates exhibit an excess of M-dwarf-like objects centred in (2.6, 1.4) on the ($u^*-g^*$,$g^*-r^*$) density map (Fig. \[fig:colcolCID\]). According to @2008AJ....135..785W, their $riz$ colours correspond to spectral types ranging from M0 to M4.
Among the confirmed CID, only twelve got their spectral type directly determined through spectroscopy [@2002AJ....123..485S; @2012AJ....144..144B]. All are M-type: ten dwarfs and two giants. In seven cases, some prominent Balmer lines are detected in absorption, hints of the presence of a white dwarf in the same spectroscopic field of view. Over the years and the data releases, several groups have published some lists of white dwarfs, M-dwarfs, and binaries with a white dwarf . In total, ten of our candidates belong to at least one of these lists. The remaining 30 objects (including the two with an M giant component) are still completely absent from any published investigation (according to Simbad). In particular, none of the five objects which belong to the stellar locus in Fig. \[fig:colcolconfCID\] got its spectral type determined in the framework of SDSS, nor by any other investigation.
For twenty five objects for which an image is available, that image, though point-like, clearly shows two regions of distinct colours, thus leading to a distinct position for the photocentre in at least two photometric bands (e.g. thingId \#96981424, Fig. \[fig:Image\]). All the individual images, at their highest resolution, are directly accessible through the link [*SkyServer*]{} in Table \[tab:confCID\].
CID over time {#sec:CIDtime}
=============
Even when 2+ observations secure the CID status of an object, that feature is far from being present in all its observations. One can therefore wonder how robust these detections are, even when confirmed at least once. So far, in this paper, only a tightened version of the criterion from the 2004 investigation has been used. Carrying out a consistency check among the successive CID-like observations would already be a substantial improvement.
The line between the $u$ and $z$ positions essentially represent the line between the two stars. Unless a CID-candidate double star turns to be a short period binary (the observations cover at most 4178 days), the relative orientation based on the $u$ and $z$ positions should be fairly stable over time. For each of the confirmed CID double stars, the orientations of all the validating observations are plotted in Fig. \[fig:orientation\].
A vast majority of the CID candidates are unfortunately not confirmed by a second observation but one can nevertheless assess their global behaviour. For instance, the azimuth of all the CID candidates should be uniformly distributed over 0–360. A $\chi^2$-test performed on the binned azimuths (Fig. \[fig:orientationNonConfirmed\]) rejects the uniformity at the 99% confidence level. In order to assess whether this behaviour points towards any instrumental effect or not, a similar analysis was performed on the position angles of the 11057 members of the Double and Multiple Star/Component solutions of Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues [@Hipparcos]. At the same confidence level, the uniformity hypothesis of the azimuths of the Hipparcos resolved pairs is not rejected. So, why is it rejected with the SDSS CID? A Monte-Carlo simulation directly rules out any explanation based on the size of the sample.
Regardless of the coordinate and the filter, the four offsets of the CID observations are symmetrically distributed around 0. However, whereas the distribution of the difference of offset in declination is bi-modal, the $\alpha*$ version, though similar, exhibits a third peak right on 0. For all the objects in that third peak, the corresponding azimuth is either 0 or 180 regardless of the offsets in declination, thus contributing to breaking the uniformity hypothesis. In terms of offset in declination, there is a tiny departure from symmetry right after 0, thus causing a lack of azimuths around 280 degrees. The objects identified in these bins do not share any common location on the sky.
Although Fig. \[fig:orientation\] offers a good assessment of the CID nature of most of the candidates, the successive observations do not provide any confirmation that any of these double stars is a binary. However, among the thirteen CID with 3+ valid observations, there are three objects which also exhibit a monotonic evolution of the azimuth (Fig. \[fig:monotonicEvol\]). Actually, the evolution is not just monotonic: the azimuth of the valid CID observations follows a linear function of the time corresponding to $-4.\pm1.3$, $1.56\pm0.092$, and $0.52\pm0.022$ degyr$^{-1}$ respectively.
Inferring any orbital period from this azimuth gradient would be extremely speculative. Object 12561453 (SDSS J034237.97+010858.2) was modelled as a DA white dwarf + M3 dwarf system [@Rebassa-2012:a], $339\pm84$pc away from us. Using their tentative masses and assuming an angular separation of 0.7 (which is a lower bound based on the $u$ and $z$ positions) yield a period of $3800\pm1500$yr to be compared with the $230\pm15$yr we obtain assuming that our rate remains constant.
Could this evolution of the azimuth be the sign of a genuine binary? Generally speaking, no, unless the orbit is seen face on and the epochs are adequately distributed. However, for the three cases, the change of the azimuth does not exceed a couple of degrees over 1000+ days. For any orbital segment short enough, such a linear evolution of the azimuth would be very likely. Regardless of how appealing this explanation sounds, an alternative would be two stars passing next to each other in the plane perpendicular to the line of sight. Once again, such a motion would not yield a linear change of the azimuth in general except for the short path for which the linear approximation holds. As already stated in the title of this paper, CID are double stars, not necessarily binaries. One cannot exclude that they are made up of two stars accidentally on the same line of sight, although being far apart. However, if that is true for this technique, that is also true for the objects detected through their peculiar colours.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
Whereas the possibility of detecting CID double stars with SDSS has been known for more than a decade, the absence of repeated observation (in particular of CID candidates) has prevented the validation of the technique, despite its easy setup. We have shown here that some CID are confirmed by at least a second observation. Furthermore, a consistency check confirms, with a criterion completely independent of the CID one, that the position angle of one component with respect to the other is stable over the time covered by the SDSS data (less than 4000 days). In three cases, a linear evolution of the azimuth of the stars is noticed over at least three distinct epochs. However, one cannot rule out the possibility that a high proper motion star is apparently passing by a distant star.
DP thanks Alain Jorissen for the stimulating discussions about the astrophysical aspects of these objects and A. Thakar from the SDSS helpdesk for his support in bypassing some early CasJobs limitations. We thank the referee, Andrei Tokovinin, for his valuable comments and suggestions. Funding for SDSS-III has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science. The SDSS-III web site is http://www.sdss3.org/.
SDSS-III is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions of the SDSS-III Collaboration including the University of Arizona, the Brazilian Participation Group, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Carnegie Mellon University, University of Florida, the French Participation Group, the German Participation Group, Harvard University, Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, the Michigan State/Notre Dame/JINA Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik (MPA Garching), Max-Planck-Institut für Extraterrestrische Physik (MPE), New Mexico State University, New York University, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the Spanish Participation Group, University of Tokyo, University of Utah, Vanderbilt University, University of Virginia, University of Washington, and Yale University. This research has made use of “Aladin sky atlas” developed at CDS and of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg Observatory, France.
[^1]: Senior Research Associate, F.R.S.-FNRS, Belgium
[^2]: https://www.sdss3.org/dr9/algorithms/astrometry.php
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The rise in computing hardware choices is driving a reevaluation of operating systems. The traditional role of an operating system controlling the execution of its own hardware is evolving toward a model whereby the controlling processor is distinct from the compute engines that are performing most of the computations. In this context, an operating system can be viewed as software that brokers and tracks the resources of the compute engines and is akin to a database management system. To explore the idea of using a database in an operating system role, this work defines key operating system functions in terms of rigorous mathematical semantics (associative array algebra) that are directly translatable into database operations. These operations possess a number of mathematical properties that are ideal for parallel operating systems by guaranteeing correctness over a wide range of parallel operations. The resulting operating system equations provide a mathematical specification for a Tabular Operating System Architecture (TabulaROSA) that can be implemented on any platform. Simulations of forking in TabularROSA are performed using an associative array implementation and compared to Linux on a 32,000+ core supercomputer. Using over 262,000 forkers managing over 68,000,000,000 processes, the simulations show that TabulaROSA has the potential to perform operating system functions on a massively parallel scale. The TabulaROSA simulations show 20x higher performance as compared to Linux while managing 2000x more processes in fully searchable tables.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'aarabib.bib'
title: |
TabulaROSA: Tabular Operating System Architecture for Massively Parallel\
Heterogeneous Compute Engines
---
Introduction
============
Next generation computing hardware is increasingly purpose built for simulation [@sterling2017high], data analysis [@song2016novel], and machine learning [@lecun2015deep]. The rise in computing hardware choices: general purpose central processing units (CPUs), vector processors, graphics processing units (GPUs), tensor processing units (TPUs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), optical computers, and quantum computers is driving a reevaluation of operating systems. Even within machine learning, there has been a trend toward developing more specialized processors for different stages and types of deep neural networks (e.g., training vs inference, dense vs sparse networks). Such hardware is often massively parallel, distributed, heterogeneous, and non-deterministic, and must satisfy a wide range of security requirements. Current mainstream operating systems (OS) can trace their lineages back 50 years to computers designed for basic office functions running on serial, local, homogeneous, deterministic hardware operating in benign environments (see Figure \[fig:OShistory\]). Increasingly, these traditional operating systems are bystanders at best and impediments at worse to using purpose-built processors. This trend is illustrated by the current GPU programming model whereby the user engages with a conventional OS to acquire the privilege of accessing the GPU to then implement most OS functions (managing memory, processes, and IO) inside their own application code.
![Current operating systems can trace their lineage back to the first computers and still have many features that are designed for that era. Modern computers are very different and currently require the user to perform most operating system functions.[]{data-label="fig:OShistory"}](figures/OShistory.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The role of an operating system controlling the execution of its own hardware is evolving toward a model whereby the controlling processor is distinct from the compute engines that are performing most of the computations [@beckman2012exascale; @schwarzkopf2015operating; @laplante2016rethinking]. Traditional operating systems like Linux are built to execute a shared kernel on homogeneous cores [@torvalds1997linux]. Popcorn Linux [@barbalace2015popcorn] and K2 [@lin2014k2] run multiple Linux instances on heterogeneous cores. Barrelfish [@baumann2009multikernel] and FOS (Factored Operating System) [@wentzlaff2009factored] aim to support many heterogeneous cores over a distributed system. NIX [@ballesteros2012nix], based on Plan 9 [@pike1995plan], relaxes the requirement on executing a kernel on every core by introducing application cores. Helios [@nightingale2009helios], a derivative from Singularity [@fahndrich2006language], reduces the requirements one step further by using software isolation instead of address space protection. Thereby, neither a memory management unit nor a privileged mode is required. In order to address the increasing role of accelerators, the M3 operating system goes further and removes all requirements on processor features [@asmussen2016m3].
In this context, an OS can be viewed as software that brokers and tracks the resources of compute engines. Traditional supercomputing schedules currently fill the role of managing heterogeneous resources but have inherent scalability limitations [@reuther2018scalable]. In many respects, this new operating system role is akin to the traditional role of a database management system (DBMS) and suggests that databases may be well suited to operating system tasks for future hardware architectures. To explore this hypothesis, this work defines key operating system functions in terms of rigorous mathematical semantics (associative array algebra) that are directly translatable into database operations. Because the mathematics of database table operations are based on a linear system over the union and intersection semiring, these operations possess a number of mathematical properties that are ideal for parallel operating systems by guaranteeing correctness over a wide range of parallel operations. The resulting operating system equations provide a mathematical specification for a Tabular Operating System Architecture (TabulaROSA) that can be implemented on any platform. Simulations of selected TabularROSA functions are performed with an associative array implementation on state-of-the-art, highly parallel processors. The measurements show that TabulaROSA has the potential to perform operating system functions on a massively parallel scale with 20x higher performance.
Standard OS and DBMS Operations
===============================
TabulaROSA seeks to explore the potential benefits of implementing OS functions in way that leverages the power and mathematical properties of database systems. This exploration begins with a brief description of standard OS and DBMS functions. Many concepts in modern operating systems can trace their roots to the very first time-sharing computers. Unix was first built in 1970 on the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) Programmed Data Processor (PDP)[@dennis1964multiuser; @bell1970new], which was based on the MIT Lincoln Laboratory Transistorized eXperimental computer zero (TX-0)[@mitchell1956tx; @clark1957lincoln; @mccarthy1963time; @myer1968design]. Modern operating systems, such as Linux, are vast, but their core concepts can be reduced to a manageable set of operations, such as those captured in the Xv6 operating system [@cox2011xv6]. Xv6 is a teaching operating system developed in 2006 for MIT’s operating systems course 6.828: Operating System Engineering. Xv6 draws inspiration from Unix V6 [@ritchie1978unix] and Lions’ Commentary on UNIX, 6th Edition [@lions2000lions]. An elegant aspect of Unix is that its primary interface is the C language, which is also the primary language that programmers use to develop applications in Unix. Xv6 can be summarized by its C language kernel system calls that define its interface to the user programmer (see Figure \[fig:xv6\]). This subset of system calls is representative of the services that are core to many Unix based operating systems and serves as a point of departure for TabulaROSA. At a deeper level, many of the Xv6 operating system functions can be viewed as adding, updating, and removing records from a series of C data structures that are similar to purpose-built database tables.
![(Adapted from [@cox2011xv6]). Xv6 operating system kernel functions.[]{data-label="fig:xv6"}](figures/xv6.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Modern database systems are designed to perform many of the same functions of purpose-built data analysis, machine learning, and simulation hardware. The key tasks of many modern data processing systems can be summarized as follows [@stonebrakerseven]
- Ingesting data from operational data systems
- Data cleaning
- Transformations
- Schema integration
- Entity consolidation
- Complex analytics
- Exporting unified data to downstream systems
To meet these requirements, database management systems perform many operating system functions (see Figure \[fig:DBMS\]) [@hellerstein2005readings].
![(Adapted from [@hellerstein2005readings]). Database management systems provide many of the functions found in an operating system. Nearly all functions are managed via manipulations of database tables.[]{data-label="fig:DBMS"}](figures/DBMS.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
An elegant aspect of many DBMS is that their primary data structures are tables that are also the primary data structures programmers use to develop applications on these systems. In many databases, these table operations can be mapped onto well-defined mathematical operations with known mathematical properties. For example, relational (or SQL) databases [@Stonebraker1976; @date1989guide; @elmasri2010fundamentals] are described by relational algebra [@codd1970relational; @maier1983theory; @Abiteboul1995] that corresponds to the union-intersection semiring ${\cup}.{\cap}$ [@jananthan2017polystore]. Triple-store databases (NoSQL) [@DeCandia2007; @LakshmanMalik2010; @George2011; @Wall2015] and analytic databases (NewSQL) [@Stonebraker2005; @Kallman2008; @Balazinska2009; @StonebrakerWeisberg2013; @Hutchison2015; @gadepally2015graphulo] follow similar mathematics [@kepner2016associative]. The table operations of these databases are further encompassed by associative array algebra, which brings the beneficial properties of matrix mathematics and sparse linear systems theory, such as closure, commutativity, associativity, and distributivity [@kepnerjananthan].
The aforementioned mathematical properties provide strong correctness guarantees that are independent of scale and particularly helpful when trying to reason about massively parallel systems. Intersection $\cap$ distributing over union $\cup$ is essential to database query planning and parallel query execution over partioned/sharded database tables [@booth1976distributed; @shaw1980relational; @stonebraker1986case; @barroso2003web; @curino2010schism; @pavlo2012skew; @corbett2013spanner]. Similarly, matrix multiplication distributing over matrix addition ensures the correctness of massively parallel implementations on the world’s largest supercomputers [@dongarra2003linpack] and machine learning systems [@moller1993scaled; @werbos1994roots; @chetlur2014cudnn]. In software engineering, the scalable commutativity rule guarantees the existence of a conflict-free (parallel) implementation [@clements2015scalable; @clements2017scalable; @bhat2017designing].
Associative Array Algebra
=========================
The full mathematics of associative arrays and the ways they encompass matrix mathematics and relational algebra are described in the aforementioned references [@jananthan2017polystore; @kepner2016associative; @kepnerjananthan]. Only the essential mathematical properties of associative arrays necessary for describing TabulaROSA are reviewed here. The essence of associative array algebra is three operations: element-wise addition (database table union), element-wise multiplication (database table intersection), and array multiplication (database table transformation). In brief, an associative array $\mathbf{A}$ is defined as a mapping from sets of keys to values $$\mathbf{A}: K_1 \times K_2 \to \mathbb{V}$$ where $K_1$ are the row keys and $K_2$ are the column keys and can be any sortable set, such as integers, real numbers, and strings. The row keys are equivalent to the sequence ID in a relational database table or the process ID of file ID in an OS data structure. The column keys are equivalent to the column names in a database table and the field names in an OS data structure. $\mathbb{V}$ is a set of values that forms a semiring $(\mathbb{V},\oplus,\otimes,0,1)$ with addition operation $\oplus$, multiplication operation $\otimes$, additive identity/multiplicative annihilator 0, and multiplicative identity 1. The values can take on many forms, such as numbers, strings, and sets. One of the most powerful features of associative arrays is that addition and multiplication can be a wide variety of operations. Some of the common combinations of addition and multiplication operations that have proven valuable are standard arithmetic addition and multiplication ${+}.{\times}$, the aforementioned union and intersection ${\cup}.{\cap}$, and various tropical algebras that are important in finance [@klemperer2010product; @baldwin2016understanding; @masontropical] and neural networks [@Kepner2017graphblasDNN]: ${\max}.{+}$, ${\min}.{+}$, ${\max}.{\times}$, ${\min}.{\times}$, ${\max}.{\min}$, and ${\min}.{\max}$.
The construction of an associative array is denoted $$\mathbf{A} = \mathbb{A}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2,\mathbf{v})$$ where $\mathbf{k}_1$, $\mathbf{k}_2$, and $\mathbf{v}$ are vectors of the row keys, column keys, and values of the nonzero elements of $\mathbf{A}$. When the values are 1 and there is only one nonzero entry per row or column, this associative array is denoted $$\mathbb{I}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2) = \mathbb{A}(\mathbf{k}_1,\mathbf{k}_2,1)$$ and when $\mathbb{I}(\mathbf{k}) = \mathbb{I}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k})$, this is array is referred to as the identity.
Given associative arrays $\mathbf{A}$, $\mathbf{B}$, and $\mathbf{C}$, element-wise addition is denoted $$\mathbf{C} = \mathbf{A} \oplus \mathbf{B}$$ or more specifically $$\mathbf{C}(k_1,k_2) = \mathbf{A}(k_1,k_2) \oplus \mathbf{B}(k_1,k_2)$$ where $k_1 \in K_1$ and $k_2 \in K_2$. Similarly, element-wise multiplication is denoted $$\mathbf{C} = \mathbf{A} \otimes \mathbf{B}$$ or more specifically $$\mathbf{C}(k_1,k_2) = \mathbf{A}(k_1,k_2) \otimes \mathbf{B}(k_1,k_2)$$ Array multiplication combines addition and multiplication and is written $$\mathbf{C} = \mathbf{A} \mathbf{B} = \mathbf{A} {\oplus}.{\otimes} \mathbf{B}$$ or more specifically $$\mathbf{C}(k_1,k_2) = \bigoplus_k \mathbf{A}(k_1,k) \otimes \mathbf{B}(k,k_2)$$ where $k$ corresponds to the column key of $\mathbf{A}$ and the row key of $\mathbf{B}$. Finally, the array transpose is denoted $$\mathbf{A}(k_2,k_1) = \mathbf{A}^{\sf T}(k_1,k_2)$$ The above operations have been found to enable a wide range of database algorithms and matrix mathematics while also preserving several valuable mathematical properties that ensure the correctness of parallel execution. These properties include commutativity $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A} \oplus \mathbf{B} &=& \mathbf{B} \oplus \mathbf{A} \\
\mathbf{A} \otimes \mathbf{B} &=& \mathbf{B} \otimes \mathbf{A} \\
(\mathbf{A} \mathbf{B})^{\sf T} &=& \mathbf{B}^{\sf T} \mathbf{A}^{\sf T}\end{aligned}$$ associativity $$\begin{aligned}
(\mathbf{A} \oplus \mathbf{B}) \oplus \mathbf{C} &=& \mathbf{A} \oplus (\mathbf{B} \oplus \mathbf{C}) \\
(\mathbf{A} \otimes \mathbf{B}) \otimes \mathbf{C} &=& \mathbf{A} \otimes (\mathbf{B} \otimes \mathbf{C}) \\
(\mathbf{A} \mathbf{B}) \mathbf{C} &=& \mathbf{A} (\mathbf{B} \mathbf{C})\end{aligned}$$ distributivity $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A} \otimes (\mathbf{B} \oplus \mathbf{C}) &=& (\mathbf{A} \otimes \mathbf{B}) \oplus (\mathbf{A} \otimes \mathbf{C}) \\
\mathbf{A} (\mathbf{B} \oplus \mathbf{C}) &=& (\mathbf{A} \mathbf{B}) \oplus (\mathbf{A} \mathbf{C}) \end{aligned}$$ and the additive and multiplicative identities $$\mathbf{A} \oplus \mathbs{0} = \mathbf{A} ~~~~~~~~~~~~ \mathbf{A} \otimes \mathbs{1} = \mathbf{A} ~~~~~~~~~~~~ \mathbf{A} \mathbb{I} = \mathbf{A}$$ where $\mathbs{0}$ is an array of all 0, $\mathbs{1}$ is an array of all 1, and $\mathbb{I}$ is an array with 1 along its diagonal. Furthermore, these arrays possess a multiplicative annihilator $$\mathbf{A} \otimes \mathbs{0} = \mathbs{0} ~~~~~~~~~~~~ \mathbf{A} \mathbs{0} = \mathbs{0}$$ Most significantly, the properties of associative arrays are determined by the properties of the value set $\mathbb{V}$. In other words, if $\mathbb{V}$ is linear (distributive), then so are the corresponding associative arrays.
TabulaROSA Mathematics
======================
There are many possible ways of describing the Xv6 OS functions in terms of associative arrays. One possible approach begins with the following definitions. $\mathbf{P}$ is the distributed global process associative array, where the rows are the process IDs and the columns are metadata describing each process. In Xv6, there are approximately ten metadata fields attributed to each process. Notional examples of dense and sparse schemas for $\mathbf{P}$ are shown in Figure \[fig:Pschema\]. In this analysis, a hybrid schema is assumed as it naturally provides fast search on any row or column, enables most OS operations to be performed with array multiplication, and allows direct computation on numeric values. $\mathbf{p}$ is a vector containing one or more unique process IDs and is implicitly the output of the getpid() accessor function or all processes associated with the current context. Similarly, $\dot{\mathbf{p}}$ is implicitly the output of allocproc().
![Notional examples of dense (top) and sparse (bottom) schemas for the distributed global process associative array $\mathbf{P}$, where the rows are the process IDs and the columns are metadata describing each process.[]{data-label="fig:Pschema"}](figures/processTableDense.pdf "fig:"){width="0.85\columnwidth"} ![Notional examples of dense (top) and sparse (bottom) schemas for the distributed global process associative array $\mathbf{P}$, where the rows are the process IDs and the columns are metadata describing each process.[]{data-label="fig:Pschema"}](figures/processTableSparse.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
Associative array specifications of all the Xv6 functions listed in Figure \[fig:xv6\] are provided in Appendix A. Perhaps the most important of these functions is fork(), which is used to create new processes and is described mathematically as follows
——————————————————————–
$\dot{\mathbf{p}}$ = fork() \# Function for creating processes
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\dot{\mathbf{p}} ~~ = $ allocproc() \# Create new process IDs
$\dot{\mathbf{P}} ~~ = ~ \mathbb{I}(\dot{\mathbf{p}},\mathbf{p}) \mathbf{P}$ \# Create new $\dot{\mathbf{P}}$ from $\mathbf{P}$
$\dot{\mathbf{P}} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \mathbb{I}(\dot{\mathbf{p}},{\rm parent}|\mathbf{p})$ \# Add parent identifiers
$\dot{\mathbf{P}} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \mathbb{I}(\mathbf{p},{\rm child}|\dot{\mathbf{p}})$ \# Add child identifiers
$\mathbf{P} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \dot{\mathbf{P}}$ \# Add new processes to global table
——————————————————————–
where $|$ implies concatenation with a separator such as $|$. The above mathematical description of fork() can also be algebraically compressed into the following single equation $$\mathbf{P} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \mathbb{I}(\dot{\mathbf{p}},\mathbf{p}) \mathbf{P} \oplus \mathbb{I}(\dot{\mathbf{p}},{\rm parent}|\mathbf{p}) \oplus \mathbb{I}(\mathbf{p},{\rm child}|\dot{\mathbf{p}})$$ Additionally, forking the same process into multiple new processes can be done by adding nonzero rows to $\mathbb{I}(\dot{\mathbf{p}})$. Likewise, combining existing processes into a single new process can be done by adding nonzero entries to any row of $\mathbb{I}(\dot{\mathbf{p}},\mathbf{p})$. Thus, the associative array representation of fork() can accommodate a range of fork() operations that normally require distinct implementations. The above equation is independent of scale and describes a method for simultaneously forking many processes at once. The above equation is linear, so many of the operations can be ordered in a variety of ways while preserving correctness. Because dominant computation is the array multiplication $\mathbb{I}(\dot{\mathbf{p}},\mathbf{p}) \mathbf{P}$, the performance and scalability of forking in TabulaROSA can be estimated by simulating this operation.
Simulation Results
==================
The associative array representation of fork() indicates that the core computational driver in a massively parallel implementation would be associative array multiplication $\mathbb{I}(\dot{\mathbf{p}},\mathbf{p}) \mathbf{P}$. This operation can be readily simulated with the D4M (Dynamic Distributed Dimensional Data Model) implementation of associative arrays that are available in a variety of programming languages (d4m.mit.edu)[@Kepner2012; @chen2016julia; @kepnerjananthan]. In the simulation, each forker constructs a $2^{18} \times 2^{18}$ sparse associative array $\mathbf{P}$ with approximately 10 nonzero entries per row. The row keys of $\mathbf{P}$ are the globally unique process IDs $\mathbf{p}$. The column keys of $\mathbf{P}$ are strings that are surrogates for process ID metadata fields. The fork() operation is simulated by array multiplication of $\mathbf{P}$ by a $2^{18} \times 2^{18}$ permutation array $\mathbb{I}(\dot{\mathbf{p}},\mathbf{p})$. Each row and column in $\mathbb{I}(\dot{\mathbf{p}},\mathbf{p})$ has one randomly assigned nonzero entry that corresponds to the mapping of the current process IDs in $\mathbf{p}$ to the new process IDs in $\dot{\mathbf{p}}$. The full sparse representation is the most computationally challenging as it represents the case whereby all unique metadata have their own column and are directly searchable. For comparison, the Linux fork() command is also timed, and it is assumed that the maximum number of simultaneous processes on a compute node is the standard value of $2^{16}$.
Both the D4M simulation and the Linux fork() comparison were run in parallel on a supercomputer consisting of 648 compute nodes, each with at least 64 Xeon processing cores, for a total of 41,472 processing cores. The results are shown in Figures \[fig:ProcessesManaged\] and \[fig:ForkRate\]. In both cases, a single forker was run on 1, 2, 4,…, and 512 compute nodes, followed by running 2, 4, …, and 512 forkers on each of the 512 compute nodes to achieve a maximum of 262,144 simultaneous forkers. This pleasingly parallel calculation would be expected to scale linearly on a supercomputer.
The number of processes managed in the D4M simulation grows linearly with the number of forkers, while in the Linux fork() comparison the number of processes managed grows linearly with the number of compute nodes. Figure \[fig:ProcessesManaged\] shows the total number of processes managed, which for D4M is $2^{18}$ times the number of forkers with a largest value of $2^{36}$ or over 68,000,000,000. For the Linux fork() comparison, the total number of processes managed is $2^{16}$ times the number of nodes with a largest value of $2^{25}$. In both computations, the number of processes managed could be increased. For these calculations, typical values are used. Since associative array operations are readily translatable to databases using disk storage, the capacity of this approach is very large even when there are high update rates [@kepner2014achieving].
Figure \[fig:ForkRate\] shows the rate at which processes forked in the D4M simulation grows linearly with the number of forkers and peaks at 64 forkers per node, which corresponds to the number of physical cores per node. In the Linux fork() comparison, the rate grows linearly with the number of forkers and peaks at 8 forkers per node. The largest fork rate for D4M in this simulation is approximately 800,000,000 forks per second. The largest fork rate for the Linux fork() comparison is approximately 40,000,000 forks per second.
The purpose of these comparisons is not to highlight any particular attribute of Linux, but merely to set the context for the D4M simulations, which demonstrate the size and speed potential of TabulaROSA.
![Number of processes managed vs. total number of forkers for the TabulaROSA D4M simulation and the Linux operating system running on a 32,000+ core system.[]{data-label="fig:ProcessesManaged"}](figures/ProcessesManaged.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![Fork rate vs. total number of forkers for the TabulaROSA D4M simulation and the Linux operating system running on a 32,000+ core system.[]{data-label="fig:ForkRate"}](figures/ForkRate.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Conclusion
==========
The rise in computing hardware choices: general purpose central processing units, vector processors, graphics processing units, tensor processing units, field programmable gate arrays, optical computers, and quantum computers are driving a reevaluation of operating systems. The traditional role of an operating system controlling the execution on its own hardware is evolving toward a model whereby the controlling processor is completely distinct from the compute engines that are performing most of the computations. In many respects, this new operating system role is akin to the traditional role of a database management system and suggests that databases may be well suited to operating system tasks for future hardware architectures. To explore this hypothesis, this work defines key operating system functions in terms of rigorous mathematical semantics (associative array algebra) that are directly translatable into database operations. Because the mathematics of database table operations are based on a linear system over the union and intersection semiring, these operations possess a number of mathematical properties that are ideal for parallel operating systems by guaranteeing correctness over a wide range of parallel operations. The resulting operating system equations provide a mathematical specification for a Tabular Operating System Architecture (TabulaROSA) that can be implemented on any platform. Simulations of forking in TabularROSA are performed by using an associative array implementation and are compared to Linux on a 32,000+ core supercomputer. Using over 262,000 forkers managing over 68,000,000,000 processes, the simulations show that TabulaROSA has the potential to perform operating system functions on a massively parallel scale. The TabulaROSA simulations show 20x higher performance compared to Linux, while managing 2000x more processes in fully searchable tables.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors wish to acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions and support: Bob Bond, Paul Burkhardt, Sterling Foster, Charles Leiserson, Dave Martinez, Steve Pritchard, Victor Roytburd, and Michael Wright.
Appendix A: TabulaROSA Specification {#appendix-a-tabularosa-specification .unnumbered}
====================================
$\mathbf{P}$ is the distributed global process associative array, where the rows are the process IDs and the columns are metadata describing each process. In Xv6, approximately 10 metadata fields are attributed to each process. Notional examples of dense and sparse schemas for $\mathbf{P}$ are shown in Figure \[fig:Pschema\]. In this analysis, a hybrid schema is assumed as it naturally provides fast search on any row or column and allows most OS operations to be performed with array multiplication while still being able to perform direct computation numeric values. $\mathbf{p}$ is a vector containing one or more unique process IDs and is implicitly the output of the getpid() accessor function or all processes associated with the current context. Similarly, $\dot{\mathbf{p}}$ is implicitly the output of allocproc(). $\mathbf{F}$ is the distributed global files associative array where the rows are the file IDs and the columns are metadata describing each file and arguments for corresponding file operations. $\mathbf{f}$ is a vector containing one or more unique file IDs, and $\mathbf{A_f}$ are the associative arrays corresponding to the contents in file identifiers $\mathbf{f}$.
——————————————————————–
exec($\dot{\mathbf{F}}$) \# Load files and execute them
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\dot{\mathbf{f}} = $ open($\dot{\mathbf{F}}$) \# Open files
$\mathbf{P} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \mathbb{I}(\mathbf{p},\dot{\mathbf{f}}) \dot{\mathbf{F}}$ \# Replace current instructions
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
$\mathbf{A}_{\rm buf}$ = read($\mathbf{A_{f}}$, row, col) \# Read selected data
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\dot{\mathbf{f}} = $ open($\dot{\mathbf{F}}$) \# Open files
$\mathbf{A}_{\rm buf} = \mathbb{I}({\rm row}) \mathbf{A_{f}} \mathbb{I}({\rm col})$ \# Select and copy to buffer
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
$\mathbf{A_{f}}$ = write($\mathbf{A}_{\rm buf}$, row, col) \# Write selected data
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\dot{\mathbf{f}} = $ open($\dot{\mathbf{F}}$) \# Open files
$\mathbf{A_{f}} = \mathbb{I}({\rm row}) \mathbf{A}_{\rm buf} \mathbb{I}({\rm col})$ \# Select and copy to file
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
$\dot{\mathbf{p}}$ = fork() \# Function for creating processes
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\dot{\mathbf{p}} ~~ = $ allocproc() \# Create new process IDs
$\dot{\mathbf{P}} ~~ = ~ \mathbb{I}(\dot{\mathbf{p}},\mathbf{p}) \mathbf{P}$ \# Create new $\dot{\mathbf{P}}$ from $\mathbf{P}$
$\dot{\mathbf{P}} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \mathbb{I}(\dot{\mathbf{p}},{\rm parent}|\mathbf{p})$ \# Add parent identifiers
$\dot{\mathbf{P}} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \mathbb{I}(\mathbf{p},{\rm child}|\dot{\mathbf{p}})$ \# Add child identifiers
$\mathbf{P} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \dot{\mathbf{P}}$ \# Add new processes to global table
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
exit() \# Exit current processes
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\mathbf{P} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \text{-}(\mathbb{I}(\mathbf{p}) \mathbf{P})$ \# Remove exiting processes
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
wait() \# Wait for child processes to exit
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\dot{\mathbf{P}} = \mathbb{I}(\mathbf{p}) ~ \mathbf{P} ~ \mathbb{I}({\rm child}|*) $ \# Get child processes
while($\mathbf{P}$)
$\dot{\mathbf{P}} = \mathbb{I}(\mathbf{p}) ~ \mathbf{P} ~ \mathbb{I}({\rm child}|*) $ \# Get exiting processes
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
kill($\mathbf{p}$) \# Terminate processes
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\mathbf{P} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \text{-}(\mathbb{I}(\mathbf{p}) \mathbf{P})$ \# Remove processes to kill
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
$\mathbf{p}$ = getpid() \# Return current process IDs
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\mathbf{p} = {\rm row}(\mathbf{P} ~ \mathbb{I}({\rm current}|*))$ \# Get process IDs
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
$\dot{\mathbf{p}}$ = allocproc() \# Return vector of new process IDs
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\dot{\mathbf{p}} = $ rand(), hash(), … \# Create new process IDs
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
sleep($n$) \# Sleep for $n$ seconds
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\mathbf{P} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \mathbb{A}(\mathbf{p},{\rm sleep},n)$ \# Add $n$ seconds of sleep
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
sbrk($n$) \# Grow memory by $n$ bytes
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\mathbf{P} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \mathbb{A}(\mathbf{p},{\rm memory},n)$ \# Add $n$ bytes of memory
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
chdir(dir) \# Change current directories
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\mathbf{P} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \mathbb{A}(\mathbf{p},{\rm cwd},{\rm dir})$ \# Add new dir
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
$\dot{\mathbf{f}}$ = open($\dot{\mathbf{F}}$) \# Open files $\dot{\mathbf{F}}$
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\mathbf{P} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \dot{\mathbf{F}} \oplus \mathbb{A}(\dot{\mathbf{f}},{\rm open},1)$ \# Mark as open
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
close($\dot{\mathbf{f}}$) \# Close file IDs $\dot{\mathbf{f}}$
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\mathbf{P} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \text{-}\mathbb{A}(\dot{\mathbf{f}},{\rm open},1)$ \# Remove open flags
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
$\dot{\mathbf{F}}$ = fstat($\dot{\mathbf{f}}$) \# Get metadata on $\dot{\mathbf{f}}$
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\dot{\mathbf{F}} = \mathbb{I}(\dot{\mathbf{f}}) \mathbf{F}$ \# Get corresponding rows
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
mkdir($\dot{\mathbf{F}}$) \# Make diretories $\dot{\mathbf{F}}$
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
close(open($\dot{\mathbf{F}}$)) \# Open and close to create
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
$\dot{\mathbf{F}}$ = dup($\dot{\mathbf{f}}$) \# Duplicate file descriptors
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\dot{\mathbf{f}} ~~ = $ … \# Create new file IDs
$\mathbf{F} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \mathbb{I}(\dot{\mathbf{f}},\mathbf{f}) \mathbf{F}$ \# Copy file metadata to new IDs
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
link($\dot{\mathbf{F}}$) \# Create links to files
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\mathbf{F} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \dot{\mathbf{F}}$ \# Copy file metadata to new files
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
unlink($\dot{\mathbf{F}}$) \# Unlink files
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
$\mathbf{F} ~ {\oplus}{=} ~ \text{-}\dot{\mathbf{F}}$ \# Remove file metadata from files
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
mknod($\dot{\mathbf{F}}$) \# Make nodes to devices $\dot{\mathbf{F}}$
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
close(open($\dot{\mathbf{F}}$)) \# Open and close to create
——————————————————————–
——————————————————————–
pipe($\dot{\mathbf{F}}$) \# Make pipe $\dot{\mathbf{F}}$
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
close(open($\dot{\mathbf{F}}$)) \# Open and close to create
——————————————————————–
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report improved measurements of branching fractions for $B\to K\pi$, $\pippim$, $\pippiz$ and $\kk$ decays based on a data sample of $\nbb$ million $\bb$ pairs collected at the $\Upsilon (4S)$ resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB $e^+e^-$ storage ring. This data sample is almost three times larger than the sample previously used. We observe clear signals for $B\to K\pi$, $\pippim$ and $\pippiz$ decays and set upper limits on $B\to\kk$ decays. The results can be used to give model-dependent constraints on the CKM angle $\phi_3$, as well as limits on the hadronic uncertainty in the time-dependent analysis of the angle $\phi_2$.'
author:
- 'Y. Chao'
- 'K. Suzuki'
- 'Y. Unno'
- 'K. Abe'
- 'K. Abe'
- 'T. Abe'
- 'I. Adachi'
- 'H. Aihara'
- 'M. Akatsu'
- 'Y. Asano'
- 'T. Aso'
- 'V. Aulchenko'
- 'T. Aushev'
- 'A. M. Bakich'
- 'S. Banerjee'
- 'I. Bizjak'
- 'A. Bondar'
- 'A. Bozek'
- 'M. Bračko'
- 'T. E. Browder'
- 'P. Chang'
- 'B. G. Cheon'
- 'R. Chistov'
- 'S.-K. Choi'
- 'Y. Choi'
- 'Y. K. Choi'
- 'A. Chuvikov'
- 'S. Cole'
- 'M. Danilov'
- 'M. Dash'
- 'L. Y. Dong'
- 'J. Dragic'
- 'A. Drutskoy'
- 'S. Eidelman'
- 'V. Eiges'
- 'N. Gabyshev'
- 'A. Garmash'
- 'T. Gershon'
- 'B. Golob'
- 'A. Gordon'
- 'J. Haba'
- 'T. Hara'
- 'M. Hazumi'
- 'I. Higuchi'
- 'T. Hokuue'
- 'Y. Hoshi'
- 'W.-S. Hou'
- 'Y. B. Hsiung'
- 'H.-C. Huang'
- 'T. Iijima'
- 'K. Inami'
- 'A. Ishikawa'
- 'R. Itoh'
- 'H. Iwasaki'
- 'Y. Iwasaki'
- 'J. H. Kang'
- 'J. S. Kang'
- 'P. Kapusta'
- 'N. Katayama'
- 'H. Kawai'
- 'T. Kawasaki'
- 'H. Kichimi'
- 'H. J. Kim'
- 'J. H. Kim'
- 'K. Kinoshita'
- 'S. Korpar'
- 'P. Križan'
- 'P. Krokovny'
- 'A. Kuzmin'
- 'Y.-J. Kwon'
- 'J. S. Lange'
- 'G. Leder'
- 'S. H. Lee'
- 'J. Li'
- 'A. Limosani'
- 'S.-W. Lin'
- 'J. MacNaughton'
- 'G. Majumder'
- 'F. Mandl'
- 'D. Marlow'
- 'T. Matsumoto'
- 'A. Matyja'
- 'W. Mitaroff'
- 'H. Miyake'
- 'H. Miyata'
- 'D. Mohapatra'
- 'T. Mori'
- 'T. Nagamine'
- 'Y. Nagasaka'
- 'T. Nakadaira'
- 'E. Nakano'
- 'M. Nakao'
- 'H. Nakazawa'
- 'Z. Natkaniec'
- 'S. Nishida'
- 'O. Nitoh'
- 'S. Noguchi'
- 'T. Nozaki'
- 'S. Ogawa'
- 'T. Ohshima'
- 'S. Okuno'
- 'S. L. Olsen'
- 'W. Ostrowicz'
- 'H. Ozaki'
- 'P. Pakhlov'
- 'H. Palka'
- 'C. W. Park'
- 'H. Park'
- 'N. Parslow'
- 'L. S. Peak'
- 'L. E. Piilonen'
- 'M. Rozanska'
- 'H. Sagawa'
- 'S. Saitoh'
- 'Y. Sakai'
- 'O. Schneider'
- 'J. Schümann'
- 'A. J. Schwartz'
- 'S. Semenov'
- 'M. E. Sevior'
- 'H. Shibuya'
- 'B. Shwartz'
- 'V. Sidorov'
- 'J. B. Singh'
- 'N. Soni'
- 'S. Stanič'
- 'M. Starič'
- 'K. Sumisawa'
- 'T. Sumiyoshi'
- 'S. Suzuki'
- 'S. Y. Suzuki'
- 'O. Tajima'
- 'F. Takasaki'
- 'N. Tamura'
- 'M. Tanaka'
- 'Y. Teramoto'
- 'T. Tomura'
- 'K. Trabelsi'
- 'T. Tsuboyama'
- 'T. Tsukamoto'
- 'S. Uehara'
- 'K. Ueno'
- 'T. Uglov'
- 'S. Uno'
- 'G. Varner'
- 'C. H. Wang'
- 'J. G. Wang'
- 'M.-Z. Wang'
- 'M. Watanabe'
- 'Y. Yamada'
- 'A. Yamaguchi'
- 'H. Yamamoto'
- 'Y. Yamashita'
- 'M. Yamauchi'
- 'H. Yanai'
- Heyoung Yang
- 'J. Ying'
- 'Y. Yuan'
- 'S. L. Zang'
- 'J. Zhang'
- 'Z. P. Zhang'
- 'V. Zhilich'
- 'D. Žontar'
title: |
\
Improved Measurements of Branching Fractions for\
$B\to K\pi$, $\pi\pi$ and $\kk$ Decays
---
Recent studies at $B$ factories have significantly improved our knowledge of heavy-flavor physics. In particular, the establishment of mixing-induced $CP$ violation in the $B$-meson system [@phi1_belle; @phi1_babar] is encouraging for further tests of the Standard Model based on determinations of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements [@ckm].
$B$-meson decays to $K\pi$, $\pi\pi$ and $\kk$ final states are dominated by $b\to u$ tree and $b\to s$, $d$ penguin diagrams. The properties of these decays provide information that can be used to determine the CKM angles $\phi_2$ and $\phi_3$ [@pdg_review]. However, the extraction of these angles suffers from hadronic uncertainties present in the current theoretical description and from the small amplitudes of $b\to u$, $s$, $d$ transitions. To solve these difficulties, various theoretical approaches based on flavor symmetries and dynamical calculations in the heavy-quark limit [@hh_theory] have been proposed. In order to utilize these methods, the precision of the existing experimental results [@hh_belle; @kspi_belle; @phi2_belle_78; @phi2_belle_140; @hh_babar; @phi2_babar; @hh_cleo] must be improved.
In this paper, we report updated measurements of the branching fractions for $B\to K\pi$, $\pippim$, $\pippiz$ and $\kk$ decays. Recent results for $\bz\to\pizpiz$ have been reported elsewhere [@pizpiz_belle; @pizpiz_babar]. The measurements reported here are based on a 78 $\fb$ data sample collected at the $\Upsilon (4S)$ resonance, with the Belle detector [@belle] at the KEKB $e^+e^-$ storage ring [@kekb]. This sample corresponds to $\Nbb$ million $\bb$ pairs and is about three times larger than that used for our previous analysis [@hh_belle]. The previous results are superseded with significantly improved statistical precision. Throughout this paper, neutral and charged $B$ mesons are assumed to be produced in equal amounts at the $\Upsilon (4S)$. The inclusion of the charge conjugate decay is implied, unless explicitly stated.
The Belle detector is a large-solid-angle spectrometer consisting of a three-layer silicon vertex detector, a 50-layer central drift chamber (CDC), an array of threshold Cherenkov counters with silica aerogel radiators (ACC), time-of-flight scintillation counters, and an electromagnetic calorimeter comprised of CsI(Tl) crystals (ECL) located inside a superconducting solenoid coil that provides a 1.5 T magnetic field. An iron flux-return located outside of the coil is instrumented to detect $K^0_L$ mesons and to identify muons. A detailed description of the Belle detector can be found elsewhere [@belle].
The basic analysis procedure is the same as described in Ref. [@hh_belle]. However, the data sample used in this analysis was reprocessed with an improved tracking algorithm that reduces the probability of incorrectly associating CDC hits in the track finding. This improvement changes the efficiencies for the kinematic reconstruction of the signal as well as for the measurement of specific ionization energy loss ($dE/dx$) in the CDC from the values given in Ref. [@hh_belle]. The $\pi^{\pm}$ mass is assigned to each charged track. Tracks used to form $B$ candidates are required to originate from the interaction region based on their impact parameters. $\ks$ mesons are reconstructed using pairs of oppositely charged tracks that have invariant masses in the range $480$ MeV/$c^2 <M_{\pi\pi}< 516$ MeV/$c^2$. A reconstructed $\ks$ is required to have a displaced vertex and a flight direction consistent with that of a $\ks$ originating from the interaction region. Pairs of photons with invariant masses in the range $115$ MeV/$c^2 < M_{\gamma\gamma} < 152$ MeV/$c^2$ are used to form $\pi^0$ mesons. The measured energy of each photon in the laboratory frame is required to be greater than $50$ MeV in the barrel region, defined as $32^{\circ} < \theta_{\gamma} < 128^{\circ}$, and greater than $100$ MeV in the end-cap regions, defined as $17^{\circ}\le\theta_{\gamma}\le 32^{\circ}$ or $128^{\circ}\le\theta_{\gamma}\le 150^{\circ}$, where $\theta_{\gamma}$ denotes the polar angle of the photon with respect to the $e^-$ beam. Signal $B$ candidates are required to satisfy $5.27$ GeV/$c^2 < \mbc < 5.29$ GeV/$c^2$ and $-0.3$ GeV$ < \de < 0.5$ GeV, where $\mbc=\sqrt{E_{\rm beam}^{*2}-p_B^{*2}}$, $\de = E_B^* - E_{\rm beam}^*$, $E_{\rm beam}^*$ is the beam-energy, and $p_B^*$ and $E_B^*$ are the momentum and energy of the reconstructed $B$ meson, all evaluated in the $e^+e^-$ center-of-mass (CM) frame. The signal efficiencies of the kinematic reconstruction, estimated using GEANT-based [@geant] Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, are listed in Table \[tab:eff\].
Charged tracks from $B$ candidates have momenta ranging from $1.5$ up to $4.5$ GeV/$c$ in the laboratory frame. They are distinguished as $K^{\pm}$ or $\pi^{\pm}$ mesons by the number of photoelectrons ($N_{\rm p.e.}$) detected by the ACC and $dE/dx$ measured in the CDC. These quantities are used to form a $K^{\pm}$ identification (KID) likelihood ratio ${\cal R}_K = {\cal L}_K / ( {\cal L}_K + {\cal L}_{\pi} )$, where ${\cal L}_K$ denotes the product of the individual likelihoods of $N_{\rm p.e.}$ and $dE/dx$ for $K^{\pm}$ mesons, and ${\cal L}_{\pi}$ is the corresponding product for $\pi^{\pm}$ mesons. The requirements on ${\cal R}_K$ used in this analysis yield a $K^{\pm}$ identification efficiency of 84.4% with a $\pi^{\pm}$ misidentification rate of 5.3% for $K^{\pm}$ candidates, and a $\pi^{\pm}$ identification efficiency of 91.2% with a $K^{\pm}$ misidentification rate of 10.2% for $\pi^{\pm}$ candidates. The efficiencies and misidentification rates are measured by comparing the yields of high-momentum $D^{*+}$-tagged $\dz\to\kmpip$ decays before and after applying the ${\cal R}_K$ requirements. Here, the $K^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ momentum range is required to be the same as for the signal. Since the momentum and angular distributions are slightly different for $\dz$ data and signal MC, the KID efficiencies are reweighted as a function of the polar angle of the signal track with respect to the $e^-$ beam. In addition to the KID requirement, positively identified electrons are rejected using a similar likelihood ratio that also includes the energy deposited in the ECL.
The dominant background is due to the $e^+e^-\to\qq$ ($q = u$, $d$, $s$, $c$) continuum processes. A large MC sample shows that backgrounds from the $b\to c$ transition are negligible since the momenta of their decay products are smaller than those in the signal decays. On the other hand, the momenta of the decay products from $b\to u$, $s$, $d$ transitions other than the signal (denoted as other charmless $B$ decays) can be as large as those in the signal decays. Events from these charmless $B$ decays populate the negative $\de$ region because of the energy carried away by a photon or $\pi$ meson, which is not used in the $B$ reconstruction. We take these events into account in the signal extraction as discussed later.
We discriminate signal events from the $\qq$ background by the event topology. This is quantified by the Super-Fox-Wolfram ($SFW$) variable [@hh_belle], which is a Fisher discriminant [@fisher] formed from modified Fox-Wolfram moments [@fw]. The angle of the $B$-meson flight direction with respect to the beam axis in the CM frame ($\theta_B$) provides additional discrimination. A signal likelihood ratio ${\cal R}_s = {\cal L}_s / ({\cal L}_s +
{\cal L}_{q\overline{q}})$ is used as the discriminating variable, where ${\cal L}_s$ denotes the product of the individual $SFW$ and $\theta_B$ likelihoods for the signal, and ${\cal L}_{q\overline{q}}$ is that for the $\qq$ background. The probability density functions (PDFs) used for the likelihoods are derived from the MC for the signal, while events in the $\mbc$ sideband ($5.2$ GeV/$c^2 < \mbc < 5.26$ GeV/$c^2$ in the $\de$ acceptance) are used for the $\qq$ background. We make a mode-dependent requirement on ${\cal R}_s$ that maximizes $N_s^{\rm exp} / \sqrt{N_s^{\rm exp} + N_{q\overline{q}}^{\rm exp}}$, where $N_s^{\rm exp}$ and $N_{q\overline{q}}^{\rm exp}$ denote the expected signal and $\qq$ yields based on our previous measurements [@hh_belle] (upper limits are used for $\kk$ modes). The ${\cal R}_s$ requirements eliminate more than 90% of the $\qq$ background for the signal efficiencies given in Table \[tab:eff\].
Signal yields are extracted using a binned maximum-likelihood fit to the $\de$ distributions after all the event selection requirements discussed above. The fitting function contains components for the signal, $\qq$ background, and other charmless $B$ decays. If applicable, possible reflections due to the $K^{\pm}/\pi^{\pm}$ misidentification are included as additional components. All of the fit parameters other than the normalizations are fixed. The signal PDFs are based on the MC. For the modes with a $\pi^0$ meson, the PDF is modeled with an empirically determined parametrization [@cbline]. For the other modes, the sum of two Gaussian distributions with a common mean is used for the PDF. Due to the $\pi^{\pm}$ mass assumption, each $K^{\pm}$ meson in the final state results in a shift in the peak position of about $-45$ MeV. Discrepancies between the peak positions in data and MC are calibrated using $\bp\to\dzbpip$ decays, where the $\dzb\to\kppim\pi^0$ sub-decay is used for the modes with $\pi^0$ mesons and the $\dzb\to\kppim$ sub-decay is used for the other modes. Here, the same analysis procedure used for the signal is applied except for the daughter particle reconstruction. The MC-based $\de$ resolutions are calibrated using invariant mass resolutions of high-momentum inclusive $D$ decays. We use $\dz\to\kmpip$ for the $\bz\to\kppim$, $\pippim$, and $\kpkm$ modes, $\dplus\to\kspip$ for the $\bp\to\kspip$, $\kskp$ and $\bz\to\ksks$ modes, and $\dz\to\kmpip\pi^0$ for the modes with a $\pi^0$ meson. The momentum ranges and reconstruction procedures for the $D$ daughter particles are required to be the same as those for the signal daughter particles. The signal PDFs are also used for the reflections. The PDF of the $\qq$ background is determined from the $\mbc$ sideband data and modeled with a first-order polynomial for the $\kpkm$ and $\ksks$ modes and a second-order polynomial for the other modes. The PDF for the other charmless $B$ decays is taken from a smoothed histogram of a large MC sample. The $\kppiz$ and $\pippiz$ modes are fitted simultaneously with a fixed reflection-to-signal ratio that is determined from the measured KID efficiencies and misidentification rates. For other modes, all the normalizations are floated. All fit results are shown in Fig. \[fig:br\_hh\].
The obtained signal yields are listed in Table \[tab:br\] together with their statistical significances ${\cal S}=\sqrt{-2\ln({\cal L}_0/
{\cal L}_{N_s})}$, where ${\cal L}_0$ and ${\cal L}_{N_s}$ denote the maximum likelihoods of the fits without and with the signal component, respectively. The fitted reflection yields are consistent within statistics with the expectations, which are derived from the fitted signal yields, KID efficiencies and misidentification rates, and the efficiencies of the $R_s$ requirements. We observe clear signals for $B\to K\pi$, $\pippim$ and $\pippiz$ decays. For the decays $B\to\kk$, no significant signal is observed. We apply the Feldman-Cousins frequentist approach with systematic uncertainties taken into account [@fc] to obtain upper limits on the yields at the 90% confidence level (CL); these are used to set branching fraction upper limits. The branching fractions and upper limits are listed in Table \[tab:br\]. Here, our latest measurement for $\bz\to\pizpiz$ [@pizpiz_belle] based on a data sample of 152 million $\bb$ pairs is also listed for completeness. The hierarchy of the branching fractions, ${\cal B}(B\to K\pi)>{\cal B}(B\to\pi\pi)$, is confirmed. More statistics are needed in order to firmly establish the position of $B\to\kk$ in this hierarchy.
The systematic errors in the branching fractions are the quadratic sums of the systematic errors in the signal yields, uncertainties in the reconstruction efficiencies, and the 0.6% error in the number of $\bb$ pairs. The systematic errors in the signal yields come from the uncertainties in the fit procedure. In order to study the sensitivity to the signal and $\qq$ background PDFs, each shape parameter is independently varied by its error in the fit. The sensitivity to the contribution from other charmless $B$ decays is evaluated by changing the minimum $\de$ requirement to $-100$ MeV ($-150$ MeV) for the modes without (with) a $\pi^0$ meson, to exclude most of these events from the fit. The resulting changes in the signal yield are added in quadrature and assigned to the systematic errors on the signal yields as listed in Table \[tab:br\]. The uncertainties in the reconstruction efficiencies are listed in Table \[tab:br\_sys\] along with the test samples that are used. The uncertainty for the track finding efficiency in the high-momentum region is obtained by comparing the ratio of yields of fully reconstructed and partially reconstructed test samples in data and MC. The uncertainties in the $\ks$ and $\pi^0$ reconstruction efficiencies are obtained from similar comparisons of yield ratios in test samples. Here, the test samples are restricted to the same $\ks$ and $\pi^0$ momentum ranges as the signal. The experimental errors in the branching fractions of these decays [@pdg] are added in quadrature. The uncertainties in the KID efficiencies and misidentification rates are due to the statistics of the data test sample. We also checked the effect of the difference in the hadronic environment between the signal and test samples. No significant effect is seen in the efficiencies and misidentification rates. The ${\cal R}_s$ requirement for each mode is applied to data and MC test samples, and the difference is included in the systematic error. To a good approximation in the Standard Model, the relative weak phase between the penguin and tree amplitudes in $K\pi$ modes is $\phi_3$. It is in principle possible to extract $\phi_3$ if the hadronic uncertainties are under control. Several approaches to constrain $\phi_3$ have been proposed using the ratios of partial widths for $K\pi$ and $\pi\pi$ modes with model-dependent assumptions on the hadronic uncertainties [@hh_theory]; the ratios give cancellations of these uncertainties. We calculate such useful partial width ratios as listed in Table \[tab:rbr\]. Here, the ratio of charged to neutral $B$ meson lifetimes $\tau_{B^+}/\tau_{B^0}=1.083\pm 0.017$ [@pdg] is used to convert the branching fraction ratios into partial width ratios if necessary, and the total errors are reduced because of the cancellation of the partially common systematic errors. Applying the approach of Buras and Fleischer [@bfbound], for illustration, our $\Gamma(\kppim)/2\Gamma(\kzpiz)$ measurement excludes the region $29^{\circ} < \phi_3 < 83^{\circ}$ at the 90% CL based on MC pseudo-experiments while that of $2\Gamma(\kppiz)/\Gamma(\kzpip)$ gives no constraint. These results are obtained without any assumption on the tree-to-penguin amplitude ratio, but neglecting re-scattering effects and taking the size of the electroweak penguin as in Ref. [@bfbound]. Although a more aggressive constraint on $\phi_3$ can be derived by introducing further model-dependent assumptions on the hadronic uncertainties, a coherent study of these approaches is required to reduce the model-dependence on hadronic uncertainties and to determine $\phi_3$.
A naive expectation for the tree-dominated $\pippim$ and $\pippiz$ modes predicts $2\Gamma(\pippiz)/\Gamma(\pippim) = 1$. The deviation of our result from this expectation, as given in Table \[tab:rbr\], is consistent with our previous measurement [@hh_belle] and would indicate the existence of a significant penguin contribution in the $\pippim$ mode if the color-suppressed tree contribution plays a minor role [@grreview]. This penguin contribution complicates the extraction of $\phi_2$ from the time-dependent $CP$ asymmetry in the $\pippim$ mode (referred to as “penguin pollution”) [@isospin]. Applying an approach based on the isospin relations in $\pi\pi$ modes [@glbound], our measured ratios $\Gamma(\pippiz)/\Gamma(\pippim)$ and $\Gamma(\pizpiz)/\Gamma(\pippim)$ in Table \[tab:rbr\] give the 90% CL bound on the size of the “penguin pollution” $|\theta|< 56^{\circ}$; the CL is derived from MC pseudo-experiments. Here, we also use the partial-rate $CP$ asymmetry in the $\pippim$ mode, ${\cal A}_{\pi\pi} = +0.58\pm 0.15\pm 0.07$, which is reported in Ref. [@phi2_belle_140].
In conclusion, we have measured or constrained the branching fractions for the $B\to K\pi$, $\pippim$, $\pippiz$ and $\kk$ decays with $\nbb$ million $\bb$ pairs collected on the $\Upsilon (4S)$ resonance at the Belle experiment. We observe clear signals for $B\to K\pi$, $\pippim$ and $\pippiz$ decays and set upper limits on $B\to\kk$ decays. The hierarchy of branching fractions reported in earlier measurements is confirmed. These results have significantly improved statistical precision compared to our previous measurements and supersede them. The results can be used to give model-dependent constraints on $\phi_3$, as well as limits on the hadronic uncertainty in the time-dependent analysis of $\phi_2$.
We wish to thank the KEKB accelerator group for the excellent operation of the KEKB accelerator. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Education, Science and Training; the National Science Foundation of China under contract No. 10175071; the Department of Science and Technology of India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of Korea and the CHEP SRC program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation; the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research under contract No. 2P03B 01324; the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation; the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia; the National Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S. Department of Energy.
[99]{} K. Abe [*et al.*]{} (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 071102(R) (2002). B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} (BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 201802 (2002). N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**10**]{}, 531 (1963); M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**49**]{}, 652 (1973). See, for example, the review “$CP$ Violation in $B$ Decay — Standard Model Predictions” by H. Quinn and A. I. Sanda in Ref. [@pdg]. ($\alpha(=\phi_2)$ and $\gamma(=\phi_3)$ are also used in the literature.) See, for example, the chapter “Future Directions” and its references, in “The CKM Matrix and the Unitarity Triangle”, M. Battaglia [*et al.*]{} (ed.), hep-ph/0304132 (2003). B. C. K. Casey [*et al.*]{} (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 092002 (2002). Y. Unno [*et al.*]{} (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 012001 (2003). K. Abe [*et al.*]{} (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 012001 (2003). K. Abe [*et al.*]{} (Belle Collaboration), hep-ex/0401029 (2004). B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} (BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 151802 (2001); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 021801 (2003). B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} (BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 281802 (2002). D. Cronin-Hennessy [*et al.*]{} (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 515 (2000); S. Chen [*et al.*]{} (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 525 (2000); D. M. Asner [*et al.*]{} (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 031103(R) (2002). S. H. Lee [*et al.*]{} (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 261801 (2003). B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} (BABAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 241801 (2003). A. Abashian [*et al.*]{} (Belle Collaboration), Nucl. Inst. Meth. A [**479**]{}, 117 (2002). S. Kurokawa and E. Kikutani [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Inst. Meth. A [**499**]{}, 1 (2003) and other papers in this volume. R. Brun [*et al.*]{}, GEANT 3.21, CERN Report No. DD/EE/84-1 (1987). R. A. Fisher, Annals of Eugenics [**7**]{}, 179 (1936). G. C. Fox and S. Wolfram, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**41**]{}, 1581 (1978). J. E. Gaiser [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**34**]{}, 711 (1986). G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 3873 (1998); J. Conrad [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 012002 (2003). K. Hagiwara [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 010001 (2002). A. J. Buras and R. Fleischer, Eur. Phys. J. C [**16**]{}, 97 (2000). M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 013004 (2001). M. Gronau and D. London, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 3381 (1990). M. Gronau [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**514**]{}, 315 (2001).
Rec ${\cal R}_K$ ${\cal R}_s$ ${\cal B}_{\rm sub}$ Total
-- ------- -------------- -------------- ---------------------- -------
0.731 0.769 0.672 —– 0.378
0.461 0.844 0.501 —– 0.195
0.571 0.911 0.560 0.343 0.100
0.314 —– 0.673 0.343 0.073
0.756 0.830 0.560 —– 0.352
0.476 0.911 0.395 —– 0.172
0.727 0.713 0.387 —– 0.201
0.539 0.844 0.388 0.343 0.061
0.447 —– 0.561 0.235 0.059
: Signal efficiencies for kinematic reconstruction (Rec), ${\cal R}_K$ requirements and ${\cal R}_s$ requirement along with the sub-decay branching fraction (${\cal B}_{\rm sub}$) for $K^0\to\ks\to\pippim$ and total signal efficiencies. []{data-label="tab:eff"}
----------- -- -- --
$\kppim$
$\kppiz$
$\kzpip$
$\kzpiz$
$\pippim$
$\pippiz$
$\pizpiz$
$\kpkm$
$\kpkzb$
$\kzkzb$
----------- -- -- --
: Signal yields ($N_s$), statistical significance (${\cal S}$), and branching fractions ($\br$) for the $B\to K\pi$, $\pippim$, $\pippiz$ and $\kk$ decays. The first and second errors are the statistical and systematic errors, respectively. For completeness, the $\pizpiz$ results from Ref. [@pizpiz_belle] are also listed. []{data-label="tab:br"}
Source $\delta\epsilon/\epsilon$ \[%\]
--------------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
track finding $1.0$ $D^{*+}\to \dz(\to\ks\pippim)\pi^+$
$\ks$ $4.4$ $D^+\to\kspip$, $\kmpip\pi^+$
$\pi^0$ $3.5$ $\eta\to\pizpiz\pi^0$, $\gamma\gamma$
${\cal R}_K$ $0.2$ $D^{*+}\to\dz(\to\kmpip)\pi^+$
${\cal R}_s$ $1.3$–$7.8$ $\bp\to\dzb(\to\kppim$, $\kppim\pi^0)\pi^+$
: Uncertainties on the reconstruction efficiencies ($\delta\epsilon$) along with the test samples that are used.[]{data-label="tab:br_sys"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
${\hphantom{0}}\Gamma(\kppim) / {\hphantom{0}}\Gamma(\kzpip)$ $0.91 \pm 0.09 \pm 0.06$
${\hphantom{0}}\Gamma(\kppim) / 2 \Gamma(\kzpiz)$ $0.79 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.09$
$2 \Gamma(\kppiz) {\hspace{+0.5mm}}/ {\hphantom{0}}\Gamma(\kzpip)$ $1.09 \pm 0.15 {\mbox{$^{\hspace{+0.3em}+\hspace{+0.55em}0.13}_{\hspace{+0.3em}-\hspace{+0.55em}0.10}$}}$
${\hphantom{0}}\Gamma(\pippim) {\hspace{+1.0mm}}/ {\hphantom{0}}\Gamma(\kppim)$ $0.24 \pm 0.03 \pm 0.02$
${\hphantom{0}}\Gamma(\pippiz) {\hspace{+0.5em}}/ {\hphantom{0}}\Gamma(\kzpiz)$ $0.39 \pm 0.12 \pm 0.06$
$2 \Gamma(\pippiz) {\hspace{+0.5em}}/ {\hphantom{0}}\Gamma(\kzpip)$ $0.45 \pm 0.12 \pm 0.05$
$2 \Gamma(\pippiz) {\hspace{+0.5em}}/ {\hphantom{0}}\Gamma(\pippim)$ $2.10 \pm 0.58 \pm 0.25$
${\hphantom{0}}\Gamma(\pizpiz) {\hspace{+0.7em}}/ {\hphantom{0}}{\hspace{+0.1em}}\Gamma(\pippim)$ $0.39 \pm 0.15 \pm 0.05$
${\hphantom{0}}\Gamma(\pizpiz) {\hspace{+0.7em}}/ {\hphantom{0}}{\hspace{+0.1em}}\Gamma(\pippiz)$ $0.37 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.05$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Partial width ratios of $B\to K\pi$ and $\pi\pi$ decays. The errors are quoted in the same manner as in Table \[tab:br\].[]{data-label="tab:rbr"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present a classification of fake lens spaces of dimension $\geq
5$ which have as fundamental group the cyclic group of order $N = 2^K$, in that we extend the results of Wall and others in the case $N = 2$.
address:
- |
Mathematisches Institut\
Universität Münster\
Einsteinstra[ß]{}e 62\
Münster, D-48149\
Germany\
and Matematický Ústav SAV\
Štefánikova 49\
Bratislava, SK-81473\
Slovakia
- |
Mathematisches Institut\
Universität Münster\
Einsteinstra[ß]{}e 62\
Münster, D-48149\
Germany
author:
- 'Tibor Macko, Christian Wegner'
bibliography:
- 'lens-spaces.bib'
title: |
On fake lens spaces with the fundamental group\
of order a power of $2$
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
A [*fake lens space*]{} is the orbit space of a free action of a finite cyclic group $G$ on a sphere $S^{2d-1}$. It is a generalization of the notion of a [*lens space*]{} which is the orbit space of a free action which comes from a unitary representation. The classification of lens spaces is a classical topic in algebraic topology and algebraic $K$-theory well explained for example in [@Milnor(1966)]. For the classification of fake lens spaces in dimension $\geq 5$ methods of surgery theory are especially suitable. The classification of fake lens spaces with $G$ of order $N = 2$ or $N$ odd was obtained and published in the books [@Wall(1999)], [@LdM(1971)]. Since then, the problem remained open for $N \neq 2$ even. In this paper we address the classification for $N = 2^K$.
One reason why the classification for all $N$ was not finished in [@Wall(1999)] seems to be that the so-called $L$-groups $L^s_n
(G)$ for $G = {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ were unknown for $N$ even. This is not the case anymore, see for example [@Hambleton-Taylor(2000)]. Using this additional information and the general methods of Wall from [@Wall(1999) chapter 14] we reduce the classification question to a problem in the representation theory of $G$. The main contribution of the present paper is that we develop calculational methods for solving this rather complicated problem and we obtain the solution for $N = 2^K$.
The classification of fake lens spaces up to simple homotopy equivalence for all $N \in {\mathbb{N}}$ via Reidemeister torsion is described in [@Wall(1999) chapter 14E]. The desired homeomorphism classification within a simple homotopy type can be formulated in terms of the [*simple structure set*]{} ${\mathcal{S}}^s(X)$ of a closed $n$-manifold $X$. An element of ${\mathcal{S}}^s(X)$ is represented by a simple homotopy equivalence $f {\colon\!}M {\rightarrow}X$ from a closed $n$-manifold $M$. Two such $f {\colon\!}M {\rightarrow}X$, $f' {\colon\!}M' {\rightarrow}X$ are equivalent if there exists a homeomorphism $h {\colon\!}M {\rightarrow}M'$ such that $f' \circ h \simeq f$. The simple structure set ${\mathcal{S}}^s(X)$ is a priori just a pointed set with the base point ${\textup{id}}{\colon\!}X {\rightarrow}X$. However, it can also be endowed with a preferred structure (in some sense) of an abelian group (see [@Ranicki(1992) chapter 18]).
In general the simple structure set of an $n$-manifold for $n \geq
5$ can be determined by examining the surgery exact sequence which is recalled below as (\[ses\]). Besides determining ${\mathcal{S}}^s (X)$ it is also important to find invariants that distinguish its elements. In fact the calculation of ${\mathcal{S}}^s (X)$ is often conducted by combining the surgery exact sequence with such invariants. This is the case also for fake lens spaces. Here it follows from the calculations of Wall in [@Wall(1999) chapter 14E] that the simple structure set is detected by the $\rho$-invariant of [@Atiyah-Singer-III(1968)] and [@Wall(1999) chapter 14B], and by the so-called normal invariants. Our main Theorem \[main-thm\] calculates the simple structure set explicitly when $N=2^K$. This should be seen as an improvement of the detecting result of Wall. This interpretation follows from Corollary \[main-thm-2\] which says that if $N = 2^K$ there is another collection of invariants which yields a one-to-one correspondence. The collection contains the $\rho$-invariant as before, but the other invariants are new. They depend on a certain choice and certainly a geometric interpretation would still be desirable.
Another issue that arises is the action of the group of simple homotopy equivalences $G^s (X)$ of a manifold $X$ on ${\mathcal{S}}^s (X)$ by post-composition. The orbits of this action are the homeomorphism types of manifolds simple homotopy equivalent to $X$ rather than homeomorphism types of manifolds equipped with a simple homotopy equivalence to $X$. Hence it is an interesting question to describe the action. Following Wall one can slightly modify the question and study the polarized homeomorphism types of polarized fake lens spaces. These are fake lens spaces equipped with a choice of orientation and a choice of a generator of the fundamental group. Corollary \[main-thm-3\] describes this classification.
Statement of results
====================
A [*fake lens space*]{} $L^{2d-1}(\alpha)$ is a manifold obtained as the orbit space of a free action $\alpha$ of the group $G =
{\mathbb{Z}}_N$ on $S^{2d-1}$.
The fake lens space $L^{2d-1}(\alpha)$ is a $(2d-1)$-dimensional manifold with $\pi_1 (L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) \cong G
= {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ and universal cover $S^{2d-1}$. The main theorem in this paper is:
\[main-thm\] Let $L^{2d-1}(\alpha)$ be a fake lens space with $\pi_1
(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ where $N = 2^K$ and $d \geq 3$. Then we have $$\label{sset-calc}
{\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) \cong \bar \Sigma \oplus \bar T \cong \bar
\Sigma \oplus \bigoplus_{i=1}^{c} {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \oplus \bigoplus_{i=1}^{c}
{\mathbb{Z}}_{2^{\min\{K,2i\}}}$$ where $\bar \Sigma$ is a free abelian group of rank $N/2-1$ if $d=2e+1$ and $N/2$ if $d=2e$ and $c = \lfloor (d-1)/2 \rfloor$.
The isomorphism (\[sset-calc\]) has an interpretation in terms of known geometric invariants. These are the [*reduced $\rho$-invariant*]{} and the [*normal invariants*]{} from surgery theory as follows.
The reduced $\rho$-invariant is a homomorphism $${\widetilde{\rho}}{\colon\!}{\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d}$$ where the target is the underlying abelian group of the $(-1)^d$-eigenspace of the rationalized complex representation ring of $G$ modulo the ideal generated by the regular representation. The group $\bar \Sigma$ is defined as the image of ${\widetilde{\rho}}$.
The normal invariant is a homomorphism $\eta {\colon\!}{\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha))$ with the target the group of normal invariants from surgery theory, which is easily calculable. The reduced $\rho$-invariant induces the homomorphism $$[{\widetilde{\rho}}] {\colon\!}\widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d}/4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d}.$$ Here the source is the subgroup of ${\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha))$ given by the image of $\eta$ and in the target we have the quotient group modulo the subgroup of elements in the $(-1)^d$-eigenspace of the representation ring which are divisible by $4$. We use formulas of Wall to show relations between the invariants ${\widetilde{\rho}}$ and $\eta$ in Proposition \[rho-formula-lens-sp\].
The group $\bar T$ is defined as the kernel of $[{\widetilde{\rho}}]$. In the proof of Proposition \[how-to-split-alpha-k\] we describe a map $\lambda {\colon\!}\bar T {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha))$ which fits into a short exact sequence $$0 {\longrightarrow}\bar T {\xrightarrow}{\lambda} {\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) {\xrightarrow}{{\widetilde{\rho}}}
\bar \Sigma {\longrightarrow}0.$$ Since $\bar \Sigma$ is a free abelian group the sequence splits and we obtain the isomorphism of Theorem \[main-thm\]. We denote the projection map on $\bar T$ by ${\mathbf{r}}{\colon\!}{\mathcal{S}}^s
(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) {\rightarrow}\bar T$. Our main technical result is the calculation of $\bar T$ in Theorems \[T-2\], \[T-N\]. It tells us that it is a direct sum of copies of $2$-primary cyclic groups which are indexed by $1 \leq i \leq 2c
$. We denote the projection on the $i$-th summand by ${\mathbf{r}}_{2i}$. Putting these considerations together we obtain the following corollary.
\[main-thm-2\] Let $L^{2d-1}(\alpha)$ be a fake lens space with $\pi_1
(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ where $N = 2^K$ and $d \geq 3$. There exists a collection of invariants $${\mathbf{r}}_{4i} {\colon\!}{\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{Z}}_{2^{\min\{K,2i\}}}
\quad \textup{and} \quad {\mathbf{r}}_{4i-2} {\colon\!}{\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha))
{\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{Z}}_2$$ where $1 \leq i \leq c = \lfloor (d-1)/2 \rfloor$ which together with the ${\widetilde{\rho}}$-invariant induce a one-to-one correspondence between elements $a \in {\mathcal{S}}^s(L^{2d-1}(\alpha))$ and
1. ${\widetilde{\rho}}(a) \in \bar \Sigma \subset {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d}$
2. ${\mathbf{r}}_{2i} (a) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_2, {\mathbb{Z}}_{2^{\min\{K,2i\}}}$.
The invariants ${\mathbf{r}}_{4i-2}$ are the normal invariants ${\mathbf{t}}_{4i-2}$ from [@Wall(1999) chapter 14E] and the invariants ${\mathbf{r}}_{4i}$ are related to the invariants ${\mathbf{t}}_{4i}$ from [@Wall(1999) chapter 14E], but they are not the same. The invariants ${\mathbf{t}}_{2i}$ can in principle be calculated using characteristic classes (see [@Morgan-Sullivan(1974)]) and for the lens spaces this has been done in [@Young(1998)], but the calculation does not include fake lens spaces. Admittedly, a similar ‘calculational’ description of the invariants ${\mathbf{r}}_{4i}$ would be desirable. We suspect that this might be related to calculations of codimension $2$ surgery obstructions to ‘desuspension’ of fake lens spaces (see subsection \[subsec:join\]). These are elements of the so-called $LS$-groups of [@Wall(1999) chapter 11], [@Ranicki(1981) chapter 7]. We plan to address this aspect in a future work.
The above results are about classification within a simple homotopy type. As stated in the introduction the simple homotopy types of fake lens spaces can be distinguished by the Reidemeister torsion which is a unit in ${\mathbb{Q}}R_G$, the rational group ring of $G$ modulo the ideal generated by the norm element.
To obtain classification of fake lens spaces rather than classification of elements of the simple structure set we follow Wall and work with polarized fake lens spaces, see Definition \[def-pol-lens-spc\]. The simple homotopy type of a polarized lens space is given uniquely by its Reidemeister torsion as described in Proposition \[prop-simple-htpy-class\]. That means that for two polarized fake lens spaces $L^{2d-1} (\alpha)$ and $L^{2d-1} (\beta)$ with the fundamental group $G$ there is a simple homotopy equivalence $f_{\alpha,\beta} {\colon\!}L^{2d-1}(\alpha) {\rightarrow}L^{2d-1} (\beta)$ of polarized fake lens spaces unique up to homotopy if and only if the Reidemeister torsions of $L^{2d-1}(\alpha)$ and $L^{2d-1}(\beta)$ coincide. This $f_{\alpha,\beta}$ gives us an element of the simple structure set ${\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\beta))$. We can formulate the classification as follows:
\[main-thm-3\] Let $L^{2d-1} (\alpha)$ and $L^{2d-1} (\beta)$ be polarized lens spaces with the fundamental group $G = {\mathbb{Z}}_N$, where $N = 2^K$ and $d \geq 3$. There exists a polarized homeomorphism between $L^{2d-1}
(\alpha)$ and $L^{2d-1} (\beta)$ if and only if
1. $\Delta (L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) = \Delta (L^{2d-1} (\beta))$,
2. $\rho (L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) = \rho (L^{2d-1} (\beta))$,
3. ${\mathbf{r}}_{2i} (f_{\alpha,\beta}) = 0$ for all $i$.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec:htpy-classification\] we briefly recall the simple homotopy classification of fake lens spaces. In section \[sec:ses\] we recall the general machinery of surgery theory and we describe the known terms in the surgery exact sequence of the fake lens spaces. In section \[sec:rho-invariant\] we recall the definition and properties of the $\rho$-invariant. Finally, in section \[sec:calculation\] we prove our main technical result which is the calculation of the group $\bar T$. Sections \[sec:htpy-classification\], \[sec:ses\] and most of section \[sec:rho-invariant\] is a summary of known results. Our contribution is concentrated in a part of section \[sec:rho-invariant\] and in the last section \[sec:calculation\].
We thank Diarmuid Crowley, Ian Hambleton and Andrew Ranicki for useful comments.
Homotopy classification {#sec:htpy-classification}
=======================
In this section we briefly recall without proofs the statements of the homotopy and simple homotopy classification of fake lens spaces from [@Wall(1999) chapter 14E]. Apart from definitions only Corollary \[lens-spaces-give-all-htpy-types\] is of importance for the rest of the paper.
We start by introducing some notation for [*lens spaces*]{} which are a special sort of fake lens spaces. Let $N \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $\bar k =
(k_1, \ldots k_d)$, where $k_i \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ are such that $(k_i,N)=1$. When $G = {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ define a representation $\alpha_{\bar k}$ of $G$ on ${\mathbb{C}}^d$ by $(z_1 \ldots , z_n) \mapsto (z_1 e^{2\pi i k_1/N},
\ldots, z_n e^{2\pi i k_d/N})$. Any free representation of $G$ on a $d$-dimensional complex vector space is isomorphic to some $\alpha_{\bar k}$. The representation $\alpha_{\bar k}$ induces a free action of $G$ on $S^{2d-1}$ which we still denote $\alpha_{\bar
k}$.
\[defn-lens-space\] A [*lens space*]{} $L^{2d-1}(\alpha_{\bar k})$ is a manifold obtained as the orbit pace of a free action $\alpha_{\bar k}$ of the group $G = {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ on $S^{2d-1}$ for some $\bar k = (k_1, \ldots
k_d)$ as above.[^1]
The lens space $L^{2d-1}(\alpha_{\bar k})$ is a $(2d-1)$-dimensional manifold with $\pi_1 (L^{2d-1}(\alpha_{\bar k})) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_N$. Its universal cover is $S^{2d-1}$, hence $\pi_i (L^{2d-1}(\alpha_{\bar
k})) \cong \pi_i (S^{2d-1})$ for $i \geq 2$. There exists a convenient choice of a CW-structure for $L^{2d-1}(\alpha_{\bar k})$ with one cell $e_i$ in each dimension $0 \leq i \leq 2d-1$. Moreover, we have $H_i (L^{2d-1}(\alpha_{\bar k})) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}$ when $i = 0,2d-1$, $H_i (L^{2d-1}(\alpha_{\bar k})) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ when $0
< i < 2d-1$ is odd and $H_i (L^{2d-1}(\alpha_{\bar k})) \cong 0$ when $i \neq 0$ is even.
The classification of the lens spaces up to homotopy equivalence and simple homotopy equivalence is presented for example in [@Milnor(1966)]. The simple homotopy classification is stated in terms of Reidemeister torsion which is a unit in ${\mathbb{Q}}R_G$. This ring is defined as ${\mathbb{Q}}R_G = {\mathbb{Q}}\otimes R_G$ with $R_G = {\mathbb{Z}}G /
\langle Z \rangle$ where ${\mathbb{Z}}G$ be the group ring of $G$ and $\langle Z \rangle$ is the ideal generated by the norm element $Z$ of $G$. We also suppose that a generator $T$ of $G$ is chosen. There is also an augmentation map $\varepsilon' {\colon\!}R_G {\rightarrow}{\mathbb{Z}}_N$ [@Wall(1999) page 214]. The homotopy classification is stated in terms of a certain unit in ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$. These invariants also suffice for the homotopy and simple homotopy classification of finite CW-complexes $L$ with $\pi_1 (L) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ and with the universal cover homotopy equivalent to $S^{2d-1}$ of which fake lens spaces are obviously a special case. It is convenient to make the following definition.
\[def-pol-lens-spc\] A [*polarization*]{} of a CW-complex $L$ as above is a pair $(T,e)$ where $T$ is a choice of a generator of $\pi_1 (L)$ and $e$ is a choice of a homotopy equivalence $e {\colon\!}{\widetilde{L}}{\rightarrow}S^{2d-1}$.
Denote further by $L^{2d-1}(\alpha_k)$ the lens space $L^{2d-1}(\alpha_{\bar k})$ with $\bar k = (1,\ldots,1,k)$. By $L^i(\alpha_1)$ is denoted the $i$-skeleton of the lens space $L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1)$. If $i$ is odd this is a lens space, if $i$ is even this is a CW-complex obtained by attaching an $i$-cell to the lens space of dimension $i-1$.
[[@Wall(1999) Theorem 14E.3]]{} \[prop-simple-htpy-class\] Let $L$ be a finite CW-complex as above polarized by $(T,e)$. Then there exists a simple homotopy equivalence $$h {\colon\!}L {\longrightarrow}L^{2d-2}(\alpha_1) \cup_\phi e^{2d-1}$$ preserving the polarization. It is unique up to homotopy and the action of $G$. The chain complex differential on the right hand side is given by $\partial_{2d-1} e^{2d-1} = e_{2d-2} (T-1) U$ for some $U \in {\mathbb{Z}}G$ which maps to a unit $u \in R_G$. Furthermore, the complex $L$ is a Poincaré complex.
1. The polarized homotopy types of such $L$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the units in ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$. The correspondence is given by $\varepsilon' (u) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_N$.
2. The polarized simple homotopy types of such $L$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the units in $R_G$. The correspondence is given by $u \in R_G$.
The existence of a fake lens space in the homotopy type of such $L$ is addressed in [@Wall(1999) Theorem 14E.4]. Since the units $\varepsilon' (u) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ are exhausted by the lens spaces $L^{2d-1}(\alpha_k)$ we obtain the following corollary.
\[lens-spaces-give-all-htpy-types\] For any fake lens space $L^{2d-1}(\alpha)$ there exists $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and a homotopy equivalence $$h {\colon\!}L^{2d-1}(\alpha) {\longrightarrow}L^{2d-1}(\alpha_k).$$
The surgery exact sequence {#sec:ses}
==========================
We proceed to the homeomorphism classification within a simple homotopy type. This is the standard task of surgery theory whose main tool is the surgery exact sequence computing the structure set ${\mathcal{S}}^s(X)$ for a given $n$-manifold $X$ with $n \geq 5$: $$\label{ses}
\cdots {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{N}}_\partial (X \times I) {\xrightarrow}{\theta} L^s_{n+1} (G)
{\xrightarrow}{\partial} {\mathcal{S}}^s (X) {\xrightarrow}{\eta} {\mathcal{N}}(X) {\xrightarrow}{\theta} L^s_n (G),$$ where $G = \pi_1 (X)$. The other terms in the sequence are reviewed below. We note that, since ${\mathcal{S}}^s (X)$ is a priori only a pointed set, the ‘exactness’ is to be understood as described in [@Wall(1999) chapter 10] or [@Lueck(2001) chapter 5]. However, the sequence can also be made into an exact sequence of abelian groups by the identification with the algebraic surgery exact sequence of Ranicki as explained in [@Ranicki(1992) chapter 18]. We will make use of this structure since it makes certain statements and proofs easier. However, our results can be also formulated without this identification, in a less neat way though.
By ${\mathcal{N}}(X)$ in (\[ses\]) is denoted the set of [*normal invariants*]{} of $X$. An element of ${\mathcal{N}}(X)$ is represented by a [*degree one normal map*]{} $(f,b) {\colon\!}M {\rightarrow}X$ which consists of a map $f {\colon\!}M {\rightarrow}X$ of oriented closed $n$-manifolds of degree $1$ and a stable bundle map $b {\colon\!}\nu_M {\rightarrow}\xi$ from the stable normal bundle of $M$ to a stable topological reduction $\xi$ of the stable Spivak normal fibration of $X$. Two such degree one normal maps $(f,b) {\colon\!}M {\rightarrow}X$, $(f',b') {\colon\!}M' {\rightarrow}X$ are equivalent in ${\mathcal{N}}(X)$ if there exists a degree one normal map $(F,B) {\colon\!}(W,M,M')
{\rightarrow}(X \times I, X \times 0,X \times 1)$ of manifolds with boundary which restricts on the two ends to $(f,b)$, $(f',b')$ respectively. Again this is a priori a set, with a base point $({\textup{id}},{\textup{id}}) {\colon\!}X {\rightarrow}X$. However, the Pontrjagin-Thom construction gives a bijection $$\label{pont-thom}
{\mathcal{N}}(X) {\xrightarrow}{\cong} [X;{\textup{G}}/{\textup{TOP}}]$$ where $[{\textup{---}},{\textup{---}}]$ denotes the homotopy classes of maps and ${\textup{G}}/{\textup{TOP}}$ is the classifying space for topological reductions of spherical fibrations. The $H$-space structure on ${\textup{G}}/{\textup{TOP}}$ coming from Sullivan characteristic variety theorem [@Madsen-Milgram(1979) chapter 4] (also called ‘disjoint union $H$-space structure’ in [@Ranicki(2008)]) makes ${\mathcal{N}}(X)$ into an abelian group. This $H$-space structure extends to an infinite loop space structure which expresses ${\mathcal{N}}(X)$ via localization in terms of familiar cohomology theories.
\[g/top\] There are compatible homotopy equivalences $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{TOP}_{(2)} & \simeq \Pi_{i \geq 1}
K(\mathbb{Z}_{(2)},4i) \times K(\mathbb{Z}_2,4i-2), \\
\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{TOP}_{(\mathrm{odd})} & \simeq \mathrm{BO}_{(\mathrm{odd})},\\
\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{TOP}_{(0)} & \simeq \mathrm{BO}_{(0)} \simeq
\Pi_{i \geq 1} K(\mathbb{Q},4i).\end{aligned}$$
\[ni\] If $X$ is rationally trivial we have an isomorphism of abelian groups $${\mathcal{N}}(X) \cong \bigoplus_{i \geq 1} H^{4i} (X ; {\mathbb{Z}}_{(2)}) \oplus
H^{4i-2} (X;{\mathbb{Z}}_2) \oplus KO (X) \otimes {\mathbb{Z}}[\frac{1}{2}]$$
Given $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $G$ a group there is defined an abelian group $L^s_n (G)$ [@Wall(1999) chapter 5,6]. For $n = 2k$ it is the Witt group of based $(-1)^k$-quadratic forms over the group ring ${\mathbb{Z}}G$, for $n = 2k+1$ it is a certain group of automorphisms of based $(-1)^k$-quadratic forms over ${\mathbb{Z}}G$. An alternative description of [@Ranicki(1992)] gives these groups uniformly for all $n$ as cobordism groups of bounded chain complexes of based ${\mathbb{Z}}G$-modules with an $n$-dimensional Poincaré duality. The precise definition is not that important for us. We are mainly interested in the invariants which detect these groups for $G \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_N$.
\[L(1)\] For $G = 1$ we have $$L^s_n (1) \cong
\begin{cases}
8 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}& n \equiv 0 \quad ({\textup{mod }}4) \; (\mathrm{signature}) \\
0 & n \equiv 1 \quad ({\textup{mod }}4) \\
{\mathbb{Z}}_2 & n \equiv 2 \quad ({\textup{mod }}4) \; (\mathrm{Arf}) \\
0 & n \equiv 3 \quad ({\textup{mod }}4)
\end{cases}$$
Here ‘signature’ in the last column means that $L^s_{4k} (1) \cong 8
\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}$ is given by the signature of a quadratic form over ${\mathbb{Z}}$, and ‘Arf’ means that $L^s_{4k+2} (1) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ is given by the Arf invariant of a quadratic form over ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$. For $G \neq 1$ functoriality gives maps $L^s_n (1) {\rightarrow}L^s_n (G)$ and $L^s_n (G)
{\rightarrow}L^s_n(1)$ yielding the splitting $$\label{reduced-L(G)}
L^s_n (G) \cong L^s_n (1) \oplus {\widetilde{L}}^s_n (G).$$
Further information about the $L$-groups of finite groups is obtained using representation theory. For a finite group $G$ complex conjugation induces an involution on the complex representation ring $R_{{\mathbb{C}}} (G)$. One can define $(\pm 1)$-eigenspaces denoted $R_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{(\pm 1)} (G)$. In terms of characters the $(+1)$-eigenspace corresponds to real characters, the $(-1)$-eigenspace corresponds to purely imaginary characters.
A non-degenerate $(-1)^k$-quadratic form over ${\mathbb{Z}}G$ can be complexified. One can take its associated non-degenerate $(-1)^k$-symmetric bilinear form and consider the positive and negative definite ${\mathbb{C}}$-vector subspaces. These become $G$-representations and hence can be subtracted in $R_{{\mathbb{C}}} (G)$. This process defines the $G$-signature homomorphism (see [@Wall(1999) chapter 13] or [@Ranicki(1992) chapter 22]) $${\textup{G-sign}}{\colon\!}L^s_{2k} (G) {\rightarrow}R_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{(-1)^k} (G).$$ Its image is $4 \cdot R_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{(-1)^k} (G)$. In case $G = {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ for $N = 2^K$ the $L$-groups are completely calculated (see [@Hambleton-Taylor(2000)]):[^2]
\[L(G)\] For $G = {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
L^s_n (G) & \cong
\begin{cases}
4 \cdot R_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{(+1)} (G) & n \equiv 0 \; ({\textup{mod }}4) \; ({\textup{G-sign}}, \;
\mathrm{purely} \; \mathrm{real}) \\
0 & n \equiv 1 \; ({\textup{mod }}4) \\
4 \cdot R_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{(-1)} (G) \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}_2 & n \equiv 2 \; ({\textup{mod }}4) \;
({\textup{G-sign}}, \; \mathrm{purely}
\; \mathrm{imaginary}, \mathrm{Arf}) \\
{\mathbb{Z}}_2 & n \equiv 3 \; ({\textup{mod }}4) \; (\mathrm{codimension} \; 1 \;
\mathrm{Arf})
\end{cases} \\
\widetilde L^s_{2k} (G) & \cong 4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^k} \;
\textit{where} \; {R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^k} \; \textit{is} \; R_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{(-1)^k}
(G) \; \textit{modulo the regular representation.}\end{aligned}$$
Next we describe briefly the maps in (\[ses\]). If $n=2k$ the map $\theta$ is given by first making the degree one normal map $(f,b)
{\colon\!}M {\rightarrow}X$ $k$-connected and then taking the quadratic refinement of the $(-1)^k$-symmetric bilinear form over ${\mathbb{Z}}[G]$ on the kernel of $f_\ast {\colon\!}H_k (\widetilde M) {\rightarrow}H_k (\widetilde X)$. The exactness at ${\mathcal{N}}(X)$ means that there is a degree one normal map $(f',b') {\colon\!}M' {\rightarrow}X$ with $f'$ a homotopy equivalence in the normal cobordism class of $(f,b)$ if and only if $\theta (f,b) = 0$.
The map $\eta$ is given by taking the stable normal bundle $\nu_M$ of $f {\colon\!}M {\xrightarrow}{\simeq_s} X$ and associating to it $(f,b) {\colon\!}M {\rightarrow}X$ with $b {\colon\!}\nu_M {\rightarrow}(f^{-1})^\ast \nu_M$ induced by $f$.
To describe $\partial$ we need the realization theorem for elements of $L^s_n (G)$. It says that if $M^{n-1}$ is a manifold and $x \in
L^s_n (G)$ there exists a degree one normal map $(F,B) {\colon\!}(W,\partial_0 W, \partial_1 W) {\rightarrow}(M \times I, M \times 0, M \times
1)$, where $I = [0,1]$, such that $\partial_0 F {\colon\!}\partial_0 W {\rightarrow}M \times 0$ is a homeomorphism, $\partial_1 F
{\colon\!}\partial_1 W {\rightarrow}M \times 1$ is a simple homotopy equivalence and $\theta (F,B) = x$. The ‘map’ $\partial$ in fact means that there is an action of $L^s_n (G)$ on ${\mathcal{S}}^s (X)$ given as follows. Let $f {\colon\!}M {\rightarrow}X \in {\mathcal{S}}^s (X)$ and $x \in L^s_n (G)$, then $\partial (x,f)$ is given by $\partial_1 F_1 \circ f {\colon\!}\partial_1
W {\rightarrow}X$ where $(F,B) {\colon\!}W {\rightarrow}M \times I$ realizes $x$. When the abelian group structure of [@Ranicki(1992) chapter 18] is imposed on ${\mathcal{S}}^s (X)$ the action $\partial$ corresponds to the group action of the subgroup generated by the image of $\partial$ on ${\mathcal{S}}^s (X)$.
Hence the problem of determining ${\mathcal{S}}^s(X)$ in general consists of determining firstly ${\mathcal{N}}(X)$, which is tractable via standard algebraic topology, secondly $L^s_n (G)$ which we know in our case, thirdly determining the maps $\partial$, $\eta$, $\theta$ and finally solving an extension problem which is left over.
\[s-vs-h\] One can also define the [*structure set*]{} ${\mathcal{S}}^h (X)$ of an $n$-manifold $X$. Here, in comparison with the definition of ${\mathcal{S}}^s
(X)$, one replaces simple homotopy equivalences by homotopy equivalences and the homeomorphism relation by the $h$-cobordism relation. There is a version of the sequence (\[ses\]) in this situation and again the theory of [@Ranicki(1992) chapter 18] makes it into a long exact sequence of abelian groups. The obvious map ${\mathcal{S}}^s (X) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{S}}^h (X)$ is a homomorphism.
Complex projective spaces {#subsec:cp}
-------------------------
We also need the discussion of the classification problem for the complex projective spaces. This is useful also since the discussion is simpler in this case and will give us a simple example of the strategy we will need later.
The complex projective space ${\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}$ is defined as the quotient of the diagonal $S^1$-action on $S^{2d-1} = S^1 \ast \cdots
\ast S^1$ ($d$-factors). As a real manifold it has dimension $2d-2$ and $\pi_1 ({\mathbb{C}}P^n) = 1$. Hence from (\[L(1)\]) we have that the surgery exact sequence for ${\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}$ becomes the short exact sequence $$\label{ses-cp^d-1}
0 {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{S}}^s ({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{N}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}) {\xrightarrow}{\theta}
L^s_{2d-2}(1) {\rightarrow}0.$$ For the normal invariants we have $$\label{ni-cp^d-1}
{\mathcal{N}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}) \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^{\lfloor(d-1)/2\rfloor}
H^{4i} ({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1};{\mathbb{Z}}) \oplus \bigoplus_{i=1}^{\lfloor d/2
\rfloor} H^{4i-2} ({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1};{\mathbb{Z}}_2).$$ Further we can identify the factors $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{s}}_{4i} & {\colon\!}{\mathcal{N}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}) {\rightarrow}H^{4i} ({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1};{\mathbb{Z}}) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}\cong L_{4i} (1) \\
{\mathbf{s}}_{4i-2} & {\colon\!}{\mathcal{N}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}) {\rightarrow}H^{4i-2} ({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1};{\mathbb{Z}}_2)
\cong {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \cong L_{4i-2} (1)\end{aligned}$$ as surgery obstructions of degree one normal maps obtained from $(f,b) {\colon\!}M {\rightarrow}{\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}$ by first making $f$ transverse to ${\mathbb{C}}P^{k-1}$ (for $s_{2i}$ where $i = k-1$) and then taking the surgery obstruction of the degree one map obtained by restricting to the preimage of ${\mathbb{C}}P^i$. The maps ${\mathbf{s}}_{2i}$ are called the [*splitting invariants*]{}. We will sometimes use (\[ni-cp\^d-1\]) to identify the elements of ${\mathcal{N}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1})$ by $s = (s_{2i})_i$.
The surgery obstruction map $\theta$ takes the top summand of ${\mathcal{N}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1})$ isomorphically onto $L^s_{2d-2} (1)$. Hence the short exact sequence (\[ses-cp\^d-1\]) splits and we obtain the bijection of ${\mathcal{S}}^s ({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1})$ given by the splitting invariants ${\mathbf{s}}_{2i}$ for $0 < i < d-1$: $$\label{ss-cp^d-1}
\bigoplus _{0 < i < d-1} {\mathbf{s}}_{2i} {\colon\!}{\mathcal{S}}^s ({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1})
{\xrightarrow}{\cong} \bigoplus_{0 < i < d-1} L^s_{2i} (1).$$ If we think of ${\mathcal{S}}^s ({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1})$ as of an abelian group via Ranicki’s identification [@Ranicki(1992) chapter 18], then the map (\[ss-cp\^d-1\]) is an isomorphism.
Preliminaries for lens spaces
-----------------------------
When $X$ is a fake lens space $L^{2d-1}(\alpha)$ with $\pi_1
(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) \cong G = {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ for $N=2^K$ we obtain some information about the surgery exact sequence for $L^{2d-1}(\alpha)$ from Corollary \[ni\] and Theorem \[L(G)\]. In more detail $$\label{ni-lens-spaces}
{\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^{\lfloor (d-1)/2
\rfloor } H^{4i} (L^{2d-1}(\alpha);{\mathbb{Z}}) \oplus
\bigoplus_{i=1}^{\lfloor d/2 \rfloor} H^{4i-2}
(L^{2d-1}(\alpha);{\mathbb{Z}}_2)$$ We denote the factors $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{t}}_{4i} & {\colon\!}{\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) {\rightarrow}H^{4i} (L^{2d-1}(\alpha);{\mathbb{Z}}) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_{2^K} \\
{\mathbf{t}}_{4i-2} & {\colon\!}{\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) {\rightarrow}H^{4i-2}
(L^{2d-1}(\alpha);{\mathbb{Z}}_2) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_2\end{aligned}$$ and similarly as above we will sometimes use (\[ni-lens-spaces\]) to identify the elements of ${\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha))$ by $t =
(t_{2i})_i$. More information is obtained from the following
1. If $d=2e$, then the map $$\theta {\colon\!}{\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) {\rightarrow}L^s_{2d-1}(G) = L^s_{4e-1}(G) =
{\mathbb{Z}}_2$$ is given by $\theta (x) = {\mathbf{t}}_{4e-2} (x) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_2$.
2. The map $$\theta {\colon\!}{\mathcal{N}}_\partial(L^{2d-1}(\alpha) \times I) {\rightarrow}L^s_{2d}(G)$$ maps onto the summand $L^s_{2d}(1)$.
Hence we obtain the short exact sequence $$\label{ses-lens-2d-1}
0 {\rightarrow}{\widetilde{L}}^s_{2d} (G) {\xrightarrow}{\partial} {\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha))
{\xrightarrow}{\eta} \widetilde{{\mathcal{N}}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) {\rightarrow}0$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{{\mathcal{N}}}(L^{4e-1}(\alpha)) & = \mathrm{ker} \; \big (
{\mathbf{t}}_{4e-2} {\colon\!}{{\mathcal{N}}}(L^{4e-1}(\alpha)) {\rightarrow}H^{4e-2} (L^{4e-1}(\alpha);{\mathbb{Z}}_2) \cong {\mathbb{Z}}_2 \big ), \\
\widetilde{{\mathcal{N}}}(L^{4e+1}(\alpha)) & = {\mathcal{N}}(L^{4e+1}(\alpha)).\end{aligned}$$ in other words $$\label{red-ni-lens-spaces}
\widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^{c} {\mathbb{Z}}_N
\oplus \bigoplus_{i=1}^{c} {\mathbb{Z}}_2$$ where $c = \lfloor (d-1)/2 \rfloor$. The first term in the sequence (\[ses-lens-2d-1\]) is understood by Theorem \[L(G)\], the third term is understood by (\[red-ni-lens-spaces\]). Hence we are left with an extension problem.
The Join Construction {#subsec:join}
---------------------
We will make use of the join construction from [@Wall(1999) chapter 14A]. It can be explained as follows. Let $G$ be a group (in our case $G \leq S^1$) acting freely on the spheres $S^m$ and $S^n$. Then the two actions extend to the join $S^{m+n+1} \cong S^m
\ast S^n$ and the resulting action remains free. When we are given two lens spaces (complex projective spaces) $L$ and $L'$, we can pass to universal covers ($S^1$-bundles), form the join and then pass to the quotient again. The resulting space is again a fake lens space (a fake complex projective space). This operation will be denoted $L \ast L'$ and it will be called the [*join*]{}. When $L' =
L^1(\alpha_1)$ we call this operation a [*suspension*]{}.
The join with $L^1(\alpha_k)$ defines a map $\Sigma_k {\colon\!}{\mathcal{S}}^s
(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1)) {\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{S}}^s(L^{2d+1}(\alpha_k))$. The inclusion $L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1) \subset L^{2d+1}(\alpha_k)$ induces a restriction map on the normal invariants ${\textup{res}}{\colon\!}{\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d+1}(\alpha_k)) {\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$ and we have a commutative diagram [@Wall(1999) Lemma 14A.3]: $$\label{susp-diagram}
\begin{split}
\xymatrix{
{\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1)) \ar[r]^{\eta} \ar[d]_{\Sigma_k} & {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1)) \\
{\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d+1}(\alpha_k)) \ar[r]^{\eta} & {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d+1}(\alpha_k))
\ar[u]_{{\textup{res}}} }
\end{split}$$ Note that we have $t_{2i} = {\textup{res}}(t_{2i})$. Hence the map $${\textup{res}}{\colon\!}\widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d+1}(\alpha_1)) {\longrightarrow}\widetilde
{\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1} (\alpha_1))$$ is an isomorphism when $d = 2e+1$ and it is onto when $d = 2e$ with the kernel equal to ${\mathbb{Z}}_N(t_{4e})$. A similar diagram exists for the situation ${\mathbb{C}}P^d = {\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1} \ast \mathrm{pt}$.
The map $\Sigma_k$ is a homomorphism when the structure sets are equipped with the abelian groups structure from [@Ranicki(1992) chapter 18]. To see this notice that $$L^{2d+1}(\alpha_k) = E(\nu) \cup_{S(\nu)} C$$ where $E(\nu)$ is the total space of the normal disk-bundle of $L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1)$ in $L^{2d+1}(\alpha_k)$, $S(\nu)$ is the associated sphere-bundle and $C$ is the complement (it is the total space of a disk-bundle over $L^1(\alpha_k)$). Then there is a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1)) \ar[d]_{\Sigma_k} \ar[dr]^{\nu^{!}} & \\
{\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d+1}(\alpha_k)) \ar[r]_{\cong} & {\mathcal{S}}^s (E(\nu),S(\nu)) }$$ The map in the bottom row is obtained using [@Wall(1999) Theorem 12.1]. It follows from the calculation ${\mathcal{S}}^s_\partial
(C) = 0$ that it is an isomorphism. The map $\nu^{!}$ is the transfer map obtained via pullback. This coincides with the algebraic surgery transfer map from [@Ranicki(1992) chapter 21].[^3]
The $\rho$-invariant {#sec:rho-invariant}
====================
We review the definition of the $\rho$-invariant for odd-dimensional manifolds and some of its properties from [@Atiyah-Singer-III(1968)] and [@Wall(1999)]. It will provide us with a map from the short exact sequence (\[ses-lens-2d-1\]) to a certain short exact sequence coming from representation theory of $G$. Studying this map will enable us to solve the extension problem we are left with in the next section.
Definitions
-----------
Let $G$ be a compact Lie group acting smoothly on a smooth manifold $Y^{2d}$. The middle intersection form becomes a non-degenerate $(-1)^d$-symmetric bilinear form on which $G$ acts. As explained earlier, such a form yields an element in the representation ring $R(G)$ which we denote by ${\textup{G-sign}}(Y)$. The discussion in section \[sec:ses\] also tells us that we have ${\textup{G-sign}}(Y) \in R^{(-1)^d}
(G)$ which in terms of characters means that we obtain a real (purely imaginary) character, which will be denoted as ${\textup{G-sign}}(-,Y)
{\colon\!}g \in G \mapsto {\textup{G-sign}}(g,Y) \in {\mathbb{C}}$. The (cohomological version of the) Atiyah-Singer $G$-index theorem [@Atiyah-Singer-III(1968) Theorem (6.12)] tells us that if $Y$ is closed then for all $g \in G$ $$\label{ASGIT}
{\textup{G-sign}}(g,Y) = L(g,Y) \in {\mathbb{C}},$$ where $L(g,Y)$ is an expression obtained by evaluating certain cohomological classes on the fundamental classes of the $g$-fixed point submanifolds $Y^g$ of $Y$. In particular if the action is free then ${\textup{G-sign}}(g,Y) = 0$ if $g \neq 1$. This means that ${\textup{G-sign}}(Y)$ is a multiple of the regular representation. This theorem was generalized by Wall to topological semifree actions on topological manifolds, which is the case we will need in this paper [@Wall(1999) chapter 14B]. The assumption that $Y$ is closed is essential here, and motivates the definition of the $\rho$-invariant. In fact, Atiyah and Singer provide two definitions. For the first one one also needs the result of Conner and Floyd [@Conner-Floyd(1964)] that for an odd-dimensional manifold $X$ with a finite fundamental group there always exists a $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and a manifold with boundary $(Y,\partial Y)$ such that $\pi_1 (Y) \cong \pi_1 (X)$ and $\partial Y = k \cdot X$.
[[@Atiyah-Singer-III(1968) Remark after Corollary 7.5]]{} \[defn-rho-1\] Let $X^{2d-1}$ be a closed manifold with $\pi_1 (X) \cong G$ a finite group. Define $$\rho (X) = \frac{1}{k} \cdot {\textup{G-sign}}(\widetilde Y) \in {\mathbb{Q}}R^{(-1)^d}
(G)/ \langle \textup{reg} \rangle$$ for some $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $(Y,\partial Y)$ such that $\pi_1 (Y) \cong
\pi_1 (X)$ and $\partial Y = k \cdot X$. The symbol $\langle
\textup{reg} \rangle$ denotes the ideal generated by the regular representation.
By the Atiyah-Singer $G$-index theorem [@Atiyah-Singer-III(1968) Theorem (6.12)] is $\rho$ well defined.
\[defn-rho-2\] Let $G$ be a compact Lie group acting freely on a manifold ${\widetilde{X}}^{2d-1}$. Suppose in addition that there is a manifold with boundary $(Y,\partial Y)$ on which $G$ acts (not necessarily freely) and such that $\partial Y = {\widetilde{X}}$. Define $$\rho_G ({\widetilde{X}}) {\colon\!}g \in G \mapsto {\textup{G-sign}}(g,Y) - L(g,Y) \in {\mathbb{C}}.$$
In this definition we think about the $\rho$-invariant as about a function $G {\smallsetminus}\{1\} {\rightarrow}{\mathbb{C}}$. When both definitions apply (that means when $G$ is a finite group), then they coincide, that means $\rho (X) = \rho_G ({\widetilde{X}})$.
For finite $G < S^1$ we will use special notation following [@Wall(1999) Proof of Proposition 14E.6 on page 222]. By ${\widehat{G}}$ is denoted the Pontrjagin dual of $G$, the group ${\textup{Hom}}_{\mathbb{Z}}(G,S^1)$. Recall that for a finite cyclic $G$ the representation ring $R(G)$ can be canonically identified with the group ring ${\mathbb{Z}}{\widehat{G}}$. Then we also have ${\mathbb{Q}}R(G) = {\mathbb{Q}}\otimes R(G) = {\mathbb{Q}}{\widehat{G}}$. Dividing out the regular representation corresponds to dividing out the norm element, denoted by $Z$, hence $R(G)/\langle \textup{reg} \rangle =
R_{{\widehat{G}}} = {\mathbb{Z}}{\widehat{G}}/\langle Z \rangle$ and ${\mathbb{Q}}R(G)/\langle
\textup{reg} \rangle = {\mathbb{Q}}R_{{\widehat{G}}} = {\mathbb{Q}}{\widehat{G}}/\langle Z \rangle$. Choosing a generator ${\widehat{G}}= \langle \chi \rangle$ gives the identifications ${\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}= {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]/\langle 1+\chi +\cdots +
\chi^{N-1} \rangle$ where $N$ is the order of $G$. In order to save space we also use the following notation $I \langle K \rangle =
\langle 1 + \chi + \cdots + \chi^{N-1} \rangle$.
Recall that $R(G)$ contains two eigenspaces $R(G)^{\pm}$ with respect to the conjugation action. In terms of the above identification of $R(G)$ and ${R_{\widehat G}}$ with the polynomial rings we have identifications: $$\begin{aligned}
{R_{\widehat G}}^- & = \langle \chi^k - \chi^{N-k} \; | \; k = 1, \ldots, (N/2)-1 \rangle \\
&= \{ \; p \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle \; | \; p (\chi^{N-1}) = - p (\chi) \; \}, \\
{R_{\widehat G}}^+ & = \langle \chi^k + \chi^{N-k} \; | \; k = 0, \ldots, (N/2)-1 \rangle \\
&= \{ \; p \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle \; | \; p (\chi^{N-1}) = p (\chi) \; \textup{and} \; p(-1) \equiv 0 \; {\textup{mod }}2 \; \}. \end{aligned}$$
Properties
----------
The $\rho$-invariant is an $h$-cobordism invariant [@Atiyah-Singer-III(1968) Corollary 7.5]. For $X^{2d-1}$ with $\pi_1 (X) \cong
G$ it defines a function of ${\mathcal{S}}^s (X)$ by sending $a = [h {\colon\!}M
{\longrightarrow}X]$ to ${\widetilde{\rho}}(a) = \rho(M) - \rho (X)$. If we put on ${\mathcal{S}}^s
(X)$ the abelian group structure from [@Ranicki(1992) chapter 18] it is not clear whether ${\widetilde{\rho}}$ is a homomorphism in general.[^4] Still the following property holds always.
For $X^{2d-1}$ with $\pi_1 (X) \cong G$ there is a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
L^s_{2d} (G) \ar[r]^{\partial} \ar[d]^{{\textup{G-sign}}} & {\mathcal{S}}^s(X) \ar[d]^{{\widetilde{\rho}}} \\
4 \cdot R_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{(-1)^d} (G) \ar[r] & {\mathbb{Q}}R_{{\mathbb{C}}}^{(-1)^d}
(G)/\langle \textup{reg} \rangle . }$$ Moreover, for $z \in L^s_{2d} (G)$ and $x \in {\mathcal{S}}^s(X)$ we have $${\widetilde{\rho}}(x+\partial z) = {\widetilde{\rho}}(x) + {\widetilde{\rho}}(\partial z).$$
See [@Petrie(1970) Theorem 2.3]. It essentially follows from definitions. We also use the identification of the geometrically given action of $L^s_{2d} (G)$ on ${\mathcal{S}}^s(X)$ with the action coming from the abelian group structure on ${\mathcal{S}}^s(X)$ of [@Ranicki(1992) chapter 18].
\[rho-factors\] The map ${\widetilde{\rho}}$ also obviously factors through the map ${\mathcal{S}}^s (X)
{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{S}}^h (X)$ of Remark \[s-vs-h\].
When $X = L^{2d-1}(\alpha_k)$, it follows from the above diagram, the exactness of the surgery exact sequence, the Atiyah-Singer $G$-index theorem and the calculation of the groups $L^s_{2d} (G)$ that the action of ${\widetilde{L}}^s_{2k} (G)$ on ${\mathcal{S}}^s(L^{2k-1})$ is free. In fact we have
\[ses-vs-rep-thy\] There is the following commutative diagram of abelian groups and homomorphisms with exact rows $$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & {\widetilde{L}}^s_{2d} (G) \ar[r]^(0.4){\partial}
\ar[d]_{\cong}^{{\textup{G-sign}}} & {\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) \ar[r]^{\eta}
\ar[d]^{\widetilde \rho}&
\widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) \ar[r] \ar[d]^{[\widetilde \rho]}& 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & 4 \cdot R^{(-1)^d}_{\widehat G} \ar[r] & {\mathbb{Q}}R^{(-1)^d}_{\widehat G} \ar[r] & {\mathbb{Q}}R^{(-1)^d}_{\widehat G}/ 4
\cdot R^{(-1)^d}_{\widehat G} \ar[r] & 0 }$$ where $[{\widetilde{\rho}}]$ is the homomorphism induced by ${\widetilde{\rho}}$.
All the statements follow from the previous discussion except the claim that ${\widetilde{\rho}}$ and $[{\widetilde{\rho}}]$ are homomorphisms. This will be proved in this section, first for $\alpha_1$, then for $\alpha_k$, and finally for general $\alpha$. To this end we need some way to calculate the $\rho$-invariant for fake lens spaces. The formulas we obtain will give us first a good understanding of the map $[{\widetilde{\rho}}]$. Using certain naturality properties we will obtain also the claim about ${\widetilde{\rho}}$.
Recall the join $L \ast L'$ of the lens spaces $L$ and $L'$ from section \[subsec:join\]. We have [@Wall(1999) chapter 14A] $$\rho (L \ast L') = \rho (L) \cdot \rho (L').$$ For $L^1(\alpha_k)$ we have [@Wall(1999) Proof of Theorem 14C.4] $$\rho (L^1(\alpha_k)) = f_k \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}^-}$$ where $f_k$ is defined as follows.
For odd $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ we set $$f_k := \frac{1+\chi^k}{1-\chi^k} \mathrm{\qquad and \qquad} f'_k :=
\frac{1-\chi+\chi^2-\cdots-\chi^{k-2}+\chi^{k-1}}{1+\chi+\chi^2+\cdots+\chi^{k-2}+\chi^{k-1}}.$$ We abbreviate $f := f_1$.
\[f\_k-lem\] Let $G = {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ with $N=2^K$. For odd $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ we have $$f_k \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}^-}, \qquad f_k = f \cdot f'_k, \qquad f'_k \in {R_{\widehat G}}.$$
Notice that $1-\chi^k$ is invertible in ${\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}$ because $$(1-\chi^k)^{-1} = -\frac{1}{N}(1 + 2 \cdot \chi^k + 3 \cdot
\chi^{2k} + \cdots + N \cdot \chi^{(N-1)k}) \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}.$$ Therefore $f_k \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}$ and the identity $$\frac{1+\chi^{-k}}{1-\chi^{-k}} = - \frac{1+\chi^k}{1-\chi^k} = -
f_k$$ implies $f_k \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}^-}$. An easy calculation shows $f_k = f
\cdot f'_k$. That $f'_k \in {R_{\widehat G}}$ follows from the fact that $1+\chi+\chi^2+\cdots+\chi^{k-1}$ is invertible in ${R_{\widehat G}}$. The inverse is given by $1+\chi^k+\chi^{2k}+\cdots+\chi^{(r-1)k}$ where $r$ denotes a natural number such that $r \cdot k-1$ is a multiple of $N=2^K$.
Also a formula of Wall which calculates the $\rho$-invariant for fake complex projective spaces will be useful. Let $a = [h {\colon\!}Q
{\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}]$ be an element of ${\mathcal{S}}^s ({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1})$ and let $\widetilde h {\colon\!}\widetilde Q {\longrightarrow}S^{2d-1}$ be the associated map of $S^1$-manifolds. Denote ${\widetilde{\rho}}_{S^1} (a) := {\widetilde{\rho}}_{S^1}
(\widetilde Q) - {\widetilde{\rho}}_{S^1} (S^{2d-1})$ defining a function of ${\mathcal{S}}^s ({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1})$.
[[@Wall(1999) Theorem 14C.4]]{} \[rho-formula-cp\] Let $a = [h {\colon\!}Q {\rightarrow}{\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}]$ be an element in ${\mathcal{S}}^s ({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1})$. Then for $t \in S^1$ $${\widetilde{\rho}}_{S^1} (t,a) = \sum_{1 \leq i \leq \lfloor d/2 \rfloor -1} 8
\cdot {\mathbf{s}}_{4i} (\eta (a)) \cdot (f^{d-2i} - f^{d-2i-2}) \in {\mathbb{C}},$$ where $f = (1+t)/(1-t)$.
Among other things this also shows that ${\widetilde{\rho}}_{S^1}$ is a homomorphism of ${\mathcal{S}}^s ({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1})$. Coming back to lens spaces recall that there is an $S^1$-bundle (better $L^1(\alpha_1)$-bundle) $p {\colon\!}L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1) {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}$. Via pullback it induces a commutative diagram $$\label{res-diag}
\begin{split}
\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal{S}}^s ({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1} ) \ar[d]^{p^{!}} \ar[r]^{\eta} & {\mathcal{N}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}) \ar[d]^{p^{!}} \ar[r] & L_{2(d-1)} (1) \\
{\widetilde{L}}^s_{2d} (G) \ar[r] & {\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1)) \ar[r]^{\eta} &
\widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1)) \ar[r] & 0 }
\end{split}$$ With the abelian group structure of [@Ranicki(1992) chapter 18] the maps $p^{!}$ are homomorphisms by the identification of geometric and algebraic transfers. Another way of thinking about $p^{!}$ is that it is given by passing to the subgroup $G < S^1$. Since the $\rho$-invariant is natural for passing to subgroups we obtain
[[@Wall(1999) Theorem 14E.8]]{} \[rho-formula-1-lens-sp\] Let $a \in {\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$ such that $a = p^{!} (b)$ for some $b \in {\mathcal{S}}^s ({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1})$. Then $${\widetilde{\rho}}(a) = \sum_{1 \leq i \leq \lfloor d/2 \rfloor -1} 8 \cdot
{\mathbf{s}}_{4i} (\eta (b)) \cdot (f^{d-2i} - f^{d-2i-2}) \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d},$$ where $f = (1+\chi)/(1-\chi)$.
For the map $p^{!} {\colon\!}{\mathcal{N}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}) {\longrightarrow}\widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1} (\alpha_1))$ we have $$p^{!} (s_{4i-2}) = t_{4i-2} \quad p^{!} (s_{4i}) = t_{4i}$$ and hence it is surjective. If the map ${\mathcal{S}}^s ({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{N}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$ were surjective we could use Corollary \[rho-formula-1-lens-sp\] to give a formula for the function $[{\widetilde{\rho}}]$. This is the case when $d = 2e$. In the case $d =
2e+1$ all the summands but the ${\mathbb{Z}}_N ( t_{4e})$ from ${\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$ are hit from ${\mathcal{S}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1})$. We need the following
\[last-summand\] Let $d = 2e+1$ and let $a \in {\mathcal{S}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$ be such that $a \mapsto {\mathbf{t}}(\eta(a))=(0,\ldots,1) \in {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$, i.e. ${\mathbf{t}}(\eta(a))_{4i} = 0$ for $i \leq e-1$ and ${\mathbf{t}}(\eta(a))_{4e}=1$. Then $$\widetilde\rho (a) = 8 f + z \quad \in \quad {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}^-}$$ for some $z \in 4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}^-}$.
We will use the suspension map $\Sigma_1$ from section \[subsec:join\]. Our assumptions mean that ${\mathbf{t}}(\eta(a))$ is not in the image of the composition ${\mathcal{S}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{N}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1}) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$. However, diagram (\[susp-diagram\]) tells us that ${\mathbf{t}}(\eta (\Sigma_1(a)))$ is in the image of ${\mathcal{S}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{(d+1)-1}) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{N}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{(d+1)-1}) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{N}}(L^{2(d+1)-1}(\alpha_1))$ and hence we have $$f \cdot \widetilde\rho (a) + y = 8 \cdot 1 \cdot (f^2 -1) \quad \in
\quad {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}^+}$$ for some $y \in 4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}^+}$. We obtain the desired identity by the following calculation. Let ${\widehat{\rho}}\in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]$ and ${\widehat{y}}\in 4
\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ be representatives for ${\widetilde{\rho}}(a)$ and $y$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
(1+\chi)(1-\chi){\widehat{\rho}}+ (1-\chi)^2 {\widehat{y}}& \equiv 8 \cdot (4 \chi) \quad \quad \quad {\textup{mod }}I \langle K \rangle \\
(1+\chi)(1-\chi){\widehat{\rho}}+ (1-\chi)^2 ({\widehat{y}}+8) & \equiv 8 \cdot (1+\chi)^2 \quad \; {\textup{mod }}I \langle K \rangle \\
(1+\chi)(1-\chi){\widehat{\rho}}+ (1-\chi)^2 ({\widehat{y}}+8) & = 8 \cdot (1+\chi)^2 +
g(\chi) (1 + \chi + \cdots + \chi^{N-1}) \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]\end{aligned}$$ for some $g(\chi) \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]$. Hence ${\widehat{y}}+8 = (1+\chi) w(\chi)$ for some $w(\chi) \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]$. Since $({\widehat{y}}+ 8) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$, we obtain $w(\chi) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$. Further write $g
(\chi) = 2r+(1+\chi) g'(\chi) = r (1-\chi) + (1+\chi) (r+g'(\chi))$ for $r \in {\mathbb{Q}}$, $g' (\chi) \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
(1-\chi){\widehat{\rho}}+ (1-\chi)^2 w(\chi) & = 8 \cdot (1+\chi) + g(\chi) (1
+ \chi^2 + \cdots \chi^{N-2}) \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]\end{aligned}$$ and further modulo $I \langle K \rangle$ $$\begin{aligned}
(1-\chi){\widehat{\rho}}+ (1-\chi)^2 w(\chi) & \equiv 8 \cdot (1+\chi) + r (1-\chi) (1 + \chi^2 + \cdots \chi^{N-2}) \\
{\widehat{\rho}}+ (1-\chi) w(\chi) & \equiv 8 \cdot f + r (1 + \chi^2 + \cdots
\chi^{N-2})\end{aligned}$$ Now $(1-\chi)w(\chi) = (2-(1+\chi))w(\chi) = 2w(\chi) - ({\widehat{y}}+ 8)$. Further $2w(\chi) = w^+(\chi) + w^-(\chi)$, where $w^\pm(\chi) := w(\chi) \pm w(\chi^{-1}) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle $. Hence $${\widetilde{\rho}}(a) - 8 \cdot f + w^-(\chi) = ({\widehat{y}}+8) - w^+ (\chi) + r (1 +
\chi^2 + \cdots + \chi^{N-2})$$ in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle$, while the left hand side of the equation lies in the $(-1)$-eigenspace and the right-hand side lies in the $(+1)$-eigenspace and hence both are equal to $0$. It follows that $${\widetilde{\rho}}(a)= 8 \cdot f - w^-(\chi).$$ Putting $z = - w^-(\chi)$ yields the desired formula.
\[all-summands-d=2e+1\] Let $d = 2e+1$ and let $a \in {\mathcal{S}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$. Then $$\widetilde\rho (a) = 8 \cdot {\mathbf{t}}_{4e} (\eta(a)) \cdot f + \!\!
\sum_{1 \leq i \leq \lfloor d/2 \rfloor -1} \!\! 8 \cdot {\mathbf{t}}_{4i}
(\eta(a)) \cdot (f^{d-2i} - f^{d-2i-2}) + z \quad \in \quad {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}^-}$$ for some $z \in 4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}^-}$.
Proof is by a straightforward modification of the proof of Lemma \[last-summand\].
\[rho-formula-lens-sp\] For the map $[{\widetilde{\rho}}] {\colon\!}\widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1)) {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d} / 4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d}$ and an element $t =
(t_{2i})_i \in \widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
d = 2e \; : \; [\widetilde \rho] (t) & = \sum_{i=1}^{e-1} 8 \cdot
t_{4i} \cdot f^{d-2i-2} \cdot (f^2-1) \\
d = 2e+1 \; : \; [\widetilde \rho] (t) & = \sum_{i=1}^{e-1} 8 \cdot
t_{4i} \cdot f^{d-2i-2} \cdot (f^2-1) + 8 \cdot t_{4e} \cdot f.\end{aligned}$$
It is enough to find for each $t \in \widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$ some $a \in {\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$ with ${\mathbf{t}}(\eta(a))=t$ and for which we can calculate ${\widetilde{\rho}}(a) \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d}$. If $d = 2e$ then by discussion after Corollary \[rho-formula-1-lens-sp\] there is for each normal cobordism class a fake lens space which fibers over a fake complex projective space and hence the formula from Corollary \[rho-formula-1-lens-sp\] gives the desired formula. If $d = 2e+1$ then the same reasoning applied to Lemma \[all-summands-d=2e+1\] gives the desired formula.
\[rho-homomorphism\] The function ${\widetilde{\rho}}{\colon\!}{\mathcal{S}}^s(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1)) {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d}$ is a homomorphism.
It is enough to show that for every $t$, $t' \in \widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$ there exist elements (not necessarily unique) $a$, $a'$ in ${\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$ such that ${\mathbf{t}}(\eta(a)) =
t$, ${\mathbf{t}}(\eta(a')) = t'$ and ${\widetilde{\rho}}(a+a') = {\widetilde{\rho}}(a) + {\widetilde{\rho}}(a')$. If this holds, then for any $x,x' \in {\mathcal{S}}^s
(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$ choose $a$ and $a'$ as above corresponding to the classes ${\mathbf{t}}(\eta(x))$, ${\mathbf{t}}(\eta(y)) \in {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}
(\alpha_1))$. Then $x = a +\partial(b)$ and $x' = a' +
\partial(b')$ for some $b$, $b' \in \partial {\widetilde{L}}^s_{2d} (G)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde{\rho}}(x+x') = & {\widetilde{\rho}}(a + \partial b + a' + \partial b') = {\widetilde{\rho}}(a + a') +
{\widetilde{\rho}}(\partial b + \partial b') \\
= & {\widetilde{\rho}}(a) + {\widetilde{\rho}}(a') + {\widetilde{\rho}}(\partial b) + {\widetilde{\rho}}(\partial b')
= {\widetilde{\rho}}(x) + {\widetilde{\rho}}(x').\end{aligned}$$
When $d=2e$ we can associate to a given $t \in {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$ an $a \in {\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$ coming from the ${\mathcal{S}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1})$, i.e. $a = p^{!} (b)$ where $b \in {\mathcal{S}}({\mathbb{C}}P^{d-1})$ such that $p^{!} (\eta (b)) = t$. When we have $t$, $t'\in {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$, then ${\widetilde{\rho}}(a+a') = {\widetilde{\rho}}(p^{!}
(b) + p^{!} (b')) = {\widetilde{\rho}}(p^{!} (b + b')) = {\textup{res}}({\widetilde{\rho}}_{S^1} (b +
b')) = {\textup{res}}({\widetilde{\rho}}_{S^1} (b) + {\widetilde{\rho}}_{S^1} (b')) = {\textup{res}}({\widetilde{\rho}}_{S^1}
(b)) + {\textup{res}}({\widetilde{\rho}}_{S^1} (b')) = {\widetilde{\rho}}(a) + {\widetilde{\rho}}(a')$. Here ${\textup{res}}$ denotes the map on the representation rings induced by the inclusion $G < S^1$.
When $d = 2e+1$ and $t \in {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$ we can do the same unless $t_{4e} \neq 0$. In that case there is no fake lens space in the normal cobordism class of ${\mathbf{t}}$ which fibers over a fake complex projective space and we have to use a different argument. It follows from the formula in Proposition \[rho-formula-lens-sp\] that for $a, a' \in {\mathcal{S}}^s
(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$ we have ${\widetilde{\rho}}(a+a') = {\widetilde{\rho}}(a) + {\widetilde{\rho}}(a')
+ z$ for some $z \in 4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}}^-$. If $a$, $a'$ are in the same normal cobordism class then $z = 0$. Our task is to show this for any choice of $a$, $a'$. We use the fact that $\Sigma$ is a homomorphism and that we have already proved the claim for $d =
2e+2$. That implies ${\widetilde{\rho}}(\Sigma (a+a')) = {\widetilde{\rho}}(\Sigma a +
\Sigma a')) = {\widetilde{\rho}}(\Sigma a) + {\widetilde{\rho}}(\Sigma a') = f \cdot {\widetilde{\rho}}(a) + f \cdot {\widetilde{\rho}}(a')$. On the other hand ${\widetilde{\rho}}(\Sigma (a+a')) =
f \cdot {\widetilde{\rho}}(a+a') = f \cdot {\widetilde{\rho}}(a) + f \cdot {\widetilde{\rho}}(a') + f
\cdot z$. Hence it is enough to show that for any $z \in 4 \cdot
{R_{\widehat G}}^-$ such that $f \cdot z = 0$ in ${\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^+$ we have $z = 0$ in $4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}}^-$. This is proved below in Lemma \[injectivity-mult-f\].
Now we proceed to the case of $\alpha_k$ where $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ is odd.
\[rho-formula-lens-sp-k\] For the map $[{\widetilde{\rho}}] {\colon\!}\widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_k)) {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d} / 4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d}$ an element $t =
(t_{2i})_i \in \widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_k))$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
d = 2e \; : \; [\widetilde \rho] (t) & = \sum_{i=1}^{e-1} 8 \cdot
t_{4i} \cdot f'_k \cdot f^{d-2i-2} \cdot (f^2-1) \\
d = 2e+1 \; : \; [\widetilde \rho] (t) & = \sum_{i=1}^{e-1} 8 \cdot
t_{4i} \cdot f'_k \cdot f^{d-2i-2} \cdot (f^2-1) + 8 \cdot t_{4e}
\cdot f'_k \cdot f.\end{aligned}$$
We will use the calculation for $\alpha_1$ and the homeomorphisms $$L^{2d+1}(\alpha_k) \cong L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1) \ast L^1(\alpha_k) \quad
\mathrm{and} \quad L^{2d+1}(\alpha_k) \cong L^{2d-1}(\alpha_k) \ast
L^1(\alpha_1)$$ For $d=2e$ recall the diagram $$\begin{split}
\xymatrix{ {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^- \ar[d]^{\cdot f_k} & {\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{4e-3}
(\alpha_1)) \ar[l]_(0.6){{\widetilde{\rho}}}
\ar[d]^{\Sigma_k} \ar@{-{>>}}[r]^{\eta} & \widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{4e-3} (\alpha_1)) \\
{\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^+ & {\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{4e-1} (\alpha_k)) \ar[l]_(0.6){{\widetilde{\rho}}}
\ar@{-{>>}}[r]^{\eta} & \widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{4e-1} (\alpha_k))
\ar[u]_{{\textup{res}}}^{\cong} }
\end{split}$$ Let $t \in \widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{4e-1}(\alpha_k))$. Choose $x \in
{\mathcal{S}}^s(L^{4e-3}(\alpha_1))$ such that ${\mathbf{t}}(\eta (x)) = t = {\textup{res}}(t)$. Then we have ${\mathbf{t}}(\eta (\Sigma_k x)) = t$ and $[{\widetilde{\rho}}] (\eta
(\Sigma_k x)) = [{\widetilde{\rho}}(x) \cdot f_k]$ can be calculated using the formulas from the case $k=1$.
For $d=2e+1$ recall the diagram $$\begin{split}
\xymatrix{ {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^- \ar[d]^{\cdot f} & {\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{4e+1} (\alpha_k))
\ar[l]_(0.6){{\widetilde{\rho}}} \ar[d]^{\Sigma_1} \ar@{-{>>}}[r]^{\eta} & \widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{4e+1} (\alpha_k)) \\
{\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^+ & {\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{4e+3} (\alpha_k)) \ar[l]_(0.6){{\widetilde{\rho}}}
\ar@{-{>>}}[r]^{\eta} & \widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{4e+3} (\alpha_k))
\ar[u]_{{\textup{res}}}^{\cong} }
\end{split}$$ Let $t \in \widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{4e+1}(\alpha_k))$. Choose $x \in
{\mathcal{S}}^s(L^{4e+1}(\alpha_1))$ such that ${\mathbf{t}}(\eta (x)) = t$. Then we have ${\mathbf{t}}(\eta (\Sigma_1 x)) = t$ and ${\widetilde{\rho}}(\Sigma_1 x) = {\widetilde{\rho}}(x) \cdot f$. We obtain the equation $$f \cdot {\widetilde{\rho}}(x) + y = \sum_{i=1}^{e-1} 8 \cdot t_{4i} \cdot f'_k
\cdot f^{d+1-2i-2} \cdot (f^2-1) + 8 \cdot t_{4e} \cdot f'_k \cdot
(f^2 -1) \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^+$$ for some $y \in 4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}}^+$ using the formulas from the case $d
= 2e+2$ which we have already dealt with. Now a modification of the argument from the proof of Lemma \[last-summand\] can be used to obtain the formula for $[{\widetilde{\rho}}] (\eta (x))$.
The function ${\widetilde{\rho}}{\colon\!}{\mathcal{S}}^s(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_k)) {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d}$ is a homomorphism.
Just as in the case $\alpha_1$ we have to show that the addition of elements in different normal cobordism classes works. For this it is enough to find suitable representatives. In the case $d=2e$ we can choose in each normal cobordism class an element coming from ${\mathcal{S}}^s
(L^{4e-3} (\alpha_1))$. In the case $d=2e+1$ there is again a problem with the summand ${\mathbb{Z}}_N (t_{4e})$ which can be resolved by the same reasoning as in the case $\alpha_1$.
The function ${\widetilde{\rho}}{\colon\!}{\mathcal{S}}^s(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d}$ is a homomorphism.
From Corollary \[lens-spaces-give-all-htpy-types\] we have that for some $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ there is a homotopy equivalence $f {\colon\!}L^{2d-1}(\alpha) {\rightarrow}L^{2d-1} (\alpha_k)$. It induces a homomorphism $f_\ast {\colon\!}{\mathcal{S}}^s(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{S}}^s(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_k))$. We will show that ${\widetilde{\rho}}= {\widetilde{\rho}}\circ f_\ast$. This implies that ${\widetilde{\rho}}$ is a homomorphism of ${\mathcal{S}}^s(L^{2d-1}(\alpha))$ since it is equal to a composition of homomorphisms.
We use the observation from Remark \[rho-factors\] and the composition formula of [@Ranicki(2008) Theorem 2.3]. Let $h {\colon\!}L {\rightarrow}L^{2d-1}(\alpha)$ represent an element $a \in {\mathcal{S}}^s
(L^{2d-1}(\alpha))$ and note that the homotopy equivalence $f$ represents an element in ${\mathcal{S}}^h (L^{2d-1}(\alpha_k))$, call it $b$. The composition $h \circ f$ represents another element in ${\mathcal{S}}^h
(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_k))$, call it $c$. The formula of [@Ranicki(2008) Theorem 2.3] says $f_\ast a = b-c$. Now clearly $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde{\rho}}(f_\ast a) & = {\widetilde{\rho}}(b) -{\widetilde{\rho}}(c) = \\
& = \rho (L) - \rho
(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_k)) - \rho(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) +
\rho(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_k)) = {\widetilde{\rho}}(a).\end{aligned}$$ This finishes the proof.
Calculations {#sec:calculation}
============
We want to prove Theorem \[main-thm\] by investigating the short exact sequence (\[ses-lens-2d-1\]) using the relation to a short exact sequence from representation theory of $G$ via the $\rho$-invariant as described in Proposition \[ses-vs-rep-thy\]. Theorem \[main-thm\] is obtained when we put together statements of Theorems \[how-to-split-alpha-k\], \[T-2\] and \[T-N\].
\[how-to-split-alpha-k\] Let $\bar T = \ker [{\widetilde{\rho}}] {\colon\!}\widetilde {\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha))
{\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d}/4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d}$. Then we have $${\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) \cong \bar \Sigma \oplus \bar T$$ where $\bar \Sigma = {\widetilde{\rho}}({\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha)))$ is a free abelian group of rank $N/2-1$ if $d=2e+1$ and of rank $N/2$ if $d=2e$.
Recall the commutative diagram of Proposition \[ses-vs-rep-thy\]. Since ${\widetilde{\rho}}$ is a homomorphism, we have that $\bar \Sigma$ is a subgroup of ${\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d}$, which as an abelian group is a direct sum of $N/2-1$ copies of ${\mathbb{Q}}$ if $d=2e+1$ and of $N/2$ copies of ${\mathbb{Q}}$ if $d=2e$. It contains a subgroup ${\widetilde{\rho}}(\partial \widetilde L^s_{2d} (G))$ which is a free abelian group of the same rank as the theorem claims for $\bar
\Sigma$ in the respective cases. The claim about the rank of $\bar
\Sigma$ follows.
Now replace in the diagram of Proposition \[ses-vs-rep-thy\] the middle and the third term of the lower sequence by the image of ${\widetilde{\rho}}$ and by the image of $[{\widetilde{\rho}}]$ respectively. Then the right hand square becomes a pullback square. It follows that $\bar T$ is isomorphic to the kernel of the map ${\widetilde{\rho}}{\colon\!}{\mathcal{S}}^s
(L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) {\longrightarrow}\bar \Sigma$. We obtain a short exact sequence of abelian groups $$0 {\longrightarrow}\bar T {\xrightarrow}{\lambda} {\mathcal{S}}^s (L^{2d-1}(\alpha)) {\xrightarrow}{{\widetilde{\rho}}}
\bar \Sigma {\longrightarrow}0$$ where $\bar \Sigma$ is a free abelian group and hence the sequence splits.
So our goal is to understand the subgroup $\bar T$ of $\widetilde
{\mathcal{N}}(L^{2d-1}(\alpha_1))$, which is a group isomorphic to the direct sum $T_N (d) \oplus T_2(d)$ of an $N$-torsion group $T_N(d)$ and a $2$-torsion group $T_2(d)$ $$T_N (d) = \bigoplus_{i=1}^{c} {\mathbb{Z}}_N = \bigoplus_{i=1}^{c} {\mathbb{Z}}_N
(t_{4i}) \quad T_2 (d) = \bigoplus_{i=1}^{c} {\mathbb{Z}}_2 =
\bigoplus_{i=1}^{c} {\mathbb{Z}}_2 (t_{4i+2}).$$ where $c = \lfloor (d-1)/2 \rfloor$. We will denote $\bar T_N (d) =
\bar T \cap T_N (d)$, $\bar T_2 (d) = \bar T \cap T_2 (d)$ and we will determine the two subgroups separately.
\[T-2\] We have $$\bar T_2 (d) = T_2 (d)$$
By Proposition \[rho-formula-lens-sp\] the formula for $[{\widetilde{\rho}}]$ only depends on $t_{4i}$.
\[T-N\] We have $$\bar T_N (d) = \bigoplus_{i=1}^{c} {\mathbb{Z}}_{2^{\min\{K,2i\}}}$$ where $c = \lfloor (d-1)/2 \rfloor$.
In view of Proposition \[rho-formula-lens-sp-k\] it is convenient to make the following reformulation. If $d = 2e$ then the group $T_N
(d)$ can be identified with the underlying abelian group ${\mathbb{Z}}_N
[x](d)$ of the truncated polynomial ring in the variable $x$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split} \label{T-N-ident-2e}
T_N (d) & {\xrightarrow}{\cong} {\mathbb{Z}}_N[x](d) := \{ q(x) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_N [x] \; | \;
\deg(q)
\leq c-1 \} \\
t = (t_{4i})_{i=1}^{c} & \mapsto q_t(x) = \sum_{i=0}^{c-1}
t_{4(i+1)} \cdot x^{c-i-1}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The map $[{\widetilde{\rho}}]$ becomes $$\label{wrho-formula-2e}
q \mapsto 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot (f^2 -1) \cdot q(f^2).$$ If $d = 2e+1$ then the group $T_N (d)$ can be identified with the underlying abelian group ${\mathbb{Z}}_N [x](d)$ of the truncated polynomial ring in the variable $x$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split} \label{T-N-ident-2e+1}
T_N (d) & {\xrightarrow}{\cong} {\mathbb{Z}}_N[x](d) := \{ q(x) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_N [x] \; | \;
\deg(q) \leq c-1 \} \\
t = (t_{4i})_{i=1}^{c} & \mapsto q_t(x) = \sum_{i=1}^{c-1}
t_{4i} \cdot x^{c-i-1}(x-1) + t_{4c} \\
& \quad\quad\quad\; = \sum_{i=1}^{c-1} (t_{4(i+1)}-t_{4i}) x^{c-i-1}
+ t_{4}x^{c-1}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The map $[{\widetilde{\rho}}]$ then becomes $$\label{wrho-formula-2e+1}
q \mapsto 8 \cdot f_k \cdot q(f^2).$$ Further it is convenient to work with the underlying abelian group of $${\mathbb{Z}}[x](d) := \{ q(x) \in {\mathbb{Z}}[x] \; | \; \deg(q) \leq c-1 \},$$ use the formulas (\[wrho-formula-2e\]), (\[wrho-formula-2e+1\]) to define a map $[\widehat \rho] \colon {\mathbb{Z}}[x](d) {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d}$ and study the preimage of $4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}}^{(-1)^d}$. So the task becomes to find $$\begin{aligned}
A^k_K(2e) & := \left\lbrace q \in {\mathbb{Z}}[x] \mid \deg(q) \leq c-1, \;
8 \cdot f'_k
\cdot (f^2-1) \cdot q(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/\langle I \langle K \rangle \right\rbrace,\\
A^k_K(2e+1) & := \left\lbrace q \in {\mathbb{Z}}[x] \mid \deg(q) \leq c-1, \;
8 \cdot f_k \cdot q(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle
\right\rbrace.\end{aligned}$$ Here we have replaced $4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}}^{\pm}$ by the bigger $4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / \langle K \rangle$. This is legal since when the expressions in question are in $4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/I \langle K \rangle$ then they always fulfil the additional conditions to be elements of $4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}}^{\pm}$. We will show that $A^k_K(d) = B_K(d)$ where $B_K(d)$ is a subgroup of polynomials described in terms of certain polynomials $r^\pm_n(x)$ of degree $n$ for all $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$. These are the best polynomial of degree $n$ in a sense that $$\begin{aligned}
8 \cdot f'_k \cdot (f^2-1) \cdot r^+_n(f^2) & \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/I \langle 2n+2 \rangle \\
8 \cdot f_k \cdot r^-_n(f^2) & \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/I \langle 2n+2
\rangle\end{aligned}$$ and for all polynomials $q \in {\mathbb{Z}}[x]$ of degree $n$ with leading coefficient 1 we have $$\begin{aligned}
8 \cdot f'_k \cdot (f^2-1) \cdot q(f^2) & \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/I \langle 2n+3 \rangle \\
8 \cdot f_k \cdot q(f^2) & \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+3
\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ We define $$\begin{aligned}
& B_K(2e) := \left\lbrace \sum_{n=0}^{c-1} a_n \cdot 2^{{\textup{max}}\{K-2n-2,0\}} \cdot r^+_n \mid a_n \in {\mathbb{Z}}\right\rbrace,\\
& B_K(2e+1) := \left\lbrace \sum_{n=0}^{c-1} a_n \cdot
2^{{\textup{max}}\{K-2n-2,0\}} \cdot r^-_n \mid a_n \in {\mathbb{Z}}\right\rbrace.\end{aligned}$$
\[thm:A=B\] $$A^k_K(d) = B_K(d)$$
It follows from Theorem \[thm:A=B\] and the definition of $B_K(d)$ that $A_K^k(d)$ is a free abelian subgroup of ${\mathbb{Z}}[x](d)$ with a basis given by polynomials $r_n^\pm$. Under the homomorphism ${\mathbb{Z}}[x](d) {\rightarrow}{\mathbb{Z}}_N[x](d)$ the subgroup $A_K^k (d)$ is mapped onto a subgroup isomorphic to a direct sum as claimed by the theorem.
**Scheme of the proof of Theorem \[thm:A=B\].**
The proof requires a formidable amount of machinery and special constructions. For better orientation we offer the following scheme.
In subsection \[subsec:w-l\] we develop some general methods for deciding whether a given element $g \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / I \langle K
\rangle$ is in $4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle$ or not. We use the Chinese remainder theorem and certain ‘valuation’ functions $w_l$ on ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]/I \langle K \rangle$. These are effectively calculable as is shown in Lemma \[calc-rules-w\_l\]. The criteria for deciding whether $g$ is in $4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / I \langle K
\rangle$ or not using $w_l$ are presented in Theorem \[w\_l-theorem\]. Later we apply the criteria to decide whether a polynomial $q \in {\mathbb{Z}}[x](d)$ is in $A_K^k (d)$ or not, but there is a problem that we do not obtain a necessary and sufficient condition since the criteria do not apply to all $g \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / I \langle
K \rangle$. In the sequel we therefore have to combine the $w_l$-technology with some ad hoc considerations.
In subsection \[subsec:good-polys\] we construct a sequence of polynomials in ${\mathbb{Z}}[x](d)$ for $d=2e+1$ which are good in a sense that they have the leading coefficient $1$ and they yield elements in $4\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle$ for a large $K$ in comparison with the other polynomials of the same degree with leading coefficient $1$. First we construct auxiliary polynomials $p_k$ in Definition \[p-k-defn\], which are used to define ‘good’ polynomials $q_n$ in Definition \[q-n-defn\]. These are in turn be used to define ‘the best’ polynomials $r_n^-$ in Definition \[r\_n-defn\]. This last definition is inductive, the crucial inductive step is described in Proposition \[r\_n-prop\]. The ‘goodness’ properties are summarized in Corollary \[p\_k-w\_l\] ($p_k$), in Proposition \[K(q-n)-prop\] ($q_n$) and in Corollary \[r\_n-properties\] ($r^-_n$).
The final subsection \[subsec:A=B\] completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:A=B\]. This part treats first the case $d = 2e+1$ and proceeds by induction on $K$. The proof in the case $d=2e$ is short and proceeds by a reduction to the case $d=2e+1$.
$w_l$ technology {#subsec:w-l}
----------------
For given $g \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}$ we want to decide whether $g \in 4 \cdot
{R_{\widehat G}}$ or not using the homomorphisms ${\textup{pr}}_l: {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}\cong {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]
/ I \langle K \rangle \twoheadrightarrow {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / \langle
1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle$ for $0 \leq l \leq K-1$. Obviously, $g \in 4
\cdot {R_{\widehat G}}$ implies ${\textup{pr}}_l(g) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / \langle
1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle$. Of more interest is the other direction. By the Chinese remainder theorem $g$ is uniquely determined by the elements ${\textup{pr}}_l(g)$ ($0 \leq l \leq K-1$). More precisely, we have
\[Chinese remainder-trick\] Let $g \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}$. Then $$g = \sum_{l=0}^{K-1} 2^{l-K} \cdot g_l \cdot (1-\chi) \cdot
\prod_{\stackrel{0 \leq r \leq K-1}{r \neq l}} (1+\chi^{2^r})$$ for any elements $g_l \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}$ satisfying ${\textup{pr}}_l(g_l) =
{\textup{pr}}_l(g)$.
If ${\textup{pr}}_l(g) \in 2^{2+K-l} \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / \langle 1+\chi^{2^l}
\rangle$ we can choose $g_l \in 2^{2+K-l} \cdot {R_{\widehat G}}$ satisfying ${\textup{pr}}_l(g_l) = {\textup{pr}}_l(g)$ and the lemma above shows $g \in 4 \cdot
{R_{\widehat G}}$. Motivated by this observation we want to analyze whether ${\textup{pr}}_l(g)$ lies in $2^m \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / \langle 1+\chi^{2^l}
\rangle$ for some integer $m$. For this purpose we will introduce $w_l$-functions which are generalizations of the p-adic valuation for $p=2$.
Before we do so, we give the proof of Lemma \[Chinese remainder-trick\] and consider an application (Lemma \[injectivity-mult-f\]).
We have ${\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}\cong {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle$ where $I
\langle K \rangle$ was defined as $I \langle K \rangle := \langle
1+\chi+\cdots+\chi^{2^K-1} \rangle$. Notice that $1+\chi+\cdots+\chi^{2^K-1} = \prod_{m=0}^{K-1} (1+\chi^{2^m})$. Since the factors $1+\chi^{2^m}$ are mutually coprime in the principal ideal domain ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]$, it suffices to check the desired equality under the epimorphism ${\textup{pr}}_m$ for $0 \leq m \leq K-1$. In ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / \langle 1+\chi^{2^m} \rangle$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& {\textup{pr}}_m \left( \sum_{l=0}^{K-1} 2^{l-K} \cdot g_l \cdot (1-\chi) \cdot \prod_{\stackrel{0 \leq r \leq K-1}{r \neq l}} (1+\chi^{2^r}) \right) & =\\
& \sum_{l=0}^{K-1} 2^{l-K} \cdot {\textup{pr}}_m(g) \cdot (1-\chi) \cdot \prod_{\stackrel{0 \leq r \leq K-1}{r \neq l}} (1+\chi^{2^r}) & =\\
& 2^{m-K} \cdot {\textup{pr}}_m(g) \cdot (1-\chi) \cdot \prod_{\stackrel{0 \leq r \leq K-1}{r \neq m}} (1+\chi^{2^r}) & =\\
& 2^{m-K} \cdot {\textup{pr}}_m(g) \cdot (1-\chi) \cdot (1+\chi+\cdots+\chi^{2^m-1}) \cdot \prod_{r=m+1}^{K-1} (1+(-1)^{2^{r-m}}) & =\\
& 2^{m-K} \cdot {\textup{pr}}_m(g) \cdot (1-\chi^{2^m}) \cdot 2^{K-1-m} \qquad
= \qquad {\textup{pr}}_m(g). &\end{aligned}$$
As a warm-up in learning how to work with Lemma \[Chinese remainder-trick\] we prove the following lemma needed in the proof of Proposition \[rho-homomorphism\].
\[injectivity-mult-f\] Let $z \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^-$. If $f \cdot z = 0$ in ${\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^+$ then $z =
0$.
It follows from Lemma \[Chinese remainder-trick\] that it is sufficient to show ${\textup{pr}}_l(z) = 0$ for all $0 \leq l \leq K-1$. We have ${\textup{pr}}_l(f) \cdot pr_l(z) = pr_l(f \cdot z) = 0$. Notice that ${\textup{pr}}_l(f)$ is invertible for $l \geq 1$ since $$(1+\chi)^{-1} = \frac{1}{2} \cdot (1-\chi+\chi^2-\chi^3+ \cdots
-\chi^{2^l-1}) \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]/\langle 1 + \chi^{2^l} \rangle.$$ This implies $pr_l(z)=0$ for $l \geq 1$. Further recall that we can write $z \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}^-$ as $$z = \sum_{r=1}^{N/2-1} a_r \cdot (\chi^r - \chi^{N-r}).$$ with $a_r \in {\mathbb{Q}}$. Since $\chi^r - \chi^{N-r}$ is a multiple of $1
+ \chi$, we conclude ${\textup{pr}}_0 (z) = 0$.
The following lemma is needed for the definition of the $w_l$-functions.
\[preparation-w\_l\] Let $g \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}$ and $l \geq 0$ such that $(1+\chi^{2^l}) \nmid
g$.
1. There exist $a, u \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, $b \in \{0,1,\cdots,2^l-1\}$ and $v_1, v_2 \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ such that
- ${\textup{pr}}_l(g)$ and $\frac{2^a}{u} \cdot \left( (1-\chi)^b \cdot v_1(\chi) + 2 \cdot v_2(\chi) \right)$ coincide in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / \langle 1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle$,
- $u$ and $v_1(1)$ are odd.
Moreover, if ${\textup{pr}}_l(g)\in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / \langle 1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle$ then $u$ can be chosen to be 1.
2. The numbers $a$ and $b$ are uniquely determined by $g$ and $l$.
\(1) There exists $w \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $w \cdot {\textup{pr}}_l(g) \in
{\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / \langle 1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle$. We write $w = 2^{a_1}
\cdot u$ with $u$ odd. Choose $z \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ of degree $\deg(z) <
2^l$ such that $w \cdot {\textup{pr}}_l(g)$ and $z(\chi)$ coincide in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / \langle 1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle$. We write $z$ as $z(\chi)
= \sum_{m=0}^{2^l-1} z_m \cdot (1-\chi)^m$ with $z_m \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Since $(1+\chi^{2^l})$ does not divide $g$, we have $z \neq 0$. Hence there exists a largest number $a_2 \in {\mathbb{N}}_0$ such that $\frac{z}{2^{a_2}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$. Define $a:=-a_1+a_2$, $b:=\min\left\lbrace m \; \big\vert \; 2 \nmid
\frac{z_m}{2^{a_2}}\right\rbrace$, $v_1(\chi):=\sum_{m=b}^{2^l-1}
\frac{z_m}{2^{a_2}} \cdot (1-\chi)^{m-b}$ and $v_2(\chi) :=
\sum_{m=0}^{b-1} \frac{z_m}{2^{a_2+1}} \cdot (1-\chi)^m$. Then $v_1(1) = \frac{z_b}{2^{a_2}}$ is odd and ${\textup{pr}}_l(g)$ coincides with $$\frac{2^a}{u} \cdot \left( (1-\chi)^b \cdot v_1(\chi) + 2 \cdot
v_2(\chi) \right)$$ in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / \langle 1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle$.
\(2) Let $a, a', u, u' \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, $b, b' \in \{0,1,\cdots,l-1\}$ and $v_1, v'_1, v_2, v'_2 \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ such that $u, u', v_1(1),
v'_1(1)$ are odd and $$\begin{aligned}
{\textup{pr}}_l(g) & = \frac{2^a}{u} \cdot \left( (1-\chi)^b \cdot v_1(\chi) + 2 \cdot v_2(\chi) \right)\\
& = \frac{2^{a'}}{u'} \cdot \left( (1-\chi)^{b'} \cdot v'_1(\chi) +
2 \cdot v'_2(\chi) \right)\end{aligned}$$ in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / \langle 1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle$.
We first prove $a = a'$ by contradiction. Assume that $a < a'$. In ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / \langle 1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle$ we get $$u' \cdot \left( (1-\chi)^b \cdot v_1(\chi) + 2 \cdot v_2(\chi)
\right) = 2^{a'-a} \cdot u \cdot \left( (1-\chi)^{b'} \cdot
v'_1(\chi) + 2 \cdot v'_2(\chi) \right).$$ Hence there exists $q \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]$ with $$\begin{aligned}
& u' \cdot \left( (1-\chi)^b \cdot v_1(\chi) + 2 \cdot v_2(\chi) \right) =\\
& 2^{a'-a} \cdot u \cdot \left( (1-\chi)^{b'} \cdot v'_1(\chi) + 2
\cdot v'_2(\chi) \right) + q(\chi) \cdot (1+\chi^{2^l}).\end{aligned}$$ The equation above implies $q(\chi) \cdot (1+\chi^{2^l}) \in
{\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ and hence $q \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$. Under the epimorphism ${\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] \twoheadrightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi]$ this equation becomes to $$(1+\chi)^b \cdot \overline{v_1}(\chi) = \overline{q}(\chi) \cdot
(1+\chi^{2^l}).$$ Since $1+\chi^{2^l} = (1+\chi)^{2^l}$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi]$ (proof by induction), we conclude $\overline{v_1}(\chi) = \overline{q}(\chi)
\cdot (1+\chi)^{2^l-b}$ and hence $\overline{v_1}(1) = 0$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi]$. This is a contradiction to $v_1(1)$ odd. Therefore, we have $a = a'$.
It remains to prove $b = b'$. We give again a proof by contradiction. Assume that $b < b'$. In ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / \langle
1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle$ we have $$u' \cdot \left( (1-\chi)^b \cdot v_1(\chi) + 2 \cdot v_2(\chi)
\right) = u \cdot \left( (1-\chi)^{b'} \cdot v'_1(\chi) + 2 \cdot
v'_2(\chi) \right).$$ Hence there exists $q \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]$ with $$\begin{aligned}
& u' \cdot \left( (1-\chi)^b \cdot v_1(\chi) + 2 \cdot v_2(\chi) \right) =\\
& u \cdot \left( (1-\chi)^{b'} \cdot v'_1(\chi) + 2 \cdot v'_2(\chi)
\right) + q(\chi) \cdot (1+\chi^{2^l}).\end{aligned}$$ We conclude $q \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$. Under the epimorphism ${\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]
\twoheadrightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi]$ this equation becomes to $$(1+\chi)^b \cdot \overline{v_1}(\chi) = (1+\chi)^{b'} \cdot
\overline{v'_1}(\chi) + \overline{q}(\chi) \cdot (1+\chi^{2^l}).$$ We finally get $\overline{v_1}(\chi) = (1+\chi)^{b'-b} \cdot
\overline{v'_1}(\chi) + \overline{q}(\chi) \cdot (1+\chi)^{2^l-b}$ and hence $\overline{v_1}(1) = 0$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi]$ contradicting $v_1(1)$ odd. This shows $b = b'$.
\[def-w\_l\] For $l \geq 0$ define $$\begin{aligned}
w_l & \colon {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}{\longrightarrow}\frac{1}{2^l} \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}\cup \{\infty\} \\
& g \mapsto
\begin{cases} a+b/2^l \quad \mathrm{with \;} a, b \mathrm{\; as \; in \; Lemma \; \ref{preparation-w_l} \; when \;} (1+\chi^{2^l}) \nmid g\\
\infty \quad \mathrm{when \;} (1+\chi^{2^l}) \mid g
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
Roughly speaking, $w_l$ counts how many factors of $2$ are contained in ${\textup{pr}}_l(g)$. We have the following calculation rules.
\[calc-rules-w\_l\] Let $g_1, g_2 \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}$ and $l \geq 0$.
1. $w_l(g_1 \cdot g_2) = w_l(g_1) + w_l(g_2)$.
2. If $w_l(g_1) \neq w_l(g_2)$ then $w_l(g_1 + g_2) = \min\left\lbrace w_l(g_1), w_l(g_2) \right\rbrace$.
3. If $w_l(g_1) = w_l(g_2)$ then $w_l(g_1 + g_2) > w_l(g_1) = w_l(g_2)$.
Parts (2) and (3) can be proven by easy calculations. We only focus on (1). As in Lemma \[preparation-w\_l\] we write (for $i=1,2$): $${\textup{pr}}_l(g_i) = \frac{2^{a_i}}{u_i} \cdot \left( (1-\chi)^{b_i} \cdot
v_1^{(i)}(\chi) + 2 \cdot v_2^{(i)}(\chi) \right) \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] /
\langle 1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle.$$ In ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / \langle 1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& {\textup{pr}}_l(g_1 \cdot g_2) = {\textup{pr}}_l(g_1) \cdot {\textup{pr}}_1(g_2) =\\
& \frac{2^{a_1+a_2}}{u_1 \cdot u_2} \cdot (1-\chi)^{b_1+b_2} \cdot v_1^{(1)}(\chi) \cdot v_1^{(2)}(\chi) +\\
& \frac{2^{a_1+a_2+1}}{u_1 \cdot u_2} \cdot \left( (1-\chi)^{b_1}
\cdot v_2^{(2)}(\chi) + (1-\chi)^{b_2} \cdot v_2^{(1)}(\chi) + 2
\cdot v_2^{(1)}(\chi) \cdot v_2^{(2)}(\chi) \right).\end{aligned}$$ If $b_1 + b_2 < 2^l$ then we conclude $$w_l(g_1 \cdot g_2) = a_1+a_2 + \frac{b_1+b_2}{2^l} = a_1 +
\frac{b_1}{2^l} + a_2 + \frac{b_2}{2^l} = w_l(g_1) + w_l(g_2).$$
It remains to study the case $b_1 + b_2 \geq 2^l$. Define $x_m \in
{\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ by $x_0 := -\chi$ and $x_m := \chi^{2^{m-1}} + 2 \cdot
x_{m-1}(\chi) \cdot (1+\chi^{2^{m-1}} + x_{m-1}(\chi))$ for $m \geq
1$. A proof by induction shows $(1-\chi)^{2^k} = 2 \cdot x_k(\chi) +
(1+\chi^{2^k})$ for all $k \geq 0$. In ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / \langle
1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& {\textup{pr}}_l(g_1 \cdot g_2) = {\textup{pr}}_l(g_1) \cdot {\textup{pr}}_1(g_2) = \frac{2^{a_1+a_2+1}}{u_1 \cdot u_2} \cdot (1-\chi)^{b_1+b_2-2^l} \cdot\\
& \quad \left( x_l(\chi) \cdot v_1^{(1)}(\chi) \cdot v_1^{(2)}(\chi) + (1-\chi)^{2^l-b_2} \cdot v_2^{(2)}(\chi) + (1-\chi)^{2^l-b_1} \cdot v_2^{(1)}(\chi) \right) +\\
& \quad \frac{2^{a_1+a_2+2}}{u_1 \cdot u_2} \cdot v_2^{(1)}(\chi)
\cdot v_2^{(2)}(\chi).\end{aligned}$$ We finally conclude $$w_l(g_1 \cdot g_2) = a_1+a_2+1 + \frac{b_1+b_2-2^l}{2^l} = a_1 +
\frac{b_1}{2^l} + a_2 + \frac{b_2}{2^l} = w_l(g_1) + w_l(g_2).$$
For the reader who is familiar with number fields and valuations we give the following description for the $w_l$-functions.
Let $\zeta_{2^{l+1}} \in {\mathbb{C}}$ be a primitive $2^{l+1}$-th root of unity. Consider the ring of algebraic integers ${\mathbb{Z}}[\zeta_{2^{l+1}}]$ in the cyclotomic field ${\mathbb{Q}}(\zeta_{2^{l+1}})$. The ideal ${\mathcal P}
:=(2,1-\zeta_{2^{l+1}})$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}[\zeta_{2^{l+1}}]$ is a prime ideal satisfying ${\mathcal P}^{2^l} = (2)$. Let $\nu_{\mathcal P}$ be the (exponential) valuation with respect to this prime ideal ${\mathcal
P}$. Then the $w_l$-function is given by $$w_l(g) = \frac{1}{2^l} \cdot \nu_{\mathcal P} \left( \alpha \left(
{\textup{pr}}_l(g) \right) \right)$$ where $\alpha: {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / \langle 1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle \to
{\mathbb{Q}}(\zeta_{2^{l+1}})$ is the isomorphism induced by $\chi \mapsto
\zeta_{2^{l+1}}$.
\[w-l-expls\] The reader is invited to calculate the $w_l$ for the following examples.
1. If $q \in {\mathbb{Q}}\subset {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}$ then $w_l(q)$ coincides with the p-adic valuation for $p=2$. In particular, $w_l(2^a)=a$.
2. $w_l(f) = \begin{cases} \infty \quad \mathrm{when \;} l=0\\ 0 \quad \mathrm{when \;} l \geq 1\end{cases}$\
3. $w_l(f \pm 1) = 1-2^{-l}$
4. $w_l(f^2-1) = 2-2^{1-l}$
5. $w_l(f^2+1) = \begin{cases} 0 \quad \mathrm{when \;} l=0\\ \infty \quad \mathrm{when \;} l=1\\ 1 \quad \mathrm{when \;} l \geq 2\end{cases}$
6. $w_l(f'_k) = 0$
Hints. (2): For $l=0$ use $f \equiv 0 \; {\textup{mod }}1+\chi$. For $l \geq
1$ use $f \cdot (1-\chi) = 1+\chi$ and $1+\chi = 2-(1-\chi)$. (3): Use $(1-\chi)(f+1) = 2$ and $(1-\chi)(f-1) = 2\chi$. (4): Use (3). (5): For $l=1$ use $f^2+1 \equiv 0$ ${\textup{mod }}1+\chi^2$. For $l \neq 1$ use $f^2+1 = (f^2-1)+2$ and (4). (6): Use $f'_k$, ${f'_k}^{-1} \in
{R_{\widehat G}}$ and the fact $w_l (g) \geq 0$ when $g \in {R_{\widehat G}}$.
We now come back to the initial question of this subsection: For a given $g \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}$ we want to decide whether $g$ lies in $4 \cdot
{R_{\widehat G}}$ or not. The following theorem can answer this question in many cases.
\[w\_l-theorem\] Let $g \in {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}$. Suppose that ${\textup{pr}}_l(g) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] /
\langle 1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle$ for all $0 \leq l \leq K-1$.
1. If $w_l(g) \geq 2+K-l-2^{-l}$ for all $0 \leq l \leq K-1$ then $g \in 4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}}$.
2. If there exist $h \in {R_{\widehat G}}$ and $0 \leq l' \leq K-1$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
& w_l(g) + w_l(h) \geq 2+K-l-2^{-l} \mathrm{\; for \; all \;} l \in \{0,1,\cdots,K-1\}-\{l'\} \mathrm{\; and}\\
& w_{l'}(g) + w_{l'}(h) < 2+K-l'-2^{-l'}\end{aligned}$$ then $g \notin 4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}}$.
\(1) The assumption $w_l(g) \geq 2+K-l-2^{-l}$ implies $w_l((1-\chi)
\cdot g) \geq 2+K-l$. By Lemma \[preparation-w\_l\] and Definition \[def-w\_l\] there exist $z_l \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ such that $$(1-\chi) \cdot {\textup{pr}}_l(g) = 2^{2+K-l} \cdot z_l(\chi) \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] /
\langle 1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle$$ for all $0 \leq l \leq K-1$. Using Lemma \[Chinese remainder-trick\] we conclude $$(1-\chi) \cdot g = \sum_{l=0}^{K-1} 2^{l-K} \cdot \left( 2^{2+K-l}
\cdot z_l(\chi) \right) \cdot (1-\chi) \cdot \prod_{\stackrel{0 \leq
r \leq K-1}{r \neq l}} (1+\chi^{2^r}) \mathrm{\quad in \;} {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}$$ and hence $$g = 4 \cdot \sum_{l=0}^{K-1} \cdot z_l(\chi) \cdot
\prod_{\stackrel{0 \leq r \leq K-1}{r \neq l}} (1+\chi^{2^r}) \in 4
\cdot {R_{\widehat G}}.$$ (2) We give a proof by contradiction. Assume that $g \in 4 \cdot
{R_{\widehat G}}$ and define $$a:=\min\left\lbrace m \in {\mathbb{Z}}\; \vert \; m + w_{l'}(g) + w_{l'}(h)
\geq 2+K-l'-2^{-l'} \right\rbrace.$$ Notice that $a \geq 1$. We have $$w_l((1-\chi) \cdot 2^a \cdot g \cdot h) \geq 3+K-l \mathrm{\quad for
\; all \;} l \in \{0,1,\cdots,K-1\}-\{l'\}$$ and $$w_{l'}((1-\chi) \cdot 2^a \cdot g \cdot h) \geq 2+K-l'.$$ From Lemma \[preparation-w\_l\] and Definition \[def-w\_l\] we conclude that there exist $z_l \in 2 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ for all $l \in
\{0,1,\cdots,K-1\}-\{l'\}$ and $z_{l'} \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ satisfying $${\textup{pr}}_l((1-\chi) \cdot 2^a \cdot g \cdot h) = 2^{2+K-l} \cdot
z_l(\chi) \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / \langle 1+\chi^{2^l} \rangle.$$ Lemma \[Chinese remainder-trick\] implies $$(1-\chi) \cdot 2^a \cdot g \cdot h = \sum_{l=0}^{K-1} 2^{l-K} \cdot
2^{2+K-l} \cdot z_l(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi) \cdot \prod_{\stackrel{0
\leq r \leq K-1}{r \neq l}} (1+\chi^{2^r})$$ and hence $$2^a \cdot g \cdot h = \sum_{l=0}^{K-1} 4 \cdot z_l(\chi) \cdot
\prod_{\stackrel{0 \leq r \leq K-1}{r \neq l}} (1+\chi^{2^r})
\mathrm{\quad in \; {\mathbb{Q}}{R_{\widehat G}}}.$$ Since $g \cdot h \in 4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}}$ there exists $y \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ such that $g \cdot h$ and $4 \cdot y$ coincide in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / I
\langle K \rangle$. We get $$2^a \cdot y (\chi) = \sum_{l=0}^{K-1} z_l(\chi) \cdot
\prod_{\stackrel{0 \leq r \leq K-1}{r \neq l}} (1+\chi^{2^r})
\mathrm{\quad in \;} {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle.$$ Hence there exists $q \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]$ with $$2^a \cdot y (\chi) = \sum_{l=0}^{K-1} z_l(\chi) \cdot
\prod_{\stackrel{0 \leq r \leq K-1}{r \neq l}} (1+\chi^{2^r}) +
q(\chi) \cdot (1+\chi+\cdots+\chi^{N-1}).$$ The equation above implies $q(\chi) \cdot (1+\chi+\cdots+\chi^{N-1})
\in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ and hence $q \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$. Under the epimorphism ${\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] \twoheadrightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi]$ this equation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
0 = & \sum_{l=0}^{K-1} \overline{z_l}(\chi) \cdot \prod_{\stackrel{0 \leq r \leq K-1}{r \neq l}} (1+\chi^{2^r}) + \overline{q}(\chi) \cdot (1+\chi+\cdots+\chi^{N-1})\\
= & \overline{z_{l'}}(\chi) \cdot \prod_{\stackrel{0 \leq r \leq
K-1}{r \neq l'}} (1+\chi^{2^r}) + \overline{q}(\chi) \cdot
\prod_{r=0}^{K-1} (1+\chi^{2^r}).\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\overline{z_{l'}}(\chi) = - \overline{q}(\chi) \cdot
(1+\chi^{2^{l'}}) = - \overline{q}(\chi) \cdot (1+\chi)^{2^{l'}}$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi]$. This implies $w_{l'}(z_{l'}) \geq 1$. We finally get $$\begin{aligned}
& (a-1) + w_{l'}(g) + w_{l'}(h) & =\\
& w_{l'}((1-\chi) \cdot 2^a \cdot g \cdot h) - 1 - 2^{-l'} & =\\
& w_{l'}(2^{2+K-l'} \cdot z_l'(\chi)) - 1 - 2^{-l'} & =\\
& w_{l'}(z_l'(\chi)) + 1 + K - l' - 2^{-l'} & \geq\\
& 2 + K - l' - 2^{-l'}\end{aligned}$$ which contradicts the minimality of $a$.
Good polynomials {#subsec:good-polys}
----------------
Theorem \[w\_l-theorem\] can be used to decide for a given $K \in
{\mathbb{N}}$ whether the expression $8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f \cdot q(f^2) \in
{\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle$ lands in $4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / I
\langle K \rangle$ or not for many but not all polynomials $q(x) \in
{\mathbb{Q}}[x]$. Here we introduce polynomials $r_n^-$, which are in the next subsection proved to be the best in a sense that they are polynomials with leading coefficient $1$ yielding elements in $4
\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle$ for a large $K$ in comparison with the other polynomials of the same degree with leading coefficient $1$.
We start by defining auxiliary polynomials $p_k$ which are used to define polynomials denoted $q_n$ whose properties are summarized in Proposition \[K(q-n)-prop\]. A careful analysis gives an inductive procedure for construction of certain linear combinations of polynomials $q_n$, denoted $\widetilde q_n$, with better properties that $q_n$ themselves. This is the content of Proposition \[r\_n-prop\]. The assumptions of this proposition turn out to be trivially true for small $n$ which enables us to perform the induction to define the desired polynomials $r_n^-$ in Definition \[r\_n-defn\].
Notice that the for any $q(x) \in {\mathbb{Q}}[x]$ we get $$w_0 (8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f \cdot q(f^2))=\infty$$ since $w_0 (f) = \infty$ because of ($1+\chi) {\; | \;}f$. Further notice that for $p_1(x) := x+1$ we have $$\label{p-1}
p_1(f^2) = f^2 +1 = 2 \cdot \frac{1+\chi^2}{(1-\chi)^2}.$$ Hence $(1+\chi^2) {\; | \;}p_1(f^2)$ in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / I \langle K
\rangle$ and $w_1 (8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f \cdot p_1(f^2))=\infty$. Further observe that $$\label{substitution}
\frac{(f^2+1)^2}{4 \cdot f^2} = \frac{(1+\chi^2)^2}{(1-\chi^2)^2}.$$ Motivated by that we make the following
\[p-k-defn\] Let $p_1 (x) := x+1 \in {\mathbb{Z}}[x]$. For $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ define inductively $$\label{p-ks}
p_{k+1} (x) := p_k \bigg( \frac{(x+1)^2}{4x} \bigg) \cdot
(4x)^{2^{k-1}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}[x].$$
Notice that $p_k (x)$ is a polynomial in ${\mathbb{Z}}[x]$ of degree $2^{k-1}$.
\[p-k-thm\] We have $$p_k (f^2) = 2^{2^k-1} \cdot \frac{1+\chi^{2^k}}{(1-\chi)^{2^k}} \in
{\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle \quad \textup{for} \; k \in {\mathbb{N}}.$$
It suffices to prove the equality $$p_k (f^2) = 2^{2^k-1} \cdot \frac{1+\chi^{2^k}}{(1-\chi)^{2^k}}$$ in the field of rational functions ${\mathbb{Q}}(\chi)$. The proof now goes by induction with respect to $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$. The case $k=1$ is proved by the identity (\[p-1\]). Now the induction step. Let $\alpha {\colon\!}{\mathbb{Q}}(\chi) {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb{Q}}(\chi)$ be the homomorphism given by $\chi \mapsto
\chi^2$. We calculate: $$\begin{aligned}
p_{k+1} (f^2) & = p_k \bigg( \frac{(f^2+1)^2}{4 \cdot f^2} \bigg) \cdot \big(4f^2\big)^{2^{k-1}} \\
& = p_k \bigg(\bigg( \frac{1+\chi^2}{1-\chi^2} \bigg)^2\bigg) \cdot 2^{2^k} \cdot f^{2^k} \; \quad \quad \quad \textup{by (\ref{substitution})} \\
& = p_k \big((\alpha (f))^2\big) \cdot 2^{2^k} \cdot f^{2^k} \\
& = \alpha \big(p_k (f^2)\big) \cdot 2^{2^k} \cdot f^{2^k} \\
& = \frac{1+(\chi^2)^{2^k}}{(1-\chi^2)^{2^k}} \cdot 2^{2^k-1} \cdot 2^{2^k} \cdot \frac{(1+\chi)^{2^k}}{(1-\chi)^{2^k}} \\
& = \frac{1+\chi^{2^{k+1}}}{(1-\chi)^{2^k} \cdot (1+\chi)^{2^k}} \cdot 2^{2^{k+1}-1} \cdot \frac{(1+\chi)^{2^k}}{(1-\chi)^{2^k}} \\
& = 2^{2^{k+1}-1} \cdot \frac{1+\chi^{2^{k+1}}}{(1-\chi)^{2^{k+1}}}\end{aligned}$$
\[p\_k-w\_l\] We have
1. $w_l (p_k (f^2)) = \infty$ when $l=k$
2. $w_l (p_k (f^2)) = 2^k-1$ when $l>k$
The first item is immediate from the formula of the previous theorem. For the second item note that $1+\chi^{2^k} \equiv
(1-\chi)^{2^k} {\textup{mod }}2$. It follows that $w_l (1+\chi^{2^k}) = w_l
((1-\chi)^{2^k})$ for $l > k$ and hence $$w_l \bigg(\frac{1+\chi^{2^k}}{(1-\chi)^{2^k}}\bigg) = 0 \quad
\textup{for} \; l>k.$$ Finally use the formula of the previous theorem and the product formula for $w_l$.
Now we are ready to introduce the polynomials $q_n$ which will be good in the already mentioned sense. The idea is that we get good polynomials when we multiply the polynomials $p_k$ from the previous definition.
\[q-n-defn\] Let $n \geq 0$. Define $a(n), b(n) \geq 0$ as the integers satisfying $$n+1 = 2^{a(n)} + b(n) \mathrm{\quad with \quad} 0 \leq b(n) \leq
2^{a(n)}-1.$$ Define $$q_n (x) := \prod_{r=1}^{a(n)} p_r (x) \cdot (x-1)^{b(n)}.$$
\[K(q-n)-prop\] Let $n \geq 0$, $k \geq 1$ and $m \in \{1,2\}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+1 \rangle,\\
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2 \rangle \Longleftrightarrow b(n) = 0,\\
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I
\langle 2n+3 \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2b(n)-1} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2 \rangle \mathrm{\; if \;} b(n)>0,\\
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2n+1+2^{a(n)} (2^s-2)} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2+s \rangle \mathrm{\; for \; all \;} s \geq 1,\\
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2n} \notin 4
\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+3 \rangle.\end{aligned}$$
We use the $w_l$-technology for which we need:
\[w\_l(q\_n)\] Let $n \geq 0$, $k \geq 1$ and $m \in \{1,2\}$. We have $$w_l(8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2)) = \begin{cases} \infty &
l \leq a(n) \\ 2n+3-a(n)-\frac{b(n)}{2^{l-1}} & l \geq a(n)+1
\end{cases}$$
Use the formulas from Lemma \[calc-rules-w\_l\], Example \[w-l-expls\] and Corollary \[p\_k-w\_l\].
The desired results are obtained using the criteria from Theorem \[w\_l-theorem\]. $$\begin{aligned}
& w_l \left( 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \right) - \left( 2+2n+1-l-2^{-l} \right) =\\
& \qquad \qquad \begin{cases} \infty & \; l \leq a(n) \\
l-a(n)-\frac{2b(n)-1}{2^l} \geq 0 & \; l \geq a(n)+1 \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ implies $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I
\langle 2n+1 \rangle.$$ For $b(n) > 0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
& w_l \left( 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \right) - \left( 2+2n+2-l-2^{-l} \right) =\\
& \qquad \qquad \begin{cases} \infty & \; l \leq a(n) \\
-\frac{2b(n)-1}{2^{a(n)+1}} < 0 & \; l = a(n)+1 \\
l-(a(n)+1)-\frac{2b(n)-1}{2^l} \geq 0 & \; l \geq a(n)+2
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& w_l \left( 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2b(n)-1} \right) - \left( 2+2n+2-l-2^{-l} \right) =\\
& \qquad \qquad \begin{cases} \infty & \; l \leq a(n) \\ l-(a(n)+1)
\geq 0 & \; l \geq a(n)+1 \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ which imply $$\begin{aligned}
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2 \rangle,\\
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2b(n)-1} \in
4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2 \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ For $b(n) = 0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
& w_l \left( 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \right) - \left( 2+2n+2-l-2^{-l} \right) =\\
& \qquad \qquad \begin{cases} \infty & \; l \leq a(n) \\
l-(a(n)+1)+\frac{1}{2^l} \geq 0 & \; l \geq a(n)+1 \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I
\langle 2n+2 \rangle.$$ From $$\begin{aligned}
& w_l \left( 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2n} \right) - \left( 2+2n+3-l-2^{-l} \right) =\\
& \qquad \qquad \begin{cases} \infty & \; l \leq a(n) \\
-\frac{1}{2^{a(n)+1}} < 0 & \; l = a(n)+1 \\
l-(a(n)+2)+\frac{2^{a(n)+1}-1}{2^l} \geq 0 & \; l \geq a(n)+2
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ we conclude $$\begin{aligned}
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2n} \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+3 \rangle \mathrm{\quad and \; hence}\\
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I
\langle 2n+3 \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ It remains to show $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2n+1+2^{a(n)}
(2^s-2)} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2+s \rangle \mathrm{\;
for \; all \;} s \geq 1.$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& w_l \left( 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2n+1+2^{a(n)} (2^s-2)} \right) - \left( 2+2n+2+s-l-2^{-l} \right) =\\
& \qquad \qquad \begin{cases} \infty & \; l \leq a(n) \\
l-a(n)-s-1+2^{a(n)+s-l} & \; l \geq a(n)+1 \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ We set $c := a(n)+s-l$ and have to show $2^c \geq c + 1$ for all $c
\in {\mathbb{Z}}$. This is obviously true for $c \leq -1$. The statement for $c \geq 0$ follows by induction.
Notice that the polynomials $q_n$ have slightly better properties when $b(n) = 0$. This suggests that there might exist better polynomials than $q_n$ when $b(n) > 0$. This turns out to be true, there exist polynomials $r_n^-$ of degree $n$ with leading coefficient $1$ such that $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot r^-_n(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I
\langle 2n+2 \rangle.$$ Their construction needs some preparation.
\[c\_min=odd\] Let $g \in 2 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}^-}$ where $G={\mathbb{Z}}_{2^K}$. If $g \notin 4 \cdot
{R_{\widehat G}^-}$ then there exists an odd natural number $c$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&g(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi)^c \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle,\\
&g(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi)^{c-1} \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K
\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
The element $g \in 2 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}^-}$ can be written as $$g(\chi) = 2 \cdot \sum_{k=1}^{2^{K-1}} a_k \cdot (\chi^k -
\chi^{-k})$$ with $a_k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. We set $$\overline{g} (\chi) := \sum_{k=1}^{2^{K-1}} a_k \cdot (\chi^k -
\chi^{-k}) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle.$$ Now suppose that $g \notin 4 \cdot {R_{\widehat G}^-}$ i.e. $h \neq 0$. Since $$\chi^k - \chi^{-k} = (\chi - \chi^{-1}) \cdot \left( \chi^{1-k} +
\chi^{3-k} + \ldots + \chi^{k-3} + \chi^{k-1} \right),$$ any element $y \in {\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle$ of the shape $y(\chi) = \sum_{k=1}^m c_k \cdot (\chi^k - \chi^{-k})$ can be written as $$y(\chi) = \left( \chi - \chi^{-1} \right)\cdot \left( c'_0 +
\sum_{k=1}^{m-1} c'_k \cdot (\chi^k - \chi^{-k}) \right).$$ Now, we transform $\overline{g}$ in this way and repeat the transformation as long as the occurring $c'_0$ is zero. We finally get $$\overline{g} (\chi) = \left( \chi - \chi^{-1} \right)^n \cdot \left(
1 + \sum_{k=1}^{2^{K-1}-n} b_k \cdot (\chi^k - \chi^{-k}) \right).$$ We set $c := 2^K-2n-1$. Notice that we have in ${\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi]$ $$1+\chi+\ldots+\chi^{2^K-1} = \prod_{r=1}^{K-1} (1+\chi^{2^r}) =
\prod_{r=1}^{K-1} (1-\chi)^{2^r} = (1-\chi)^{2^K-1}$$ and $$\left( \chi - \chi^{-1} \right)^n = \left( \chi^{-1} \cdot
(1-\chi)^2 \right)^n = \chi^{-n} \cdot (1-\chi)^{2n}.$$ Therefore, we calculate in ${\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle$ $$\left( \chi - \chi^{-1} \right)^n \cdot (1-\chi)^c = \chi^{-n}
(1-\chi)^{2^K-1} = 0.$$ This implies $\overline{g} (\chi) \cdot (1-\chi)^c = 0$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle$ and hence $$g(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi)^c \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle.$$ It remains to show $$g(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi)^{c-1} \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K
\rangle.$$ We prove this by contradiction. Suppose $g(\chi) \cdot
(1-\chi)^{c-1} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle$ which implies $\overline{g} (\chi) \cdot (1-\chi)^{c-1} = 0$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle$. This means that there exists $q
\in {\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi]$ with $$\left( \chi - \chi^{-1} \right)^n \cdot \left( 1 +
\sum_{k=1}^{2^{K-1}-n} b_k \cdot (\chi^k - \chi^{-k}) \right) \cdot
(1-\chi)^{c-1} = q(\chi) \cdot (1+\chi+\ldots+\chi^{2^K-1}).$$ We conclude in ${\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi]$ $$\chi^{-n} \cdot (1-\chi)^{2n} \cdot \left( 1 +
\sum_{k=1}^{2^{K-1}-n} b_k \cdot (\chi^k - \chi^{-k}) \right) \cdot
(1-\chi)^{c-1} = q(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2^K-1}$$ and hence $$\chi^{-n} \cdot \left( 1 + \sum_{k=1}^{2^{K-1}-n} b_k \cdot (\chi^k
- \chi^{-k}) \right) = q(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi).$$ This implies the desired contradiction $$1 = 1^{-n} \cdot \left( 1 + \sum_{k=1}^{2^{K-1}-n} b_k \cdot (1^k -
1^{-k}) \right) = q(1) \cdot (1-1) = 0 \mathrm{\quad in \;} {\mathbb{Z}}_2.$$
\[c\_min-add\] Let $g_i \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle$ for $i = 1,2$ and let $c \geq 1$ be such that $$\begin{aligned}
& 2 \cdot g_i(\chi) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle,\\
& g_i(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi)^c \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle,\\
& g_i(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi)^{c-1} \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / I
\langle K \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\left( g_1(\chi) + g_2(\chi) \right) \cdot (1-\chi)^{c-1} \in 4
\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle.$$
Since $2 \cdot g_i(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi)^{c-1} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]
/ I \langle K \rangle$, there exist polynomials $h_i \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ ($i=1,2$) such that $2 \cdot g_i(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi)^{c-1}$ and $4
\cdot h_i(\chi)$ coincide modulo $I \langle K \rangle$. We can require that $\deg(h_i) \leq 2^K-2$. Let $\overline{h_i}$ be the image of $h_i$ under the epimorphism ${\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] \twoheadrightarrow
{\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi]$. Notice that $1+\chi+\ldots+\chi^{2^K-1}$ divides $\overline{h_i}(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi)$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi]$ because of $g_i(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi)^c \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K
\rangle$. In ${\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi]$ we have $$1+\chi+\ldots+\chi^{2^K-1} = \prod_{r=0}^{K-1} (1+\chi^{2^r}) =
\prod_{r=0}^{K-1} (1+\chi)^{2^r} = (1+\chi)^{2^K-1}.$$ Therefore, $(1+\chi)^{2^K-2}$ divides $\overline{h_i}(\chi)$. Since $g_i(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi)^{c-1} \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / I \langle
K \rangle$, we have $\overline{h_i}(\chi) \neq 0$. We conclude from $\deg(\overline{h_i}) \leq \deg(h_i) \leq 2^K-2$ that $\overline{h_i}(\chi) = (1+\chi)^{2^K-2}$. Therefore, $$\overline{h_1}(\chi) + \overline{h_2}(\chi) = 2 \cdot
(1+\chi)^{2^K-2} = 0 \mathrm{\quad in \;} {\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi].$$ This implies $h_1(\chi) + h_2(\chi) \in 2 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$. In ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle$ we finally conclude $$\left( g_1(\chi) + g_2(\chi) \right) \cdot (1-\chi)^{c-1} = 2 \cdot
\left( h_1(\chi) + h_2(\chi) \right) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / I
\langle K \rangle.$$
\[mult2\] Let $g \in {\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]/ I \langle K+1 \rangle$ such that ${\textup{pr}}_l(g) \in
4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / \langle 1+\chi^{2^K} \rangle$. Then $$g \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle \; \Longleftrightarrow
\; 2g \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K+1 \rangle.$$
Assume first $g \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle$. Let $h
\in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ be such that $4h$ and $g$ coincide in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] /
\langle 1+\chi^{2^K} \rangle$ and let $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ such that $4k$ and $g$ coincide in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle$. Then we obtain in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]/ I \langle K+1 \rangle$ the equation $$2 \cdot g(\chi) = 4 \cdot (1+\chi^{2^K}) \cdot k(\chi) + 4 \cdot
(1-\chi^{2^K}) \cdot h(\chi).$$ which shows $2g \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K+1 \rangle$.
Now assume $2g \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K+1 \rangle$. We want to show $g \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle$. Let $h
\in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ be again such that $4h$ and $g$ coincide in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi] / \langle 1+\chi^{2^K} \rangle$ and let $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ be such that $4k$ and $2g$ (resp. $2k$ and $g$) coincide in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]/ I \langle K+1 \rangle$. Then $2 \cdot k(\chi)$ and $k(\chi) \cdot (1+\chi^{2^K}) + 2 \cdot h(\chi) \cdot
(1-\chi^{2^K})$ coincide in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle$ and in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]/ \langle 1+\chi^{2^K} \rangle$ and hence also in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]/ I \langle K+1 \rangle$. Therefore there exists an $r \in
{\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]$ with $$2 \cdot k(\chi) = k(\chi) \cdot (1+\chi^{2^K}) + 2 \cdot h(\chi)
\cdot (1-\chi^{2^K}) + r(\chi) \cdot
(1+\chi+\ldots+\chi^{2^{K+1}-1}).$$ We conclude $r \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$. Under the epimorphism ${\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]
\twoheadrightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi]$ we get $$0 = \overline{k}(\chi) \cdot (1+\chi^{2^K}) + \overline{r}(\chi)
\cdot (1+\chi+\ldots+\chi^{2^{K+1}-1})$$ and hence $$0 = \overline{k}(\chi) + \overline{r}(\chi) \cdot
(1+\chi+\ldots+\chi^{2^K-1}).$$ We set $s(\chi) := k(\chi) + r(\chi) \cdot
(1+\chi+\ldots+\chi^{2^K-1}) \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$. The vanishing of $s$ under the epimorphism ${\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] \twoheadrightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}_2[\chi]$ implies the existence of $t \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ with $2t = s$. We conclude in ${\mathbb{Q}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle$ $$g = 2k = 2s = 4t.$$ This shows $g \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle$.
The desired polynomials $r_n^-$ are obtained inductively. The crucial inductive step is based on the following proposition. The idea is motivated by the properties of $q_n$ when $b (n) = 0$ and is based on the following observation: If we assume for a given $n \in
{\mathbb{N}}$ with $b(n) > 0$ the existence of polynomials $\widetilde q_l$ for $l \leq \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor -1$ which are slightly better than $q_l$ then we are able to conclude the existence of a $\widetilde q_n$ which is also better than $q_n$.
\[r\_n-prop\] Let $n \geq 0$, $k \geq 1$ and $m \in \{1,2\}$. Let ${\widetilde{q}}_l \in
{\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ be polynomials for $0 \leq l \leq
\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor-1$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_l(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2l+2 \rangle,\\
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_l(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2l} \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2l+3 \rangle,\\
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_l(f^2) \cdot
(1-\chi)^{2l+1+2^{a(l)} (2^s-2)} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle
2l+2+s \rangle\end{aligned}$$ for all $0 \leq l \leq \lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor-1$, $s \geq 1$. Then there exist unique $a_l \in \{0,1\}$ for $0 \leq l \leq
\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor-1$ such that $${\widetilde{q}}_n := q_n + \sum_{l=0}^{\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor-1} a_l \cdot
2^{2(n-l)-1} \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_l$$ satisfies $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_n(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I
\langle 2n+2 \rangle.$$ Moreover, we get $$\begin{aligned}
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2n} \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+3 \rangle,\\
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_n(f^2) \cdot
(1-\chi)^{2n+1+2^{a(n)} (2^s-2)} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle
2n+2+s \rangle\end{aligned}$$ for all $s \geq 1$.
From Proposition \[K(q-n)-prop\] we know that $b(n) = 0$ implies $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I
\langle 2n+2 \rangle.$$ In the case $b(n)>0$ we have $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2b(n)-1} \in 4
\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2 \rangle.$$ Now let $c \geq 0$ be the smallest number such that there exist coefficients $a_l$ satisfying $$\label{eq_c}
8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot \left( q_n(f^2) +
\sum_{l=0}^{\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor-1} a_l \cdot 2^{2(n-l)-1}
\cdot {\widetilde{q}}_l(f^2) \right) \cdot (1-\chi)^c \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I
\langle 2n+2 \rangle.$$ We have to show $c=0$. We will give a proof by contradiction and assume that $c > 0$. We already know that $c \leq 2b(n)-1$. From Lemma \[c\_min=odd\] we conclude that $c$ is odd. We set $l' :=
\frac{c-1}{2}$. Since $2l'+1 = c \leq 2b(n)-1 \leq b(n)+2^{a(n)}-2 =
n-1$, we conclude $l' \leq \lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor-1$. Let $(a_l)$ be a choice of coefficients with the property (\[eq\_c\]). We set $$g_1(\chi) := 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) + 8 \cdot f'_k
\cdot f^m \cdot \sum_{l=0}^{\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor-1} a_l \cdot
2^{2(n-l)-1} \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_l(f^2).$$ Notice that $2 \cdot g_1(\chi) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2
\rangle$ because all summands lie in this ring (use Lemma \[mult2\]). Moreover, we have $g_1(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi) \in 4
\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2 \rangle$ and $g_1(\chi) \notin 4
\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2 \rangle$. Define $$g_2(\chi) := 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot (-1)^{a_{l'}} \cdot 2^{2(n-l')-1} \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_{l'}(f^2)$$ Using Lemma \[mult2\] we see that $2 \cdot g_2(\chi), \, g_2(\chi)
\cdot (1-\chi)^c \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2 \rangle$ but $g_2(\chi) \cdot (1-\chi)^{c-1} \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle
2n+2 \rangle$. Now, we can use Lemma \[c\_min-add\] and get $$\left( g_1(\chi) + g_2(\chi) \right) \cdot (1-\chi)^{c-1} \in 4
\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi] / I \langle K \rangle.$$ But this means that $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot \left( q_n(f^2) +
\sum_{l=0}^{\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor-1} a'_l \cdot 2^{2(n-l)-1}
\cdot {\widetilde{q}}_l(f^2) \right) \cdot (1-\chi)^{c-1} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/
I \langle 2n+2 \rangle.$$ where the coefficients $(a'_l)$ are given by $$a'_l :=
\begin{cases} a_l & \; l \neq l' \\ a_{l'} + (-1)^{a_{l'}} & \; l = l' \end{cases}.$$ This is a contradiction to the minimality of $c$. So far we have shown that there exist $a_l \in \{0,1\}$ $(0 \leq l \leq
\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor-1)$ such that $${\widetilde{q}}_n := q_n + \sum_{l=0}^{\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor-1} a_l \cdot
2^{2(n-l)-1} \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_l$$ satisfies $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_n(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I
\langle 2n+2 \rangle.$$
Our next aim is to show the uniqueness of the coefficients. We will give a proof by contradiction. Assume that there exist two different choices of coefficients $(a_l)$, $(a'_l)$ such that the corresponding ${\widetilde{q}}_n$, ${\widetilde{q}}'_n$ satisfy $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_n(f^2), \, 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m
\cdot {\widetilde{q}}'_n(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2 \rangle.$$ We set $b_l := a_l - a'_l$ and conclude $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot \left(
\sum_{l=0}^{\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor-1} b_l \cdot 2^{2(n-l)-1}
\cdot {\widetilde{q}}_l(f^2) \right) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2
\rangle.$$ Let ${\hat l}$ be the largest element with $b_{\hat l} \neq 0$ (i.e. $b_{\hat l} = \pm 1$). Using Lemma \[mult2\], we conclude $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot 2^{2(n-l)-1} \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_l(f^2) \cdot
(1-\chi)^{2{\hat l}} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2 \rangle
\mathrm{ \quad for \;} l < {\hat l}$$ and $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot 2^{2(n-l)-1} \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_{\hat l}(f^2)
\cdot (1-\chi)^{2{\hat l}} \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2
\rangle.$$ This implies $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot \left(
\sum_{l=0}^{\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor-1} b_l \cdot 2^{2(n-l)-1}
\cdot {\widetilde{q}}_l(f^2) \right) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2{\hat l}} \notin 4 \cdot
{\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2 \rangle$$ contradicting $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot \left(
\sum_{l=0}^{\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor-1} b_l \cdot 2^{2(n-l)-1}
\cdot {\widetilde{q}}_l(f^2) \right) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2
\rangle.$$ It remains to prove $$\begin{aligned}
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2n} \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+3 \rangle,\\
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_n(f^2) \cdot
(1-\chi)^{2n+1+2^{a(n)} (2^s-2)} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle
2n+2+s \rangle\end{aligned}$$ for all $s \geq 1$. Using Lemma \[mult2\] we obtain $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot 2^{2(n-l)-1} \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_l(f^2) \cdot
(1-\chi)^{2l+1+2^{a(l)} (2^{s'}-2)} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle
2n+1+s' \rangle$$ for all $s' \geq 2$. Let $l \leq \lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor-1$. Setting $s' := s+1$ we conclude $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot 2^{2(n-l)-1} \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_l(f^2) \cdot
(1-\chi)^{2n+1+2^{a(n)} (2^s-2)} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle
2n+2+s \rangle$$ because $$\begin{aligned}
& 2l+1+2^{a(l)} (2^{s+1}-2) \; \leq \; 2(\frac{n}{2}-1)+1+2^{a(n)-1} (2^{s+1}-2) \; =\\
& 2n+1+2^{a(n)} (2^s-2) - b(n) \; \leq \; 2n+1+2^{a(n)} (2^s-2).\end{aligned}$$ Setting $s' := 2$ we obtain $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot 2^{2(n-l)-1} \cdot {\widetilde{q}}_l(f^2) \cdot
(1-\chi)^{2n} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+3 \rangle$$ because $$2l+1+2^{a(l)} (2^2-2) \leq 2(\frac{n}{2}-1)+1+2^{a(n)} = 2n-b(n)
\leq 2n.$$ Therefore, it suffices to show $$\begin{aligned}
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2n} \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+3 \rangle,\\
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q_n(f^2) \cdot
(1-\chi)^{2n+1+2^{a(n)} (2^s-2)} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle
2n+2+s \rangle\end{aligned}$$ for all $s \geq 1$. But this was proved in Proposition \[K(q-n)-prop\].
Notice that the assumptions in Proposition \[r\_n-prop\] are trivially fulfilled if $n=0,1$.
\[r\_n-defn\] We define $r^-_n \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]$ as the polynomials ${\widetilde{q}}_n$ we obtain successively from Proposition \[r\_n-prop\] starting with $n = 0$ and proceeding with $n = 1, 2, 3, \ldots$.
For example, $r^-_0 = q_0$, $r^-_1 = q_1$, $r^-_2 = q_2 +
2^3 \cdot q_0$, $r^-_3 = q_3$, $r^-_4 = q_4 + 2^7 \cdot q_0$.
\[r\_n-properties\] The polynomial $r^-_n$ is of degree $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ with leading coefficient $1$ and it satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot r^-_n(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2 \rangle,\\
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot r^-_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2n} \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+3 \rangle,\\
& 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot r^-_n(f^2) \cdot
(1-\chi)^{2n+1+2^{a(n)} (2^s-2)} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle
2n+2+s \rangle\end{aligned}$$ for all $s \geq 1$.
Are the polynomials $r^-_n$ best possible? Or does there exist a polynomial $q$ of degree $n$ with leading coefficient $1$ such that $8 \cdot f_k \cdot q(f^2) \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+3 \rangle$? In the next section we will see that any polynomial $q$ of degree $n$ with the property $8 \cdot f_k \cdot q(f^2) \in {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle
2n+3 \rangle$ is of the shape $$\sum_{l=0}^n a_l \cdot 2^{{\textup{max}}\{2(n-l)+1,0\}} \cdot r^-_l$$ with $a_n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Hence such a polynomial can not have $1$ as leading coefficient.
The equation $\mathbf{A^k_K(d) = B_K(d)}$ {#subsec:A=B}
-----------------------------------------
In this subsection we first prove $A^k_K(d) = B_K(d)$ for $d= 2e+1$. Recall that $$\begin{aligned}
& A^k_K(2e+1) := \left\lbrace q \in {\mathbb{Z}}[x] \mid \deg(q) \leq e-1, \; 8 \cdot f_k \cdot q(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle \right\rbrace,\\
& B_K(2e+1) := \left\lbrace \sum_{n=0}^{e-1} a_n \cdot
2^{{\textup{max}}\{K-2n-2,0\}} \cdot r^-_n \mid a_n \in {\mathbb{Z}}\right\rbrace.\end{aligned}$$
We want to consider a slightly more general situation and prove $A^{k,m}_K(2e+1) = B_K(2e+1)$ where $A^{k,m}_K(2e+1)$ is defined as follows.
Let $K, k \geq 1$, $e \geq 2$, $m \in \{1,2\}$. Define $$A^{k,m}_K(2e+1) := \left\lbrace q \in {\mathbb{Z}}[x] \mid \deg(q) \leq e-1,
\; 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot q(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I
\langle K \rangle \right\rbrace$$
Notice that $A^{k,1}_K(2e+1) = A^k_K(2e+1)$.
\[A=B-odd\] Let $K, k \geq 1$, $e \geq 2$, $m \in \{1,2\}$. Then $A^{k,m}_K(2e+1) = B_K(2e+1)$. In particular, $$A^k_K(2e+1) = B_K(2e+1).$$
Since $8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot r^-_n(f^2) \in 4 \cdot
{\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+2 \rangle$, Lemma \[mult2\] implies $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot 2^{{\textup{max}}\{K-2n-2,0\}} \cdot r^-_n(f^2)
\in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle.$$ This proves $A^{k,m}_K(2e+1) \supseteq B_K(2e+1)$.
It remains to show $A^{k,m}_K(2e+1) \subseteq B_K(2e+1)$. We will give a proof by induction with respect to $K$. For the basis case $K=1$ we get $$A^{k,m}_1(2e+1) = \left\lbrace q \in {\mathbb{Z}}[x] \mid \deg(q) \leq e-1
\right\rbrace = B_1(2e+1).$$ Inductive step: We assume that $A^{k,m}_{K-1}(2e+1) \subseteq
B_{K-1}(2e+1)$ ($K \geq 2$) and have to prove $A^{k,m}_K(2e+1)
\subseteq B_K(2e+1)$. Let $q \in A^{k,m}_K(2e+1)$. Since $$A^{k,m}_K(2e+1) \subseteq A^{k,m}_{K-1}(2e+1) \subseteq
B_{K-1}(2e+1),$$ we can write $q$ as $q = \sum_{n=0}^{e-1} a_n \cdot
2^{{\textup{max}}\{K-2n-3,0\}} \cdot r^-_n$ with $a_n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. The polynomial $q$ lies in $B_K(2e+1)$ if $a_n$ is even for all $n$ with $2n+2 \leq
K-1$. We set $$M := \left\lbrace 0 \leq n \leq e-1 \mid 2n+2 \leq K-1, \mathrm{\;}
a_n \mathrm{\; is \; odd} \right\rbrace.$$ It remains to show $M = \emptyset$. We will give a proof by contradiction and assume $M \neq \emptyset$. Since $q \in
A^{k,m}_K(2e+1)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{n \notin M} a_n \cdot 2^{{\textup{max}}\{K-2n-3,0\}} \cdot r^-_n + \sum_{n \in M} (a_n-1) \cdot 2^{{\textup{max}}\{K-2n-3,0\}} \cdot r^-_n\\
& \qquad \qquad \in B_K(2e+1) \subseteq A^{k,m}_K(2e+1),\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\sum_{n \in M} 2^{K-2n-3} \cdot r^-_n \in A^{k,m}_K(2e+1).$$ This implies $$\label{A=B-eq1}
\sum_{n \in M} 2^{K-2n} \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot r^-_n(f^2) \cdot
(1-\chi)^{2 \cdot {\textup{max}}(M)} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K
\rangle.$$ Using Lemma \[mult2\] we conclude from $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot r^-_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2n+1} \in 4
\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2n+3 \rangle$$ that $$2^{K-2n} \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot r^-_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2n+1}
\in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle$$ and hence, if $n < {\textup{max}}(M)$ then $$\label{A=B-eq2}
2^{K-2n} \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot r^-_n(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2
\cdot {\textup{max}}(M)} \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle.$$ The property $$8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot r^-_{{\textup{max}}(M)}(f^2) \cdot (1-\chi)^{2
\cdot {\textup{max}}(M)} \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle 2 \cdot {\textup{max}}(M) +
3 \rangle$$ and Lemma \[mult2\] imply $$\label{A=B-eq3}
2^{K-2 \cdot {\textup{max}}(M)} \cdot f'_k \cdot f^m \cdot r^-_{{\textup{max}}(M)}(f^2)
\cdot (1-\chi)^{2 \cdot {\textup{max}}(M)} \notin 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle
K \rangle.$$ Combining (\[A=B-eq1\]), (\[A=B-eq2\]) and (\[A=B-eq3\]) we obtain the desired contradiction.
We now come to the case $d=2e$.
Define $\beta: {\mathbb{Z}}[x] \to {\mathbb{Z}}[x]$ by $$\beta(q)(x) := \frac{x \cdot q(x) - q(1)}{x-1}$$ and set $$r^+_n := \beta(r^-_n) \mathrm{\; for \;} n \geq 0.$$
Notice that $\beta$ is an isomorphism of ${\mathbb{Z}}$-modules and preserves the degree of the polynomial. The inverse is given by $$\beta^{-1}(q)(x) = \frac{(x-1) \cdot q(x) + q(0)}{x}.$$ $r^+_n$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ with leading coefficient $1$.
\[A=B-even\] Let $K, k \geq 1$, $e \geq 3$. Then $$A^k_K(2e) = B_K(2e).$$
Recall that $$\begin{aligned}
& A^k_K(2e) := \left\lbrace q \in {\mathbb{Z}}[x] \mid \deg(q) \leq e-2, \; 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot (f^2-1) \cdot q(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle \right\rbrace,\\
& B_K(2e) := \left\lbrace \sum_{n=0}^{e-2} a_n \cdot
2^{{\textup{max}}\{K-2n-2,0\}} \cdot r^+_n \mid a_n \in {\mathbb{Z}}\right\rbrace.\end{aligned}$$ For $q \in {\mathbb{Z}}[x]$ with $\deg(q) \leq e-2$ we conclude $$\begin{aligned}
& q \in A^k_K(2e) \Longleftrightarrow\\
& \Longleftrightarrow 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot (f^2-1) \cdot q(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle\\
& \Longleftrightarrow 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot \left((f^2-1) \cdot q(f^2) + q(0) \right) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle \quad (\mathrm{since} \; f'_k \in {R_{\widehat G}})\\
& \Longleftrightarrow 8 \cdot f'_k \cdot f^2 \cdot \beta^{-1}(q)(f^2) \in 4 \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}[\chi]/ I \langle K \rangle\\
& \Longleftrightarrow \beta^{-1}(q) \in A^{k,2}_K(2e-1)\\
& \Longleftrightarrow \beta^{-1}(q) \in B_K(2e-1) \quad (\mathrm{see \; Theorem \; \ref{A=B-odd}})\\
& \Longleftrightarrow q \in B_K(2e).\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: In the notation of [@Wall(1999) chapter 14E] we have $L(\alpha_{\bar k}) =
L(N,k_1,\ldots,k_n)$.
[^2]: The choice of the notation in the last line is explained later in section \[sec:rho-invariant\].
[^3]: We thank A. Ranicki for informing us about the last claim.
[^4]: We will see below that it is a homomorphism when $X = L^{2d-1}(\alpha)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Gravitation lensing calculations, which are generally done for light ray, are extended to that for a massive particle. Many interesting results were observed. We discuss the scattering cross section along-with many consequential quantities here. In particular, the case of Schrwarzschild metric was taken as illustration, though the analysis applies to a wide range of cases, such as extended black holes.'
author:
- |
Nikhil Jayant Joshi$^a$[^1]\
[$^a$Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India - 400 005]{}
title: Gravitational Lensing In Case of Massive Particles
---
Introduction
============
Recently, there has been a lot of interest toward fixing the mass of a neutrino[@Kraus:ku][@Pascoli:2003ke], which constitute a large part of the cosmic background. It is anticipated, that such a neutrino flux can be used to probe the gravitational potential of the scattering object. In conventional relativity text books, a calculation of such a process is done with the case of light ray (particle with vanishing rest mass), which is the simplest possible, though very important case of gravitational scattering. Even though, for massive neutrinos moving with large momentum, light-like approximation should work with no much deviations from the actual experimental results, the case we discuss is also of importance, since it is observed that there is no proffered range of energies with which cosmic background particles come in and hence, one should not [*a priori*]{} be driven by the assumption of getting high energetic particles always.
In the present paper, we discuss the various quantities relevant in experimental observations of such a scattering process for a massive particle. In particular we define two quantities, namely magnification ratio ($\mu$) and refractive index ($\eta$). Following standard notations, magnification ratio, in general, can be defined as the ratio of the apparent area, projected on the source plan, of the measured flux to the area of the incoming flux on the same plane. In this work, we try to attach a refractive index to the space, following similar ideas from the usual optics. Refractive index, is defined as the proper instantaneous velocity of the particle at a spatial point to its asymptotic value. It can be anticipated, that since defining above quantities use of only geometric structure of the system is made, the quantities are applicable as soon as metric, and hence geometry of the space-time is given. It is not possible to give a general formula for these quantities, as can be seen from their metric dependence and/or choice of the co-ordinates. We illustrate the idea by deriving these quantities for the specific metric we have chosen, Schwarzschild metric.
Many interesting, new features were observed, compared to the case of light scattering. The analysis turns out to be of no much complication, but instructive, in this sense. The main course, of the paper, is divided into various sections. In section [**II**]{} we start with deriving scattering results for the case of Schwarzschild metric. In section [**III**]{}, we discuss the magnification ratio for this case. Refractive index for this metric is studied in section [**IV**]{}.
Scattering Calculations
=======================
The geodesic equation for the present case[^2] (static, isotropic, single compact center) is given by[@wei],
$$A(r)\left(\frac{dr}{dp}\right)^2 +\frac{J^2}{r^2} - \frac{1}{B(r)} = -E$$
The constants of motion (i.e. $E$ & $J$), bear the same physical meaning as in the classical regime, i.e. $J$ is angular momentum and $(1-E)/2$ is energy in the classical regime.
The analysis will go on the same line as for the case of light (as per the standard textbook calculations), but this time we have more complications. Unlike the case for light, we are bound to keep both $J$ and $E$ non-zero. However, as mentioned in the introduction, this doesn’t make the analysis very compli cated and one can easily proceed further.
Eliminating the parameter ’$p$’ from the above equations and substituting [**Robertson Expressions**]{} for $A(r)$ and $B(r)$ (both truncated up to second terms, following standard analysis[@wei]), we end up with a relation between the ’$\phi$’ co-ordinate and ’$r$’ co-ordinate as $$\phi(r) = \int_{r_{min}}^r \frac{\left(1 + \gamma\frac{GM}{r}\right)\left(\frac{J}{r^2}\right)dr}{\sqrt{(1 - E) + \frac{2GM}{r}-\frac{J^2}{r^2}}}$$ One could take higher approximations in $A(r)$ without much difficulty. $B(r)$ seems to be more troublesome, but it can be seen that, there is no harm in including one higher order, which would change our definition of $J$, in further analysis. But, since one expect a very small correction even at the higher energies(and even at the speed of light!), there is no need to worry about the corrections introduced by higher approximations.\
The above integral splits into nice parts, one equal to the classical expression and the next as a relativistic correction, $$\phi(r) = \int_{r_{min}}^r \frac{\left(\frac{J}{r^2}\right)dr}{\sqrt{(1 - E) + \frac{2GM}{r}-\frac{J^2}{r^2}}} + \gamma GM \int_{r_{min}}^r \frac{\left[\frac{J}{r^3}\right)dr}{\sqrt{(1 - E) + \frac{2GM}{r}-\frac{J^2}{r^2}}}$$ Small algebraic rearrangements give, in the limit $r\to \infty$ $$\phi_0 = \left(1+\gamma\frac{G^2M^2}{J}\right)\int_{r_{min}}^r \frac{\left(\frac{J}{r^2}\right)dr}{\sqrt{(1 - E) + \frac{2GM}{r} - \frac{J^2}{r^2}}} + \gamma\frac{GM}{4}\sqrt{1-E}$$ The integral in the first term is just the classical expression[@lan]. The multiplicative factor contains the relativistic correction, which is of the order of ($G^2M^2/J$), and which decreases as impact parameter increases. This is expected, since far away from the source[^3], space-time is essentially flat. On the other hand, this correction blows up at $J=0$ limit. It can be seen from the comparisons shown in fig.2, that this quantity cease to be meaningful immediately after it reaches approximately the limiting value set by the Schwarzschild radius. One can not interpret the result by giving any simple meaning to the results then, since all the equation and hence the analysis is invalid in the region given by $r \leq R_{Sch}$. The comparison between bending of light ray and a massive particle shows that there is a clear cut distinction between the two cases (fig.3)
Having calculated $\phi_0$, it is straightforward to get $\chi$, and hence differential cross section $d\sigma$, since the relation[^4] between differential cross section[@lan] and $\chi$, is same as that for Coulomb scattering.i.e. $$d\sigma = k'^2 \frac{d\Omega}{\sin^4(\chi/2)}$$ where, $k' = GM/(1-E)$ and $d\Omega$ is the solid angle.
On the other hand, it should be noted that, because[^5] of the possibility of multiple images, in general the experimental measurements are more involved. Following figure illustrates this point.
The no. of particles arriving the observer per unit time per unit area of cross section as O is given by, $$dn = \sum_i dn_i = \sum_i \frac{\rho_i}{r_o\sin\theta}\left|\frac{d\rho}{d\theta}\right| d\Omega$$ Summation is over each value of $\rho$, satisfying $$\rho_i + r_o\sin\theta = \left(r_o\cos\theta - \rho_i \tan(\chi_i/2)\right)\tan \chi_i$$ since $\chi$ is a known function of $\rho$, the above equation can be solved for allowed values of $\rho$ for given $\theta$ and $r_{obs}$. [*(Note that the exact expression for the flux will contain the components of $dn_i$’s in the direction $\theta$, but in the limit $r_{obs} \to \infty$ the corrections are insignificant)*]{}\
In the similar fashion one can get the relation between $r$ and $t$ as, $$t(r,r_{min}) = \int^r_{r_{min}} \frac{[1+(2+\gamma)\frac{GM}{r}] dr}{\sqrt{\frac{1}{B(r)}-E-\frac{J^2}{r^2}}}$$ which again can be separated into two parts, classical and relativistic correction as, $$\begin{aligned}
t(r,r_{min}) &=& (\left[\frac{\sqrt{(r^2-r^2_{min})-2a(r-r_{min})}}{\sqrt{(1-E)}}\right] \\
&&+ (1+\gamma)\frac{GM}{(1-E)^{3/2}}ln\frac{(r-a)+\sqrt{(r^2-r^2_{min})-2a(r-r_{min})}}{r_{min}-a})\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ with now $a=(GM)/(1-E)$. Compared to the classical result[^6] there is a clear-cut demarcation, now. Classically, the particle takes less time to travel between any two points (symmetric to $r_{min}$) in presence of the scattering center than it would have taken if it were moving on the straight line joining the two points when center is now there, whereas relativistically, the particle takes more time. This result is quite interesting, since it can be utilized as a check for validity of the relativistic domain. In the presence of the field, the particle traveled more distance between two spatial points, but with a velocity (of magnitude) always greater than $v_\infty$ i.e. it traveled greater path with a greater velocity. In classical case, the additional path introduced due to bending must be such that the particle took less time, whereas in relativistic case, there are two differences. The path length in this case is more (because of Robertson approximation) and the particle has to travel more distance than the classical one[^7]. At the same time there is an effect of time dilation, which was absent in the classical case.
Magnification Ratio
===================
The magnification ratio is defined as the ratio of the projection of the apparent area of the flux of the particles in presence of the scattering center to that if it were not there. Since, we assume the incoming particle flux to be of uniform areal density, it can be shown that this quantity equals, the ratio between the apparent area of the flux to area through which the flux was incident. The idea is illustrated in fig.2
In the case (see fig.2), when there is cylindrical symmetry (which in most cases can be assumed without trouble), it is given by $$\mu = \frac{h}{\rho}\frac{dh}{d\rho}$$ Further, from the geometry of the figure ($\chi = 2\phi_0 - \pi$), we have $$h = \rho + r_s \tan \chi(\rho)$$ Given metric, $\chi$ can be expressed in terms of $\rho$, the differential $\frac{dh}{d\rho}$ and hence $\mu$, is well defined (since $\chi$ is a monotonically varying function of $\rho$).
In our case we get, $$\mu = 1-\frac{4(k'/\rho)^3(r_s/\rho)}{(1-(k'/\rho)^2)}-\frac{4(k'/\rho)^2(r_s/\rho)^2}{(1-(k'/\rho)^2)^2}$$ where, $k'= (GM/v_\infty^2)$. The relation between differential cross section and magnification ratio can be given by, $$d\sigma = \frac{2\pi}{\mu}\left[\frac{2k'}{(1-\tan^2(\chi/2))} + r_s\tan^2(\chi)\right]dr_s$$ The above result is expected, since the differential cross section is a function of boundary conditions and possibly of metric only, whereas $\mu$ does depend upon $r_s$, the distance between object plane from the scattering center.
Refractive Index
================
We define local refractive index of a spatial point as the ratio of the magnitude of the asymptotic velocity of the particle ($v_{\infty}$), to the magnitude of the velocity at that point. In the classical case, where the above definition is unambiguous, the relativistic case needs more specification, as there are more than one velocities. It can be shown that it is easier to work with the proper velocity of the particle. Hence,
$$\eta (x,y,z) = \frac{v_{\infty}}{v_{proper}(x,y,z)}$$
From the symmetry of the Schwarzschild metric, it can be guessed that the refractive index will not depend upon $\phi$ and $\theta$ co-ordinates. The main concern is, whether it is possible to determine the trajectory of the particle completely, once the initial conditions are supplied. Because, only then one will be able to talk about the equivalence between specifying the metric and specifying the refractive index.
We start with the classical result, $$\phi= \int_{r_{min}}^r \frac{(J/r^2)dr}{\sqrt{2m[E-\frac{k}{r}]-\frac{J^2}{r^2}}}$$ which under proper b.c. leads to the expression, $$\cos\phi=\frac{J/r +mk/J}{\sqrt{2mE+m^2k^2/J^2}}$$ Hence, $$\sin\phi=\frac{\sqrt{2m[E-k/r]-\frac{J^2}{r^2}}}{\sqrt{2mE+\frac{m^2k^2}{J^2}}}$$ Now, if we define $\eta(r)$ as, $$\eta(r) = \frac{\sin(\phi\to\infty)}{\sin(\phi(r))}$$ which is nothing but the typical [**Snell’s law**]{} in optics, then from eq.14, it can be seen that this definition matches with our definition in terms of the local velocity.
For relativistic case, one would go along the same line and it is again easy to verify that our definition is equivalent to that obtained by Snell’s relation. And from our experience, in optics, that once initial angle of incidence is given for light ray, using Snell’s law one can determine the path completely, one can deduce that, once impact parameter of the particle is given, which is equivalent to specifying the angle of incidence, one can use the refractive index to determine the trajectory. In case of particle, one more information must be provided, namely incident velocity (which is equivalent to specifying momentum and hence in case of light ray, specifying its wavelength, which will determine the opacity of the material).
In this case, one can define the refractive index as $$\eta = v_\infty/v = \frac{\sqrt{(1-E)}}{\frac{E}{A^{1/2}(r)}\sqrt{1/B(r) - J^2/r^2-E}}$$
Conclusions
===========
From the above treatment, it can be deduced, that, that neutrinos, if found to be massive, will follow a trajectory different from that of light ray will, corrections depending upon the value of the impact parameter. The time delay measurement done accurately enough, can be used to test the validity of the energy domain for application of classical results. On the other hand, the later analysis shows that, the analogy between gravitational lenses and optical lenses can be extended further to include refraction effects.
acknowledgments
===============
I would like hereby express my humble gratitude toward Prof. D. Narasimha for offering me an opportunity to study this problem. I would also be thankful to Ambar Jain for his valuable comments in this work.
C. Kraus [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. A [**721**]{}, 533 (2003). S. Pascoli and S. T. Petcov, arXiv:hep-ph/0310003.
S. Weinberg, [*Gravitation And Cosmology: Principle And Applications Of General Theory of Relativity*]{}, New York, John Weiley, 1972.
Landau, L.D., [*Mechanics*]{}, 2ed., OXFORD: Pergamon Press, 1960.
Dirac, P.A.M., [*GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY*]{}, John Wieley Inc., 1975.
[^1]: Electronic Address: [email protected]
[^2]: here, we mean Schwarzschild metric
[^3]: property due to compactness of the source
[^4]: since, the problem reduces to an equivalent central potential problem
[^5]: the situation can be thought as the effect of an attractive potential
[^6]: Classically, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
t(r,r_{min}) &=& \frac{\sqrt{(r^2-r^2_{min})-2a(r-r_{min})}}{v_{\infty}} \nonumber\\
&&- \sqrt{\frac{ma^3}{k}}ln\frac{(r-a)+\sqrt{(r^2-r^2_{min})-2a(r-r_{min})}}{r_{min}-a}\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ which is nothing but $$\begin{aligned}
\tau = t(r_1,r_{min}) + t(r_2,r_{min}) - \frac{r_1 + r_2}{v_\infty} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
[^7]: Unlike classical case, now the work done on the particle by the field is used to 1. increase its speed and 2. increase its inertia
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Today’s highly heterogeneous computing landscape places a burden on programmers wanting to achieve high performance on a reasonably broad cross-section of machines. To do so, computations need to be expressed in many different but mathematically equivalent ways, with, in the worst case, one variant per target machine.
, a programming system embedded in Python, meets this challenge by defining a data model for array-style computations and a library of transformations that operate on this model. Offering transformations such as loop tiling, vectorization, storage management, unrolling, instruction-level parallelism, change of data layout, and many more, it provides a convenient way to capture, parametrize, and re-unify the growth among code variants. Optional, deep integration with `numpy` and PyOpenCL provides a convenient computing environment where the transition from prototype to high-performance implementation can occur in a gradual, machine-assisted form.
bibliography:
- 'loopy.bib'
title: ': transformation-based code generation for GPUs and CPUs'
---
— Code generators — Concurrent programming — Mathematical software Code generation, high-level language, GPU, vectorization, data layout, embedded language, high-performance
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
As computer architectures and execution models diversify, the number of mathematically equivalent ways a single computation can be expressed is growing rapidly. Unfortunately, only very few of these program variants achieve good machine utilization, as measured in, e.g. percentages of peak memory bandwidth or floating point throughput. Optimizing compilers that, with or without the help of user annotations, equivalently rewrite user code into a higher-performing variant have been the standard solution to this issue, although the goal of a compiler whose built-in optimization passes robustly make the sometimes complicated trade-offs needed to achieve good performance has remained somewhat elusive.
takes a different approach. code is most often embedded in an outer controlling program in the high-level programming language Python. The user first specifies the computation to be carried out in a language consisting of a tree of polyhedra describing loop bounds along with a list of instructions, each tied to a node in the tree of polyhedra. The specification provided by the user is deliberately only weakly ordered, providing freedom to the code generator.
Once a computation is specified as described above, its description is held within an object which is open to inspection and manipulation from within the host language. These manipulations occur by applying a variety of transformations that makes available. Most (but not all) of the transformations provided by exactly preserve the semantics of the specified code. This is different from the conventional compiler approach in a number of important ways:
- Intermediate representations are deliberately open and intended to be inspected and manipulated by the user. An advanced user can easily implement their own transformations, extending the library already available.
- Instructions, loop bounds, and transformations together uniquely specify the code to be generated. does not attempt to be intelligent or make choices on behalf of the user, all while retaining an interface high-level enough to be usable by moderately technical end users.
- Conventional compilers carry a considerable burden in proving that any rewriting they apply does not change the observable behavior of the program. Explicitly invoked transformations allow more flexibility. By invoking a transformation, the user may assume partial responsibility for its correctness. This puts changes within reach that would be difficult or impossible to apply with conventional compiler architectures, such as changes to globally visible data layouts.
- Unlike traditional ‘pragma’-type compiler directives, transformations are applied under the control of a full-scale programming language. This means that code generation can react to the target hardware or the workload at hand.
In addition, control from a high-level programming environment encourages reuse and abstraction within the space of transformations, which aids users in dealing with larger-scale code generation tasks, in which, possibly, a large number of similar computational kernels need to be generated.
Once a computation has been transformed into a sufficiently high-performance variant, the last task performed by is the generation of OpenCL C kernel code. If is used from within Python, and specifically, with PyOpenCL [@kloeckner_pycuda_2012], some extra convenience features are available.
PyOpenCL, much like its sister project PyCUDA, provides access to a low-level, high-performance parallel computing environment (OpenCL) from a high-level programming language (Python), facilitating run-time code generation (‘*RTCG*’). In addition to this foundational functionality and numerous parallel programming primitives, PyOpenCL provides an array object that behaves much like and is intended to fill a similar role as the popular `numpy` [@vanderwalt_numpy_2011] array object, with which it tightly integrates. If used to operate on PyOpenCL or `numpy` array objects, loopy can automatically infer types left unspecified in user code, facilitating generic programming. Optionally, it will also determine the values of parameters that specify array bounds, strides, and offsets. It does so with the help of a runtime layer that allows fast and user-friendly invocation of generated kernels.
Note that does not *require* the use of Python as the host language for generated code, or the use of PyOpenCL for that matter. A few extra conveniences are available with these packages and languages. But since generates OpenCL kernels, one or several of these can be generated ahead of time (say, by a script) and used from any type of host program.
The literature on code generation and optimization for array languages is vast, and no attempt will be made to provide a survey of the subject in any meaningful way. Instead, we will seek to highlight a few approaches that have significantly influenced the thinking behind , are particularly similar, or provide ideas for further development. is heavily inspired by the polyhedral model of expressing static-control programs [@feautrier_automatic_1996; @bastoul_code_2004]. While it takes significant inspiration from this approach, the details of how a program is represented, beyond the existence of a loop domain, are quite different. High-performance compilation for GPUs, by now, is hardly a new topic, and many different approaches have been used, including ones using OpenMP-style directives [@lee_openmpc_2010; @han_hicuda_2011], ones that are fully automatic [@yang_gpgpu_2010] ones based on functional languages [@svensson_obsidian_2010], and ones based on the polyhedral model [@verdoolaege_polyhedral_2013]. Other ones define an automatic, array computation middleware [@garg_velociraptor_2012] designed as a back-end for multiple languages, including Python. Automatic, GPU-targeted compilers for languages embedded in Python also abound [@catanzaro_copperhead_2011; @rubinsteyn_parakeet_2012; @continuum_numba_2014], most of which transform a Python AST at run-time based on various levels of annotation and operational abstraction.
Code generators just targeting one or a few specific workloads (often matrix-matrix multiplication) using many of the same techniques available in have been presented by various authors, ranging from early work such PhiPAC [@bilmes_optimizing_1997] to more recent OpenCL- and CUDA-based work [@cui_automatic_2011; @matsumoto_implementing_2012].
Perhaps the conceptually closest prior work to the approach taken by is CUDA-CHiLL [@rudy_programming_2011], which performs source-to-source translation based on a set of user-controlled transformations [@hall_loop_2010]. The two still are not quite alike, using dissimilar intermediate representations, dissimilar levels of abstraction in the description of transformations, and a dissimilar (static vs. program-controlled) approach to transformation.
A Tour of {#sec:tour}
==========
’s capabilities are most conveniently explained by example. It will be thus be expedient to present a tour of ’s interface. works at the granularity of a (short-to-medium-length) subroutine, which, in keeping with terminology from OpenCL, is called a *kernel*. Within a kernel, assumes mostly static control flow, although some forms of data-dependent control are allowed. It is intended for convenient expression of ‘number-crunching’-type computations.
’s data model
-------------
We begin with a very simple kernel that reads in one vector, doubles it, and writes the result to another.
``` {style="custompython" gobble="2"}
knl = loopy.make_kernel(
"{ [i]: 0<=i<n }", # loop domain
"out[i] = 2*a[i]") # instructions
```
The above snippet of code illustrates the main components of a kernel:
- The *loop domain*: `{ [i]: 0<=i<n }`. This defines the integer values of the loop variables for which instructions (see below) will be executed. It is written in the syntax of the `isl` library [@verdoolaege_isl_2010]. calls the loop variables *inames*. In this case, `i` is the sole iname. The loop domain is given as a conjunction of affine equality and inequality constraints. Integer divisibility constraints (resulting in strides) are also allowed. In the absence of divisibility constraints, the loop domain is convex.
Note that `n` is not an iname in the example. It is a *parameter* that is passed to the kernel by the user. `n` in this case determines the length of the vector being operated on.
The user may have knowledge regarding parameters that might allow the generation of more efficient code. allows such information to be communicated using ‘assumptions’. For the example kernel above, one might specify
assumptions=“n > 0 and n mod 4 = 0”
as a further parameter to `make_kernel` to indicate that `n` is positive and divisible by `4`. Like the loop domain, the assumptions are given in `isl` syntax.
To accommodate some data-dependent control flow, there is not actually a single loop domain, but rather a *tree of loop domains*, allowing more deeply nested domains to depend on inames introduced by domains closer to the root. This feature will not be explored in detail in this paper.
- The *instructions* to be executed: `out[i] = 2*a[i]`. These are scalar assignments between array elements, consisting of a left-hand side assignee and a right-hand side expression. Right-hand side expressions are allowed to contain the usual mathematical operators, calls to functions defined by OpenCL, and functions defined by the user outside of .
Reductions are allowed, too, and are given as, for example:
sum(k, a\[i,k\]\*b\[k,j\])
A programming interface exists that lets the user register custom functions, symbols, and reduction operations. In addition to the textual format shown above, instructions and the expressions defining them can be provided to loopy in the form of an expression tree. uses an external library supplying expression trees that provides facilities for data interchange with, e.g. the `sympy` and `maxima` computer algebra systems. This is convenient if is used as the code generation stage for a larger system.
allows the user to easily inspect its internal representation of the kernel in plain-text form:
>>> print knl —————————————————— KERNEL: loopy\_kernel —————————————————— ARGUMENTS: a: GlobalArg, type: <runtime>, shape: (n), dim\_tags: (stride:1) n: ValueArg, type: <runtime> out: GlobalArg, type: <runtime>, shape: (n), dim\_tags: (stride:1) —————————————————— DOMAINS: \[n\] -> [ \[i\] : i >= 0 and i <= -1 + n ]{} —————————————————— INSTRUCTIONS: \[i\] out\[i\] <- 2\*a\[i\] \# insn ——————————————————
This facility is particularly useful for debugging and as a learning tool. Its usefulness is most clearly visible once ’s library of kernel transformations comes into play, as both input and output of a given transformation can be readily inspected.
It is apparent that there is quite a bit more information here than was present in the vector-doubling kernel above. The bulk of this information originates from defaults intended to be ‘reasonable’. When not reasonable, all of this information can be overridden. Specifically, the following pieces of information were added:
- `a` and `out` have been classified as array arguments in global device memory.
- Bounds of the arrays `a` and `out` have been determined, based on the from the indices being accessed. (For some more complicated cases, user input may be required.)
Like `numpy`, loopy works on multi-dimensional arrays. shares `numpy`’s view of arrays and interoperates with it.
- In addition, each array axis has been given a default memory layout, described by (in this case, just one) ‘dimension tag’.
- has *not* determined the types of `a` and `out`. The data type is given as `<runtime>`, which means that these types will be determined by the data passed in when the kernel is invoked. generates a variant of the kernel for each combination of types passed in. Each variant is heavily cached, both in memory as a readily executable kernel residing in an OpenCL context, and as an OpenCL ‘binary’ on disk.
Running a kernel
----------------
Running the kernel defined above from within the host Python program is straightforward:
evt, (out,) = knl(queue, a=x\_vec\_dev) assert (out.get() == (2\*x\_vec\_dev).get()).all()
This run-time feature makes use of PyOpenCL, introduced above. `queue` is expected to be a PyOpenCL `CommandQueue` object corresponding to an OpenCL command queue, and `a` is expected to be a PyOpenCL device array, a work-alike of a `numpy` array that resides in OpenCL global device memory. PyOpenCL device arrays, like `numpy` arrays, include type, shape and memory layout information. The assertion in the code above transfers the data back to the host (into newly created `numpy` arrays) and checks that the calculation was carried out correctly.
By setting the appropriate option, can be instructed to print the generated (OpenCL C) source code, increasing user insight into the code generation process:
>>> knl = loopy.set\_options(knl, write\_cl=True) >>> evt, (out,) = knl(queue, a=x\_vec\_dev) \#define lid(N) ((int) get\_local\_id(N)) \#define gid(N) ((int) get\_group\_id(N)) \_\_kernel void \_\_attribute\_\_ ((reqd\_work\_group\_size(1, 1, 1))) loopy\_kernel(\_\_global float const \*restrict a, int const n, \_\_global float \*restrict out) [ for (int i = 0; i <= (-1 + n); ++i) out\[i\] = 2.0f \* a\[i\]; ]{}
A few things are worth noting at this point: First, has used the (run-time) type of `x_vec_dev` to specialize the kernel. Absent other information, and based on the single assignment to *out*, type inference has concluded that `out`, like `a` in the input, contains single-precision floating point data. Second, the sizing parameter `n`, while technically being an argument, did not need to be passed, as is able to find `n` from the shape of the input argument `a`.
It is also possible to obtain just the generated OpenCL C source code, without running a kernel or making use of any run-time features.
Ordering
--------
The following example highlights ’s ordering semantics:
knl = loopy.make\_kernel( “[ \[i,j,ii,jj\]: 0<=i,j,ii,jj<n ]{}”, “”“ out\[j,i\] = a\[i,j\] [id=transpose]{} out\[ii,jj\] = 2\*out\[ii,jj\] [dep=transpose]{} ”“”)
The purpose of this code is to compute the transpose of a two-dimensional array and, then, as a separate operation, double each entry in place. One way to achieve correctness of this program is to require that the transpose be complete before the multiplication is begun.
Each instruction in a kernel only ‘sees’ the subset of inames with which it is directly concerned. Speaking more precisely, given a set of *active* inames, the *projection* of the loop domain onto these inames determines the iname values for which the instruction is executed. Usage of these projections may dictate the order in which loops are nested.
’s programming model is completely *unordered* by default. This means that:
- There are no guarantees regarding the order (or concurrency) with which the loop domain is traversed. In the previous kernel, `i==3` could be reached before `i==0` but also before (or in parallel with) `i==17`. A program is only well-formed if it produces a valid result irrespective of this ordering.
- In addition, there is (by default) no ordering between instructions either.
Ordering among instructions can be introduced by explicitly notated dependencies, as used above and discussed below.
- The nesting order of the loops implied by the domain is, by default, undefined.
A requested loop nesting order can be specified in the form of a list indicating prioritization, whose semantics are defined as:
If, during determination of loop nesting, an ambiguity exists (i.e. more than one iname’s loop could be opened without affecting program semantics), prefer inames that occur earlier in the list of iname priorities.
Note that this priority information has an advisory role only. If the kernel logically requires a different nesting, iname priority is ignored. Priority is only considered if loop nesting is ambiguous. If not enough prioritization information is supplied to deduce an unambiguous nesting, a warning is issued.
To determine inter-instruction and inter-loop ordering, adheres to the following rule:
Instruction $B$ depending on instruction $A$ ensures that, *within* the largest *shared* set of inames between $A$ and $B$, $A$ is executed before $B$.
In the kernel above, two coding techniques related to this rule can be observed. First, the doubling operation declares a *dependency* on the transpose, ensuring that it completes before the doubling is started. This works by giving one instruction a symbolic name (using `{id=name}`) and then referring to that symbolic name from the list of dependencies of another instruction, (using `{dep=name}`).
Second, the doubling operation uses a separate set of `i`/`j` loops (`ii` and `jj` here). If both were part of the same `i`/`j` loop nest, the dependency would only apply *within* the (shared) `i`/`j` loops.
Since manually notating dependencies can be cumbersome, additionally applies the following heuristic:
If a variable is written by exactly one instruction, then all instructions reading that variable will automatically depend on the writing instruction.
The intent of this heuristic is to cover the common case of a precomputed result being stored and used many times. Generally, these dependencies are *in addition* to any manual dependencies added via `{dep=...}`. It is possible (but rare) that the heuristic adds undesired dependencies. In this case, `{dep=*...}` (i.e. a leading asterisk) can be used to notate an *exhaustive* list of dependencies.
The set of *active* inames for each instruction is either given explicitly by the user or determined by the following heuristic:
Inames referred to by the instruction (say, as part of an indexing expression) are always part of the set of active inames.
In addition, active inames propagate along the transitive closure of the depends-on relation.
The propagation part of the rule is illustrated by this code snippet:
z = expr(iname) [id=insn0]{} y = expr(z) [id=insn1]{} x = expr(y) [id=insn2]{}
In this code, `insn1` will depend on `insn0`, because `insn1` reads `z`, whose sole writer is `insn0`. Similarly, `insn2` will depend on `insn1`. Finally, `insn1` and `insn2` both have `iname` as part of their active iname set, because of dependency-based propagation of active inames.
It should be readily apparent that dependencies play a major role in the way programs are specified. To help users write programs in this manner, and to ease reasoning about this nonlinear program ordering, provides a facility to visualize instruction dependencies and their interaction with loops, through the use of the open-source GraphViz [@ellson_graphviz_2002] graph drawing tools. Example output for the above kernel is shown below, representing a graph of dependencies along with information on loop nesting:
{width="3cm"}
Kernel transformation {#sec:transformation}
---------------------
The third main pillar of besides the kernel data model and the run-time integration described above is a *library of transformations* that can be applied to kernels represented in the data model. Generically, these transformations have the following shape:
new\_kernel = loopy.do\_something(old\_kernel, ...)
It should be noted that kernel instances are immutable, and thus kernel transformations are always (at least outwardly) free from side effects.
### `split_iname` as a transformation
As a first example, consider the `split_iname` transformation, which replaces one iname (called `OLD` below) with two new ones (called `INNER` and `OUTER` below), one of them of a fixed length. The three inames are related by $$\mathtt{OLD} = \mathtt{INNER} + \mathtt{GROUP\_SIZE} * \mathtt{OUTER}.
\label{eq:split-iname}$$ The names `INNER` and `OUTER` used above have no automatic impact on loop nesting. The following code snippet provides an illustration:
knl = loopy.make\_kernel( “[ \[i\]: 0<=i<n ]{}”, “a\[i\] = 0”) knl = loopy.split\_iname(knl, “i”, 16) -> for (int i\_outer = 0; i\_outer <= (-1 + ((15 + n) / 16)); ++i\_outer) for (int i\_inner = 0; i\_inner <= 15; ++i\_inner) if ((-1 + -1 \* i\_inner + -16 \* i\_outer + n) >= 0) a\[i\_inner + i\_outer \* 16\] = 0.0f;
Observe that conditionals retaining the original loop bound have been automatically introduced where necessary to maintain correctness. will issue conditionals as early as possible and for groups of instructions that are as large as feasible. Nonetheless, these conditionals can become a serious hindrance to achieving good performance. For these cases, an extra argument to `split_iname` allows the generation of separate code for edge and corner cases, with automatic dispatch between edge/corner and bulk code.
To illustrate the expressiveness of the primitives supplied, note that prioritization and the `split_iname` transformation are already enough to achieve *loop tiling*.
`split_iname` is implemented by first introducing the ‘new’ inames into the loop domain, adding the equality constraint and projecting out the ‘old’ iname, and by subsequently rewriting the instructions using as a substitution rule. All of these operations are available as primitives within or the libraries used by it. In particular, the `islpy` library [@kloeckner_islpy_2014], specifically created for , provides access to all operations implemented in `isl`, providing access to advanced polyhedral operations with relative ease. Since ’s data model is documented, it is thus feasible for users to author their own code transformations based on it. It should be noted that while ’s data model departs somewhat from the conventional polyhedral representation of static control parts [@feautrier_automatic_1996], many polyhedral ideas are nonetheless applicable and useful.
### Iname implementation tags
In addition to the `for` loops encountered in code examples thus far, supports a number of other constructs. Each iname in loopy carries a so-called ‘iname implementation tag’.
A first example of an iname implementation tag is “`unr`”, which performs loop unrolling. The `tag_inames` transformation applies these tags. After using `split_iname` to create fixed-length sub-loop, one might use unrolling on the fixed-length loop:
knl = loopy.make\_kernel( “[ \[i\]: 0<=i<n ]{}”, “a\[i\] = 0”, assumptions=“n>=0 and n mod 4 = 0”) knl = loopy.split\_iname(knl, “i”, 4) knl = loopy.tag\_inames(knl, [“i\_inner”: “unr”]{}) -> for (int i\_outer = 0; i\_outer <= (-1 + ((3 + n) / 4)); ++i\_outer) [ a\[0 + i\_outer \* 4\] = 0.0f; a\[1 + i\_outer \* 4\] = 0.0f; a\[2 + i\_outer \* 4\] = 0.0f; a\[3 + i\_outer \* 4\] = 0.0f; ]{}
Note that without the divisibility assumption on the vector length, more general (but less efficient and more verbose) code would have been generated.
Recall that targets the OpenCL/CUDA model of computation. Within that model, parallelism is expressed as a two-level hierarchy of groups of thread-like ‘work items’, with the higher level abstracting the index of a ‘processor core’ and the lower level abstracting the index of a ‘vector lane’. These two levels of indices are accessible by iname implementation tags, corresponding to grid axes presented by the compute abstraction.
Further iname implementation tags invoke instruction-level parallelism (“`ilp`”), whose main feature is duplication of work-item-level storage to emulate multiple work items in-line in a single one, or vectorization (“`vec`”).
### Transforming data layout
Mirroring the functionality of iname implementation tags, each array axis is also associated with an implementation tag. By default an array axis will be cast into code using a simple stride-based offset. Other options include dispatching differing array indices to entries of explicitly represented vectors (such as OpenCL’s `float4`), or to separate array arguments altogether. This is particularly powerful because it allows the user to switch between a structure-of-arrays and an array-of-structures memory layout using a simple change of an array axis implementation tag. Another set of data layout transformations available in introduces padding and block granularities.
### Prefetching and precomputation
An important consideration in many kinds of computational software is the trade-off between available storage space and computational power needed to recompute an intermediate result. gives the user explicit control over this using the high-level `add_prefetch` and lower-level `precompute` transformations.
`precompute` is based on *substitution rules* that are somewhat like C macros. They are notated alongside instructions, but set apart from them through the use of a `:=` definition marker.
f(x) := x\*a\[x\] g(x) := 12 + f(x) h(x) := 1 + g(x) + 20\*g(x)
a\[i\] = h(i) \* h(i)
Before code generation, all substitution rules are expanded, leading to the right-hand-side code in the rule being, effectively, inlined. Beyond redundancy reduction, substitution rules serve another important purpose: They can act as identifiers for precomputed quantities. Given an index range covering arguments of a substitution rule, can allocate and manage a temporary (OpenCL-`private` or `local`) array for this purpose, and it can orchestrate any necessary synchronization necessary to ensure precomputed data is ready when needed and not prematurely overwritten.
`add_prefetch` makes use of this facility by first extracting all or specified accesses to a given array into a substitution rule and then relying on `precompute` to generate the code loading the data.
This concludes a brief tour of some of the main features in the code generator and its input language. Much of ’s design was guided by computational software that was built on top of it, with an eye towards broader impact and usefulness.
Experimental results {#sec:experiments}
====================
Presenting performance results for a code generator like is not very meaningful in general, as the obtained performance hinges on the sequence of transformations specified by the user to a far larger degree than it might for an optimizing compiler. After all, is not a compiler, but a code generator. Nonetheless, the argument that good performance is achievable using ’s transformations merits being supported. Table \[tab:performance\] summarizes performance results for a variety of workloads across CPUs and GPUs. These performance numbers were obtained by running ’s test cases against the list of devices specified in the caption of Table \[tab:performance\]. Since ’s tests are, for now, more focused on correctness than performance, these results should be viewed as a lower bound, in the sense that better performance should be available with rather limited tuning effort.
A careful exploration of how ’s transformation language enables access to performance across a variety of common numerical operations is the subject of a forthcoming article [@kloeckner_applications_2014].
Intel AMD Nvidia
----------------- --------------- ------- ------- --------
`saxpy` \[GBytes/s\] 18.6 231.0 232.1
`sgemm` \[GFlops/s\] 12.3 492.3 369.4
3D Coulomb pot. \[M Pairs/s\] 231 10949 9985
dG FEM volume \[GFlops/s\] 77.4 1251 351
dG FEM surface \[GFlops/s\] 25.9 527 214
: Performance results for a number of simple performance tests. ‘Intel’ tests were run on an Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3930K CPU @ 3.20GHz using the 64-bit Linux Intel OpenCL SDK, build 76921. ‘AMD’ tests were run on an AMD Radeon HD 7990 using AMD’s `fglrx` driver version 14.1beta1 and ICD version 14.3beta1. ‘Nvidia’ tests were run on an Nvidia GeForce Titan using Nvidia’s 64-bit Linux driver and ICD version 331.49. []{data-label="tab:performance"}
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
provides a small, modular code generation capability for high-performance array code on CPU- and GPU-type shared memory parallel computers. It is available under the MIT open-source license from <http://mathema.tician.de/software/loopy>.
The core contributions in the approach behind are the following: **(1)** A novel, partially ordered programming language and corresponding internal representation of array-based programs based loosely on the polyhedral model was described. **(2)** An extensive library of transformations was presented to act upon the internal representation that is able to capture many commonly used tuning strategies. **(3)** A novel way of assembling heterogeneous computational software is presented. The approach uses a dynamic language for high-level control while interfacing with a run-time code generator for high-performance execution. It builds and improves upon the model of run-time code generation from a scripting language proposed in [@kloeckner_pycuda_2012]. **(4)** The data model exposes enough information for a strong run-time interface that provides safe, efficient transitions between host and embedded language, optionally enabling type-generic programming. **(5)** The ideas above combine to yield good user program maintainability by enforcing strong separation of concerns between computation semantics and performance optimization, easily capturing program variants and allowing optimization reuse.
While is a useful system *today*, a number of extensions are likely to broaden its appeal and increase its usefulness. Improving ’s code generation for reduction and adding a capability for parallel scans [@blelloch_scans_1989] would unlock applications thus far out of reach. A key feature enabling both of these as well as many more applications is the emulation of global synchronization by mapping one kernel to multiple OpenCL-style kernels. Next, while currently targets only OpenCL C, expanding code generation support to further backends (such as OpenMP or CUDA C) would not only let more users enjoy its benefits, it would also allow transform-based programming to deliver code that is flexible with respect to device vendors and the underlying compute abstraction. ’s kernel representation, its library of transformations, and its runtime features combine to provide a compelling environment within which array-shaped computations can be conveniently expressed and optimized. It covers a number of important applications of parallel computation, including a few of the well-known ‘seven dwarfs’ and their extensions [@asanovic_landscape_2006]. It makes great performance accessible and the code that achieves it maintainable.
I would like to acknowledge tremendously influential discussions with Tim Warburton that led to the genesis of and guided its design. I would also like to acknowledge feedback from early adopters of , including Rob Kirby, Maxim Kuznetsov, and Ivan Oseledets.
My work on was supported in part by US Navy ONR grant number N00014-14-1-0117 and via a postdoctoral appointment at NYU supported in part by the Applied Mathematical Sciences Program of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DEFGO288ER25053 and by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and AFOSR under NSSEFF Program Award FA9550-10-1-0180.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the Yukawa model with two different mass scales the renormalization group equation is used to obtain relations between scattering amplitudes at low energies. Considering fermion-fermion scattering as an example, a basic one-loop renormalization group relation is derived which gives possibility to reduce the problem to the scattering of light particles on the “external field” substituting a heavy virtual state. Applications of the results to problems of searching new physics beyond the Standard Model are discussed.'
author:
- |
A.V.Gulov [^1] and V.V.Skalozub [^2]\
\
[*Dniepropetrovsk State University*]{}\
[*Dniepropetrovsk, 320625 Ukraine* ]{}
date: 'November 2, 1998'
title: RENORMALIZATION GROUP AND RELATIONS BETWEEN SCATTERING AMPLITUDES IN A THEORY WITH DIFFERENT MASS SCALES
---
Introduction
============
An important problem of nowadays high energy physics is searching for deviation from the Standard Model (SM) of elementary particles which may appear due to heavy virtual states entering the extended models and having the masses much greater than the W-boson mass $m_W$ [@1]. One of approaches for the description of such phenomena is the construction of the effective Lagrangians (EL) appearing owing to decoupling of heavy particles. In principle, it is possible to write down a lot of different EL describing effects of new physics beyond the SM. In Ref. [@2] the EL generated at a tree level in a general renormalizable gauge theory have been derived. These objects by construction contain a great number of arbitrary parameters responsible for specific processes. But it is well known that a renormalizable theory includes a small number of independent constants due to relations between them. The renormalizability of the theory is resulted in the renormalization group (RG) equations for scattering amplitudes [@3]. In Ref. [@4] it has been proven that RG equation can be used to obtain a set of relations between the parameters of the EL. Two main observations were used. First, it has been shown that a heavy virtual state may be considered as an external field scattering SM light particles. Second, the renormalization of the vertices, describing scattering on the external field, can be determined by the $\beta $- and $\gamma $- functions calculated with light particles, only. Hence, the relations mentioned above follow. As an example the SM with the heavy Higgs scalar has been investigated. In the decoupling region the RG equations for scattering amplitudes have been reduced to the ones for vertices describing the scattering of light particles on the external field substituting the corresponding virtual heavy field. In Ref.[@4] the only scalar field of the theory was taken as the heavy particle, and no mixing between the heavy and the light fields at the one-loop level has been considered. Here, we are going to investigate the Yukawa model with a heavy scalar field $\chi$ and a light scalar field $\varphi$. The purposes of our investigation are two fold: to derive the one-loop RG relation for the four-fermion scattering amplitude in the decoupling region and to find out the possibility of reducing this relation in the equation for vertex describing the scattering of light particles on the external field when the mixing between heavy and light virtual states takes place. In Ref.[@4] the specific algebraic identities originated from the RG equation for scattering amplitude have been derived. When the explicit couplings in EL are unknown and represented by the arbitrary parameters, one may treat the identities as the equations dependent on the parameters and appropriate $\beta -$ and $\gamma -$ functions. If due to a symmetry the number of $\beta -$ and $\gamma -$ functions is less than the number of RG relations, one can obtain non trivial system of equations for the parameters mentioned. This was shown for the gauge couplings [@4]. In present paper we derive RG relations for the EL parameters in the model including one-loop mixing of heavy and light fields.
Renormalization group relation for amplitude
============================================
The Lagrangian of the model reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1}
{\cal L}&=&\frac{1}{2}{\left( \partial_{\mu}\varphi \right) }^{2}-
\frac{m^{2}}{2}{\varphi}^{2}-\lambda{\varphi}^{4}+ \frac{1}{2}{\left(
\partial_{\mu}\chi \right) }^{2}- \frac{{\Lambda}^{2}}{2}{\chi}^{2}-
\xi{\chi}^{4}+\nonumber \\
&&\rho {\varphi}^{2}{\chi}^{2}+{\bar\psi}\left(
i\partial_{\mu}\gamma_{\mu}-M-G_{\varphi}\varphi- G_{\chi}\chi \right) \psi,\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi$ is a Dirac spinor field. The $S$-matrix element for the four-fermion scattering at the one-loop level is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2}
{\hat S}&=&-\frac{i}{2}\int\frac{dp_{1}}{{\left( 2\pi\right)
}^{4}}...\frac{dp_{4}}{{\left( 2\pi\right) }^{4}}{\left( 2\pi\right) }^{4}\delta\left(
p_{1}+...+p_{4}\right) {\cal N}\left[ S_{1PR}+ S_{box}\right],\nonumber \\
S_{1PR}&=&\sum\limits_{{\phi}_{1},{\phi}_{2}=\varphi,
\chi}G_{{\phi}_{1}} G_{{\phi}_{2}}\left(
\frac{{\delta}_{{\phi}_{1}{\phi}_{2}}}{s-m_{{\phi}_{1}}}+\frac{1}{s-
m_{{\phi}_{1}}}{\Pi}_{{\phi}_{1}{\phi}_{2}}\left( s \right) \frac{1}{s-
m_{{\phi}_{2}}}\right) \times\nonumber \\
&& {\bar\psi}\left( p_{1}\right) \left(1+2\Gamma\left( p_{2},
-p_{1}- p_{2}\right) \right) \psi\left( p_{2}\right)\times {\bar\psi}\left(
p_{4}\right) \psi\left( p_{3}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $s={\left( p_{1}+p_{2}\right) }^{2}$, $S_{1PR}$ is the contribution from the one-particle reducible diagrams shown in the Figs.\[fig:tree\]-\[fig:loop\] and $S_{box}$ is the contribution from the box diagram. The one-loop polarization operator of scalar fields ${\Pi}_{{\phi}_{1}{\phi}_{2}}$ and the one-loop vertex function $\Gamma$ are usually defined trough the Green functions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3}
D_{{\phi}_{1}{\phi}_{2}}\left( s \right)
&=&\frac{{\delta}_{{\phi}_{1}{\phi}_{2}}}{s-m_{{\phi}_{1}}}+\frac{1}{s-
m_{{\phi}_{1}}}{\Pi}_{{\phi}_{1}{\phi}_{2}}\left( s \right) \frac{1}{s-
m_{{\phi}_{2}}},\nonumber \\
G_{\phi\phi\psi}\left( p,q \right)&=&-\sum\limits_{{\phi}_{1}
}G_{{\phi}_{1}} D_{{\phi}_{1}\phi}\left( q^{2} \right) S_{\psi}\left( p \right)
\left(1+\Gamma\left( p, q\right) \right) S_{\psi} \left( -p-q\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $ S_{\psi}$ is the spinor propagator in the momentum representation. The renormalized fields, masses and charges are defined as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4}
\psi &=&Z_{\psi}^{-1/2}{\psi}_{0},\quad\left( \begin{array}{c}\varphi \\ \chi
\end{array}\right)= Z_{\phi}^{-1/2}\left( \begin{array}{c}{\varphi}_{0} \\
{\chi}_{0} \end{array}\right),\quad \left( \begin{array}{c}{G_{\varphi}}\\ {G_{\chi}}\end{array}\right)= Z_{G}^{-1}\left( \begin{array}{c}G_{{\varphi}_{0}} \\
G_{{\chi}_{0}} \end{array}\right),\nonumber \\
M^{2}&=& M_{0}^{2}-{\delta M}^{2},\qquad\quad m^{2}= m_{0}^{2}-{\delta
m}^{2},\qquad\quad {\Lambda}^{2}= {\Lambda}_{0}^{2}-{\delta \Lambda}^{2},\end{aligned}$$
Using the dimensional regularization (the dimension of the momentum space is $D=4-\varepsilon$) and the $\overline{MS}$ renormalization scheme [@5] one can compute the renormalization constants $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5}
Z_{\psi}&=&1-\frac{1}{16{\pi}^{2}\varepsilon}\left( {{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}+
{{G_{\chi}}}^{2}\right) ,\quad {\delta M}^{2}=\frac{3}{8{\pi}^{2}\varepsilon}\left(
{{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}+ {{G_{\chi}}}^{2}\right) M^{2},\nonumber \\
Z_{\phi}^{1/2}&=&1-\frac{1}{8{\pi}^{2}\varepsilon}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}{{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}&
2{G_{\varphi}}{G_{\chi}}\frac{{\Lambda}^{2}-6 M^{2}}{{\Lambda}^{2}-
m^{2}}\\-2{G_{\varphi}}{G_{\chi}}\frac{m^{2}-6 M^{2}}{{\Lambda}^{2}-
m^{2}}& {{G_{\chi}}}^{2}\end{array}\right) , \nonumber \\
{\delta m}^{2}&=&\frac{1}{4{\pi}^{2}\varepsilon}\left( \left(
{{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}+6\lambda\right) m^{2}-6 {{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}M^{2}-
\rho{\Lambda}^{2}\right),\nonumber \\
{\delta \Lambda}^{2}&=&\frac{1}{4{\pi}^{2}\varepsilon}\left( \left(
{{G_{\chi}}}^{2}+6\xi\right) {\Lambda}^{2}-6 {{G_{\chi}}}^{2}M^{2}-\rho
m^{2}\right),\nonumber \\
Z_{G}^{-1}&=&\left[ 1-\frac{3}{16{\pi}^{2}\varepsilon}\left(
G_{\varphi}^{2}+ G_{\chi}^{2}\right) \right] {\left( Z_{\phi}^{1/2}\right) }^{T}.\end{aligned}$$ From Eq.(\[5\]) we obtain the appropriate $\beta -$ and $\gamma -$ functions [@5] at the one-loop level: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6}
&& {{\beta}_{\varphi}}=\frac{d{G_{\varphi}}}{d ln \kappa}=\frac{1}{16{\pi}^{2}}\left(
5{{G_{\varphi}}}^{3}+3{G_{\varphi}}{{G_{\chi}}}^{2}-4\frac{m^{2}-6 M^{2}}{{\Lambda}^{2}-
m^{2}}{G_{\varphi}}{{G_{\chi}}}^{2} \right) ,\nonumber \\
&& {{\beta}_{\chi}}=\frac{d{G_{\chi}}}{d ln \kappa}=\frac{1}{16{\pi}^{2}}\left(
5{{G_{\chi}}}^{3}+3{G_{\chi}}{{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}+4\frac{{\Lambda}^{2}-6
M^{2}}{{\Lambda}^{2}-m^{2}}{G_{\chi}}{{G_{\varphi}}}^{2} \right) ,\nonumber \\
&& {{\gamma}_{m}}=-\frac{d ln m^{2}}{d ln \kappa}=-\frac{1}{4{\pi}^{2}}\left(
{{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}\frac{m^{2}-6 M^{2}}{m^{2}}+6\lambda-\rho
\frac{{\Lambda}^{2}}{m^{2}} \right) ,\nonumber \\
&& {{\gamma}_{\Lambda}}=-\frac{d ln {\Lambda}^{2}}{d ln \kappa}=-
\frac{1}{4{\pi}^{2}}\left( {{G_{\chi}}}^{2}\left( 1-
6\frac{M^{2}}{{\Lambda}^{2}}\right) +6\xi-\rho
\frac{m^{2}}{{\Lambda}^{2}} \right) ,\nonumber \\
&& {{\gamma}_{\psi}}=-\frac{d ln \psi}{d ln
\kappa}=\frac{1}{32{\pi}^{2}}\left({{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}+{{G_{\chi}}}^{2} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Then, the $S$-matrix element can be expressed in terms of the renormalized quantities (\[4\]). The contribution from the one-particle reducible diagrams becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{7}
S_{1PR}&=&\sum\limits_{{\phi}_{1},{\phi}_{2}}G_{{\phi}_{1}}
G_{{\phi}_{2}}\left( \frac{{\delta}_{{\phi}_{1}{\phi}_{2}}}{s-
m_{{\phi}_{1}}}+\frac{1}{s-
m_{{\phi}_{1}}}{\Pi}_{{\phi}_{1}{\phi}_{2}}^{fin}\left( s \right) \frac{1}{s-
m_{{\phi}_{2}}}\right) \nonumber \\
&& {\bar\psi}\left( p_{1}\right)
\left(1+2{\Gamma}^{fin}\left( p_{2}, -p_{1}- p_{2}\right) \right) \psi\left(
p_{2}\right)\times {\bar\psi}\left( p_{4}\right) \psi\left( p_{3}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the functions ${\Pi}_{{\phi}_{1}{\phi}_{2}}^{fin}$ and ${\Gamma}^{fin}$ are the expressions ${\Pi}_{{\phi}_{1}{\phi}_{2}}$ and $\Gamma$ without the terms proportional to $1/\varepsilon$. Since the quantity $S_{box}$ is finite, the renormalization leaves it without changes. Introducing the RG operator at the one-loop level [@6] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{8}
{\cal D}&=&\frac{d}{d ln \kappa}=\frac{\partial}{\partial ln \kappa}+{\cal
D}^{(1)}=\nonumber\\
&&\frac{\partial}{\partial ln \kappa}+\sum\limits_{\phi}
{{\beta}_{\phi}}\frac{\partial}{\partial {G_{\phi}}}-{{\gamma}_{m}}\frac{\partial}{\partial ln m^{2}}-{{\gamma}_{\Lambda}}\frac{\partial}{\partial ln {\Lambda}^{2}}-{{\gamma}_{\psi}}\frac{\partial}{\partial ln \psi}\end{aligned}$$ we determine that the following relation holds for the $S$-matrix element $$\label{9}
{\cal D}\left( S_{1PR}+S_{box} \right) =\frac{\partial
S_{1PR}^{(1)}}{\partial ln \kappa}+{\cal D}^{(1)} S_{1PR}^{(0)}=0,$$ where the $S_{1PR}^{(0)}$ and the $S_{1PR}^{(1)}$ are the contributions to the $S_{1PR}$ at the tree level and at the one-loop level, respectively: $$\label{10}
S_{1PR}^{(0)}=\left( \frac{{{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}}{s-m^{2}}+\frac{{{G_{\chi}}}^{2}}{s-
{\Lambda}^{2}} \right) {\bar\psi}\psi\times{\bar\psi}\psi ,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{11}
\frac{\partial S_{1PR}^{(1)}}{ \partial ln
\kappa}&=&\frac{{\bar\psi}\psi\times{\bar\psi}\psi }{4{\pi}^{2}}\left( -\left(
{{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}+{{G_{\chi}}}^{2}\right) \left( \frac{{{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}}{s-
m^{2}}+\frac{{{G_{\chi}}}^{2}}{s-{\Lambda}^{2}} \right) + \right. \nonumber \\
&& \frac{{{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}\left( \rho{\Lambda}^{2}-6\lambda
m^{2}+{{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}\left( 6M^{2}-s\right) \right) }{{\left( s-m^{2}\right) }^{2}}+
\frac{2{{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}{{G_{\chi}}}^{2}\left( 6M^{2}-s\right) }{\left( s-m^{2}\right)
\left( s-{\Lambda}^{2}\right) }+\nonumber \\
&&\left. \frac{{{G_{\chi}}}^{2}\left( \rho m^{2}-6\xi{\Lambda}^{2}+{{G_{\chi}}}^{2}\left(
6M^{2}-s\right) \right) }{{\left( s-{\Lambda}^{2}\right) }^{2}} \right) .\end{aligned}$$
The first term in Eq.(\[11\]) is originated from the one-loop correction to the fermion-scalar vertex. The rest terms are connected with the polarization operator of scalars. The third term describes the one-loop mixing between the scalar fields. It is canceled in the RG relation (\[9\]) by the mass-dependent terms in the $\beta -$ functions produced by the non-diagonal elements in $Z_{\phi}$. Eq.(\[9\]) is the consequence of the renormalizability of the model. It insures the leading logarithm terms of the one-loop $S$-matrix element to reproduce the appropriate tree-level structure. In contrast to the familiar treatment we are not going to improve scattering amplitudes by solving Eq.(\[9\]). We will use it as an algebraic identity implemented in the renormalizable theory. Naturally if one knows the explicit couplings expressed in terms of the basic set of parameters of the model, this RG relation is trivially fulfilled. But the situation changes when the couplings are represented by unknown arbitrary parameters as it occurs in the EL approach [@1],[@2]. In this case the RG relations are the algebraic equations dependent on these parameters and appropriate $\beta -$ and $\gamma -$ functions. In the presence of a symmetry the number of $\beta -$ and $\gamma -$ functions is less than the number of RG relations. So, one has non trivial system of equations relating the parameters of EL. Such a scenario is realized for the gauge coupling as it has been demonstrated in [@4]. Although the considered simple model has no gauge couplings and no relation between the EL parameters occurs, we are able to demonstrate the general procedure of deriving the RG relations for EL parameters in the theory with one-loop mixing. This is essential for dealing with the EL describing deviations from the SM. At energies $s\ll
{\Lambda}^{2}$ the heavy scalar field $\chi$ is decoupled. So, the four-fermion scattering amplitude consists of the contribution of the model with no heavy field $\chi$ plus terms of the order $s/
{\Lambda}^{2}$. The expansion of the heavy scalar propagator $$\label{12}
\frac{1}{s-{\Lambda}^{2}}\to -
\frac{1}{{\Lambda}^{2}}\left(1+O\left(\frac{s}{{\Lambda}^{2}}\right) \right)$$ in Eq.(\[10\]) is resulted in the effective contact four-fermion interaction $$\label{13}
{\cal L}_{eff}=-\alpha{\bar\psi}\psi\times{\bar\psi}\psi ,\quad\alpha=
\frac{{{G_{\chi}}}^{2}}{{\Lambda}^{2}},$$ and the tree level contribution to the amplitude becomes $$\label{14}
S_{1PR}^{(0)}=\left( \frac{{{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}}{s-m^{2}}-
\alpha+O\left(\frac{s}{{\Lambda}^{4}}\right) \right)
{\bar\psi}\psi\times{\bar\psi}\psi .$$
In the decoupling region the lowest order effects of the heavy scalar are described by the parameter $\alpha$, only. The method of constructing the RG equation in terms of the low energy quantities $G_{\varphi}, \lambda, m, M, \alpha$ was proposed in [@6]. As it has been demonstrated in [@6], the redefinition of the parameters of the model allows to remove all the heavy particle loop contributions to Eq.(\[11\]). Let us define a new set of fields, charges and masses ${{\tilde\psi}}$, ${{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}$, ${{\tilde G}_{\chi}}$, ${{\tilde\Lambda }}$, ${{\tilde m }}$, ${{\tilde M }}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{15}
&& {{G_{\varphi}}}^{2}={{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}\left( 1+\frac{3{{{\tilde G}_{\chi}}}^{2}}{16{\pi}^{2}}
ln\frac{{\kappa}^{2}}{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}} \right) ,
\quad{{G_{\chi}}}^{2}={{{\tilde G}_{\chi}}}^{2}\left( 1+\frac{3{{{\tilde G}_{\chi}}}^{2}}{16{\pi}^{2}}
ln\frac{{\kappa}^{2}}{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}} \right) , \nonumber \\
&& m^{2} ={{{\tilde m }}}^{2}\left( 1-\frac{\tilde\rho}{8{\pi}^{2}}
\frac{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}}{{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}} ln\frac{{\kappa}^{2}}{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}} \right) ,
\quad{\Lambda}^{2}={{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}\left( 1+\frac{3\tilde\xi}{4{\pi}^{2}}
ln\frac{{\kappa}^{2}}{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}} \right) ,\nonumber \\
&& \psi={{\tilde\psi}}\left( 1-\frac{{{{\tilde G}_{\chi}}}^{2}}{64{\pi}^{2}}
ln\frac{{\kappa}^{2}}{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ One is able to rewrite the differential operator (\[8\]) in terms of these new low-energy parameters: $$\label{16}
{\cal D}=\frac{\partial}{\partial ln \kappa}+{\tilde{\cal D}}^{(1)}=
\frac{\partial}{\partial ln \kappa}+\sum\limits_{\phi} {{\tilde\beta}_{\phi}}\frac{\partial}{\partial
{{\tilde G}_{\phi}}}-{{\tilde\gamma}_{m}}\frac{\partial}{\partial ln {{{\tilde m }}}^{2}}-{{\tilde\gamma}_{\Lambda}}\frac{\partial}{\partial ln
{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}}-{{\tilde\gamma}_{\psi}}\frac{\partial}{\partial ln {{\tilde\psi}}}$$ where ${\tilde\beta}-$ and ${\tilde\gamma}-$ functions are obtained from the one- loop relations (\[6\]) and (\[15\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{17}
&& {{\tilde\beta}_{\varphi}}=\frac{1}{16{\pi}^{2}}\left( 5{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{3}-4\frac{{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}-6
{{{\tilde M }}}^{2}}{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}-{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}}{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}{{{\tilde G}_{\chi}}}^{2} \right) ,\nonumber \\
&& {{\tilde\beta}_{\chi}}=\frac{1}{16{\pi}^{2}}\left( 2{{{\tilde G}_{\chi}}}^{3}+\left( 3+
4\frac{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}-6 {{{\tilde M }}}^{2}}{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}-{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}}\right) {{\tilde G}_{\chi}}{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}
\right) ,\nonumber \\
&& {{\tilde\gamma}_{m}}=-\frac{1}{4{\pi}^{2}}\left( {{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}\frac{{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}-6
{{{\tilde M }}}^{2}}{{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}}+6{\tilde\lambda} \right) ,\nonumber \\
&& {{\tilde\gamma}_{\Lambda}}=-\frac{1}{4{\pi}^{2}}\left( {{{\tilde G}_{\chi}}}^{2}\left( 1-
6\frac{{{{\tilde M }}}^{2}}{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}}\right) -{\tilde\rho}\frac{{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}}{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}}
\right) ,\nonumber \\
&& {{\tilde\gamma}_{\psi}}=\frac{1}{32{\pi}^{2}}{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, one immediately notices that ${\tilde\beta}-$ and ${\tilde\gamma}-$ functions contain only the light particle loop contributions, and all the heavy particle loop terms are completely removed from them. The $S$-matrix element expressed in terms of new parameters satisfies the following RG relation $$\label{18}
{\cal D}\left( S_{1PR}+S_{box} \right) =\frac{\partial {\tilde
S}_{1PR}^{(1)}}{\partial ln \kappa}+{\tilde{\cal D}}^{(1)} {\tilde
S}_{1PR}^{(0)}=0,$$ $$\label{19}
{\tilde S}_{1PR}^{(0)}=\left( \frac{{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}}{s-{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}}-
{\tilde\alpha}+O\left( \frac{s^{2}}{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{4}} \right) \right)
{\bar{{\tilde\psi}}}{{\tilde\psi}}\times{\bar{{\tilde\psi}}}{{\tilde\psi}},$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{20}
\frac{\partial {\tilde S}_{1PR}^{(1)}}{ \partial ln
\kappa}&=&\frac{{\bar{{\tilde\psi}}}{{\tilde\psi}}\times{\bar{{\tilde\psi}}}{{\tilde\psi}}}{4{\pi}^{2}}\left( -
\frac{{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{4}}{s-{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}}+\frac{{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}\left( -
6{\tilde\lambda}{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}+{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}\left( 6{{{\tilde M }}}^{2}-s\right) \right) }{{\left(
s-{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}\right) }^{2}}+\right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. {\tilde\alpha}{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}-
\frac{2{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}{\tilde\alpha}\left( 6{{{\tilde M }}}^{2}-s\right) }{s-m^{2}}+
O\left( \frac{s^{2}}{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{4}} \right) \right) ,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\tilde\alpha}={{{\tilde G}_{\chi}}}^{2}/{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}$ is the redefined effective four- fermion coupling. As one can see, Eq.(\[20\]) includes all the terms of Eq.(\[11\]) except for the heavy particle loop contributions. It depends on the low energy quantities ${{\tilde\psi}}$, ${{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}$, $\tilde\alpha$, $\tilde\lambda$, ${{\tilde m }}$, ${{\tilde M }}$. The first and the second terms in Eq.(\[20\]) are just the one-loop amplitude calculated within the model with no heavy particles. The third and the fourth terms describe the light particle loop correction to the effective four-fermion coupling and the mixing of heavy and light virtual fields.
Elimination of one-loop scalar field mixing
===========================================
Due to the mixing term it is impossible to split the RG relation (\[18\]) for the S- matrix element into the one for vertices. Hence, we are not able to consider Eq.(\[18\]) in the framework of the scattering of light particles on an external field induced by the heavy virtual scalar as it has been done in [@4]. But this is an important step in deriving the RG relation for EL parameters. Fortunately, there is a simple procedure allowing to avoid the mixing in Eq.(\[20\]). The way is to diagonalize the leading logarithm terms of the scalar polarization operator in the redefinition of the $\tilde\varphi$, $\tilde\chi$, ${{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}$, ${{\tilde G}_{\chi}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{21}
&&\left( \begin{array}{c}\varphi \\ \chi \end{array}\right)=
{\zeta}^{1/2}\left( \begin{array}{c}{\tilde\varphi} \\ {\tilde\chi}
\end{array}\right),\quad \left( \begin{array}{c}G_{\varphi} \\ G_{\chi}
\end{array}\right)=\left[ 1+\frac{3{{{\tilde G}_{\chi}}}^{2}}{32{\pi}^{2}}
ln\frac{{\kappa}^{2}}{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}} \right]
{\left( {\zeta}^{-1/2}\right) }^{T}\left(
\begin{array}{c}{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}\\ {{\tilde G}_{\chi}}\end{array}\right)
,\nonumber \\
&& {\zeta}^{1/2}=1- \frac{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}{{\tilde G}_{\chi}}}{8{\pi}^{2} \left({{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}-
{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}\right) }ln\frac{{\kappa}^{2}}{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}}\left( \begin{array}{cc}0 &
{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{2}-6 {{{\tilde M }}}^{2}\\-{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}-6 {{{\tilde M }}}^{2}& 0\end{array}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ The appropriate ${\tilde\beta}-$ functions $$\label{22}
{{\tilde\beta}_{\varphi}}=\frac{5{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{3}}{16{\pi}^{2}},\quad
{{\tilde\beta}_{\chi}}=\frac{1}{16{\pi}^{2}}\left( 2{{{\tilde G}_{\chi}}}^{3}+3{{\tilde G}_{\chi}}{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}
\right)$$ contain no terms connected with mixing between light and heavy scalars. So, the fourth term in Eq.(\[20\]) is removed, and the RG relation for the $S$-matrix element becomes $$\label{23}
{\cal D}\left( S_{1PR}+S_{box} \right) =\frac{\partial {\tilde
S}_{1PR}^{(1)}}{\partial ln \kappa}+{\tilde{\cal D}}^{(1)} {\tilde
S}_{1PR}^{(0)}=0,$$ $$\label{24}
{\tilde S}_{1PR}^{(0)}=\left( \frac{{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}}{s-{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}}-
{\tilde\alpha}+O\left( \frac{s^{2}}{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{4}} \right) \right)
{\bar{{\tilde\psi}}}{{\tilde\psi}}\times{\bar{{\tilde\psi}}}{{\tilde\psi}},$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{25}
\frac{\partial {\tilde S}_{1PR}^{(1)}}{ \partial ln
\kappa}&=&\frac{{\bar{{\tilde\psi}}}{{\tilde\psi}}\times{\bar{{\tilde\psi}}}{{\tilde\psi}}}{4{\pi}^{2}}\left( -
\frac{{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{4}}{s-{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}}+\frac{{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}\left( -
6{\tilde\lambda}{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}+{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}\left( 6{{{\tilde M }}}^{2}-s\right) \right) }{{\left(
s-{{{\tilde m }}}^{2}\right) }^{2}}+\right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. {\tilde\alpha}{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}+
O\left( \frac{s^{2}}{{{{\tilde\Lambda }}}^{4}} \right) \right) .\end{aligned}$$
At ${\tilde\alpha}=0$ Eq.(\[23\]) is just the RG identity for the scattering amplitude calculated in the absence of the heavy particles. The terms of order $\tilde\alpha$ describe the RG relation for the effective low-energy four-fermion interaction in the decoupling region. The last one can be reduced in the RG relation for the vertex describing the scattering of the light particle (fermion) on the external field $\sqrt{\tilde\alpha}$ substituting the virtual heavy scalar: $$\label{26}
{\cal D}\left( \sqrt{\tilde\alpha}{\bar{{\tilde\psi}}}{{\tilde\psi}}\right)
=\frac{{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}}{8{\pi}^{2}}\sqrt{\tilde\alpha}{\bar{{\tilde\psi}}}{{\tilde\psi}}+{\tilde{\cal
D}}^{(1)} \left( \sqrt{\tilde\alpha}{\bar{{\tilde\psi}}}{{\tilde\psi}}\right) =0,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{27}
&&{\tilde{\cal D}}^{(1)}= {{\tilde\beta}_{\varphi}}\frac{\partial}{\partial {{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}-
{\tilde\gamma}_{\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial ln {\tilde\alpha}}-{{\tilde\gamma}_{m}}\frac{\partial}{\partial ln {{{\tilde m }}}^{2}}-{{\tilde\gamma}_{\psi}}\frac{\partial}{\partial ln
{{\tilde\psi}}},\nonumber \\
&& {\tilde\gamma}_{\alpha}=-{\cal D}{\tilde\alpha}=-
\frac{1}{8{\pi}^{2}}\left( 3{{{\tilde G}_{\varphi}}}^{2}+O\left({\tilde\alpha}\right) \right) .\end{aligned}$$
Eqs.(\[23\])-(\[27\]) is the main result of our investigation. One can derive them with only the knowledge about the EL (\[13\]) and the Lagrangian of the model with no heavy particles. One also has to ignore all the heavy particle loop contributions to the RG relation and the one-loop mixing between the heavy and the light fields. Eqs.(\[23\])-(\[27\]) depend on the effective low-energy parameters, only. But as the difference between the original set of parameters and the low-energy one is of one-loop order, one may freely substitute them in Eqs.(\[23\])-(\[26\]).
Discussion
==========
Let us discuss the results obtained. The RG relation for the four-fermion scattering amplitude is derived in the decoupling region $s\ll {\Lambda}^{2}$. It was shown that one can redefine the parameters and the fields of the model in order to remove all the heavy particle loop contributions to the RG relation. Then the RG relation becomes dependent on the low-energy physics parameters, only. As the RG operator coefficients and the difference between the original parameters and the redefined ones are of the one-loop order one can substitute one set of parameters by another at the lowest level. Thus, we extend the result of Ref.[@4] to the case when mixing terms are present. The additional transformation of fields and charges allows one to diagonalize the leading logarithm terms of the scalar polarization operator and to avoid the contributions to the RG relation originated from the one-loop mixing between heavy and light field. Since the difference between the diagonalized fields and charges and the original ones is of one-loop order, one may simply omit one-loop mixing terms in the RG relation at the lower level. Then it is possible to reduce the RG relation for $S$-matrix element to the one for vertex describing the scattering of light particles on the external field induced by the heavy virtual particle. In fact, this result is independent on the specific features of the considered model, as it was shown in [@4].
The RG relations of the considered type may be used in searching for the dependences between the parameters of EL describing physics beyond the SM. For example, let a symmetry requires the same charge structure for some effective Lagrangians. Then the number of unknown ${\tilde\beta}-$ and ${\tilde\gamma}-$ functions is less than the number of RG relations, and it is possible to derive non-trivial solutions for the parameters. The present results allow to omit the one-loop mixing diagrams in construction of the RG relations for the tree-level EL.
[9]{} Wudka J., Int. J. of Modern Phys. [**A9**]{} (1994),2301. Arzt C., Einhorn M. and Wudka J., Nucl. Phys. [**B433**]{} (1995), 41. Bogoliubov N.N., Shirkov D.V., Introduction to the Theory of Quantum Fields, Nauka, Moscow, 1984. Gulov A.V. and Skalozub V.V., Yad. Fiz. (1999). Cheng T.-P. and Li L.-F., Gauge Theory of Elementary Particle Physics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1984. Bando M., Kugo T., Maekawa N. and Nakano H., Progress of Theor. Phys. [**90**]{} (1993), 405.
=0.4
=0.9
[^1]: e-mail address: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail address: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study thermalization in a one-dimensional quantum system consisting of a noninteracting fermionic chain with each site of the chain coupled to an additional bath site. Using a density matrix renormalization group algorithm we investigate the time evolution of observables in the chain after a quantum quench. For low densities we show that the intermediate time dynamics can be quantitatively described by a system of coupled equations of motion. For higher densities our numerical results show a prethermalization for local observables at intermediate times and a full thermalization to the grand canonical ensemble at long times. For the case of a weak bath-chain coupling we find, in particular, a Fermi momentum distribution in the chain in equilibrium in spite of the seemingly oversimplified bath in our model.'
author:
- Nicholas Sedlmayr
- Jie Ren
- Florian Gebhard
- Jesko Sirker
title: 'Closed and Open System Dynamics in a Fermionic Chain with a Microscopically Specified Bath: Relaxation and Thermalization'
---
#### Introduction.
The time evolution of classical and quantum systems is deterministic. If a system in the thermodynamic limit reaches thermal equilibrium at long times, we expect, however, that its physical properties will be determined by only a few parameters such as the temperature, chemical potential, and pressure. This thermalization process is often studied in two different settings: (a) The system is in contact with a thermal bath, i.e., a large reservoir of thermal energy. The key assumptions commonly used in this setting are a weak coupling between the bath and system and Markovian dynamics, i.e., a very short correlation time in the bath. In this case the microscopic details of the bath become unimportant [@BreuerPetruccione; @Weiss; @Carmichael]; for a simple example of classical thermalization, see Ref. [@gebhardmuenster]. (b) The system is closed, with particles being able to exchange energy and momentum among each other, so that the closed system can explore phase space, constrained only by the conservation laws such as total energy and particle number. An important difference between the two scenarios is that in the first case temperature, chemical potential, and pressure are parameters determined externally by the bath. In the latter case, on the other hand, these parameters are Lagrange multipliers fixing the values of the conserved quantities [@LandauLifshitz3; @RigolDunjko].
In this letter we want to study these two settings simultaneously using a model which can be either viewed as a closed quantum system or as a chain coupled to a simple bath. Thermalization, in both cases, requires: (I) Observables become time independent and all currents vanish ([*equilibration*]{}); (II) Time averages can be replaced by statistical averages over ensembles with a restricted number of intensive parameters [^1], and are independent of initial conditions ([*ergodicity*]{}) [@vonNeumann]. The rather old but fundamental problem of nonequilibrium dynamics and thermalization in closed quantum systems has been put again into focus by experiments on cold quantum gases which are very well isolated from their surroundings [@TrotzkyChen; @KinoshitaWenger; @HofferberthLesanovsky; @StrohmaierGreif], as well as by the development of new numerical techniques to study dynamics in many-body systems [@DaleyKollath; @WhiteFeiguin; @SirkerKluemperDTMRG; @VidalTEBD1; @VidalTEBD2; @EnssSirker; @AndersSchiller; @Kehrein]. This has led to numerous simulations of nonequilibrium dynamics in closed quantum models where the question of whether or not thermalization occurs has not always been easy to answer due to the finite numerical simulation time [@RigolMuramatsu; @KollathLauchli; @ManmanaWessel; @BiroliKollath].
#### Closed quantum systems.
The time evolution of an initial state $|\Psi_0\rangle\equiv
|\Psi(t=0)\rangle$ is unitary and given by the Schrödinger equation. Therefore $|\Psi(t)\rangle$ remains a pure state for all times $t$. Since ensemble averages describe mixed states such a description cannot apply to a finite closed quantum system as a whole. Only a subsystem can be in or close to a thermal state with the rest of the system acting as an effective bath. Furthermore, contrary to a classical system, every quantum system has exponentially many conserved quantities, e.g. the projection operators $P_n=|E_n\rangle\langle E_n|$ onto the eigenstates of a system with a discrete spectrum, $|E_n\rangle$ [@RigolDunjko]. However, it is usually assumed that only the local conserved quantities are of relevance for thermalization. A [*local*]{} conserved quantity can be represented for a lattice system as $Q_m= \sum_j q^m_j$ where $q^m_j$ is a density operator acting on lattice sites $j,j+1,\cdots,j+m$ with $m$ finite. Here we want to concentrate on the case of generic one-dimensional quantum systems with a small number of local conservation laws, i.e. the total energy and particle number. Thermalization in closed integrable models, where the number of local conservation laws increases linearly with the system size [@HubbardBook; @SirkerLL], has been investigated with the help of numerical simulations in recent times as well [@RigolDunjkoPRL; @Rigol; @RigolPRA; @SantosRigol].
We consider the nonequilibrium dynamics ensuing after preparing the system in a pure state $|\Psi_0\rangle$ which is not an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. Using a Lehmann representation we can write $|\Psi_0\rangle =\sum_n c_n |E_n\rangle$ where $|E_n\rangle$ are the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $H$ the system evolves under. Furthermore, we restrict ourselves to [*typical states*]{} with a macroscopic number $c_n\neq 0$ [^2]. We can now easily calculate the long-time mean $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mean}
\bar{O} &=& \lim_{\tau\to\infty}\sum_{n,m} \frac{1}{\tau}\int_0^\tau \textrm{d}t\, {\text{e}}^{\textrm{i}(E_m-E_n)t} c_n^* c_m\langle E_m|O|E_n\rangle \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_n |c_n|^2 O_{nn}\end{aligned}$$ of an observable $O$, where we have set $\hbar=1$. The second line of Eq. (\[mean\]) is often called the [*diagonal ensemble*]{}. Here we have assumed that the system is generic, i.e., that degeneracies play no role. If the observable becomes stationary at long times its value $O_\infty =\lim_{t\to\infty}\langle\psi(t)| O|\psi(t)\rangle$ has to be equal to the long-time mean, $O_\infty\equiv \bar{O}$. Note that this is only possible in the thermodynamic limit. Otherwise observables show revivals on time scales of the order of the system size. Taking the thermodynamic limit is thus essential; a finite system can never thermalize.
If a subsystem of an infinite system containing the observable $O$ equilibrates and the value $O_\infty$ does not depend on details of the initial state, then the remaining open question is which ensemble describes the equilibrated system. If we have two statistically independent subsystems $A$ and $B$, the density matrix $\rho$ of the whole system is given by $\rho=\rho_A\otimes\rho_B$, and thus $\ln\rho=\ln\rho_A \oplus \ln\rho_B$. Second, the density matrix itself should become time independent once the system has equilibrated and the von Neumann equation implies $\dot\rho
=-\textrm{i}[H,\rho]=0$. Thus the general density matrix under consideration has to be of the form $\rho=\exp(-\sum_n\lambda_n\mathcal{Q}_n)/Z$ where $\mathcal{Q}_n$ are the conserved quantities of the system [@LandauLifshitz3]. The partition function $Z$ is a normalization factor such that $\operatorname{Tr}\rho=1$. We stress again that the intensive parameters $\lambda_n$ are not given externally but rather are Lagrange multipliers determined by the set of equations $$\label{Lagrange}
\langle\Psi_0|\mathcal{Q}_n|\Psi_0\rangle = \operatorname{Tr}\left\{\mathcal{Q}_n\rho\right\}.$$ If we include all projection operators into our density matrix, $\mathcal{Q}_n=P_n$, it follows immediately from Eq. (\[Lagrange\]) that $\langle O\rangle_\rho\equiv \operatorname{Tr}\{\rho O\}$ is identical to the diagonal ensemble as given in Eq. (\[mean\]) [@RigolDunjko]. Having to use infinitely many Lagrange multipliers is expected because $|\Psi(t)\rangle$ is always a pure state and the system as a whole therefore does not thermalize, because it does not fulfill condition (II).
In this Letter we focus on the generic situation where we split our system $S=A\cup B$ into a bath $B$ and a subsystem $A$ and consider observables acting only on subsystem $A$. We concentrate on the following questions: How does a subsystem $A$ without intrinsic relaxation processes equilibrate when coupled to a strongly correlated but simple and possibly non-Markovian bath $B$? Which statistical ensemble gives the expectation values of observables in $A$ in the equilibrated state?
#### Model Hamiltonian.
To investigate some aspects of the questions raised above we consider a simple model system with Hamiltonian [@SirkerGebhard] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Model}
H&=& -J\sum_{j=1}^{L-1} \left \{ c_j^\dagger c_{j+1} +h.c.\right\}+ \gamma\sum_{j=1}^L\left\{ s^\dagger_j c_j + \textrm{H.c.}\right\} \nonumber\\
&&+V_s\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}\left(s_j^\dagger s_j-1/2\right) \left(s^\dagger_{j+1}s_{j+1}-1/2\right)\;.\end{aligned}$$ The first term describes a chain of free spinless fermions with hopping amplitude $J$ and is the subsystem $A$ we study the thermalization of. The ‘bath’ $B$ consists of extra sites, coupled to the chain sites via a hybridization $\gamma$ (second term), and we also include a nearest-neighbor interaction $V_s$ between the bath sites (third term).
As initial states for the time-evolution with the Hamiltonian (\[Model\]) we will consider, on the one hand, the ground state $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{I}}(J_0,\gamma_0)\rangle\equiv
|\Psi(J_0,\gamma_0,V_s=0)\rangle_0$ of the noninteracting model with hopping parameters $J_0$ and $\gamma_0$ as well as the ground state $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{II}}(J_0,J'_0,\gamma_0)\rangle\equiv
|\Psi(J_0,J'_0,\gamma_0,V_s=0)\rangle_0$ of Eq. (\[Model\]) with an additional hopping $J'_0$ between the bath sites. In order to study the time evolution under the interacting Hamiltonian we use a time-dependent density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) algorithm [@FeiguinWhite], a method which has already been applied to study other one-dimensional models [@KollathLauchli; @ManmanaWessel; @HeidrichMeisnerRigol]. We choose open boundary conditions with a chain length of $L=51$. The number of states kept in the truncated adaptive Hilbert space varies between $\chi=400$ and $\chi=800$. For a global quench as considered here it is well known that the entanglement entropy between two subsystems usually increases linearly with time. Since the maximal entanglement which can be represented in a truncated Hilbert space is limited by $\ln\chi$, there is a maximum time $t_{\rm max}$ up to which we can reliably simulate the time evolution. For the cases considered here this time scale is given by $Jt_{\rm max}\approx 15-25$.
#### Results.
First, we will concentrate on the relaxation dynamics at low particle densities. As an example, we show in Fig. \[Fig1\] results for a quantum quench with $N=11$ particles. Shown are results for the one–point correlation functions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{corr_fn}
C_j(t)\equiv\langle\hat{C}_j\rangle_t=\langle\Psi(t)| c_{(L+1)/2}^\dagger c_{(L+1)/2+j}|\Psi(t)\rangle\;.\end{aligned}$$ In all correlation functions oscillations with a characteristic frequency are visible. These oscillations can be understood from an equation of motion approach. We define the three time-dependent expectation values $f_q(t)=\langle\Psi(t)|c^\dagger_q
c_q|\Psi(t)\rangle$, $g_q(t)=\langle\Psi(t)|s^\dagger_q
s_q|\Psi(t)\rangle$, and $\rho_q(t)=\langle\Psi(t)|c^\dagger_q
s_q|\Psi(t)\rangle$ where $c_q=\sqrt{2/(L+1)}\sum_j \sin(qj) c_j$ with allowed momenta $q=n\pi/(L+1)$, and $n=1,\ldots,L$. Then, using Heisenberg’s equation of motion, a Hartree-Fock decoupling of the quartic terms, and the additional assumption of an instantaneous dephasing [@SupplMat], we find the following system of coupled equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_motion}
\dot{f}_q(t)&=&-\dot{g}_q(t)=2\gamma R_q(t)\; , \quad
\dot{r}_q(t)=B_q(t) R_q(t)\;,\nonumber \\
\dot{R}_q(t)&=&-\gamma[f_q(t)-g_q(t)]-B_q(t) r_q(t)\;,\end{aligned}$$ with $\varepsilon_q=-2\cos q$, $r_q(t)={\operatorname{Re}}\rho_q(t)$, $R_q(t)={\operatorname{Im}}\rho_q(t)$, and $B_q(t)=-V_s-\varepsilon_q+2V_s/(L+1)\bigl[\cos^2(q)
g_{\pi-q}(t)-\sin^2(q) g_q(t) +\sum_k\bigl(1-\cos k\cos q\bigr)g_k(t)\bigr]\approx
-V_s-\varepsilon_q\equiv\mathcal{B}_q$.
![(Color online) $C_j(t)$ from Eq. for $j=0,\ldots,5$ (top to bottom) for a quench with initial state $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{I}}(1,1)\rangle$, and Hamiltonian $H$ with $J=1$, $\gamma=1$, and $V_s=1$ at low densities. DMRG results (symbols) are compared to the solution of Eq. (lines).[]{data-label="Fig1"}](eqn_motion_v2){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
We solve the set of Eqs. (\[eq\_motion\]) numerically, and the results up to intermediate times are in excellent agreement with the DMRG data, see Fig. \[Fig1\]. Using further approximations, we analytically find that the oscillation frequency is given by $\Omega^2_q=\mathcal{B}_q^2+(2\gamma)^2$ with $\Omega^2_{q\to 0}\approx
1+(2\gamma)^2$ and depends only weakly on $q$ [@SupplMat]. This means that the dephasing process is very slow. For longer times and short distances we see that the amplitude of the oscillations in the DMRG data is decaying faster than predicted by our equations of motion approach. Here it is important to realize that due to the Hartree-Fock decoupling the equations of motion effectively describe the time evolution under a free particle Hamiltonian. This approach therefore takes only the slow dephasing process discussed above into account. The additional decay seen in the DMRG data is due to slow relaxation processes involving energy-momentum transfer between interacting particles which are not captured in our equations of motion approach.
A much faster relaxation occurs if we increase the particle density with a maximum in the relaxation rate at half filing. The DMRG data for a quench in the half-filled case in Fig. \[Fig3\] show indeed that the system almost completely equilibrates within the simulation time $t_{\textrm{max}}$.
![(Color online) DMRG data (symbols) for $C_j(t)$ at half filing for a quench with initial state $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{II}}(1,0.6,1)\rangle$, and Hamiltonian $H$ with $J=1$, $\gamma=1$, and $V_s=1$. The lines are the thermal expectation values $\langle C_j\rangle_T$.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Cr_t_vs_T_v2){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Due to the particle–hole symmetry of the Hamiltonian and the initial state we have $C_0(t)\equiv 1/2$ and $C_{2j}(t)\equiv 0$. For odd distances we now see, instead of long-time oscillations, an exponential damping which allows us to extrapolate the correlation functions and to read off the value for $C_j(t\to\infty)$ [@SupplMat]. Due to the lightcone-like spreading of the correlations [@LiebRobinson; @EnssSirker], the short-range correlation functions in the middle of the chain are, for the time range shown in Fig. \[Fig3\], not affected by the boundaries and are almost indistinguishable from those for an infinite system. By extrapolating our numerical data we thus approximately obtain $C_j(t\to\infty)$ for a system in the thermodynamic limit.
The corresponding distribution function $f_q(t)$, shown in Fig. \[Fig4\](a), has already become completely smooth after a short time, $Jt=5$, and can be well fitted by a free fermion distribution function $\langle
f_q\rangle_{T}=1/(e^{\varepsilon_q/T}+1)$.
![(Color online) (a) $f_q(t=0)$ for $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{II}}(1,0.6,1)\rangle$ (circles), $f_q(t=5)$ (triangles) and Fermi function fit $\langle f_q\rangle_{T=0.7J}$, and the extrapolated distribution $f_q(t\to\infty)$ (diamonds) with a fit $\langle f_q\rangle_{T=J}$. (b) $f_q(t\to\infty)$ (diamonds) compared to the thermal average $\operatorname{Tr}\{f_q{\text{e}}^{-H/T}\}/Z$ (solid line) and $\langle f_q\rangle_{T}$ (dashed line) where $T/J= 0.54$ is fixed by Eq. (\[Lagrange\]). (c) $f_q(t)$ for $q=13\pi/52$ (solid line) and $q=16\pi/52$ (dashed line).[]{data-label="Fig4"}](Thermalization_Quench_II_v5){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
However, the system has not fully equilibrated yet. Fig. \[Fig4\](c) shows that we have two distinct relaxation regimes. In regime $R_I$ we have a relatively quick reshuffling in the distribution leading to a prethermalized state [@RigolDunjko; @GringKuhnert]. This is followed by a slow drift of the occupation numbers in regime $R_{II}$ which, when extrapolated in time, leads to the final distribution for the equilibrated state. While both distributions can be well fitted by $\langle f_q\rangle_T$, the temperature should not be used as a fitting parameter but should rather be determined by energy conservation. We therefore expect that the equilibrated system is described by the ensemble, $\rho=\exp(-H/T)/Z$, with the chemical potential $\mu=0$ due to particle–hole symmetry. The temperature T is determined by Eq. (\[Lagrange\]) with $\mathcal{Q}_n$ replaced by $H$. The lhs of Eq. is now an expectation value for a noninteracting system and can be obtained analytically. The thermal average on the rhs is calculated using a static DMRG calculation [@FeiguinWhite]. For the particular quench in Fig. \[Fig4\] we find $T/J= 0.54$. This then allows the calculation of $\langle C_j\rangle_T\equiv \operatorname{Tr}\{\hat{C}_j{\text{e}}^{-H/T}\}/Z$ by the DMRG algorithm as shown in Fig. \[Fig3\]. The results for the corresponding distribution function are shown as a solid line in Fig. \[Fig4\](b) and agree well with the time extrapolated values, demonstrating a local thermalization.
If the additional sites are to represent an effective bath, the distribution function in the chain should become a Fermi distribution. However, as can be seen in Fig. \[Fig4\](b), $\langle
f_q\rangle_{T=0.54J}$ differs significantly from the equilibrium distribution. One obvious reason is that the effective coupling between the chain and bath in the thermal state $\sim \gamma \langle
s^\dagger_i c_i\rangle_{T=0.54J}\approx 0.28\gamma$ is not small. Next, we therefore consider cases where we successively reduce the coupling $\gamma$. In order to be able to still find the equilibrated state within the limited simulation time we now use as the initial state $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{I}}(1,\gamma)\rangle$ which yields a much smoother initial distribution. Results for different coupling strengths $\gamma$ are shown in Fig. \[Fig5\].
![(Color online) The initial distribution (circles), $f_q(t\to\infty)$ from DMRG (diamonds), the thermal distribution $\operatorname{Tr}\{f_q{\text{e}}^{-H/T}\}/Z$ (solid line), and the free fermion distribution $\langle f_q\rangle_T$ (dashed line) with: (a) $\gamma=1$, $T/J=0.19$, (b) $\gamma=0.6$, $T/J=0.18$, and (c) $\gamma=0.2$, $T/J=0.33$.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](Thermalization_Quench_I){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
We indeed find that the momentum distribution in equilibrium now approaches the free fermion distribution with the temperature determined by Eq. (\[Lagrange\]). At $\gamma=0.2$ the effective coupling between the chain and bath $\propto \gamma \langle s^\dagger_i
c_i\rangle_{T=0.33J}\approx 0.06\gamma$ is very small. Apart from the usual Pauli blocking there is another mechanism which explains the very weak coupling between the subsystems. Because the nearest neighbor occupation $\langle
n_j^Bn_{j+1}^B\rangle_{T=0.33J}=0.1$ is also small we can approximately project out all states where nearest-neighbor sites in the bath are occupied. This leads to an effective density-density interaction $\propto
(\gamma^2/V_s) n_j^A n_j^B$ between the subsystems, leading to a slow relaxation for small $\gamma$ [@SupplMat]. In this strong coupling limit, the hybridization part of the Hamiltonian Eq. (\[Model\]) also gets projected $\propto \gamma
(s^\dagger_jc_j+h.c.)(1-n_{j-1}^B)(1-n_{j+1}^B)$ explaining the small value for the effective coupling given above. Thus the interactions help to decouple the two subsystems explaining the almost perfect free Fermi distribution in the chain for $\gamma=0.2$.
#### Conclusions.
We have studied thermalization in a strongly correlated model which can be viewed either as a closed quantum system or as a free fermionic chain coupled to a bath. Contrary to the common approach of using a Lindblad equation to study open quantum systems, our model has a microscopically specified bath. Therefore we can simulate the nonequilibrium dynamics of the system [*and*]{} bath, and directly compare the two different viewpoints. For low particle densities we have shown that an equation of motion approach on the Hartree-Fock level is sufficient to quantitatively describe the intermediate time dynamics. At this level only slow dephasing processes are captured. For the future it seems promising to use a higher order decoupling which might also capture the faster relaxation processes which we observe in the numerical simulations. While the relaxation rate $\Gamma\sim
V_s\langle n_j^Bn_{j+1}^B\rangle$ at small interactions or low densities is too small to observe equilibration within the limited numerical simulation time we do observe thermalization at stronger interactions near half filing where $\Gamma$ is larger. We note that the relaxation rate changes continuously with the microscopic parameters of the model so that the definition of a ‘nonequilibrium phase transition’ based on the accessible simulation time $t_{\rm max}$ seems problematic [@KollathLauchli]. Most interestingly, we find that strong interactions lead to an effective disentanglement between the subsystems and therefore increase the decoherence times. Furthermore, even an extremely simple bath where Markovian dynamics cannot be taken for granted can be sufficient to fully equilibrate a subsystem without intrinsic relaxation processes.
The authors thank S. Manmana, F.H.L. Essler, and L. Santos for discussions. J.S. and N.S. acknowledge support by the Collaborative Research Centre SFB/TR49 and the graduate school of excellence MAINZ and J.R. acknowledges support by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11104021).
[34]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ** (, , ).
, ** (, , ), ed.
, ** (, , ).
, ****, ().
, ** (, , ), ed.
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
Equation of motion approach
===========================
We set up a set of equations for the following three time-dependent expectation values $$\begin{aligned}
f_q(t)&=&\langle\Psi(t)|c^\dagger_qc_q|\Psi(t)\rangle\;,\nonumber\\
g_q(t)&=&\langle\Psi(t)|s^\dagger_qs_q|\Psi(t)\rangle\;\textrm{, and}\\\nonumber
\rho_q(t)&=&\langle\Psi(t)|c^\dagger_qs_q|\Psi(t)\rangle\;.\end{aligned}$$ Using Heisenberg’s equation of motion, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{O}={\text{i}}[H,O]\;,\end{aligned}$$ with the Hamiltonian given by Eq. (1) of the main text and the standard fermionic commutation relations, one finds, with $n_j^B=s_j^\dagger s_j$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{f}_q(t)&=&2\gamma R_q(t)\;,\\
\dot{g}_q(t)&=&-2\gamma R_q(t)+\frac{2V_s}{L+1}\sum_{i\neq j}\sin\left[qi\right]\sin\left[qj\right]
\langle\Psi(t)|\left(s^\dagger_is_j-s^\dagger_js_i\right)
\left[n^B_{j+1}\left(1-\delta_{i,j+1}\right)+n^B_{j-1}\left(1-\delta_{i,j-1}\right)\right]|\Psi(t)\rangle\;,\nonumber\\
{\text{i}}\dot{\rho}_q(t)&=&{\text{i}}[\dot r_q(t)+{\text{i}}\dot R_q(t)]=-\left[\varepsilon_q+V_s\right]\rho_q(t)+\gamma\left[f_q(t)-g_q(t)\right]\nonumber\\&&
+V_s\sqrt{\frac{2}{L+1}}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}\sin\left[qj\right]\langle\Psi(t)|c^\dagger_qs_jn^B_{j+1}|\Psi(t)\rangle+
\sum_{j=2}^{L}\sin\left[qj\right]\langle\Psi(t)|c^\dagger_qs_jn^B_{j-1}|\Psi(t)\rangle\right]\;.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We have introduced the real functions $r_q(t)={\operatorname{Re}}\rho_q(t)$ and $R_q(t)={\operatorname{Im}}\rho_q(t)$. This set of coupled equations is exact.
To solve this set of equations we apply two approximations. Firstly a Hartree–Fock decoupling is used, [*i.e.*]{} we apply Wick’s theorem so that we have only two point correlation functions present, for example $$\begin{aligned}
\langle c^\dagger_qs_jn^B_{j-1} \rangle&=&\langle c^\dagger_qs_j \rangle\langle n^B_{j-1} \rangle-\langle c^\dagger_qs_{j-1} \rangle\langle s^\dagger_{j-1}s_{j} \rangle\;.\end{aligned}$$ One should note that, amongst other effects, this approximation leaves $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{g}_q(t)&=&-2\gamma R_q(t)=-\dot{f}_q(t)\end{aligned}$$ and hence $g_q(t)+f_q(t)\equiv N_q$ becomes independent of time. Therefore, by performing the Hartree–Fock decoupling, we lose all relaxation processes which can reshuffle the occupation of the momenta. Nonetheless, as demonstrated in Fig. 1 of the main text, for small densities this approximation is sufficient to get good quantitative agreement with DMRG calculations for intermediate times. The second approximation is “instantaneous dephasing”, which means that all off-diagonal elements of $\langle\Psi(t)|c^\dagger_qc_k|\Psi(t)\rangle$, [*etc.*]{}, are taken to ‘instantaneously dephase’ and we keep only diagonal terms. For a periodic system this would be guaranteed by translational invariance, here it amounts to disregarding finite size effects from the boundaries. This means that all two point correlation functions are diagonal in momentum space. Following this we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqset}
\dot{f}_q(t)&=&-\dot{g}_q(t)=2\gamma R_q(t)\;,\nonumber\quad
\dot{r}_q(t)=B_q(t) R_q(t)\;,\\
\dot{R}_q(t)&=&-\gamma[f_q(t)-g_q(t)]-B_q(t)r_q(t)\;,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B_q}
B_q(t)&=&\frac{2V_s}{L+1}\bigg[\cos^2 \left[q\right]g_{\pi-q}(t)-\sin^2 \left[q\right]g_q(t)\\&&+\sum_k\left(1-\cos\left[k\right]\cos\left[q\right]\right)g_k(t)\bigg]-V_s-\varepsilon_q\;.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
![Main: A quench with initial state $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{I}}(1,1)\rangle$, and Hamiltonian $H$ with $J=1$, $\gamma=1$, and $V_s=1$ at low densities. Shown is $f_q(t=0)$ (circles), $\bar f_q$ within Hartree–Fock (squares), and $\bar f_q$ obtained by DMRG (diamonds). Inset: $\Omega_q$ obtained by DMRG (symbols) and within Hartree–Fock (line).[]{data-label="lowdensity_fig"}](low_density_time_average){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
The coupled first order differential equations, given by Eq. , can then be solved iteratively. The first line in Eq. (\[B\_q\]) is a $\mathcal{O}(1/L)$ finite size correction.
The oscillation frequency of $R_q(t)$ is the same as that of $f_q(t)$ and $g_q(t)$ and can be extracted from these equations analytically. We can write a second order differential equation for $R_q(t)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{R}_q(t)+\left(4\gamma^2+B_q^2(t)\right)R_q(t)&=&-\dot{B}_q(t)r_q(t)\;.\end{aligned}$$ One finds, with a weakly time dependent bath occupation, such that $\dot{B}_q\approx 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{R}_q(t)+\underbrace{\left(4\gamma^2+B_q^2(t)\right)}_{\equiv\Omega_q^2}R_q(t)&=&0\;.\end{aligned}$$ For small particle densities in the bath we can approximate $B_q(t)\approx -V_s-\varepsilon_q\equiv\mathcal{B}_q$ which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_q\approx\sqrt{(\varepsilon_q+V_s)^2+4\gamma^2}\;.\end{aligned}$$ The Hartree–Fock decoupled solutions oscillate with the frequency $\Omega_q$ which is only weakly $q$–dependent, see inset of Fig. \[lowdensity\_fig\]. This explains why no dephasing effects are seen in the Hartree–Fock solution on the timescales that we consider, see Fig. 1 in the main text. The approximation $B_q(t)\approx\mathcal{B}_q$ is ensured in our case by the small bath occupation. For example, in the initial state $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{I}}(1,1)\rangle$, at a density of $0.11$ particles per site, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{L+1}\sum_q g_q(t=0)=0.0344\ll |{\cal B}_q|\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{L+1}\sum_q g_q(t=0)\cos q=0.0314\ll |{\cal B}_q|\,.\end{aligned}$$
Contrary to the Hartree–Fock results, the DMRG data show an additional relaxation, see Fig. 1 of the main text. A signature of the beginning of this relaxation can also be seen in the long time mean of the distribution function, $\bar{f}_q$, see Fig. \[lowdensity\_fig\] which shows a redistribution of the occupation of quasi-momenta around the Fermi momentum. The low density relaxation rate $\Gamma\sim
V_s\sum_j\langle n^B_jn^B_{j+1}\rangle/L$, however, is small so that we can not see full thermalization within the DMRG simulation time $t_{\textrm{max}}$.
Particle–hole symmetry
======================
We define $H'$ as the Hamiltonian given by Eq. (1) in the main text, but with hopping in the bath included: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Model_2}
H'&=&H -J'\sum_{j=1}^{L-1} \left \{ s_j^\dagger s_{j+1} +h.c.\right\}\;.\end{aligned}$$ $H'$, and therefore also all half–filled groundstates, has particle–hole symmetry. The Hamiltonian $H'$ is invariant under the mapping $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mapping}
{\cal T}_{\textrm{ph}}:\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
c_j&\to&(-1)^jc_j^\dagger\\
c_j^\dagger&\to&(-1)^jc_j\\
s_j&\to&(-1)^{j+1}s_j^\dagger\\
s_j^\dagger&\to&(-1)^{j+1}s_j
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ which exactly describes particle–hole inversion.
![Momentum space extrapolation for a quench with initial state $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{I}}(1,\gamma)\rangle$, and Hamiltonian $H$ with $J=1$ and $V_s=1$ where (a) $\gamma=1$, and (b) $\gamma=0.2$. Shown are the momenta $q=11\pi/(L+1)$ (upper curves) and $q=21\pi/(L+1)$ (lower curves). The dynamics (symbols) are compared with the fit (dashed line), and the thermal average at the appropriate temperature (solid line). Fitting is performed for times greater than the solid vertical line. The arrows on the right hand side show $f_q(t\to\infty)$ from (a) Eq. (\[fit1\]), and (b) Eq. (\[fit2\]).[]{data-label="Fit_I"}](Quench_I_Fitting){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
![Real space extrapolation for a quench with initial state $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{II}}(1,0.6,1)\rangle$, and Hamiltonian $H$ with $J=1$, $\gamma=1$, and $V_s=1$. The DMRG data (symbols) are compared with the fit (dashed line), and the thermal average at the appropriate temperature (solid line). Plotted is $C_j(t)$ with (a) $j=1$, and (b) $j=3$. Fitting is performed for times greater than the solid vertical line. The arrows on the right hand side show $C_j(t\to\infty)$ from Eq. (\[fit3\]).[]{data-label="Fit_II"}](Quench_II_Fitting){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
In our analysis we have considered two correlation functions. Firstly the real space two point correlation function $C_j(t)$, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
C_j(t)=\langle\Psi_0|e^{{\text{i}}Ht} c_{(L+1)/2}^\dagger c_{(L+1)/2+j}e^{-{\text{i}}Ht}|\Psi_0\rangle\;,\end{aligned}$$ for time evolution with $H$ given by Eq. (1) in the main text. Under the mapping given by Eq. $H\to H$ and $|\Psi_0\rangle\to|\Psi_0\rangle$ and one finds that $C_{j=0}(t)=1/2$, and $C_{2j}(t)=0$ for non–zero $j$. Secondly we analyzed the momentum distribution in the chain, $f_q(t)$. For the initial states under consideration, and therefore for all times, this can be shown to satisfy $f_q(t)+f_{\pi-q}(t)=1$ by using the same mapping.
Fitting and extrapolation
=========================
![Distribution function $f_q$ in the chain for a system of size $L=51$. $f_q(t=0)$ is shown for the initial state $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{II}}(1,0.6,1)\rangle$ (circles), and the initial state $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{I}}(4.48,0.8)\rangle$ (squares). In both cases we time evolve with the same Hamiltonian $H$ with $J=1$, $\gamma=1$, and $V_s=1$. $f_q(t\to\infty)$ after time evolving $|\Psi_0^{II}\rangle$ (diamonds) and $|\Psi_0^{II}\rangle$ (triangles) are compared with the thermal average $\operatorname{Tr}\{f_q{\text{e}}^{-H/T}\}/Z$ (solid line) where $T/J=0.54$ is fixed by the initial energy, see text. Alternate $q$ points are plotted for the two quenches to aid clarity.[]{data-label="Fig_Quench_III"}](Quench_III){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
In this section we explain the fitting and extrapolation techniques we used to find our long time data at half–filling. For quench I we extrapolated in momentum space. The long time limit for $f_q$ and $\gamma=1$ and $\gamma=0.6$ can be found directly by time averaging the data or by fitting to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fit1}
f_q(Jt\gg 1)\simeq f_q(t\to\infty)+a e^{-\Gamma t}\cos\left[\Omega t-\phi\right]\,.\end{aligned}$$ This functional form takes into account exponential relaxation and a simple oscillation, see Fig. \[Fit\_I\](a). Note that the fitting is only performed right of the solid line at $Jt\approx 5$, to ignore the effect of the short time dynamics. A Fourier analysis confirms that there is one dominant frequency in the dynamics of $f_q(t)$. However, in contrast to the low density case this frequency is momentum dependent. In particular for the case $\gamma=1$ shown in Fig. \[Fit\_I\](a), $\Omega(q=11\pi/(L+1))\approx 2.7$ and $\Omega(q=21\pi/(L+1))\approx 1.9$. The relaxation rate, $\Gamma(q=11\pi/(L+1))\approx 6.7\cdot 10^{-2}$ and $\Gamma(q=21\pi/(L+1))\approx 2.7\cdot 10^{-2}$, is of the same order of magnitude for all momenta hinting at one dominant relaxation process. Let us stress that in this case the result for $f_q(t\to\infty)$ depends only weakly on the extrapolation procedure used, i.e. time averaging or fitting with different fit intervals, with a variation in $f_q(t\to\infty)$ which is about the symbol size used in the corresponding plots in the main text.
For $\gamma=0.2$, see Fig. \[Fit\_I\](b), such a simple fitting function will no longer work due to the presence of various oscillation frequencies. A Fourier analysis confirms that there is more than one oscillation frequency involved, but the times are not sufficient to extract how many there are and what their magnitudes may be. Instead we trace out the overall trend by fitting to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fit2}
f_q(Jt\gg 1)\simeq f_q(t\to\infty)+a e^{-\tilde{\Gamma} t}\,.\end{aligned}$$ $\tilde{\Gamma}$ captures the gradual drift of the oscillations which can also be seen by using running averages. This procedure is robust when choosing a variety of different time regions over which to perform the fitting, and gives again errors smaller than the symbol sizes used in the plots of the main text. For quench II we extrapolate in real space. Fig. \[Fit\_II\] shows the fitting for $C_1(t)$ and $C_3(t)$. We fit the dynamics with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fit3}
C_j(Jt\gg 1)\simeq C_j(t\to\infty)+a e^{-\Gamma t}\left(\cos\left[\Omega t-\phi\right]+b\right).\end{aligned}$$ As for quench I, only times right of the vertical lines in Fig. \[Fit\_II\] are used for fitting.
Initial state independence
==========================
After relaxation the equilibrium state should depend only on the energy in the system. As example, we take two initial states, $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{I}}\rangle$ and $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{II}}\rangle$, constructed to have the same energy after a quench $$\begin{aligned}
E&=&\langle\Psi^{\textrm{II}}_0|H|\Psi^{\textrm{II}}_0\rangle = \langle\Psi^{\textrm{I}}_0|H|\Psi^{\textrm{I}}_0\rangle\,.\end{aligned}$$ The two different initial states are time evolved with the same Hamiltonian, with $J=1$, $\gamma=1$, and $V_s=1$. We use the initial states $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{II}}(1,0.6,1)\rangle$ (same as in Fig. 3 of the main text) and $|\Psi_0^{\textrm{I}}(4.48,0.8)\rangle$ with energy $E=-51.19$. Fig. \[Fig\_Quench\_III\] demonstrates that both states evolve towards the same equilibrium state, well described by the grand canonical ensemble $\operatorname{Tr}\{f_q{\text{e}}^{-H/T}\}/Z$ with the temperature $T/J=0.54$ fixed by $E=\operatorname{Tr}\{H{\text{e}}^{-H/T}\}/Z$ and $\mu=0$ due to particle-hole symmetry.
[^1]: Generically this number is finite. Here we want to also include the case of integrable models in one dimension where this number has to increase linearly with system size.
[^2]: If this condition is not fulfilled we cannot expect, in general, that time averages become independent of the microscopic details of the initial state.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
It is conjectured by Pugh, Lins and de Melo in \[7\] that the system of equations $$\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=y-F(x)\\
\dot{y}=-x
\end{cases}$$ has at most $n$ limit cycles when the degree of $F=2n+1$ or $2n+
2$. Put $M$ for uniform upper bound of the number of limit cycles of all systems of equations of the form $$\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=y -(ax^4 + bx^3 + cx^2 + dx)\\
\dot{y}=-x.
\end{cases}$$ In this article, we show that $M\neq 2$. In fact, if an example with two limit cycle existed, one could give not only an example with $n+2$ limit cycles for the first system, but also one could give a counterexample to the conjecture $N(2,3)=2$ \[see the conjecture $N(2,3)=2$ of F. Dumortier and C.Li, Quadratic Liénard equation with Quadratic Damping, J. Differential Equation, 139 (1997) 4159\]. We will also pose a question about complete integrability of Hamiltonian systems in $\R^4$ which naturally arise from planner Liénard equation. Finally, considering the Liénard equation as a complex differential equation, we suggest a related problem which is a particular case of conjecture. We also observe that the Liénard vector fields have often trivial centralizers among polynomial vector fields.
---
[Ali Taghavi]{}
.5cm Department of Mathematical Sciences\
Sharif University of Technology\
P.O. Box 113659415, Tehran, Iran School of Mathematics\
Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics\
P.O. Box 193951795, Tehran, Iran
**2000 AMS subject classification:** 34C07.\
**Keywords:** Limit cycles, Liénard equation.
Introduction
============
We consider Liénard equation in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=y-F(x)\\
\dot{y}=-x
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $F(x)$ is a polynomial of degree $2n+1$ or $2n+2$. It is conjectured in \[7\] that this system has at most $n$ limit cycles. In particular, it was conjectured that the system $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=y-(ax^4+bx^3+cx^2+dx)\\
\dot{y}=-x
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ has at most one limit cycle. The phase portrait of (1) is presented in \[7\]. (1) has a center at the origin if and only if $F(x)$ is an even polynomial. The following useful Lemma is proved in \[7\]:
Let $F(x)=E(x)+O(x)$ where $E$ is an even polynomial and $O$ is an odd polynomial, and that $O(x)=0$ has a unique root at $x=0$. Then system (1) does not have a closed orbit.
To prove the Lemma, it was shown that a first integral of the system $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=y-E(x)\\
\dot{y}=-x
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ that is analytic and defined on $\R^2-{0}$ is a monotone function along the solutions of (1). We introduce the following conjecture about the above first integral:\
Let $E(x)$ be an even polynomial of degree at least 4, then there is no global analytic first integral for system (3) on $\R^2$.
The reason for conjecture: There are two candidates for defining a first integral, namely the square of the intersection of the solution with negative $y$axis and the other the square of the intersection of the solution with $x$axis. The first is well defined on $\R^2$ but certainly is not analytic at the origin and the second is analytic in the region of closed orbits but it can not be defined on all of $\R^2$. In fact, there are solutions not intersecting the $x$axis: Consider the region surrounded by $y =
\frac{-1}{x}$ and $y=0$ for $x\ggg1$ and look at the direction field of $$\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=y-F(x)\\
\dot{y}=-x
\end{cases}$$ on the boundary of this region. We conclude that there is a solution remaining in this area for all $t<0$ whenever the solution is defined. The analyticity of the second function, intersection with $x$axis, is obtained by the fact that the 1from $(y - E(x))dy+xdx$ is the pull back of $(y-g(x))dy+dx$ under $\pi(x,y)=(x^2,y)$ with $E(x)=g(x^2)$. Now, the differential equation $$\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=y-g(x)\\
\dot{y}=-1
\end{cases}$$ does not have a singular point and the intersection of the orbits with $x$axis defines an analytic function as a first integral, which we call $K(x,y)$. Then $K(x^2,y)$ is a first integral for the original system (3). Note that putting $E(x)=x^4$, then the dual from of (3) is the pull back of Ricati equation, whose solution can not be determined in terms of elementary functions (This can be seen using Galois Theory, see \[6\]). I thank professor R. Roussarie for hinting me to this pull back. In line of the above conjecture, we propose the following question:
Let an analytic vector field on the plane have a nondegenerate center. As a rule, is it possible to define analytic first integrals globally in the domain of periodic solutions? (However, there is one locally.) In fact, using Riemann mapping theorem we can assume that the region of the center is all of $\R^2$.
We return to Liénard equation (1). The limit cycles of (1) correspond to fixed points of Poincaré return map. Let $F(x)$ has odd degree with positive leading coefficient. As a rule, we can not define Poincaré return map on positive $y$semiaxis. For example, if $F(x)=x^{2n+1}+2x$, in which case the singular point is a node, there is no solution starting on positive $y$axis and returning again to this axis; see the direction field $$\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=y-(x^{2n+1}+2x)\\
\dot{y}=-x
\end{cases}$$ on the semiline $y=x$ and $x>0$. Then, contrary to what is written in \[7\] or is pointed out in \[10\], we can define a Poincaré return map only in the case that origin is a weak or strong focus or in the case of existence of at least one limit cycle. In \[10\], it is also pointed out that Dulac’s problem is trivial for (1), that is, for any given $F(x)$, (1) has a finite number of limit cycles. Let $F(x)$ has odd degree, then $P_0=\lim_{y\rightarrow +\infty}P(y)$ exists and even we have $\lim_{y\rightarrow +\infty}(P(y)-P_0)y^i=0$ for all $i$. Then $P$ has a finite number of fixed points. (In this work we do not use the strong approach $\lim_{y\rightarrow +\infty}y^i(P(y)-P_0)=0$ and thus we do not prove it.) For the case that $F$ has even degree, the above is not trivial and one can deduce it from the results of this paper. In fact we must consider the case that $\lim_{y\rightarrow +\infty}P(y)=+\infty$. Equivalently, we have a loop at Poincaré sphere based at infinity. As a simple consequence of the above Lemma, we note that the system $$\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=y-x^2\\
\dot{y}=\epsilon(a-x)
\end{cases}$$ does not has limit cycles for $a\neq 0$, because putting $x:=x+a$, $y:=y-a^2$ we will obtain $$\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=y-(x^2+2ax)\\
\dot{y}=-\epsilon x.
\end{cases}$$ Using the Lemma, this system does not have a limit cycle. In figures on page 478 and 479 of \[4\], it appears that the existence of limit cycles is claimed.
Main Results
============
For any $a,~b,~c$, there exists a unique $d=(a,b,c)$ such that the system (2) has a homoclinic loop in Poincaré sphere. This loop is stable if and only if the singular point is unstable.
The maximum number of limit cycles of (2) can not be exactly two.
(Proof of the theorem) For fixed $a,~b,~c,$ $a>0$, $b>0$, put $U(d)$ and $S(d)$ for intersection of unstable and stable manifolds corresponding to the topological saddle $(0,1,0)$ on the equator of Poincaré sphere. In fact $U(d)$ and $S(d)$ are similar to $P_{-}$ and $P_{+}$ on page 339 of \[7\], figure 3. $U(d)$ and $S(d)$ are continuous and monotone functions (as will be proved). We also prove $U(d)=S(d)$ has a unique root. First note that for $d>0$ there is no limit cycle or homoclinic loop based at infinity, using the lemma. Then we assume $d<0$, note that $U(0)>S(0)$, otherwise from the stability of the origin in (2) for $b>0$ and $d=0$, we would have a limit cycle for (2) which is a contradiction with the lemma. On the other hand, $U(d)\lll
S(d)$ for $d\lll -1$ because the minimum value of $F(x)=ax^4+bx^3+
cx^2+dx$ goes to $-\infty$ as $d\rightarrow -\infty$ and $S$ is decreasing. Now by continuity and monotonicity of $U$ and $S$ we have a unique root $d_0=\psi(a,b,c, )$ such that $U(d_0)=S(d_0)$. We must prove that $U$ and $S$ are continuous and monotone. It can be directly observed, even without using any classical theorem, that $U$, $S$ are continuous. We prove that $S$ is decreasing, similarly $U$ is increasing. Let $\gamma_d$ be a solution of $(2)_d$ that is asymptotic to the graph of $F(x)=ax^4+bx^3+cx^2+dx$, in $x<0$ in fact, $\gamma_d$ is the stable manifold for the topological saddle $(0,1,0)$ that intersects $y$axis in $S(d)$. We prove that for $d'<d<0$, $S(d')>S(d)$. $\gamma_d$ is a curve without contact for $(2)_{d'}$ and the direction field of $(2)_{d'}$ on $\gamma_d$ is toward ”left” and the direction of $(2)_{d'}$ on the semiline $y>0$. $x=0$, is toward ”right”. Then there is a unique orbit of $(2)_{d'}$ that remains in the region surrounded by $\gamma_d$ and the semiline $x=0$, $y>0$. This orbit is a stable manifold for $(0,1,0)$ of system $(2)_{d'}$, say; $\gamma_{d'}$ certainly $\gamma'_{d}$ can not intersect $\gamma_d$ so $\gamma_{d'}$ will intersect negative $y$axis in $S(d')$ above $S(d)$. Therefore $S$ is decreasing. For the proof of the theorem it remains to prove that the loop is attractive, still assuming $a>0,~b>0,~d<0$. Before proving that the homoclinic loop is attractive we point out that, at first glance, this loop has a degenerate vertex at $(0,1,0)$, i.e. the linear part of vector field at the vertex is $\left[\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 \\
\end{array}\right]$. But using weighted compactification as explained in \[3\], one has an elementary polycycle with two vertices, one vertex is a ”From” vertex and another is a “To”. Thus we do not have an “unbalanced polycycle” and therefore behavior of solution near the polycycle can not be easily determined. Thus, we use the following direct computation. (for definition of balanced and unbalanced polycycles, see \[5\] page 21.) Let $P_0=U(d_0)=S(d_0)<0$; We have a Poincaré return map $P$ defined on negative vertical section $(P_0,0)$, we will prove that $\lim_{y\rightarrow P_0} P'(y)=0$, then $P(y)-y$ is negative for $y$ near $P_0$. Note that considering the orbit of points near $P_0$ in the vertical section $(P_0,0)$ is equivalent to considering the orbits of points $(0,\tilde{y})$ with $\tilde{y}\ggg 1$. Let $\gamma$ be the orbit of (2) corresponding to a homoclinic loop whose existence is proved above. $\gamma$ is asymptotic to the graph of $F(x)=ax^4+bx^3+cx^2+dx$.
The orbit starting from $(0,\tilde{y})$ intersects the graph of $F$ at points with $y$coordinates $y_1$ and $y_2$, when traced in positive and negative time direction, respectively. Recall that we want to prove $\lim_{y\rightarrow P_0} P'(y)=0$; we use the following three facts:\
**I)** There is a constant $K$ such that $|\tilde{y}-y_1|<K\sqrt{\tilde{y}}$ and $|\tilde{y}-y_2|<K\sqrt{\tilde{y}}$, where $K$ depends only on $a,
b, c, d$.\
**II)** $\gamma$ is asymptotic to the graph of $F$.\
**III)** Let $A(y)$ and $B(y)$ two right inverse of $F(x)=ax^4+bx^3+cx^2+dx$, that is $F(A(y))=F(B(y))=y$ for $y\ggg
1$. Then $\lim_{y\rightarrow +\infty}(A(y)+B(y))=\frac{-b}{2a}$. (III) is a simple exercise (II) is pointed out in \[7\]: So we only prove the first. It suffices to prove (I), with the same notation $y_1$ and $y_2$ for the intersection of the orbit with the graph of $F(x)+1$ (in place of $F(x)$).$|\tilde{y}-y_1|=\frac{|\tilde{y}-y_1|}{\Delta x}\Delta
x$, where $\Delta x$ is the $x$coordinate of the intersection of the orbit starting from $(0,\tilde{y})$ with the graph of $F(x)+1$, then $\Delta x<K\sqrt{\tilde{y}}$ for some $K$, since the degree of $F$ is 4 and $\frac{\tilde{y}-y_1}{\Delta
x}=\frac{-x}{y_0-f(x_0)}$, where $(x_0,y_0)$ is a point of the trajectory starting at $(0,\tilde{y})$ and $0<x<\Delta x$ (using mean value theorem). Then $\frac{\tilde{y}-y_1}{\Delta
x}<K\sqrt{\tilde{y}}$ and (I) is proved. Now we compute $\lim_{y\rightarrow P_0} P'(y)$ (or equivalently for $\tilde{y}\ggg 1$ as stated above): $P'(y)=\frac{y}{P(y)}
exp[\int_0^{T(y)}``div''dt]$ where by “div” we mean the divergence of vector field (2). i.e. $-F'(x(t))$, and $T(y)$ is the time of first return of the solution starting $(0,y)$ to negative vertical section (for the standard formula of $P'(y)$ see \[1\]). $$\int div dt=-\int
F'(x)dt=\int\frac{F'(x)}{x}=\int\frac{-F'(x)dr}{y-F(x)}$$ We use $\tilde{y}$ for the intersection of the solution starting at $(0,y)$ with the positive $y$axis in positive time. We show that $\int_0^{T(y)}div=\int_0^{T(y)}-F'(x(t))dt$ goes to $-\infty$ for $y$ near $P_0$. We divide $\int_0^{T(y)}divdt$ into three parts $I_1$, $I_2$, $I_3$: $I_1$ for the part of the integral that the orbit $\gamma_y$, the solution starting at $(0,y)$ for $y\in(p_0,0)$ lice in $|x|<c$, where $c$ is a nonzero constant. $I_2$ corresponds to the part of $\gamma_y$ above the horizontal line $y=\tilde{y}-K\sqrt{\tilde{y}}$ where $K$ is the same constant which is given in (I), and $I_3$ is the remaining part of $I=\int_0^{T(y)}div$. In fact, in $I_3$ we compute the integral of the divergence of (2) along the part of $\gamma_y$ that lies below the horizontal line $y=\tilde{y}-K\sqrt{\tilde{y}}$ and outside of $|x|<c_1$ where in this part $\gamma_y$ lies between the graph of $F(x)$ and the orbit $\gamma$ which corresponds to the homoclinic loop. Note that as $\tilde{y}\rightarrow +\infty$ and consequently $y\rightarrow P_0$, $I_2$ and $I_3$ are very large in absolute value but $I_1$ remains bounded because $\int
F'(x)=\int\frac{F'(x)dx}{y-F(x)}$. On the other hand we will see that $I_2+I_3$ goes to $-\infty$ as $y\rightarrow P_0$, thus we may ignore the term $I_1$. We could choose $K$ in (I) so that $|\frac{F'(A(\tilde{y}))}{A(\tilde{y})}|<K\sqrt{\tilde{y}}$ where $A(\tilde{y})$ is the positive inverse of $F(x)$ for large $\tilde{y}$. There is a constant $K_1$ such that $|I_2|<K_1\tilde{y}$. Now we show $\frac{I_3}{\tilde{y}}$ to $-\infty$ as $y\rightarrow P_0$. Recall that $\tilde{y}$ is as in the figure. Applying III, we realize that $I_3$ is the integral of some function which is big in absolute value as $y\rightarrow P_0$ (or $\tilde{y}\rightarrow +\infty$). Generally speaking, let $g(\gamma)$ be a function such that $\lim_{y\rightarrow +\infty}
g(\gamma)=+\infty$. Put $G(\gamma)=\int_0^{\gamma}g(s)ds$, then $\lim_{y\rightarrow +\infty}\frac{G(\gamma)}{\gamma}=+\infty$. So, it suffices to prove that $I_3$ is the integral of some function with respect to $\tilde{y}$, where this function goes to $-\infty$ as $\tilde{y}\rightarrow +\infty$. $$\begin{aligned}
I_3=\int\frac{F'(x)}{x}dy,\end{aligned}$$ $$\frac{F'(x)}{x}=4ax^2+3bx+2c+dx.$$ We consider two parts of $\gamma_y$, one in $x>c$ and another in $x<-c_1$ since below the horizontal line $y=\tilde{y}-K\sqrt{\tilde{y}}$ the orbit $\gamma_y$ lies between $\gamma$ and graph of $F(x)$. Note that $\gamma$ is asymptotic to the graph of $F(x)$. Now, applying III, we will obtain $\frac{I_3}{y}\rightarrow -\infty$: for large values of $\tilde{y}_1$ the term $``\frac{d}{x}''$ in (1) can be omitted, then we must compute $-\lim_{\tilde{y}+\infty}
4a(A^2(\tilde{y})-B^2(\tilde{y}))+3b(A(\tilde{y})-B(\tilde{y}))$, where $A(\tilde{y})$ and $B(\tilde{y})$ are inverses of $F(x)$ such that $F(A(\tilde{y}))=F(B(\tilde{y}))=\tilde{y}$ and $A(\tilde{y})>0$, $B(\tilde{y})<0$. We look at $-\lim_{\tilde{y}+\infty}
(A(\tilde{y})-B(\tilde{y}))[4a(A(\tilde{y})-B(\tilde{y}))+3b]$. Certainly $(A(\tilde{y})-B(\tilde{y}))\rightarrow +\infty$. So, the above limit goes to $-\infty$ and $\frac{I_3}{\tilde{y}}\rightarrow +\infty$ as $y\rightarrow P_0$. This completes the proof of the theorem.
(Proof of the corollary) From the proof of the theorem, we conclude that (2) can have an even number of limit cycles for $d\leq d_0=\psi(a,b,c)$ and can have odd number of limit cycles for $d_0<d<0$. Now let $(2)_d$ have exactly two limit cycles. therefore $d\leq d_0=\psi(a,b,c)$. If $d<d_0$, then $(2)_{d_0}$ has at least two limit cycles, counting multiplicity. It is because any closed orbit of $(2)_d$ is a curve without contact for $(2)_{d_0}$ and the direction fields of $(2)_{d_0}$ on this closed curve are toward the interior. But $(2)_{d_0}$ can not have an odd number of limit cycles. For instance let none of the two limit cycles of $(2)_{d_0}$ be semistable. Then by a small perturbation $d=d_0-\epsilon$, (2); these two limit cycles do not die. On the other hand, we would obtain another limit cycle near the loop $\gamma$. Because for $d=d_0-\epsilon$, $\gamma$ is a curve without contact for $(2)_d$ and the direction of $(2)_d$ on $\gamma$ is toward the interior. Note that $\gamma$ was an attractive loop, therefore if $\epsilon$ is very small, using PoincaréBendixson Theorem we will obtain a third limit cycle near the loop. Now any semistable limit cycle can be replaced by two limit cycles by an appropriate perturbation $d=d_0±\epsilon$ depending on which side of the limit cycle is stable. For instant, let $(2)_{d_0}$ have a semistable limit cycle in interior of the loop then $d=d_0-\epsilon$ gives us two limit cycle near the semistable ones and simultaneously one limit cycle near the loop. However the corollary is proved, we point out that the existence of 3 limit cycles for (2) easily implies the existence of 3 limit cycles for $$\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=y-(ax^4+bx^3+cx^2+dx)\\
\dot{y}=-x+\epsilon x^2
\end{cases}$$ for small $\epsilon$. Now by a linear change of coordinates we put $\epsilon=1$, so we would obtain counterexample to the conjecture that the latter system for $\epsilon=1$ has at most 2 limit cycles. See conjecture $N(2,3)=2$ in \[3\].
**Remark 1.** For the proof of the existence of the loop $\gamma$ and also the proof of the corollary, in fact we used the rotational property of the parameter $d$ in (2), namely, any solution of $(2)_d$ is a curve without contact for $(2)_{d'}$, if $d'\neq d$. In particular, periodic solutions of $(2)_d$ are closed curves without contact for $(2)_{d'}$. The simple but useful phenomenon of “rotated vector field theory” introduced by Duff, is some times used erroneously. See, for example , the investigation of $$\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=y-(ax^4+bx^3+dx)\\
\dot{y}=-x
\end{cases}$$ in \[8\]. It is claimed that there is no limit cycle for $d<d_0=\psi(a,b,c)<0$, where $b>0$. In fact, the following situation that could occur, is not considered in \[8\]:\
As we assumed above, let $a>0,~b>0$, for small $d<0$ we have exactly one (small) Hopf bifurcating limit cycle. It is possible that this limit cycle, before arriving to a loop situation, dies out in a semistable limit cycle. Put $X={d|(5)_d {\rm has exactly
one limit cycle}}$, we do not necessarily have $d_0=infX$, where $d_0=\psi(a,b,0)$, correspond to loop situation. Put “i” for the above infimum. It could be $i>d_0$ and $(5)_i$ possesses a semistable limit cycle. It is also possible that when the outermost limit cycle is dying out in the loop, the two innermost limit cycles have not arrived to each other yet. In fact \[8\] suggests an affirmative answer to the conjecture for system (2).\
\
**Remark 2.** The homoclinic loop $\gamma$, as an orbit on the plane, not on the Poincaré sphere, divides the plane into two parts: its interior, where all solutions are complete, and its exterior, where all solutions have a finite interval of definition. Interior orbits are complete because $\gamma$ is a complete orbit by virtue of $\int dt=\int\frac{dx}{y-f(x)}$ and $\gamma$ being asymptotic to the graph of $F(x)$. The exterior points of $\gamma$ are not complete orbits because they tend to hyperbolic sink and the source on the equator of the Poincaré sphere (See \[2\]). Now, a trivial observation is that Liénard equation (1) can not have an isochronous center i.e. a center with a fixed period for all closed orbits surrounding it.\
\
**Remark 3.** As we saw in the proof of the theorem and the corollary, the inequality $U(d)<S(d)$ or the reverse, determines oddness or evenness of the number of limit cycle. In this direction we point out that: Let $F(x)$ be an even degree polynomial with positive leading coefficient, and $U(\epsilon)$ and $S(\epsilon)$ be similar to $U(d)$ and $S(d)$ above for the system $$\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=y-F(x)\\
\dot{y}=-\epsilon x
\end{cases}$$ Then $\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}U(\epsilon)=M^+$ and $\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}S(\epsilon)=M^-$ where $M^-$ and $M^+$ are minimum values of $F(x)$ on $(-\infty,0]$ and $[0,+\infty)$ resp. The proof is identical to the proof of existence of orbits passing through $U(d)$ and $S(d)$ asymptotic to the graph of $F(x)$, as in \[7\].\
\
**Remark 4.** Note that when the degree of $F(x)$ in (1) is odd, the behavior of infinity is determined only by the sign of the leading term of $F(x)$. Then, giving an example of (2) with 3 limit cycles would give, inductively, $n+2$ limit cycles for (1), for all n.\
\
**Remark 5.** Considering “flow” version of the problem of “centralizer of diffeomorphisms” described in \[10\] one can easily observe the following partial result. Let $L$ be the Liénard vector field similar to (1) with at least one closed orbit and $X$ be a polynomial vector field such that $[L,X]\equiv0$, then $X=cL$ where $c$ is a constant real number. In general, let two vector fields have commuting flows and $\gamma$ be a closed orbit for one of them which does not lie in an isochronous band of closed orbits. Then $\gamma$ must be invariant by another vector field and if both vector fields are polynomials. Then either $\gamma$ is an algebraic curve or two vector fields are constant multiple of each other. But Liénard systems do not have algebraic solutions, \[9\]. More generally by the following proposition we have “Non existence of algebraic solution implies triviality of centralizer”.
Let $M$ be the set of all polynomial vector fields on $\C^2$. Then $X\in M$ has trivial centralizer if $X$ dose not have an algebraic solution.
Let $[X,Y]=0$. Then $X.Det(X,Y)=(DivX).(Det(X,Y))$, so $``Det(X,Y)=0''$ defines an algebraic curve invariant under $X$ (By $Det(X,Y)$) we mean the determinant of a 2×2 matrix whose columns are components of $X$ and $Y$).
**Remark 6.** The following could be a (real) generalization of formula used in proof of proposition:\
Let $(M,\omega)$ be a $2n$ dimensional symplectic manifold and $X,
Y$ two vector fields with the condition $[X,Y]\equiv 0$, then $X.\omega(X,Y)=n(DivX)\omega(X,Y)$. This formula is trivial for usual symplectic structure of $\R^2$. Further there is a local chart around each point of a two dimensional symplectic manifold that $\omega$ can be represented in the trivial form. Thus the formula is proved for arbitrary two dimensional symplectic manifold. Now, in general case we have a two dimensional symplectic submanifold $N$ of $M$, that $X$ and $Y$ are tangent to $N$. (For points $m\in M$ that $\omega(X(m),Y(m))\neq 0$, using Frobenius theorem.) From other hand $DivX_M=nDivX_N$. The investigation of points $m$ that $\omega(X(m),Y(m))=0$ is trivial. Then the proof is completed.
Dirac introduced the following embedding of planner vector fields into Hamiltonian system in $\R^4: H=zP(x,y)+wQ(x, y)$. Now we consider the Hamiltonian $H=z(y-F(x))-wx$. When is this Hamiltonian completely integrable?
By completelyintegrable Hamiltonian, we mean that there is a first integral for the system $$\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=y-F(x)\\
\dot{y}=-x\\
\dot{z}=w-F'(x)z\\
\dot{w}=-z
\end{cases}$$ independent of $H$.\
The particular case $F(x)=x^2$ for which (1) has a center with global first integral $\phi(x,y)=(y-x^2+\frac{1}{2})e^{-2y}$, suggests that when (1) does not have a center, the above Hamiltonian is not completely integrable. In fact, the function $\phi$, as above, is a first integral, independent of $H$ for above four dimensional system. Then, when (1) is not integrable, one expects that the corresponding Hamiltonian is not completely integrable. However, surprisingly, putting $F(x)=kx$, we have another first integral $yw+xz$.
Considering (1) as a vector field on $\C^2$, and in line of conjecture in \[7\] one can think of the validity of the following two statement.\
I)There are at most n different leaves containing real limit cycles.\
II)There are at most n real limit cycles lying on the same leaf. By “leaf” we mean a leaf of the foliation corresponding to the equation (1) on $\C^2-{0}$.
**Acknowledgement.** The author thanks Professor S. Shahshahani for fruitful conversations. He also acknowledges the financial support of the Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics.
[99]{}
A. A. Andronov et al, “Theory of Bifurcations of Dynamical System on the Plane”, Israel Program for Scientific Translation Jerusalem, 1971.
C. Chicone and J. Sotomayor, On a Class of Complete Polynomial Vector Fields in the Plane, J. Differential Equation 61 (1986), 398418.
F. Dumortier and C. Li, Quadratic Li’enard equation with Quadratic Damping, J. Differential Equation 139 (1997) 4159.
W. Eckhause, Relaxation Oscillations Including a Standard Chase on French Ducks, In Asymptotic Analysis II, Springer Lecture Notes in Math. 985 (1983), 449491.
Yu. S. IlYashenko “Finiteness Theorem of Limit Cycles”, Translation of Mathematical Monographs, Vol. 94, 1991.
I. Kaplansky, “An Introduction to Differential Algebra”, Herman Press, 1976.
A. Lins, W. demelo, C. C. Pugh, On Liénard Equation, Proc. Symp. Geom. and Topol. Springer Lecture Notes 597 (1977), 335357.
Maoan. Han, Global Behavior of Limit Cycles in Rotated Vector Fields, J. Differential Equations 151 (1999), 2035. 12
K. Odani, The limit Cycle of the Van der pol Equation is not Algebraic, J. Differential Equations 115 (1995), 146152.
S. Smale, Mathematical Problems for Next Century, The Mathematical Intelligencer 20 (1998), 715.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we investigate a new subclass $S_{\Sigma _{m}}^{\varphi
,\lambda }$ of $\Sigma _{m}$ consisting of analytic and *m*-fold symmetric bi-univalent functions satisfying subordination in the open unit disk $U$. We consider the Fekete-Szegö inequalities for this class. Also, we establish estimates for the coefficients for this subclas and several related classes are also considered and connections to earlier known results are made.
Keywords: Analytic functions, *m*-fold symmetric bi-univalent functions, Coefficient bounds.
2010, Mathematics Subject Classification: 30C45, 30C50.
author:
- |
Arzu Akgül\
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Arts and Science,\
Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, zmit, Turkey.\
$^{\ast }$corresponding author. e-mail: [email protected]
title: |
The Fekete–Szegö Coefficient Inequality For a New\
Class of m-Fold Symmetric Bi-Univalent Functions Satisfying Subordination Condition
---
Introduction and Definitions
============================
Let $A$ denote the class of functions of the form $$f(z)=z+\overset{\infty }{\underset{n=2}{\sum }}a_{n}z^{n}, \label{eq1}$$which are analytic in the open unit disk $U=\left\{ z:\left\vert
z\right\vert <1\right\} $, and let $S$ be the subclass of $A$ consisting of the form (\[eq1\]) which are also univalent in $U.$
The Koebe one-quarter theorem [@Duren; @83] states that the image of $U$ under every function $f$ from $S$ contains a disk of radius $\frac{1}{4}.$ Thus every such univalent function has an inverse $f^{-1}$ which satisfies$$f^{-1}\left( f\left( z\right) \right) =z~~\left( z\in U\right)$$and$$f\left( f^{-1}\left( w\right) \right) =w~~\left( \left\vert w\right\vert
<r_{0}\left( f\right) ~,~r_{0}\left( f\right) \geq \frac{1}{4}\right) ,$$where$$f^{-1}\left( w\right) =w~-a_{2}w^{2}+\left( 2a_{2}^{2}-a_{3}\right)
w^{3}-\left( 5a_{2}^{3}-5a_{2}a_{3}+a_{4}\right) w^{4}+\cdots . \label{eq2}$$
A function $f\in A$ is said to be bi-univalent in $U$ if both $f$ and $f^{-1} $ are univalent in $U.~$Let $\Sigma $ denote the class of bi-univalent functions defined in the unit disk $U.$
For a brief history and interesting examples in the class $\Sigma ,$ see [@Srivastava; @2010]. Although, the familier Koebe function is not in the class of $\Sigma ,$there are some examples of functions member of $\Sigma $ , such as$$\frac{z}{1-z},\ \ -\log (1-z),\ \ \ \frac{1}{2}\log \left( \frac{1+z}{1-z}\right)$$and so on. Other common examples of functions in $S$ for example$$z-\frac{z^{2}}{2}\text{ and }\frac{z}{1-z^{2}}$$are also not members of $\Sigma $ (see [@Srivastava; @2010]).
An analytic function $f$ is said to be subordinate to another analytic function $g$, written
$$f(z)\prec g(z), \label{eq3}$$
provided that there is an analytic function $w$ defined on $U$ with $$w(0)=0\text{ \ and \ }\left\vert w(z)\right\vert <1$$
satisfying the following condition:
$$f(z)=g\left( w(z)\right) .$$
Lewin [@Lewin; @67] is the first mathematician studied the class of bi-univalent functions, obtaining the bound 1.51 for modulus of the second coefficient $\left\vert a_{2}\right\vert .$ Subsequently, Brannan and Clunie [@Brannan; @and; @Clunie; @80] conjectured that $\left\vert a_{2}\right\vert
\leq \sqrt{2}$ for $f\in \Sigma $ and Netanyahu [@Netanyahu; @69] showed that $max\left\vert a_{2}\right\vert =\frac{4}{3}.$ Brannan and Taha [BrannanTaha]{} introduced certain subclasses of the bi-univalent function class $\Sigma $ similar to the familiar subclasses. $S^{\star }\left( \beta
\right) $ and $K\left( \beta \right) $ of starlike and convex function of order $\beta $ $\left( 0\leq \beta <1\right) $ in turn (see [@Netanyahu; @69]). The classes $S_{\Sigma }^{\star }\left( \alpha \right) $ and $K_{\Sigma }\left( \alpha \right) $ of bi-starlike functions of order $\alpha
$ and bi-convex functions of order $\alpha ,$ corresponding to the function classes $S^{\star }\left( \alpha \right) $ and $K\left( \alpha \right) ,$ were also introduced analogously. For each of the function classes $S_{\Sigma }^{\star }\left( \alpha \right) $ and $K_{\Sigma }\left( \alpha
\right) ,$ they found non-sharp estimates on the initial coefficients. In fact, the beforementioned work of Srivastava et al. [@Srivastava; @2010] fundamentally reviwed the investigation of diversified subclasses of the bi-univalent function class $\Sigma $ in recent times. Recently, many authors searched bounds for various subclasses of bi-univalent functions ([@Akgul] , [@Altinkaya], [@Frasin; @2011], [@Magesh; @and; @Yamini; @2013], [@Srivastava; @2010], [@Srivastava; @2013], [@Xu; @and; @Gui; @2012]). Not much is known about the bounds on the general coefficient$\
\left\vert a_{n}\right\vert $ for $n\geq 4.$ In the literature, the only a few works determining the general coefficient bounds $\left\vert
a_{n}\right\vert $ for the analytic bi-univalent functions ([@Bulut; @2014], [@Hamidi; @and; @Jahangiri; @2014], [@Jahangiri; @and; @Hamidi; @2013]). The coefficient estimate problem for each of $\left\vert a_{n}\right\vert $ $\left( \ n\in
\mathbb{N}
\backslash \left\{ 1,2\right\} ;\ \
\mathbb{N}
=\left\{ 1,2,3,...\right\} \right) $ is still an open problem.
For each function $f\in S$, the function$$h(z)=\sqrt[m]{f(z^{m})}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (z\in U,\ \ m\in
\mathbb{N}
) \label{eq4}$$is univalent and maps the unit disk $U$ into a region with *m*-fold symmetry. A function is said to be *m*-fold symmetric (see [Koepf 89]{}, [@Pommerenke; @62]) if it has the following normalized form:$$f(z)=z+\overset{\infty }{\underset{k=1}{\sum }}a_{mk+1}z^{mk+1}\ \ \ \ \ \ \
(z\in U,\ \ m\in
\mathbb{N}
). \label{eq5}$$
We symbolyze by $S_{m}$ the class of *m*-fold symmetric univalent functions in U, which are normalized by the series expansion (\[eq5\]).Indeed, the functions in the class $S$ are *one*-fold symmetric.
Similiar to the concept of *m*-fold symmetric univalent functions, here, in this work, we introduced the concept of *m*-fold symmetric bi-univalent functions. Each function $f\in \Sigma $ generates an *m*-fold symmetric bi-univalent function for each integer $m\in
\mathbb{N}
$. The normalized form of f is given by (\[eq5\]) and the series expansion for $f^{-1}$ is given by below:$$\begin{aligned}
g\left( w\right) &=&w~-a_{m+1}w^{m+1}+\left[ \left(
m+1)a_{m+1}^{2}-a_{2m+1}\right) \right] w^{2m+1} \label{eq6} \\
&&-\left[ \frac{1}{2}(m+1)(3m+2)a_{m+1}^{3}-(3m+2)a_{m+1}a_{2m+1}+a_{3m+1}\right] w^{3m+1}+\cdots . \notag\end{aligned}$$where $f^{-1}=g.$ We denote by $\Sigma _{m}$ the class of *m*-fold symmetric bi-univalent functions in $U$. Taylor Maclaurin series expansion of the inverse function of $f^{-1}$ has been recently proven by Srivastava et al. [@Srivastava; @2014]. For $m=1$, the formula (\[eq6\]) induces the formula (\[eq2\]) of the class $\Sigma $. Some examples of *m*-fold symmetric bi-univalent functions are given here below:$$\left( \frac{z^{m}}{1-z^{m}}\right) ^{\frac{1}{m}},\ \ \left[ -\log (1-z^{m})\right] ^{\frac{1}{m}},\ \ \ \left[ \frac{1}{2}\log \left( \frac{1+z^{m}}{1-z^{m}}\right) ^{\frac{1}{m}}\right] .$$
In this work, the class of analytic functions of the form is
$$p\left( z\right) =1+p_{1}z+p_{2}z^{2}+p_{3}z^{3}+\cdots $$
such that
$$R\left( p\left( z\right) \right) >0\text{ \ \ \ \ \ }(z\in U)$$
holds and this class is denoted by $\mathcal{P}$.
In the work of Pommerenke [@Pommerenke; @62], the m-fold symmetric function $p$ in the class $\mathcal{P}$ is given of the form:
$$p\left( z\right) =1+p_{m}z+p_{2m}z^{2m}+p_{3m}z^{3m}+\cdots \ \label{eq7}$$
Throughout this study, $\varphi $ will be assumed as an analytic function with positive real part in the unit disk $U$ such that
$$\varphi (0)=1\text{ \ \ \ \ \ and \ \ \ \ \ }\varphi (0)>0.$$
and $\varphi (U)$ is symmetric with respect to the real axis. The function $\varphi $ has a series expansion of the form:
$$\varphi \left( z\right) =1+B_{1}z+B_{2}z^{2}+B_{3}z^{3}+\cdots \ \left(
B_{1}>0\right) . \label{eq8}$$
Let $u(z)$ and $v(z)$ be two analytic functions in the unit disk $U$ with $$u(0)=v(0)=0\text{ \ \ \ \ and \ \ \ \ }max\{|u(z)|,|v(z)|\}<1.$$
We observe that
$$u(z)=b_{m}z^{m}+b_{2m}z^{2m}+b_{3m}z^{3m}+\text{\textperiodcentered
\textperiodcentered \textperiodcentered } \label{eq9}$$
and
$$v(w)=c_{m}w^{m}+c_{2m}w^{2m}+c_{3m}w^{3m}+\text{\textperiodcentered
\textperiodcentered \textperiodcentered .} \label{eq10}$$
Also we assume that $$|b_{m}|\leq 1,\text{ \ \ \ }|b_{2m}|\leq 1-|b_{m}|^{2}\text{ \ \ \ },|c_{m}|\leq 1,\text{ \ \ \ }|c_{2m}|\leq 1-|c_{m}|^{2} \label{eq11}$$
Making some simple calculations we can notice that
$$\varphi \left( u\left( z\right) \right) =1+B_{1}b_{m}z^{m}+\left(
B_{1}b_{2m}+B_{2}b_{m}^{2}\right) z^{2m}+\text{\textperiodcentered
\textperiodcentered \textperiodcentered }\left( \left\vert z\right\vert
<1\right) \label{eq12}$$
and
$$\varphi \left( v\left( w\right) \right) =1+B_{1}c_{m}w^{m}+\left(
B_{1}c_{2m}+B_{2}c_{m}^{2}\right) z^{2m}+\text{\textperiodcentered
\textperiodcentered \textperiodcentered }\left( \left\vert w\right\vert
<1\right) . \label{eq13}$$
In this study, derived substantially by the work of Ma and Minda [@Ma] and [@Srivastava; @2014], we introduce some new subclasses of m-fold symmetric bi-univalent functions and obtain bounds for the Taylor-Maclaurin coefficients $\left\vert a_{m+1}\right\vert $ and $\left\vert
a_{2m+1}\right\vert $ and Fekete-Szegö functional problems for functions in these new classes.
\[defn2.1\]A function $f\in \Sigma _{m}$ is said to be in the class $S_{\Sigma _{m}}^{\lambda }(\varphi )$ if the following conditions are satisfied:$$f\in \Sigma _{m},$$$$\begin{array}{cc}
\ \ \dfrac{zf^{\prime }(z)}{(1-\lambda )f(z)+\lambda zf^{\prime }(z)}\prec
\varphi (z) & \left( 0\leq \lambda <1,\ z\in U\right)\end{array}\ \label{eq13a}$$and$$\begin{array}{cc}
\dfrac{\lambda g^{\prime }(w)}{(1-\lambda )g(w)+\lambda wg^{\prime }(w)}\prec \varphi (w) & \left( 0\leq \lambda <1,\ w\in U\right)\end{array}
\label{eq13b}$$where the function $g=f^{-1},$ given by the (\[eq6\]).
For the case of one fold symmetric functions the class $S_{\Sigma
_{m}}^{\lambda }(\varphi )$ reduces to the following classes:
1. In the case of $m=1$ in Definition \[defn2.1\], we have the class $$S_{\Sigma _{1}}^{\lambda }(\varphi )=\mathcal{G}_{\Sigma }^{\varphi ,\varphi
}(\gamma )$$investigated by Magesh and Yamini [@Magesh; @2014] defined by requiring that $$\begin{array}{cc}
\ \ \dfrac{zf^{\prime }(z)}{(1-\lambda )f(z)+\lambda zf^{\prime }(z)}\prec
\varphi (z) & \left( 0\leq \lambda <1,\ z\in U\right)\end{array}$$$\ $and$$\begin{array}{cc}
\dfrac{\lambda g^{\prime }(w)}{(1-\lambda )g(w)+\lambda wg^{\prime }(w)}\prec \varphi (w) & \left( 0\leq \lambda <1,\ w\in U\right) ,\end{array}$$where the function $g=f^{-1}$ given by the equation (\[eq2\]) .
2. In the case of $m=1$ and $\lambda =0$ in Definition \[defn2.1\], then we have the class $S_{\Sigma _{1}}^{0}(\varphi )$ which is the class of Ma Minda starlike functions, introduced by Ma and Minda [@Ma]. This class consits of the functions $$\dfrac{zf^{\prime }(z)}{f(z)}\prec \varphi (z)$$
3. In the case of $m=1$ in Definition \[defn2.1\], for the different choices of the function $\varphi (z)$ , we obtain interesting known subclasses of analytic function class.
For example, If we let $$\varphi (z)=\frac{1+(1-2\beta )z}{1-z}\text{ or }\varphi (z)=\frac{1-(1-2\beta )z}{1-z},\left( 0\leq \beta <1,\ z\in U\right)$$then the class $S_{\Sigma _{1}}^{\lambda }(\varphi )$ reduces to the class $S_{\Sigma _{1}}^{0}(\varphi )=\mathcal{SS}_{\Sigma }^{\ast }(\beta ,\lambda )
$. This class contains the functions satisfying the conditions $$\begin{array}{cc}
\ \ \left\vert \arg \left( \dfrac{zf^{\prime }(z)}{(1-\lambda )f(z)+\lambda
zf^{\prime }(z)}\right) \right\vert <\dfrac{\alpha \pi }{2} & \left(
0<\alpha \leq 1,0\leq \lambda <1,\ z\in U\right)
\end{array}$$and$$\begin{array}{cc}
\left\vert \arg \left( \dfrac{\lambda g^{\prime }(w)}{(1-\lambda
)g(w)+\lambda wg^{\prime }(w)}\right) \right\vert <\dfrac{\alpha \pi }{2} &
\left( 0<\alpha \leq 1,0\leq \lambda <1,\ w\in U\right) .\end{array}$$
Similarly, if we let$$\varphi (z)=\left( \frac{1+z}{1-z}\right) ^{\alpha }\text{ or }\varphi
(z)=\left( \frac{1-z}{1+z}\right) ^{\alpha },(0<\alpha \leq 1,z\in U)$$then the class $S_{\Sigma _{1}}^{\lambda }(\varphi )$ reduces to the class $S_{\Sigma _{1}}^{0}(\varphi )=\mathcal{SS}_{\Sigma }^{\ast }(\alpha ,\lambda
)$ . This class contains the functions satisfying the conditions $$\begin{array}{cc}
f\in \Sigma ,\ \ \func{Re}\left( \dfrac{zf^{\prime }(z)}{(1-\lambda
)f(z)+\lambda zf^{\prime }(z)}\right) >\beta & \left( 0\leq \beta <1,0\leq
\lambda <1,\ z\in U\right)
\end{array}$$and$$\begin{array}{cc}
\func{Re}\left( \dfrac{wg^{\prime }(w)}{(1-\lambda )g(w)+\lambda wg^{\prime
}(w)}\right) >\beta & \left( 0\leq \beta <1,0\leq \lambda <1,\ w\in
U\right) .\end{array}$$ The classes $\mathcal{G}_{\Sigma }^{{}}(\beta ,\lambda )$ and $\mathcal{G}_{\Sigma }^{{}}(\alpha ,\lambda )$ were introduced and studied by Murugusundaramoorthy et al. ( see Definition 1 and Definition 2 in [Murugusundaramoorthy 2013]{}). Also if we choose $\lambda =0,$ $\mathcal{G}_{\Sigma }^{{}}(\beta ,0):$ $\mathcal{G}_{\Sigma }^{{}}\beta )$ and $\mathcal{G}_{\Sigma }^{{}}(\alpha ,0):\mathcal{G}_{\Sigma }^{{}}(\alpha ).$These classes are called bi-starlike functions of order $\beta $ and strongly bi-starlike functions of order $\alpha $ , respectively. The classes $\mathcal{G}_{\Sigma }^{{}}(\beta )$ and $\mathcal{G}_{\Sigma
}^{{}}(\alpha )$ were investigated and studied by Brannan and Taha [Brannan Taha]{} ( see Definition 1.1 and Definition 1.2) .
If we set $\lambda =0$ in Definition1, then the class $S_{\Sigma
_{m}}^{\lambda }(\varphi )$ reduces to the class $S_{\Sigma _{m}}^{\varphi }$ defined by below:
\[defn2.2\]A function $f\in \Sigma _{m}$ is said to be in the class $S_{\Sigma _{m}}^{\varphi }$ if the following conditions are satisfied:$$f\in \Sigma _{m},$$$$\begin{array}{cc}
\ \ \dfrac{zf^{\prime }(z)}{f(z)}\prec \varphi (z) & \left( 0\leq \lambda
<1,\ z\in U\right)\end{array}$$and$$\begin{array}{cc}
\dfrac{wg^{\prime }(w)}{g(w)}\prec \varphi (w) & \left( 0\leq \lambda <1,\
w\in U\right)\end{array}$$where the function $g=f^{-1}$given by (\[eq6\]).
In the case of $m=1$ in Definition \[defn2.2\], it is interesting that, also for $\lambda =0$ , the classes $S_{\Sigma _{1}}^{\lambda }(\frac{1+(1-2\beta )z}{1-z})$ and $S_{\Sigma _{1}}^{\lambda }(\left( \frac{1+z}{1-z}\right) ^{\alpha })$ lead the class $\delta _{\Sigma }^{\alpha }(\beta )$of bi-starlike functions of order $\alpha $ and $\delta _{\Sigma }^{\ast
}(\beta )$ of bi-starlike functions of order $\beta $ , respectively.
For $m-fold$ symmetric ananlytic and bi-univalent functions, Altinkaya and Yalçin [@Altinkaya] defined and investigated the function classes $S_{\Sigma _{m}}^{{}}(\beta ,\lambda )$ and $S_{\Sigma
_{m}}^{{}}(\alpha ,\lambda )$ as following.
A function $f\in \Sigma _{m}$ is said to be in the class $S_{\Sigma
_{m}}(\alpha ,\lambda )$ if the following conditions are satisfied:$$\begin{array}{cc}
\ \ \left\vert \arg \left( \dfrac{zf^{\prime }(z)}{(1-\lambda )f(z)+\lambda
zf^{\prime }(z)}\right) \right\vert <\dfrac{\alpha \pi }{2} & \left(
0<\alpha \leq 1,0\leq \lambda <1,\ z\in U\right)
\end{array}$$and$$\begin{array}{cc}
\left\vert \arg \left( \dfrac{\lambda g^{\prime }(w)}{(1-\lambda
)g(w)+\lambda wg^{\prime }(w)}\right) \right\vert <\dfrac{\alpha \pi }{2} &
\left( 0<\alpha \leq 1,0\leq \lambda <1,\ w\in U\right) .\end{array}$$
In the same way, the function $f\in \Sigma _{m}$ is said to be in the class $S_{\Sigma _{m}}(\beta ,\lambda )$ if the following conditions are satisfied:$$\begin{array}{cc}
f\in \Sigma ,\ \ \func{Re}\left( \dfrac{zf^{\prime }(z)}{(1-\lambda
)f(z)+\lambda zf^{\prime }(z)}\right) >\beta & \left( 0\leq \beta <1,0\leq
\lambda <1,\ z\in U\right)\end{array}$$and$$\begin{array}{cc}
\func{Re}\left( \dfrac{wg^{\prime }(w)}{(1-\lambda )g(w)+\lambda wg^{\prime
}(w)}\right) >\beta & \left( 0\leq \beta <1,0\leq \lambda <1,\ w\in U\right)\end{array}$$where the function $g=f^{-1}$ given by (\[eq2\]).
[@Altinkaya] Let $\ f$ given by (\[eq4\]) be in the class $S_{\Sigma
_{m}}(\alpha ,\lambda ),\ 0<\alpha \leq 1.$ Then $$\left\vert a_{m+1}\right\vert \leq \frac{2\alpha }{m(1-\lambda )\sqrt{\alpha
+1}}$$and$$\left\vert a_{2m+1}\right\vert \leq \frac{\alpha }{m(1-\lambda )}+\frac{2(m+1)\alpha ^{2}}{m^{2}(1-\lambda )^{2}}.$$
[@Altinkaya] Let $\ f$ given by (\[eq4\]) be in the class $S_{\Sigma
_{m}}(\beta ,\lambda ),0\leq \beta <1.$ Then $$\left\vert a_{m+1}\right\vert \leq \frac{\sqrt{2(1-\beta )}}{m(1-\lambda )}$$and$$\left\vert a_{2m+1}\right\vert \leq \frac{(1-\beta )}{m(1-\lambda )}+\frac{2(m+1)\alpha ^{2}}{m^{2}(1-\lambda )^{2}}.$$
The Main Results and Their Consequences
=======================================
\[thm2.1\]Let $\ f$ given by (\[eq5\]) be in the class $S_{\Sigma
_{m}}^{\lambda }(\varphi ).$ Then $$\left\vert a_{m+1}\right\vert \leq \frac{B_{1}\sqrt{B_{1}}}{m(1-\lambda )\sqrt{\left\vert B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right\vert +B_{1}}} \label{eq14}$$and$$\left\vert a_{2m+1}\right\vert \leq \left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\left( m+1-\frac{m(1-\lambda )}{B_{1}}\right) \frac{B_{1}^{3}}{2m^{2}(1-\lambda )^{2}\left[ B_{1}+\left\vert B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right\vert \right] }+\frac{B_{1}}{2m(1-\lambda )},\text{ \ \ \ }B_{1}\geq \frac{m(1-\lambda )}{m+1} \\
\text{ \ \ \ }\frac{B_{1}}{2m(1-\lambda )},\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }B_{1}<\frac{m(1-\lambda )}{m+1}\end{array}\right. \label{eq15}$$
Let $\ f\in S_{\Sigma _{m}}^{\lambda }(\varphi ).$ Then there are analytic functions $u:U\rightarrow U$ and $v:U\rightarrow U$, with$$u(0)=v(0)=0,$$satisfying the following conditions:
$$\begin{array}{c}
\dfrac{zf^{\prime }(z)}{(1-\lambda )f(z)+\lambda zf^{\prime }(z)}=\varphi
(u(z)) \\
\text{and} \\
\dfrac{\lambda g^{\prime }(w)}{(1-\lambda )g(w)+\lambda wg^{\prime }(w)}=\varphi (v(w)).\end{array}
\label{eq16}$$
Using the equalities (\[eq12\]), (\[eq13\]) in (\[eq16\]) and comparing the coefficient of (\[eq16\]) , we have$$m(1-\lambda )a_{m+1}=B_{1}b_{m}, \label{eq17}$$$$m(1-\lambda )\left[ 2a_{2m+1}-(\lambda m+1)a_{m+1}^{2}\right]
=B_{1}b_{2m}+B_{2}b_{m}^{2}, \label{eq18}$$and$$-m(1-\lambda )a_{m+1}=B_{1}c_{m}, \label{eq19}$$$$m(1-\lambda )\left[ \left( 1+m(2-\lambda ))a_{m+1}^{2}-2a_{2m+1}\right) \right] =B_{1}c_{2m}+B_{2}c_{m}^{2}. \label{eq20}$$From (\[eq17\]) and (\[eq19\]) we find that $$b_{m}=-c_{m}. \label{eq21}$$Adding (\[eq18\]) and (\[eq20\]), we get $$2m^{2}(1-\lambda )^{2}a_{m+1}^{2}=B_{1}\left( b_{2m}+c_{2m}\right)
+B_{2}(b_{m}^{2}+c_{m}^{2}). \label{eq22}$$and using the relation (\[eq17\]) and (\[eq21\]) in (\[eq22\]), we have $$2m^{2}(1-\lambda )^{2}a_{m+1}^{2}=B_{1}\left( b_{2m}+c_{2m}\right) +\frac{2B_{2}m^{2}(1-\lambda )^{2}}{B_{1}^{2}}a_{m+1}^{2}.$$Therefore, by a simple calculation we get $$2m^{2}(1-\lambda )^{2}\left( B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right)
a_{m+1}^{2}=B_{1}^{3}\left( b_{2m}+c_{2m}\right) \label{eq23}$$By using the inequalities given by (\[eq11\]) in (\[eq23\]) for the coefficients $b_{2m}$ and $c_{2m}$, we obtain$$\left\vert 2m^{2}(1-\lambda )^{2}\left( B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right)
a_{m+1}^{2}\right\vert \leq 2B_{1}^{3}\left( 1-\left\vert
b_{m}^{2}\right\vert \right) . \label{eq24}$$Also by using (\[eq17\]) in (\[eq24\]) we have
$$\left\vert a_{m+1}\right\vert ^{2}\leq \frac{B_{1}^{3}}{m^{2}(1-\lambda
)^{2}\left( \left\vert B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right\vert +B_{1}\right) }$$
which implies the assertion (\[eq14\]).
Next, in order to find the bound on $\left\vert a_{2m+1}\right\vert ,$ by subtracting (\[eq20\]) from (\[eq18\]), we obtain$$4m(1-\lambda )a_{2m+1}=2m(m+1)(1-\lambda )a_{m+1}^{2}+B_{1}\left(
b_{2m}-c_{2m}\right) . \label{eq25}$$Then, in view of (\[eq17\]) ,(\[eq21\]) and (\[eq25\]) , applying the inequalities in (\[eq11\]) for the coefficients $p_{2m},p_{m}$ $q_{m\text{
\ }}$and $q_{2m},$we have $$\left\vert a_{2m+1}\right\vert \leq \left( (m+1)-\frac{m(1-\lambda )}{B_{1}}\right) \frac{B_{1}^{3}}{2m^{2}(1-\lambda )^{2}\left[ B_{1}+\left\vert
B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right\vert \right] }+\frac{B_{1}}{2m(1-\lambda )}$$which implies the assertion (\[eq15\]) .This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm2.1\].
For $\lambda =0,$ we can state the following corollary:
Let $\ f$ given by (\[eq5\]) be in the class $S_{\Sigma _{m}}^{{}}(\varphi
).$ Then $$\left\vert a_{m+1}\right\vert \leq \frac{B_{1}\sqrt{B_{1}}}{m\sqrt{\left\vert B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right\vert +B_{1}}}$$and$$\left\vert a_{2m+1}\right\vert \leq \left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\left( m+1-\frac{m}{B_{1}}\right) \frac{B_{1}^{3}}{2m^{2}\left[
B_{1}+\left\vert B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right\vert \right] }+\frac{B_{1}}{2m)},\text{ \ \ \ }B_{1}\geq \frac{m}{m+1} \\
\text{ \ \ \ }\frac{B_{1}}{2m},\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ }B_{1}<\frac{m}{m+1}\end{array}\right.$$
For one fold symmetric functions, we obtain the following corollaries:
If the function $f\in \Sigma $ is in the class of $S_{\Sigma _{1}}^{\lambda
}(\varphi )=\mathcal{G}_{\Sigma }^{\varphi ,\varphi }(\gamma ),$ then $$\left\vert a_{2}\right\vert \leq \frac{B_{1}\sqrt{B_{1}}}{(1-\lambda )\sqrt{\left\vert B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right\vert +B_{1}}}$$and$$\left\vert a_{3}\right\vert \leq \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\left( 2-\frac{(1-\lambda )}{B_{1}}\right) \frac{B_{1}^{3}}{2(1-\lambda
)^{2}+B_{1}\left\vert B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right\vert }+\frac{B_{1}}{2(1-\lambda
)},\text{ } & & \text{for \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }B_{1}\geq \frac{1-\lambda }{2} \\
\text{\ \ \ }\frac{B_{1}}{2(1-\lambda )},\text{ \ \ \ \ } & & \text{for \ \
\ \ \ \ \ }B_{1}<\frac{1-\lambda }{2}\end{array}\right. .$$
For the case of one-fold symmetric functions and for $\varphi (z)=\left(
\frac{1+z}{1-z}\right) ^{\alpha }=1+2\alpha z+2\alpha ^{2}z^{2}+...,$ Theorem 1 reduces to the following result:
If the function $f\in \Sigma $ is in the class of $S_{\Sigma _{1}}^{\lambda
}(\left( \frac{1+z}{1-z}\right) ^{\alpha }),$ then$$\left\vert a_{2}\right\vert \leq \frac{2\alpha }{(1-\lambda )}$$and$$\left\vert a_{3}\right\vert \leq \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{4\alpha ^{2}}{(1-\lambda )^{2}},\text{ } & & \text{for \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\alpha \geq \frac{1-\lambda }{4} \\
\text{\ \ \ }\frac{\alpha }{(1-\lambda )},\text{ \ \ \ \ } & & \text{for \
\ \ \ \ \ \ }\alpha <\frac{1-\lambda }{4}\end{array}\right. .$$
The estimates for $\left\vert a_{2}\right\vert $ and $\left\vert
a_{3}\right\vert $ asserted by Corollary? more accurate than those given by Corollary 1 in Magesh and Yamini.
For the case of one-fold symmetric functions and for $\varphi (z)=\frac{1+(1-2\beta )z}{1-z}=1+2(1-\beta )z+(1-\beta )z^{2}+...,$Theorem 1 reduces to the following result:
If the function $f\in \Sigma $ is in the class of $S_{\Sigma _{1}}^{\lambda
}(\frac{1+(1-2\beta )z}{1-z}),$ then $$\left\vert a_{2}\right\vert \leq \frac{2(1-\beta )}{(1-\lambda )\sqrt{2\beta
+1}}$$and$$\left\vert a_{3}\right\vert \leq \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{4\alpha ^{2}}{(1-\lambda )^{2}},\text{ } & & \text{for \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\alpha \geq \frac{1-\lambda }{4} \\
\text{\ \ \ }\frac{\alpha }{(1-\lambda )},\text{ \ \ \ \ } & & \text{for \
\ \ \ \ \ \ }\alpha <\frac{1-\lambda }{4}\end{array}\right. .$$
The estimates for $\left\vert a_{2}\right\vert $ and $\left\vert
a_{3}\right\vert $ asserted by Corollary? more accurate than those given by Corollary 2 in Magesh and Yamini.
Also, if we choose $\lambda =0$ in Corollary 7, we have the following corollary:
If the function $f\in \Sigma $ is in the class of $S_{\Sigma
_{1}}^{0}(\varphi )$ then $$\left\vert a_{2}\right\vert \leq \frac{B_{1}\sqrt{B_{1}}}{\sqrt{\left\vert
B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right\vert +B_{1}}}$$
$$\left\vert a_{3}\right\vert \leq \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\left( 2-\frac{1}{B_{1}}\right) \frac{B_{1}^{3}}{2+B_{1}\left\vert
B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right\vert }+\frac{B_{1}}{2},\text{ } & & \text{for \ \ \
\ \ \ \ }B_{1}\geq \frac{1}{2} \\
\text{\ \ \ }\frac{B_{1}}{2},\text{ \ \ \ \ } & & \text{for \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }B_{1}<\frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right. .$$
For one- fold symmetric functions, if we choose the function $\varphi (z)$ in different forms, then we have the following corollaries. named Corollary 13 and Corollary 14:
[@Murugusundaramoorthy; @2013] Let the function $f(z)$ given by the equality (\[eq1\]) be in the class $\mathcal{SS}_{\Sigma }^{\ast }(\beta
,\lambda ),0\leq \beta <1$ and $0\leq \lambda <1.$ Then $$\left\vert a_{2}\right\vert \leq \frac{2\sqrt{(1-\beta )}}{(1-\lambda )}$$and $$\left\vert a_{3}\right\vert \leq \frac{4(1-\beta )^{2}}{(1-\lambda )^{2}}+\frac{(1-\beta )}{(1-\lambda )}.$$
[@Murugusundaramoorthy; @2013] Let the function $f(z)$ given by the equality (\[eq1\]) be in the class $\mathcal{SS}_{\Sigma }^{\ast }(\alpha
,\lambda ),0<\alpha \leq 1$ and $0\leq \lambda <1.$ Then
$$\left\vert a_{2}\right\vert \leq \frac{2\alpha }{(1-\lambda )\sqrt{1+\alpha }}$$
and $$\left\vert a_{3}\right\vert \leq \frac{4\alpha ^{2}}{(1-\lambda )^{2}}+\frac{\alpha }{(1-\lambda )}.$$
For *one*-fold symmetric bi-univalent functions and $\lambda
=0$, Theorem 5 reduces to Corollary which were proven earlier by Murugunsundaramoorthy et al. [@Murugusundaramoorthy; @2013]
Let $\ f$ given by (\[eq4\]) be in the class $S_{\Sigma }^{\ast }(\alpha
)\ \ \left( 0<\alpha \leq 1\right) $. Then $$\left\vert a_{2}\right\vert \leq \frac{2\alpha }{\sqrt{\alpha +1}}$$and$$\left\vert a_{3}\right\vert \leq 4\alpha ^{2}+\alpha .$$
Here, in this study, we will spesify the theorem concerning the Fekete- Szegö inequality for the class $S_{\Sigma _{m}}^{\lambda }(\varphi ).$To improve the result, especially Theorem 2.1, we consider Fekete-Szegö inequality for the class $S_{\Sigma _{m}}^{\lambda }(\varphi )$ . This kind of studies has been made by many authors. The results regarding this problem are given in the works of [@Choi], [@Kanas], [@London], [Srivastava2001]{}. The conclutions given in the study are not sharp, but, unfortunatelly, there isn’t any method giving sharp results as regards these problems.
\[thm2.2\]Let $\ f$ given by (\[eq4\]) be in the class $S_{\Sigma
_{m}}^{\lambda }(\varphi ).$ Then
$$\left\vert a_{2m+1}-\gamma a_{m+1}^{2}\right\vert \leq \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{B_{1}}{2m(1-\lambda )} \\
\end{array}
& &
\begin{array}{c}
\text{for \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }0\leq \left\vert h(\gamma )\right\vert <\frac{1}{4m(1-\lambda )} \\
\end{array}
\\
2B_{1}\left\vert h(\gamma )\right\vert & & \text{for \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\left\vert h(\gamma )\right\vert \geq \frac{1}{4m(1-\lambda )}\end{array}\right. \label{eq26}$$
$$h(\gamma )=\left( \frac{m+1-2\gamma }{2}\right) \frac{B_{1}^{2}}{2m^{2}(1-\lambda )^{2}\left( B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right) }$$
From the equations (\[eq23\]) and (\[eq25\]) ,$$a_{m+1}^{2}=\frac{B_{1}^{3}\left( b_{2m}+c_{2m}\right) }{2m^{2}(1-\lambda
)^{2}\left( B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right) } \label{eq27}$$and
$$a_{2m+1}=\frac{m+1}{2}a_{m+1}^{2}-\frac{B_{1}\left( b_{2m}-c_{2m}\right) }{4m(1-\lambda )} \label{eq28}$$
By using the equalities (\[eq27\]) and (\[eq28\]), we have $$a_{2m+1}-\gamma a_{m+1}^{2}=B_{1}\left[ \left( h(\gamma )+\frac{1}{4m(1-\lambda )}\right) b_{2m}+\left( h(\gamma )-\frac{1}{4m(1-\lambda )}\right) c_{2m}\right]$$where
$$h(\gamma )=\left( \frac{m+1-2\gamma }{2}\right) \frac{B_{1}^{2}}{2m^{2}(1-\lambda )^{2}\left( B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right) }$$
Due to the fact that all $B_{i}$ are real and $B_{1}>0$, which holds the assertion (\[eq26\]), the proof of the theorem is copmleted.
For m-fold symmetric functions, if we choose $\lambda =0$ in the Theorem [thm2.2]{}, we obtain the following corollary:
Let $\ f$ given by (\[eq4\]) be in the class $S_{\Sigma _{m}}^{{}}(\varphi
).$ Then
$$\left\vert a_{2m+1}-\gamma a_{m+1}^{2}\right\vert \leq \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{B_{1}}{2m} \\
\end{array}
& &
\begin{array}{c}
\text{for \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }0\leq \left\vert h(\gamma )\right\vert <\frac{1}{4m}
\\
\end{array}
\\
2B_{1}\left\vert h(\gamma )\right\vert & & \text{for \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\left\vert h(\gamma )\right\vert \geq \frac{1}{4m}\end{array}\right.$$
where$$h(\gamma )=\left( \frac{m+1-2\gamma }{2}\right) \frac{B_{1}^{2}}{2m^{2}\left( B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right) }$$For one-fold symmetric functions, we can state the Fekete-Szegö inequality for the class $S_{\Sigma _{1}}^{\lambda }(\varphi )$ as following:
If the function $f\in \Sigma $ is in the class of $S_{\Sigma _{1}}^{\lambda
}(\varphi )=\mathcal{G}_{\Sigma _{m}}^{\varphi ,\varphi }(\gamma )$ , then we get$$\left\vert a_{3}-\gamma a_{2}^{2}\right\vert \leq \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{B_{1}}{4(1-\lambda )} & & \text{for \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }0\leq \left\vert
h(\gamma )\right\vert <\frac{1}{4(1-\lambda )} \\
4B_{1}\left\vert h(\gamma )\right\vert & & \text{for \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\left\vert h(\gamma )\right\vert \geq \frac{1}{4(1-\lambda )}\end{array}\right. .$$where$$h(\gamma )=\left( 1-\gamma \right) \frac{B_{1}^{2}}{2(1-\lambda )^{2}\left(
B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right) }$$
If we choose $\lambda =0$ in Corollary 15, then we have the following corollary:
If the function $f\in \Sigma $ is in the class of $S_{\Sigma
_{1}}^{0}(\varphi )$ then$$\left\vert a_{3}-\gamma a_{2}^{2}\right\vert \leq \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{B_{1}}{4} & & \text{for \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }0\leq \left\vert h(\gamma
)\right\vert <\frac{1}{4} \\
4B_{1}\left\vert h(\gamma )\right\vert & & \text{for \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\left\vert h(\gamma )\right\vert \geq \frac{1}{4}\end{array}\right. .$$where$$h(\gamma )=\left( 1-\gamma \right) \frac{B_{1}^{2}}{2\left(
B_{1}^{2}-2B_{2}\right) }.$$
Choosing $\gamma =1$ and $\gamma =0$ in Theorem 13, we obtain following corollary:
Let $\ f$ given by (\[eq5\]) be in the class $S_{\Sigma _{m}}^{\lambda
}(\varphi ).$ Then
$$\left\vert a_{2m+1}-\gamma a_{m+1}^{2}\right\vert \leq \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{B_{1}}{4m(1-\lambda )} & & \text{for \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }0\leq \left\vert
h(\gamma )\right\vert <\frac{1}{4m(1-\lambda )} \\
4B_{1}\left\vert h(\gamma )\right\vert & & \text{for \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\left\vert h(\gamma )\right\vert \geq \frac{1}{4m(1-\lambda )}\end{array}\right. .$$
Choosing $\gamma =1$ and $m=1$ in Corollary17, we have the following corollary:
Let $\ f$ given by (\[eq5\]) be in the class $S_{\Sigma _{,1}}^{\varphi
,\lambda }.$ Then
$$\left\vert a_{3}-a_{2}^{2}\right\vert \leq \frac{B_{1}}{4(1-\lambda )}.$$
Also, if we choose $\lambda =0,$ then we have $$\left\vert a_{3}-a_{2}^{2}\right\vert \leq \frac{B_{1}}{4}.$$
**Conclusion**
In this study, we have composed of several new subclasses of m-fold symmetric bi-univalent analytic functions by means of subordination. For functions belonging to the clsssess introduced here, we have obtained inequalities on the Taylor Maclaurin coefficients $\left\vert
a_{m+1}\right\vert $ and $\left\vert a_{2m+1}\right\vert .$ Also, for functions contained these classes , we find Fekete-Szegö inequalities and we have made some connections to some of earlier known results .
**Author’s contributions**
All author worked on the results and read and approved the final manuscript.
**Competing interests**
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
**Acknowledgement**
The author would like to thank the anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions which improved
the presentation of the paper.
[99]{} A. Akgül, On the coefficient estimates of analytic and bi-univalent m-fold symmetric functions, Mathematica Aeterna, 7 (3), 2017, 253 - 260
Ş. Altinkaya and S. Yalçin, Coefficient Bounds for Certain Subclasses of m-Fold Symmetric Biunivalent Functions, Journal of Mathematics , Volume 2015, (2015) , 5 pages.
D. A. Brannan and J. Clunie, Aspects of contemporary complex analysis, Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Instute Held at University of Durham, New York: Academic Press, (1979).
D. A. Brannan and T. S. Taha, On some classes of bi-univalent functions, in Mathematical Analysis and Its Applications (S. M. Mazhar, A. Hamoui and N. S. Faour, Editors) (Kuwait; February 18–21, 1985), KFAS Proceedings Series, Vol. 3, Pergamon Press (Elsevier Science Limited), Oxford, 1988, pp. 53–60; see also Studia Univ. Babesc-Bolyai Math. 31 (2) (1986), 70–77.
S. Bulut, Coefficient estimates for a new subclass of analytic and bi-univalent functions, Annals of the Alexandru Ioan Cuza University—Mathematics, Tomul LXII, 2016, f. 2, vol. 1
J.H.Choi, Y. C. Kim, and T. Sugawa, Ageneral approach to the Fekete-Szeg"o problem, Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 707–727, 2007.
P. L. Duren, Univalent Functions, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften*,* Springer, New York, USA 259 (1983).
B. A. Frasin and M. K. Aouf, New subclasses of bi-univalent functions, Applied Mathematics Letters, 24 (2011) 1569-1573.
S. G. Hamidi and J. M. Jahangiri,* *Faber polynomial coefficient estimates for analytic bi-close-to-convex functions, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser.I, 352 (1) (2014) 17–20.
J. M. Jahangiri and S. G. Hamidi, Coefficient estimates for certain classes of bi-univalent functions, International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, Article ID 190560, (2013) 4 p.* *
S. Kanas, An unified approach to the Fekete-Szeg"o problem, Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 218, no. 17, pp. 8453–8461, 2012.
W. Koepf, Coefficient of symmetric functions of bounded boundary rotations, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 105 (1989) 324-329.
M. Lewin, On a coefficient problem for bi-univalent functions,* *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.,* *18 (1967) 63-68.
R. R. London, Fekete-Szeg"o inequalities for close-to-convex functions, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 117, no. 4, pp. 947–950, 1993.
W. C. Ma and D. Minda, A unified treatment of some special classes of unvalent functions, in Proceedings of the Conference on Complex Analysis (Tianjin; June 19–23, 1992) (Zhong Li, Fuyao Ren, Lo Yang and Shunyan Zhang, Editors), Conference Proceedings and Lecture Notes in Analysis, Vol. I, International Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1994, pp. 157–169.
N. Magesh and J. Yamini, Coefficient bounds for a certain subclass of bi-univalent functions, International Mathematical Forum*,* 8 (27) (2013)* *1337-1344.
N. Magesh and J. Yamini, Coefficient Estimates for a Certain General Subclass of Analytic and Bi-Univalent Functions, Applied Mathematics, (5), (2014), 1047-1052
G. Murugusundaramoorty, N. Magesh and V. Prameela, Coefficient bounds for certain classes of bi-univalent function, Abstract and Applied Analysis, Article ID 573017, (2013) 3 pp.
G. Murugusundaramoorty, Subclasses of Bi-Univalent Functions of Complex Order Based On Subordination Conditions Involving Wright Hypergeometric Functions, J. Math. Fund. Sci., 47, (1), (2015), 60-75
E. Netanyahu, The minimal distance of the image boundary from the origin and the second coefficient of a univalent function in $\left\vert z\right\vert <1,$ Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 32 (1969) 100-112.
C. Pommerenke, Univalent Functions, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, Germany, 1975.
H. M. Srivastava, A. K. Mishra, and M. K. Das, The Fekete-Szeg"o problem for a subclass of close-to-convex functions,Complex Variables,Theory and Application, vol. 44, pp. 145–163, 2001.
H. M. Srivastava, A. K. Mishra and P. Gochhayat, Certain subclasses of analytic and bi-univalent functions, Applied Mathematics Letters*,* 23 (10) (2010) 1188-1192.
H.M. Srivastava, S. Sivasubramanian, and R. Sivakumar, Initial coefficient bounds for a subclass of m-fold symmetric biunivalent functions, Tbilisi Mathematical Journal, vol. 7, no. 2,pp. 1–10, 2014.
H. M. Srivastava, S. Gaboury and F. Ghanim, Coefficient estimates for a general subclass of analytic and bi-univalent functions of the Ma–Minda type, RACSAM DOI 10.1007/s13398-017-0416-5
Q.-H.Xu,Y.-C.Gui, andH.M. Srivastava, Coefficient estimates for a certain subclass of analytic and bi-univalent functions, Applied Mathematics Letters, 25 (6), (2012) 990–994,
H. M. Srivastava, S. Bulut, M. Çağlar and N. Yağmur, Coefficient estimates for a general subclass of analytic and bi-univalent functions, Filomat 27 (5) (2013) 831-842.
H. M. Srivastava, S. Sivasubramanian and R. Sivakumar, Initial coefficient boundss for a subclass of *m*-fold symmetric bi-univalent functions, Tbilisi Math. J. 7 (2) (2014) 1-10.
H. M. Srivastava, S. Gaboury and F. Ghanim, Coefficient estimates for a general subclass of analytic and bi-univalent functions of the Ma–Minda type, RACSAM DOI 10.1007/s13398-017-0416-5
Q. H. Xu, Y. C. Gui and H. M. Srivastava, Coefficient estimates for a certain subclass of analytic and bi-univalent functions, Applied Mathematics Letters, 25 (2012) 990-994.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'By applying the properties of Fabry-Perot resonance and Rayleigh anomaly, we have shown that a photonic crystal slab can scatter the light from an incident plane wave into a diffracted light with a very large reflection or transmission coefficient. The enhanced field is either a propagating diffracted wave (with a grazing angle of diffraction) or a weakly evanescent diffracted wave, so it can be particularly useful for applications requiring an enhanced propagating field (or an enhanced field with a low attenuation). An efficient effective medium technique is developed for the design of the resonant photonic crystal slabs. Numerical simulations have shown that photonic crystal slabs with low index contrast, such as the ones found in the cell wall of diatoms, can enhance the intensity of the incident light by four orders of magnitude.'
author:
- 'Kokou B. Dossou'
title: 'Large field enhancement obtained by combining Fabry-Perot resonance and Rayleigh anomaly in photonic crystal slabs'
---
Introduction
============
The use of diffraction gratings to enhance electromagnetic fields has attracted an extensive research interest for many decades because of its rich physics and its potential applications. The field enhancement is commonly due to a resonant coupling between diffracted plane waves and grating modes [@Hessel:AO:1965]. Metallic gratings can support surface modes (surface plasmon polaritons) at metal-dielectric interfaces and the electric field enhancement near these gratings can lead to surface-enhanced Raman scattering [@Mills:PRB:1982; @Weber:PRB:1983; @Garcia:OC:1983; @Garcia:SS:1984; @Gao:OE:2009]. The guided-mode resonance [@Wang:AO:1993; @Rosenblatt:IEEE:1997] in dielectric grating waveguide structures can lead to a local enhanced electromagnetic field (which can be useful for enhancing light-matter interactions [@Siltanen:APL:2007] and fluorescence emission [@Zhang:APL:2008; @Laroche:OL:2007]), a rapid spectral variation (which has found application in devices such as optical filters [@Wang:AO:1993]) or an efficient optical reflection by an array of sub-wavelength objects [@Gomez:Medina:OE:2006]. These resonances typically occur at wavelengths where an evanescent diffraction order is resonantly coupled to a mode confined in the diffraction grating, and so the intensity of the corresponding diffracted wave decreases exponentially as it propagates away from the grating. The spatial localisation of the evanescent wave means that devices which rely on high-field intensity must be operated inside or in the vicinity of the resonant grating. In some cases (an example will be discussed below), it may be desirable to have a resonant grating where the enhanced field remains strong beyond the near-field. This can be possible if the diffraction order, which is resonantly coupled to a grating mode, is a propagating order or a weakly evanescent order. A weakly evanescent diffraction order can exist near a Rayleigh anomaly (also called Wood anomaly), where the transition from a propagating order to an evanescent order takes place. A propagating diffracted field of order $p \neq 0$ can also have much larger amplitude (i.e., a large diffraction coefficient $T_p$) than the incident wave when it is close to a Rayleigh anomaly. Indeed, if $\phi_0$ and $\phi_p$ are respectively the angle of incidence and the angle of diffraction, the diffraction efficiency $e_p=|T_p|^2 \, \cos \phi_p / \cos \phi_0$ is less than or equal to one, so that we have $|T_p|^2 \leq \cos \phi_0 / \cos \phi_p $. This implies that $|T_p|$ can potentially take large values when $\phi_p$ is near $\pm \pi/2$ (grazing angle of diffraction), which means that the diffraction order is close to a Rayleigh anomaly. The high-intensity diffracted field, which can occur at a grazing angle of diffraction, can be interpreted as a spatial compression of the incident wave. This is illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:spatial:compression\] where, for an incidence over a grating of length $L$, the ratio of the width of a diffracted plane wave emerging from the grating to the width of the incident plane wave is equal to $\cos \phi_p / \cos \phi_0$. The observations in the previous paragraph suggest that a propagating diffracted wave (or a weakly evanescent diffracted wave) with enhanced field can be obtained when a grating waveguide resonance and a Rayleigh anomaly coexist. In this work, by conceptualising a photonic crystal slab as a perturbation to a uniform dielectric film, we show that the properties of the Fabry-Perot resonance can be used to design photonic crystal slabs that can diffract a substantially enhanced field into non-specular orders which are either propagating or weakly evanescent. The Fabry-Perot model for uniform dielectric films can also be used to accurately predict (especially for photonic crystal slabs with a low index contrast) the location of the resonance wavelength of a photonic crystal slab. This work is partly motivated by the fact that photonic crystal slabs can be found on the cell wall (frustule) of some unicellular photosynthetic organisms known as diatoms [@Fuhrmann:APb:2004]. The biological function of these periodic photonic structures is not well understood yet [@Fuhrmann:APb:2004; @Di:Caprio:JB:2012], although it has been reported [@Furukawa:Protoplasma:1998] (see also [@Fuhrmann:APb:2004; @Di:Caprio:JB:2012]) that high intensity light can induce a movement of the photosynthetic units (chloroplasts) away from the cell wall toward the cell centre while a weak light can induce a movement toward the cell wall. This may suggest that the photonic crystal slabs in the diatom frustule can enhance the intensity of an incident light. In this work we will carry out some numerical simulations of a photonic crystal slab described in [@Fuhrmann:APb:2004], in order to verify if it can provide an efficient field enhancement. In such a case, an enhanced field which is propagating or weakly evanescent can be beneficial since the chloroplasts is not in a direct contact with the frustule, which is located outside the cell membrane.
The combination of a Rayleigh anomaly with another optical resonance effect has been previously studied, especially for the purpose of improving the transmission efficiency. The coupling of a Rayleigh anomaly with a surface plasmon polariton [@Gao:OE:2009; @McMahon:OE:2007] or a Fabry-Perot resonance [@Rahman:OL:2012] has been applied to improve the transmission efficiency through metallo-dielectric gratings. Optical transmission filters with a sharp peak and an improved efficiency have also been demonstrated for dielectric gratings where a guided-mode resonance and a Rayleigh anomaly coexist [@Amin:APL:2013].
The grating scattering problems in this work have been solved by using a modal method [@Dossou:JOSAA:2012; @Sturmberg:CPC:2016], where the Bloch modes are computed with a finite element method [@Dossou:CMAME:2005]. We have observed an excellent agreement with the results computed by another finite element-based numerical technique [@Dossou:JCP:2006]. The modal expansion technique in [@Dossou:JOSAA:2012; @Sturmberg:CPC:2016] has some similarity with the rigorous coupled wave analysis (RCWA) [@Moharam:JOSAA:1995] or the Fourier modal method (FMM) [@Li:JOSAA:1997; @Popov:PRB:2000], where the eigenmodes are expressed as Fourier expansions. We have developed a one-dimensional version of the modal method [@Dossou:JOSAA:2012; @Sturmberg:CPC:2016] for the numerical simulation of one-dimensional photonic crystal slabs and an interesting Bloch mode treatment for one-dimensional periodic structures is also presented in [@Xie:OE:2006]. In many cases, by taking into account the geometry of the problem, an approximate simplified analytical model (which captures the main features of the problem) of the modal expansion technique can be developed [@Martin:Moreno:PRL:2001; @Garcia:Vidal:PRB:2002; @Garcia:Vidal:RMP:2010; @Lalanne:JOa:2005]. These simplified models can provide some useful physical insight and, indeed, we have applied this type of treatment (effective medium technique) in this work. In what follows, the principles behind the design of resonant photonic crystal slabs will be explained. In Section \[section:R:T:PCS\], we will give some details on the numerical method used for the calculation of reflection and transmission through a photonic crystal slab; an effective medium technique will also be presented. The numerical simulation results of some examples of photonic crystal slabs will be given in the following section. Finally, in Section \[section:applications\], we will discuss some potential applications of the resonant photonic crystal slabs.
![Spatial compression of an incident plane wave: For a grating of length $L$, the width of the incident plane wave and a diffracted plane wave are respectively $W_0 = L \cos \phi_0$ and $W_p = L \cos \phi_p$. There is a spatial compression of the incident plane wave if $W_p /W_0<1 $, i.e., if $\cos \phi_p / \cos \phi_0 < 1$.[]{data-label="Fig:spatial:compression"}](spatial_compression.eps){width="6cm"}
![Illustration of an incidence over a dielectric slab of thickness $h$. The symbols $I$, $R$ and $T$ represent respectively the incident, reflected and transmitted fields. The field inside the slab is a superposition of two counter-propagating plane waves $c_1^-$ and $c_1^+$, with a propagation constant $\zeta$.[]{data-label="fig:slab:interfaces"}](diagram_slab.eps){width="5cm"}
The design principle {#section:design}
====================
The design is based on the following principles. First, we consider the problem of plane wave incidence over a uniform dielectric slab of a finite thickness $h$. Figure \[fig:slab:interfaces\] presents an illustration of this problem. The dielectric slab is denoted (1) and it is surrounded by a medium (0). The refractive indices of the media (0) and (1) are respectively $n_0$ and $n_1$. The media (0) and (1) are assumed to be lossless, i.e., $n_0$ and $n_1$ are real numbers; we also suppose that $n_0 < n_1$. The wavelength of the incident field is denoted $\lambda$. The reflection and transmission coefficients $R$ and $T$ through the slab are [@Born:Wolf:1999]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1:RT:uniform}
R = \frac{\rho_{01} \left( 1 - e^{2 \, i \, \zeta \, h} \right)}
{ 1 - \rho_{01}^2 \, e^{2 \, i \, \zeta \, h} }
%
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
%
T = \frac{\left( 1 - \rho_{01}^2 \right) e^{ i \, \zeta \, h} }
{ 1 - \rho_{01}^2 \, e^{2 \, i \, \zeta \, h} } ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_{01}$ is the interface reflection coefficient (or Fresnel reflection coefficient) for incidence from the medium (0) into the medium (1). For incidence by a TE-polarised (or $E_y$-polarised) plane wave and a TM-polarised (or $H_y$-polarised) plane wave, the mathematical expressions of the reflection coefficient $\rho_{01}$ are respectively [@Born:Wolf:1999]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TE:TM:rho01}
\rho_{01} = \frac{\gamma - \zeta}{\gamma + \zeta}
& \mbox{\quad and \quad} &
\rho_{01} = \frac{n_1^2 \, \gamma - n_0^2 \, \zeta}{n_0^2 \, \zeta + n_1^2 \, \gamma} .\end{aligned}$$ The parameters $\gamma$ and $\zeta$ in Eq. (\[TE:TM:rho01\]) are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{gamma:zeta:Fresnel}
\gamma = \sqrt{n_0^2 \, k_0^2 - \alpha^2}
& \mbox{\quad and \quad} &
\zeta = \sqrt{n_1^2 \, k_0^2 - \alpha^2} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha = n_0 \, k_0 \sin \phi_0$ and $k_0 = 2 \, \pi / \lambda$ is the free space wavenumber. We note that, for both TE and TM polarisations, the interface reflection coefficient $|\rho_{01}|$ tends to one as the angle of incidence $\phi_0$ approaches the right angle, i.e., the interface transmission coefficient $\tau_{01}$ tends to zero as the angle of incidence $\phi_0$ approaches the right angle. This poor interface transmission can be explained by the fact that, at a grazing angle of incidence, the wavevector in the incident medium (0) is almost tangential to the interface while it can still have a significant normal component in the transmission medium (1) (from Snell’s law, the angle of refraction $\phi_1$ converges to $\arcsin (n_0/n_1)$ when the angle of incidence $\phi_0$ approaches the right angle). By definition, the electric field of a TE-polarised plane wave and the magnetic field of a TM-polarised plane wave are tangential to the interface. So when the wavevector in the incident medium is almost tangential to the interface, the magnetic field of a TE-polarised plane wave and the electric field of a TM-polarised plane wave are almost perpendicular to the interface, i.e., these fields have a relatively small tangential component. But both the electric field and the magnetic of field, of the corresponding plane wave in the transmission medium (1), can still have a significant tangential component. This field mismatch results in the poor Fresnel transmission at a grazing angle of incidence. However, with the case of plane wave incidence over a dielectric slab of a finite thickness, we can still have a 100% transmission for a grazing incidence when a Fabry-Perot resonance occurs, i.e., when $e^{2 \, i \, \zeta \, h} = 1$ in Eq. (\[eq1:RT:uniform\]). So, at a Fabry-Perot resonance, there is a high transmission at a grazing incidence, despite the large field mismatch between the tangential component of a plane wave basis function of the medium (0) and the corresponding plane wave basis function in the slab. As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:slab:interfaces\], the field inside the slab is a superposition of two counter-propagating plane waves. By using the field continuity equations at the upper and lower slab interfaces, we can show that the high transmission is due to the fact the pair of counter-propagating plane waves of the homogeneous slab interact to cancel most of the problematic tangential component (i.e., the tangential component of the $\bm{H}$-field and $\bm{E}$-field for respectively the TE and TM polarisations) at the two interfaces of the slab, thus allowing a perfect field-matching with the small tangential components of the incident and transmitted fields.
![Illustration of a photonic crystal slab of thickness $h$ and period $\Lambda$. The photonic crystal consists of one-dimensional array of holes. The width of the holes is denoted $W_H$.[]{data-label="fig:PC:slab"}](diagram_pc_slab.eps){width="7cm"}
This perfect cancellation effect at a grazing incidence, of two relatively large field components inside the slab, can make the reflected and transmitted fields very sensitive to a perturbation of the field inside the slab. For an example, if the uniform dielectric slab is transformed into a photonic crystal slab (see Fig. \[fig:PC:slab\]), a perfect cancellation (at a Fabry-Perot resonance) cannot be expected as the modes in the slab are not plane waves. As a consequence, when the angle of incidence $\phi_0$ approaches $\pm\pi/2$, the perturbation to the slab field can dominate the small tangential component in the incident and transmission media. In such a situation, a strong contribution from many non-specular diffraction orders can be needed in order to match the tangential fields at either side of the slab interfaces, and it can be possible that some non-specular propagating orders get exceptionally high diffraction efficiency for a grazing incidence. We note that the results obtained here can be applied to other forms of perturbation to a uniform dielectric slab. For an example, a diffraction grating can be placed on top of the uniform dielectric film as in [@Liu:OME:2016]. The treatment can even be extended to non-uniform layers such as the photonic crystal gratings in [@Serebryannikov:PRA:2013], whose top interface is corrugated (the photonic crystal in [@Serebryannikov:PRA:2013] is operated in a regime where it behaves approximately as a uniform medium). By reciprocity (see for instance [@Botten:JOSAA:2000; @Popov:book]), i.e., reversed incidence, the same photonic crystal slab can also efficiently couple light from an incident plane wave into a non-specular plane wave with a grazing angle of diffraction, and the intensity of the resulting diffracted field can be much higher than the intensity of the incident field (due to a spatial compression of the incident plane wave). It follows that the properties, of the Fabry-Perot resonance at a grazing incidence, can be used to design photonic crystal slabs which can generate a diffracted wave with a strongly enhanced field. So far we have assumed that the incident field is a propagating incident plane wave, but the results in this section can be extending to the case of an incidence by an evanescent plane wave. The formulas Eqs. (\[eq1:RT:uniform\])-(\[TE:TM:rho01\]) are still valid for an incidence by an evanescent plane wave. But here the coefficient $\gamma$ in Eq. (\[gamma:zeta:Fresnel\]) is a purely imaginary complex number while $\zeta$ remains a real number (it is assumed that $n_0 \, k_0 < |\alpha| \leq n_1 \, k_0$). In particular we have $|\rho_{01}| = 1$, so that the denominator term of the reflection and transmission coefficients $R$ and $T$, in Eq. (\[eq1:RT:uniform\]), becomes zero when we have the resonance condition $2 \, \zeta \, h + 2 \, \arg (\rho_{10})= 2 \, m \pi$, with $m \in \mathbb{N}$. This resonance condition is often called guided-mode resonance because the guided modes of a planar waveguide also satisfy the same condition [@Marcuse:book:1974]. By considering the situation where the purely imaginary complex number $\gamma$ approaches zero, and by repeating the arguments used for an incidence by a propagating plane wave, we can design a photonic crystal slab which can enhance the magnitude of a diffracted evanescent field.
Reflection and transmission through a photonic crystal slab {#section:R:T:PCS}
===========================================================
We now give some details on the modelling of light transmission through a photonic crystal slab. We consider the one-dimensional photonic crystal slab shown in Fig. \[fig:PC:slab\]. It has a period $\Lambda$ in the $x$-direction, is invariant with respect to $y$ and has a finite thickness $h$ in the $z$-direction. The photonic crystal slab consists of an array of holes (of width $W_H$ and refractive index $n_0$) in a medium of refractive index $n_1$ and the refractive index of the upper and lower semi-infinite media is $n_0$. When a plane wave, with a wavevector $\bm{k}_0 = (\alpha_0, 0, -\gamma_0)$, is incident on a photonic crystal slab, the reflected and transmitted fields can be written as a superposition of plane waves with wavevector $\bm{k}_p = (\alpha_p, 0, \pm \gamma_p)$, where $p$ is the diffraction order and the coefficients $\alpha_p$ and $\gamma_p$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_p = \alpha_0 + \frac{2 \, p \, \pi}{\Lambda}
& \mbox{\quad and \quad} &
\gamma_p = \sqrt{n_0^2 \, k_0^2 - \alpha_p^2} .\end{aligned}$$ By using the fact that the photonic crystal slab in Fig. \[fig:PC:slab\] can be modelled as a periodic array of $z$-invariant waveguides, we can write the field inside the slab as a superposition of counter-propagating waveguide modes [@Dossou:JOSAA:2012; @Sturmberg:CPC:2016]. This modal expansion is a generalisation of the treatment for a uniform dielectric film, but here the modal expansion involves a multitude of counter-propagating pairs of modes. A Bloch mode $\bm{E}_q^{(1)}(x,z)$ of the array of cylinders is quasi-periodic with respect to the $x$ coordinate, i.e., $\bm{E}_q^{(1)}(x+ \Lambda,z) = e^{i \, \alpha_0 \, \Lambda} \, \bm{E}_q^{(1)}(x,z)$, and has an exponential dependence $e^{i \, \zeta_q \, z}$ with respect to the $z$ coordinate. The modes $\bm{E}_q^{(1)}(x,z)$ of the array and their propagation constant $\zeta_q$ can be computed using a one-dimensional version of the finite element method in [@Dossou:CMAME:2005]. The field continuity conditions at the upper and lower interface of the slab can be transformed into a system of linear equations [@Dossou:JOSAA:2012] by projecting the modal expansion on either side of an interface onto a set of test functions (adjoint modes). The coefficients of the modal expansions can be obtained by solving this linear system. The projection involves some overlap integrals between the modes of media (0) and (1). For an example, let $\Omega$ denotes the upper interface of a unit cell of the array. If $\Omega$ is at the position $z=0$, an overlap integral $J_{pq}$ between a plane wave $[ \bm{E}_p^{(0)}(x,z),\bm{H}_p^{(0)}(x,z) ]$ of the medium (0) and a mode $[ \bm{E}_q^{(1)}(x,z),\bm{H}_q^{(1)}(x,z) ]$ of the medium (1) can be defined as (see Eq. (64) of [@Dossou:JOSAA:2012]): $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{overlap:eq1}
J_{pq} & = &
\frac{\displaystyle \int_{\Omega} \left( \bm{E}_q^{(1)}(-x,0) \times \bm{H}_p^{(0)} (x,0) \right) \cdot \bm{e}_z \, dx}
{N_p^{(0)} \, N_q^{(1)}} ,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
N_p^{(0)} & = & \!
\left(\int_{\Omega} \! \left( \! \bm{E}_p^{(0)}(-x,0) \times \bm{H}_p^{(0)} (x,0) \right) \cdot \bm{e}_z \, dx \! \right)^{1/2} \!\!\! , \\
N_q^{(1)} & = & \!
\left(\int_{\Omega} \! \left( \! \bm{E}_q^{(1)}(-x,0) \times \bm{H}_q^{(1)} (x,0) \right) \cdot \bm{e}_z \, dx \! \right)^{1/2} \!\!\! .\end{aligned}$$ For the examples considered in this work, the index contrast of the photonic crystal slab is relatively small and the wave propagation inside the slab is typically dominated by a single pair of counter-propagating modes. If $\zeta_{q'}$ is the propagation constant of the dominant mode, by analogy with a plane wave with a wavevector $\bm{k} = (\alpha_0, 0, \zeta_{q'})$, we can define an average refractive index $n_g$ of the photonic crystal slab as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{average:n}
n_g = \frac{\sqrt{\alpha_0^2 + \zeta_{q'}^2}}{k_0} .\end{aligned}$$ The value of the average refractive index depends on the wavelength and on the polarisation state. If, for an incident wavelength $\lambda$, the phase $(\zeta_{q'} \, h)$ is an integer multiple of $\pi$, a Fabry-Perot resonance will occur for an incidence over a uniform dielectric slab of refractive index $n_g$ and the photonic crystal slab will typically display a resonant behaviour at a wavelength near $\lambda$. Thus the homogenised slab can be used to predict the approximate location of the resonant wavelengths of the photonic crystal slab.
For an incidence by a propagating plane wave, by using Eq. (\[average:n\]), we can express the resonance condition $\zeta_{q'} \, h = m \pi$, with $m \in \mathbb{N}$, as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{resonance:eq1}
\frac{h}{\lambda} \, \sqrt{n_g^2 - n_0^2 \, \sin^2 \phi_0}
& = & \frac{m}{2} .\end{aligned}$$ Thus for given values of $\lambda$, $\phi_0$, $n_0$ and $n_g$, we can easily find a thickness $h$ corresponding to a resonance. For an incidence by an evanescent plane wave, the resonance condition $2 \, \zeta_{q'} \, h + 2 \, \arg (\rho_{10})= 2 \, m \pi$ can be transformed into equations which are identical to the eigenvalue equation for the guided modes of a planar waveguide [@Wang:AO:1993; @Marcuse:book:1974]. For the TE and TM-polarisations we have respectively $$\begin{aligned}
\label{disersion:eq1:TE}
\tan (\zeta_{q'} \, h)
& = & \frac{2 \, \hat{\gamma_0} \, \zeta_{q'}}{\zeta_{q'}^2 - \hat{\gamma_0}^2} , \\
%
\label{disersion:eq1:TM}
\tan (\zeta_{q'} \, h)
& = & \frac{2 \, n_0^2 \, n_g^2 \, \hat{\gamma_0} \, \zeta_{q'}}
{n_0^4 \, \zeta_{q'}^2 - n_g^4 \, \hat{\gamma_0}^2} ,\end{aligned}$$ with $\hat{\gamma_0} = {\rm Im } \, \gamma_0$. For the case of a grazing angle of incidence, as stated above, other modes, which are different from the ones used in the resonance condition Eq. (\[resonance:eq1\]) or Eqs. (\[disersion:eq1:TE\])-(\[disersion:eq1:TM\]), can also play a non-negligible role. As a consequence, the peak reflectance or transmittance wavelength of the photonic crystal slab, with a thickness $h$ given by Eq. (\[resonance:eq1\]) or Eqs. (\[disersion:eq1:TE\])-(\[disersion:eq1:TM\]), can be shifted to the left or right side of the peak reflectance or transmittance wavelength of the uniform dielectric film of same thickness $h$ and a refractive index $n_g$ (see Figs. \[Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TE\] and \[Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TM\] for an example). As we now explain, the direction of the shift depends essentially on the phase of the photonic crystal modes near the resonance wavelength of the uniform slab. In order to model the plane wave scattering by a photonic crystal slab, a matrix form of the scalar reflection and transmission coefficients in Eq. (\[eq1:RT:uniform\]) must be used and they can be represented as [@Dossou:JOSAA:2012 see Eqs. (81) and (82)]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1:matrix:R}
\bm{\mathcal{R}} & = & \bm{R}_{01} + \bm{T}_{10} \bm{P} (\bm{I}-\bm{R}_{10} \bm{P} \bm{R}_{10}\bm{P})^{-1} \bm{R}_{10} \bm{P} \bm{T}_{01} , \\
\label{eq1:matrix:T}
\bm{\mathcal{T}} & = & \bm{T}_{10} \bm{P} (\bm{I}-\bm{R}_{10} \bm{P} \bm{R}_{10}\bm{P})^{-1}\bm{T}_{01} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{P} = {\rm diag \, }[\exp(i \, \zeta_q \, h)]$ is the diagonal matrix which describes the propagation of the $q^{\rm th}$ Bloch mode inside the photonic crystal slab with a thickness $h$ and $\bm{R}_{01}, \bm{T}_{01}$, $\bm{R}_{10}, \bm{T}_{10}$ are the Fresnel scattering matrices between the medium (0), i.e., the free space and the medium (1), i.e., the photonic crystal. In the examples studied in this paper, the wave scattering can be accurately modelled by using the plane waves of orders $p=0$ and $q=-1$ (they are the only propagating diffraction orders). If we truncate the plane wave basis of the medium (0) to the two plane wave functions of diffraction orders 0 and -1, and select the two Bloch modes of medium (1) which match (have highest overlap) these two plane wave functions as basis functions for medium (1), then the matrices in Eqs. (\[eq1:matrix:R\]) and (\[eq1:matrix:T\]) become $2 \times 2$ matrices. In particular, for incidence from the specular order $p=0$, the reflection coefficient $\mathcal{R}_{0,0}$ and the transmission coefficient $\mathcal{T}_{0,0}$ into the order $p=0$ are (here $q$ is set to $q=-1$): $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal{R}_{p,p} = R_{01,p,p} \\
\nonumber
+ \frac{R_{10,p,p} \, T_{01,p,p} \, T_{10,p,p}
\! \left(1 - R_{10,q,q}^2 \, e^{ 2 \, i \, \zeta_q \, h} \right) \! e^{2 \, i \, \zeta_p \, h} + \delta_N}
{ \left( 1 - R_{10,p,p}^2 \, e^{2 \, i \, \zeta_p \, h} \right)
\left(1 - R_{10,q,q}^2 \, e^{ 2 \, i \, \zeta_q \, h} \right) + \delta_D} ,
\\
\label{eq1:scalar:RT:PC:slab}
\\
%
\nonumber
\mathcal{T}_{p,p} =
\frac{T_{01,p,p} \, T_{10,p,p} \,
\left(1 - R_{10,q,q}^2 \, e^{ 2 \, i \, \zeta_q \, h} \right)
e^{ i \, \zeta_p \, h} + \delta_N'}
{ \left( 1 - R_{10,p,p}^2 \, e^{2 \, i \, \zeta_p \, h} \right)
\left(1 - R_{10,q,q}^2 \, e^{ 2 \, i \, \zeta_q \, h} \right) + \delta_D} ,\end{aligned}$$ The terms $\delta_N$, $\delta_N'$ and $\delta_D$ which appear at the numerators or the denominators of Eq. (\[eq1:scalar:RT:PC:slab\]) are null when the off-diagonal coefficients of the scattering matrices $\bm{R}_{01}, \bm{T}_{01}$, $\bm{R}_{10}, \bm{T}_{10}$ are zeros, in such a case we can verify that Eq. (\[eq1:scalar:RT:PC:slab\]) is equivalent to Eq. (\[eq1:RT:uniform\]). Otherwise, the location of the maximum in reflectance or transmittance is largely determined by the denominator of $\mathcal{R}_{p,p}$ and $\mathcal{T}_{p,p}$. Here we have $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_D = - R_{10,p,q} \, R_{10,q,p} \, e^{ i \, (\zeta_p + \zeta_q) \, h} \\
\nonumber
\left(
2 + \left( 2 \, R_{10,p,p} \, R_{10,q,q} - R_{10,p,q} \, R_{10,q,p} \rule{0mm}{4mm} \right)
e^{ i \, (\zeta_p + \zeta_q) \, h}
\right) .\end{aligned}$$ If the value of $\delta_D$ is a real number near the resonance wavelength of the uniform dielectric slab, we have observed that the resonance wavelength of the photonic crystal slab will closely match that of the uniform slab. Otherwise, depending on the phase of $\delta_D$, the resonance wavelength of the photonic crystal slab moves to the left or right side of the resonance wavelength of the uniform dielectric slab.
Numerical simulations {#section:simulations}
=====================
For the numerical calculations, we first consider the example of a one-dimensional photonic crystal slab which has same lattice constant and filling ratio as a two-dimensional square array of holes described in [@Fuhrmann:APb:2004], where the photonic crystal structures found in the cell wall (frustule) of the marine diatom *Coscinodiscus granii* have been analysed. We will also analyse a two-dimensional photonic crystal slab later in this section. The lattice constant of the two-dimensional square array is $\Lambda = 250~{\rm nm}$ and the hole radius is $a = 90~{\rm nm}$. The slab is made of silica, with a refractive index $n_1=1.43$. The slab is surrounded by water and the holes are filled with water (refractive index $n_0 = 1.33$). The filling ratio of the two-dimensional array of holes with a square lattice is $f_{2D} = \pi \, a^2 /\Lambda^2 = 0.40715 $. The filling ratio of the corresponding one-dimensional photonic crystal (see Fig. \[fig:PC:slab\]) is $f_{1D} = W_H / \Lambda$, where $W_H$ is the width of the holes. We have $f_{1D} = f_{2D}$ if $W_H = 101.788~{\rm nm}$. For the numerical simulations, we have rounded the value of $W_H$ to $W_H = 101.8~{\rm nm}$. For an illustration of the derivations presented in Section \[section:R:T:PCS\], we want to find a thickness $h$ of the photonic crystal slab such that a Fabry-Perot resonance occurs at a grazing angle of incidence (e.g., $\phi_0 = 89.999^{\circ}$) near the wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$ (blue colour spectrum). This value of the wavelength is chosen because diatoms can display high photosynthetic activity in the blue and red regions of the spectrum [@Kirk:book]. It is also said in [@Fuhrmann:APb:2004] that the diatom frustule slab, with a square lattice array, has a thickness between 200 and 600 nm, and, as we shall see, this range includes the slab thickness where a Fabry-Perot resonance occurs at the wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$. Note however that we have observed the behaviours described below at other wavelengths. For an incidence by a TE-polarised plane wave, we have found that the propagation constant $\zeta_{q'}$ of the Bloch mode of the periodic array, which has the highest overlap Eq. (\[overlap:eq1\]) with the incident plane wave, is $\zeta_{q'}/k_0 = 0.40036$. Since $\alpha_0/k_0 = n_0 \, \sin \phi_0 \approx n_0 \, \sin (\pi/2) = n_0 = 1.33$, according to Eq. (\[average:n\]), the average refractive index (at the wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$) of the photonic crystal is $n_g = 1.3889$. We can then obtain the resonance thickness from Eq. (\[resonance:eq1\]): $h \approx 0.5 \, \lambda \, (n_g^2 - n_0^2 )^{-1/2} = 562.2~{\rm nm}$, where the parameter $m$ in Eq. (\[resonance:eq1\]) is set to $m=1$. With the case of an incidence by a TM-polarised plane wave, we have $\zeta_{q'}/k_0 = 0.4006$, $n_g = 1.3890$, so that the computed resonance thickness is $h = 561.7~{\rm nm}$. We have used the thickness value $h = 562.0~{\rm nm}$ for the calculations.
Figure \[Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TE\] shows the transmittance through the photonic crystal slab of thickness $h = 562.0~{\rm nm}$ for the angles of incidence $\phi_0=89^{\circ}$, $89.9^{\circ}$, $89.99^{\circ}$ and $89.999^{\circ}$, for TE-polarisation. The corresponding results for the TM-polarisation are plotted in Fig. \[Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TM\]. In Figs. \[Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TE\] and \[Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TM\], the thick continuous red curves and the thick dashed blue curves represent respectively the total transmittance and the diffraction efficiency (in transmission) into the order $p=-1$. The thin dashed black curves are the transmittance $|T|^2$ (the transmission coefficient $T$ is given by Eq. (\[eq1:RT:uniform\])) through a uniform slab of refractive index $n_g(\lambda)$ and same thickness as the photonic crystal slab. In all cases, the transmission peak occurs at a wavelength which is close to the design wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$. The transmittance of the photonic crystal slab is very close to that of the uniform slab at the angle of incidence $\phi_0=89^{\circ}$. But when $\phi_0$ approaches the right angle, as predicted in Section \[section:design\], the response of the photonic crystal slab deviates from that of the uniform slab. In particular, the proportion of power carried by the first diffraction order $p=-1$ starts to increase substantially. As explained in Section \[section:design\], by reversing the direction of the diffracted plane wave, we can also expect an efficient transmission into a grazing angle of diffraction.
![Fabry-Perot resonance at the grazing incidence angles $\phi_0=89^{\circ}$, $89.9^{\circ}$, $89.99^{\circ}$ and $89.999^{\circ}$, near the wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$ (TE-polarisation). The thick continuous red curves and the thick dashed blue curves show respectively the total transmittance and the diffraction efficiency into the order $p = -1$ of a photonic crystal slab with a thickness $h = 562.0~{\rm nm}$. The thin dashed black curves show the transmittance through a homogeneous slab of thickness $h$ and refractive index $n_g(\lambda)$.[]{data-label="Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TE"}](T_compare_TE_phi_89_deg.eps){width="7cm"}
![Fabry-Perot resonance at the grazing incidence angles $\phi_0=89^{\circ}$, $89.9^{\circ}$, $89.99^{\circ}$ and $89.999^{\circ}$, near the wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$ (TE-polarisation). The thick continuous red curves and the thick dashed blue curves show respectively the total transmittance and the diffraction efficiency into the order $p = -1$ of a photonic crystal slab with a thickness $h = 562.0~{\rm nm}$. The thin dashed black curves show the transmittance through a homogeneous slab of thickness $h$ and refractive index $n_g(\lambda)$.[]{data-label="Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TE"}](T_compare_TE_phi_89_9_deg.eps){width="7cm"}
![Fabry-Perot resonance at the grazing incidence angles $\phi_0=89^{\circ}$, $89.9^{\circ}$, $89.99^{\circ}$ and $89.999^{\circ}$, near the wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$ (TE-polarisation). The thick continuous red curves and the thick dashed blue curves show respectively the total transmittance and the diffraction efficiency into the order $p = -1$ of a photonic crystal slab with a thickness $h = 562.0~{\rm nm}$. The thin dashed black curves show the transmittance through a homogeneous slab of thickness $h$ and refractive index $n_g(\lambda)$.[]{data-label="Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TE"}](T_compare_TE_phi_89_99_deg.eps){width="7cm"}
![Fabry-Perot resonance at the grazing incidence angles $\phi_0=89^{\circ}$, $89.9^{\circ}$, $89.99^{\circ}$ and $89.999^{\circ}$, near the wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$ (TE-polarisation). The thick continuous red curves and the thick dashed blue curves show respectively the total transmittance and the diffraction efficiency into the order $p = -1$ of a photonic crystal slab with a thickness $h = 562.0~{\rm nm}$. The thin dashed black curves show the transmittance through a homogeneous slab of thickness $h$ and refractive index $n_g(\lambda)$.[]{data-label="Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TE"}](T_compare_TE_phi_89_999_deg.eps){width="7cm"}
![Fabry-Perot resonance at grazing incidence angles near the wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$ (TM-polarisation). Same notation convention as in Fig. \[Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TE\].[]{data-label="Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TM"}](T_compare_TM_phi_89_deg.eps){width="7cm"}
![Fabry-Perot resonance at grazing incidence angles near the wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$ (TM-polarisation). Same notation convention as in Fig. \[Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TE\].[]{data-label="Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TM"}](T_compare_TM_phi_89_9_deg.eps){width="7cm"}
![Fabry-Perot resonance at grazing incidence angles near the wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$ (TM-polarisation). Same notation convention as in Fig. \[Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TE\].[]{data-label="Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TM"}](T_compare_TM_phi_89_99_deg.eps){width="7cm"}
![Fabry-Perot resonance at grazing incidence angles near the wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$ (TM-polarisation). Same notation convention as in Fig. \[Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TE\].[]{data-label="Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TM"}](T_compare_TM_phi_89_999_deg.eps){width="7cm"}
Let us show an example of field enhancement. In Figs. \[Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TE\] and \[Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TM\], the peak diffraction efficiency $e_{-1}$ at the incidence angle $\phi_0 = 89.999^{\circ}$ is $e_{-1} = 0.0335$ (at the wavelength 450.8 nm) for the TE-polarisation and $e_{-1} = 0.241$ (at the wavelength 449.6 nm) for the TM-polarisation. The angle of diffraction at the peak diffraction efficiency is $\phi_{-1} = -20.845^{\circ}$ for TE-polarisation and $\phi_{-1} = -20.617^{\circ}$ for the TM-polarisation. We recall that the angle of diffraction into an order $p$ is $\phi_{p} = \arcsin (\sin \phi_0 + p \, \lambda/(n_0 \, \Lambda))$. The transmission coefficients $|T_{-1}| = \sqrt{e_{-1} \, \cos \phi_0 / \cos \phi_{-1}}$ for the TE and TM-polarisations are, respectively, $|T_{-1}| = 0.0008$ and $|T_{-1}| = 0.0021$. For the reversed incidence, by reciprocity, the diffraction efficiency $e_{-1}$ is unchanged but the transmission coefficient becomes $|T_{-1}| = \sqrt{e_{-1} \, \cos \phi_{-1} / \cos \phi_0}$ and their values are relatively large: $|T_{-1}| = 42.35$ for the TE-polarisation (the corresponding field plots of ${\rm Re} \, E_y$ and $|E_y|^2$ are shown in Fig. \[Field:plot:TE\]) and $|T_{-1}| = 113.62$ for the TM-polarisation (the corresponding field plots of ${\rm Re} \, H_y$ and $|H_y|^2$ are shown in Fig. \[Field:plot:TM\]). The field plots in Figs. \[Field:plot:TE\] and \[Field:plot:TM\] show respectively the total field components $E_y$ (for an incidence by a TE-polarised plane wave with a unit amplitude $\bm{E} = [0,1,0]$) and $H_y$ (for an incidence by a TM-polarised plane wave with a unit amplitude $\bm{H} = [0,1,0]$). In Figs. \[Field:plot:TE\] and \[Field:plot:TM\], the white lines indicate the interfaces (over a unit cell) between the background material (silica) and the surrounding medium (water). Above the slab unit cells, the periodic features, which can be seen in the field plots of $|E_y|^2$ and $|H_y|^2$, are caused by the interference between the incident plane wave and the diffracted plane waves of orders 0 and -1. Below the unit cell, the interference between the transmitted plane waves of orders 0 and -1 is weaker because the transmission coefficient into the specular order has a relatively small value. The results presented here are an interesting confirmation that a photonic crystal slab can be designed to increase the intensity of an incident plane wave by an extremely large factor (here we have an example where the factor $|T_{-1}|^2$ is above $10^4$). This is also consistent with the results in [@Amin:APL:2013], in particular the field plot in Fig. 3(c) of [@Amin:APL:2013] shows that the orders $p=1$ and $p=-1$ are propagating at a high grazing angle and the amplitude of their field is about 10 times larger than the amplitude of the incident plane wave. A giant field enhancement factor of about $10^6$ in photonic crystal slab is also reported in [@Mocella:PRB:2015], again, for a wavelength near a Rayleigh anomaly.
![Plot of the fields ${\rm Re} \, E_y$ and $|E_y|^2$ at the resonance wavelength 450.8 nm for an incidence by a TE-polarised plane wave with a unit amplitude (the angle of incidence is $\phi_0 = 20.845^{\circ}$).[]{data-label="Field:plot:TE"}](pc_slab_sol_re_PW_TE.eps "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![Plot of the fields ${\rm Re} \, E_y$ and $|E_y|^2$ at the resonance wavelength 450.8 nm for an incidence by a TE-polarised plane wave with a unit amplitude (the angle of incidence is $\phi_0 = 20.845^{\circ}$).[]{data-label="Field:plot:TE"}](pc_slab_sol_abs_PW_TE.eps "fig:"){width="3.5cm"}
![Plot of the fields ${\rm Re} \, H_y$ and $|H_y|^2$ at the resonance wavelength 449.6 nm for an incidence by a TM-polarised plane wave with a unit amplitude (the angle of incidence is $\phi_0 = 20.617^{\circ}$).[]{data-label="Field:plot:TM"}](pc_slab_sol_re_PW_TM.eps "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![Plot of the fields ${\rm Re} \, H_y$ and $|H_y|^2$ at the resonance wavelength 449.6 nm for an incidence by a TM-polarised plane wave with a unit amplitude (the angle of incidence is $\phi_0 = 20.617^{\circ}$).[]{data-label="Field:plot:TM"}](pc_slab_sol_abs_PW_TM.eps "fig:"){width="3.5cm"}
With the reversed case, the angle of incidence depends on the wavelength. However, in order to study the wavelength dependence of the quantities $e_{-1}$ and $|T_{-1}|$, it would be convenient to analyse a problem with a fixed angle of incidence. Here we will use a reversed incident angle associated with the design wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$: the angle of diffraction $\phi_{-1}$ at a high grazing angle $\phi_0$ can be approximated as $\phi_{-1} = \arcsin (\sin (89.999^{\circ}) - \lambda/(n_0 \, \Lambda)) = -20.6944^{\circ}$. The curves of the total transmittance (continuous red curves) and the diffraction efficiency $e_{-1}$ (dashed blue curves) at the angle of incidence $\phi_0 = 20.6944^{\circ}$ are plotted in Fig. \[Fig3:Fabry-Perot:L450\]. The transmission coefficient $|T_{-1}|$ corresponding to the diffraction efficiency $e_{-1}$ is shown in Fig. \[Fig4:Fabry-Perot:L450\]. The angle of incidence $\phi_0$ is chosen such that the Rayleigh anomaly for the order $p = -1$ occurs near the wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$ and the slab thickness $h$ is chosen such that the order $p = -1$ is in a Fabry-Perot resonance with a mode of the photonic crystal slab. The results in Fig. \[Fig4:Fabry-Perot:L450\] indicate that, with a Fabry-Perot resonance near a Rayleigh anomaly, a photonic crystal slab can generate a grazing propagating diffracted field (for $\lambda < 450~{\rm nm}$) or a weakly evanescent diffracted field (for $\lambda > 450~{\rm nm}$) with an amplitude that is much higher than the amplitude of the incident light.
![Fabry-Perot resonance: The total transmittance (continuous red curves) and the diffraction efficiency into the order $p=-1$ (dashed blue curves) around the wavelength $\lambda = 450.0~{\rm nm}$, where a Rayleigh anomaly occurs. The slab thickness is $h = 562.0~{\rm nm}$.[]{data-label="Fig3:Fabry-Perot:L450"}](T_compare_TE_phi_20_6944_deg.eps){width="6.5cm"}
![Fabry-Perot resonance: The total transmittance (continuous red curves) and the diffraction efficiency into the order $p=-1$ (dashed blue curves) around the wavelength $\lambda = 450.0~{\rm nm}$, where a Rayleigh anomaly occurs. The slab thickness is $h = 562.0~{\rm nm}$.[]{data-label="Fig3:Fabry-Perot:L450"}](T_compare_TM_phi_20_6944_deg.eps){width="6.5cm"}
![Field enhancement: Transmission coefficient $|T_{-1}|$ corresponding to the diffraction efficiency curves in Fig. \[Fig3:Fabry-Perot:L450\].[]{data-label="Fig4:Fabry-Perot:L450"}](T_order_TE_Coeff.eps){width="6.0cm"}
![Field enhancement: Transmission coefficient $|T_{-1}|$ corresponding to the diffraction efficiency curves in Fig. \[Fig3:Fabry-Perot:L450\].[]{data-label="Fig4:Fabry-Perot:L450"}](T_order_TM_Coeff.eps){width="6.0cm"}
![Two-dimensional photonic crystal slab (Fabry-Perot resonance at grazing incidence angles): The thickness of the slab is $h = 563.0~{\rm nm}$. Same notation convention as in Fig. \[Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TE\].[]{data-label="Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:2d"}](T_compare_TE_phi_89_999_deg_2d.eps){width="6.0cm"}
![Two-dimensional photonic crystal slab (Fabry-Perot resonance at grazing incidence angles): The thickness of the slab is $h = 563.0~{\rm nm}$. Same notation convention as in Fig. \[Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:TE\].[]{data-label="Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:2d"}](T_compare_TM_phi_89_999_deg_2d.eps){width="6.0cm"}
Finally, we also analyse a case of a photonic crystal slab with the two-dimensional square lattice array of holes [@Fuhrmann:APb:2004] whose parameters were given earlier in this section. At the wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$, the average refractive index $n_g$ for the TE and TM-polarisations are, respectively, $n_g = 1.3888$ and $n_g = 1.3908$. For the homogenised dielectric slab, the Fabry-Perot resonance at high grazing angle of incidence occurs at the slab thickness $h = 562.6~{\rm nm}$ (TE-polarisation) and $h = 553.2~{\rm nm}$ (TM-polarisation). The relative difference between these two thickness values is about 1.6% (in the case of the one-dimensional photonic crystal slab, the relative difference is 0.065%) and so the two-dimensional photonic crystal slab can be expected to exhibit a higher sensitivity to polarisation. For the numerical calculation, the slab thickness is set to $h = 563~{\rm nm}$, which is close to the resonance thickness for the TE-polarisation. Figure \[Fig:Fabry-Perot:L450:2d\] shows the total transmittance and the diffraction efficiency into the order $p = (-1,0)$, for the high grazing incidence angle $\phi_0 = 89.999^{\circ}$. The peak transmittance wavelengths for the TE and TM-polarisations are, respectively, 451.1 nm and 456.3 nm. With the two-dimensional photonic crystal slab, we can also generate an enhanced diffracted field by combining the Fabry-Perot resonance with the Rayleigh anomaly. A Rayleigh anomaly exists for the order $p = (-1,0)$, near the wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$, when the angle of incidence is set to $\phi_0 = - \arcsin (\sin (89.999^{\circ}) - \lambda/(n_0 \, \Lambda)) = 20.6944^{\circ}$. The slab thickness $h = 563~{\rm nm}$ is chosen such that the wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$ is close to a Fabry-Perot resonance for the TE-polarisation. We have plotted the total transmittance (continuous red curves) and the diffraction efficiency $e_{-1,0}$ into the order $p=(-1,0)$ (dashed blue curves) in Fig. \[Fig2:Fabry-Perot:L450:2d\] while the curves of the transmission coefficient $|T_{-1,0}|$ are shown in Fig. \[Fig3:Fabry-Perot:L450:2d\]. We have a large transmission coefficient $|T_{-1,0}|$ for the TE-polarisation around the design wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$. The peak transmission coefficient $|T_{-1,0}|$ for the TM-polarisation occurs in a wavelength band (centred around $\lambda = 450.006~{\rm nm}$) where the order $p=(-1,0)$ is evanescent. This deviation from the operating wavelength $\lambda = 450~{\rm nm}$ can be explained by the fact the slab thickness $h = 563~{\rm nm}$ is not close enough to the calculated resonance thickness $h = 553.2~{\rm nm}$ for the TM-polarisation. Actually, since the order $p=(-1,0)$ is evanescent at the wavelength $\lambda = 450.006~{\rm nm}$, the corresponding resonance thickness must be determined from the guided-mode resonance conditions Eqs. (\[disersion:eq1:TE\])-(\[disersion:eq1:TM\]) for incidence by an evanescent plane wave. By using the average refractive index $n_g = 1.3888$ and $n_g = 1.3908$, respectively, for the TE and TM-polarisations, and by applying Eqs. (\[disersion:eq1:TE\])-(\[disersion:eq1:TM\]), we can obtain the following guided-mode resonance thickness (at the wavelength $\lambda = 450.006~{\rm nm}$): $h = 570.05~{\rm nm}$ for the TE-polarisation and $h = 561.1~{\rm nm}$ for the TM-polarisation. Indeed, for the TM-polarisation the resonance thickness $h = 561.1~{\rm nm}$ is relatively close to the thickness $h = 563.0~{\rm nm}$ used for the calculations in Figs. \[Fig2:Fabry-Perot:L450:2d\] and \[Fig3:Fabry-Perot:L450:2d\] and this can explain why we have a guided-mode resonance for the TM-polarisation.
![Two-dimensional photonic crystal slab (Fabry-Perot resonance): The total transmittance (continuous red curves) and the diffraction efficiency into the order $p=(-1,0)$ (dashed blue curves). The wavelength for the Rayleigh anomaly at the order $p = (-1,0)$ is $\lambda = 450.0~{\rm nm}$. []{data-label="Fig2:Fabry-Perot:L450:2d"}](T_compare_TE_phi_20_6944_deg_2d.eps){width="6.5cm"}
![Two-dimensional photonic crystal slab (Fabry-Perot resonance): The total transmittance (continuous red curves) and the diffraction efficiency into the order $p=(-1,0)$ (dashed blue curves). The wavelength for the Rayleigh anomaly at the order $p = (-1,0)$ is $\lambda = 450.0~{\rm nm}$. []{data-label="Fig2:Fabry-Perot:L450:2d"}](T_compare_TM_phi_20_6944_deg_2d.eps){width="6.5cm"}
![Two-dimensional photonic crystal slab (field enhancement): The transmission coefficient $|T_{-1,0}|$ corresponding to the first order diffraction efficiency shown in Fig. \[Fig2:Fabry-Perot:L450:2d\].[]{data-label="Fig3:Fabry-Perot:L450:2d"}](T_order_TE_Coeff_2d.eps){width="6.0cm"}
![Two-dimensional photonic crystal slab (field enhancement): The transmission coefficient $|T_{-1,0}|$ corresponding to the first order diffraction efficiency shown in Fig. \[Fig2:Fabry-Perot:L450:2d\].[]{data-label="Fig3:Fabry-Perot:L450:2d"}](T_order_TM_Coeff_2d.eps){width="6.0cm"}
Potential applications {#section:applications}
======================
The results in Section \[section:simulations\] show that, when a non-specular order is resonantly coupled to a photonic crystal slab mode near a Rayleigh anomaly, the corresponding diffraction coefficient can take very large values as the incident wavelength $\lambda$ approaches the Rayleigh anomaly wavelength. This property can be applied to design photonic crystal slabs which can increase the intensity of an incident plane wave by a large factor. The diffracted enhanced field is either propagating at a grazing angle or weakly evanescent. For most common gratings, the diffraction coefficient of a non-specular order $p$ typically takes very small values as its angle of diffraction approaches $\pm\pi/2$. When little energy is available, it is not possible to fully take advantage of the fact that diffraction gratings can exhibit an arbitrarily large angular dispersion near a Rayleigh anomaly. But, with the resonant cases illustrated in Figs. \[Fig4:Fabry-Perot:L450\] and \[Fig3:Fabry-Perot:L450:2d\], it can make sense to consider the properties of a diffracted wave in the limit where an incident wavelength is arbitrarily close to the Rayleigh anomaly wavelength.
As an example, for a given incident ray and when a grating is rotating, the angle of incidence $\phi_0$ of the ray at a time $t$ will change with an angular velocity denoted $\Omega_0$. For a propagating diffraction order $p$, the diffracted wave will rotate at an angular speed $\Omega_p = d \phi_p/ dt$. By taking the time-derivative of the grating equation $\sin \phi_p = \sin \phi_0 + p \, \lambda / \Lambda$, at a fixed wavelength, the angular velocity $\Omega_p$ can be expressed in term of $\Omega_0$ as $\Omega_p = \Omega_0 \, \cos \phi_0 / \cos \phi_p$. This shows that the angular velocity of a non-specular diffracted ray increases toward infinity as the angle of diffraction $\phi_p$ approaches $\pm\pi/2$. Such a fast moving ray can potentially shift the frequency of the incident light substantially. The frequency shift can be analysed by using a Doppler shift formula since the diffracted light behaves like (or simulates) the light emitted from a surface which is rotating at the angular velocity $\Omega_p$ [@Dossou:AO:2016]. Interestingly, diatoms can exhibit some oscillatory (or rotational) motion when subjected to water flows [@Karp:LO:1998; @Srajer:ABC:2009; @Gutierrez:PB:2014], which has some similarity with the tendency of plant leaves to oscillate under the wind. Such an oscillation has the potential to strongly shift an incident frequency near a Rayleigh anomaly (when it is coupled with a Fabry-Perot resonance). However, at this time, it is not possible to know if such a frequency shift is relevant to the photosynthetic processes in diatoms.
Conclusion
==========
Photonic crystal slabs can be designed to enhance the intensity of an incident plane wave by an extremely large factor. Although we have only studied the case of a light transmission, the generalisation of the main results to a light reflection is straightforward. We have given a clear physical explanation, based on the properties of the Fabry-Perot resonance and the Rayleigh anomaly, for the origin of this enhancement effect. By applying the physical interpretations, we have developed an effective medium technique which can be used to efficiently design a photonic crystal slab, with a resonance wavelength near a given value. For the case of a scattering into a propagating diffracted order, the field magnification is due to a spatial compression of the incident wave and so the diffracted field propagates at a grazing angle of diffraction. The numerical results also suggest that the photonic crystal slabs found in diatom frustules can produce a substantially enhanced field and it will be interesting to investigate the significance of this enhancement to the photosynthetic processes in diatoms.
The combination of the Fabry-Perot resonance with the Rayleigh anomaly implies that a non-specular diffraction order can still transmit or reflect an intense light, for incident wavelengths which are extremely close to the Rayleigh anomaly wavelength. This opens up the possibility of an efficient operation of a diffraction grating in the limit where an incident wavelength is arbitrarily close to a Rayleigh anomaly wavelength, a regime where diffraction gratings have an extremely large angular dispersion, e.g., with respect to the incident wavelength or the incidence angle. For an example, a rotation of the grating at a moderate angular speed can induce a diffracted field which rotates with an extremely large angular velocity, and this in turn can produce a relatively large frequency shift.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This research was supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) (project number CE110001018).
[10]{} \[1\][\#1]{} url@samestyle \[2\][\#2]{} \[2\][[l@\#1=l@\#1\#2]{}]{}
A. Hessel and A. A. Oliner, “A new theory of [W]{}ood’s anomalies on optical gratings,” *Appl. Opt.*, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 1275–1297, 1965.
D. L. Mills and M. Weber, “Enhanced electric fields near gratings: Comments on enhanced [R]{}aman scattering from surfaces,” *Phys. Rev. B*, vol. 26, pp. 1075–1078, 1982.
M. Weber and D. L. Mills, “Interaction of electromagnetic waves with periodic gratings: Enhanced fields and the reflectivity,” *Phys. Rev. B*, vol. 27, pp. 2698–2709, 1983.
N. Garcia, “Exact calculations of p-polarized electromagnetic fields incident on grating surfaces: Surface polariton resonances,” *Opt. Commun.*, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 307–310, 1983.
N. García, G. Díaz, J. Saénz, and C. Ocal, “Intensities and field enhancement of light scattered from periodic gratings: study of ag, au and cu surfaces,” *Surface Science*, vol. 143, no. 2–3, pp. 342–358, 1984.
H. Gao, J. M. McMahon, M. H. Lee, J. Henzie, S. K. Gray, G. C. Schatz, and T. W. Odom, “Rayleigh anomaly-surface plasmon polariton resonances in palladium and gold subwavelength hole arrays,” *Opt. Express*, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2334–2340, 2009.
S. S. Wang and R. Magnusson, “Theory and applications of guided-mode resonance filters,” *Appl. Opt.*, vol. 32, no. 14, pp. 2606–2613, 1993.
D. Rosenblatt, A. Sharon, and A. A. Friesem, “Resonant grating waveguide structures,” *IEEE J. Quantum Electron.*, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 2038–2059, 1997.
M. Siltanen, S. Leivo, P. Voima, M. Kauranen, P. Karvinen, P. Vahimaa, and M. Kuittinen, “Strong enhancement of second-harmonic generation in all-dielectric resonant waveguide grating,” *Appl. Phys. Lett.*, vol. 91, no. 11, p. 111109, 2007.
W. Zhang and B. T. Cunningham, “Fluorescence enhancement by a photonic crystal with a nanorod-structured high index layer,” *Appl. Phys. Lett.*, vol. 93, no. 13, p. 133115, 2008.
M. Laroche, S. Albaladejo, R. Carminati, and J. J. Sáenz, “Optical resonances in one-dimensional dielectric nanorod arrays: field-induced fluorescence enhancement,” *Opt. Lett.*, vol. 32, no. 18, pp. 2762–2764, 2007.
R. Gómez-Medina, M. Laroche, and J. J. Sáenz, “Extraordinary optical reflection from sub-wavelength cylinder arrays,” *Opt. Express*, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 3730–3737, 2006.
T. Fuhrmann, S. Landwehr, M. El Rharbi-Kucki, and M. Sumper, “Diatoms as living photonic crystals,” *Applied Physics B*, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 257–260, 2004.
G. Di Caprio, G. Coppola, L. D. Stefano, M. D. Stefano, A. Antonucci, R. Congestri, and E. D. Tommasi, “Shedding light on diatom photonics by means of digital holography,” *J. Biophotonics*, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 341–350, 2014.
T. Furukawa, M. Watanabe, and I. Shihira-Ishikawa, “Green- and blue-light-mediated chloroplast migration in the centric diatom *Pleurosira laevis*,” *Protoplasma*, vol. 203, no. 3, pp. 214–220, 1998.
J. M. McMahon, J. Henzie, T. W. Odom, G. C. Schatz, and S. K. Gray, “Tailoring the sensing capabilities of nanohole arrays in gold films with [R]{}ayleigh anomaly-surface plasmon polaritons,” *Opt. Express*, vol. 15, no. 26, pp. 18119–18129, 2007.
A. T. M. A. Rahman, P. Majewski, and K. Vasilev, “Extraordinary optical transmission: coupling of the [W]{}ood-[R]{}ayleigh anomaly and the [F]{}abry-[P]{}erot resonance,” *Opt. Lett.*, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1742–1744, 2012.
M. Shyiq Amin, J. Woong Yoon, and R. Magnusson, “Optical transmission filters with coexisting guided-mode resonance and [R]{}ayleigh anomaly,” *Appl. Phys. Lett.*, vol. 103, no. 13, p. 131106, 2013.
K. B. Dossou, L. C. Botten, A. A. Asatryan, B. C. P. Sturmberg, M. A. Byrne, C. G. Poulton, R. C. McPhedran, and C. M. de Sterke, “Modal formulation for diffraction by absorbing photonic crystal slabs,” *J. Opt. Soc. Am. A*, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 817–831, 2012.
B. C. Sturmberg, K. B. Dossou, F. J. Lawrence, C. G. Poulton, R. C. McPhedran, C. M. de Sterke, and L. C. Botten, “[EMUstack]{}: An open source route to insightful electromagnetic computation via the [B]{}loch mode scattering matrix method,” *Comput. Phys. Commun.*, vol. 202, pp. 276–286, 2016.
K. Dossou and M. Fontaine, “A high order isoparametric finite element method for the computation of waveguide modes,” *Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.*, vol. 194, no. 6-8, pp. 837–858, 2005.
K. Dossou, M. A. Byrne, and L. C. Botten, “Finite element computation of grating scattering matrices and application to photonic crystal band calculations,” *J. Comput. Phys.*, vol. 219, no. 1, pp. 120–143, 2006.
M. G. Moharam, T. K. Gaylord, E. B. Grann, and D. A. Pommet, “Formulation for stable and efficient implementation of the rigorous coupled-wave analysis of binary gratings,” *J. Opt. Soc. Am. A*, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1068–1076, 1995.
L. Li, “New formulation of the [F]{}ourier modal method for crossed surface-relief gratings,” *J. Opt. Soc. Am. A*, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 2758–2767, 1997.
E. Popov, M. Nevière, S. Enoch, and R. Reinisch, “Theory of light transmission through subwavelength periodic hole arrays,” *Phys. Rev. B*, vol. 62, pp. 16100–16108, 2000.
Y. Xie, A. R. Zakharian, J. V. Moloney, and M. Mansuripur, “Optical transmission at oblique incidence through a periodic array of sub-wavelength slits in a metallic host,” *Opt. Express*, vol. 14, no. 22, pp. 10220–10227, 2006.
L. Martín-Moreno, F. J. García-Vidal, H. J. Lezec, K. M. Pellerin, T. Thio, J. B. Pendry, and T. W. Ebbesen, “Theory of extraordinary optical transmission through subwavelength hole arrays,” *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, vol. 86, pp. 1114–1117, 2001.
F. J. García-Vidal and L. Martín-Moreno, “Transmission and focusing of light in one-dimensional periodically nanostructured metals,” *Phys. Rev. B*, vol. 66, p. 155412, 2002.
F. J. Garcia-Vidal, L. Martin-Moreno, T. W. Ebbesen, and L. Kuipers, “Light passing through subwavelength apertures,” *Rev. Mod. Phys.*, vol. 82, pp. 729–787, 2010.
P. Lalanne, J. C. Rodier, and J. P. Hugonin, “Surface plasmons of metallic surfaces perforated by nanohole arrays,” *J. Opt. A*, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 422–426, 2005.
M. Born and E. Wolf, *Principles of optics: [E]{}lectromagnetic theory of propagation, interference and diffraction of light*, 7th ed.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
F. Liu and X. Zhang, “Contrast- and intensity-enhancement of sensor signals based on [R]{}ayleigh anomaly in metal-coated gratings,” *Opt. Mater. Express*, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 682–690, 2016.
A. E. Serebryannikov and E. Ozbay, “One-way [R]{}ayleigh-[W]{}ood anomalies and tunable narrowband transmission in photonic crystal gratings with broken structural symmetry,” *Phys. Rev. A*, vol. 87, p. 053804, 2013.
L. C. Botten, N.-A. P. Nicorovici, A. A. Asatryan, R. C. McPhedran, C. M. de Sterke, and P. A. Robinson, “Formulation for electromagnetic scattering and propagation through grating stacks of metallic and dielectric cylinders for photonic crystal calculations. [P]{}art [II]{}. [P]{}roperties and implementation,” *J. Opt. Soc. Am. A*, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 2177–2190, 2000.
E. Popov, Ed., *Gratings: Theory and Numeric Applications*, 2nd ed. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emMarseille, France: Institut Fresnel, 2014.
D. Marcuse, *Theory of dielectric optical waveguides*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emNew York: Academic Press, 1974.
J. T. O. Kirk, *Light and Photosynthesis in Aquatic Ecosystems*, 3rd ed.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
V. Mocella and S. Romano, “Giant field enhancement in photonic resonant lattices,” *Phys. Rev. B*, vol. 92, p. 155117, 2015.
K. B. Dossou, “Doppler shift generated by a moving diffraction grating under incidence by polychromatic diffuse light,” *Appl. Opt.*, vol. 55, no. 15, pp. 3915–3924, 2016.
L. Karp-Boss and P. A. Jumars, “Motion of diatom chains in steady shear flow,” *Limnology and Oceanography*, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 1767–1773, 1998.
J. Srajer, B. Majlis, and I. Gebeshuber, “Microfluidic simulation of a colonial diatom chain reveals oscillatory movement,” *Acta Botanica Croatica*, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 431–441, 2009.
B. Gutiérrez-Medina, A. J. Guerra, A. I. P. Maldonado, Y. C. Rubio, and J. V. G. Meza, “Circular random motion in diatom gliding under isotropic conditions,” *Physical Biology*, vol. 11, no. 6, p. 066006, 2014.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We extend prior work on *class-morphing* to provide a more expressive pattern-based compile-time reflection language. Our *MorphJ* language offers a disciplined form of metaprogramming that produces types by statically iterating over and pattern-matching on fields and methods of other types. We expand such capabilities with “universal morphing”, which also allows pattern-matching over types (e.g., all classes nested in another, all supertypes of a class) while maintaining modular type safety for our meta-programs. We present informal examples of the functionality and discuss a design for adding universal morphing to .'
bibliography:
- 'universal.bib'
title: '[jUCM]{}: Universal Class Morphing (position paper)'
---
Introduction
============
The ultimate flexible software component is one that safely adapts its behavior *and* its interface depending on its uses. When a component’s interface is statically defined (as in the case of classes in a statically typed language), such adaptation requires a meta-programming facility. Meta-programming is typically low-level and unwieldy, with few guarantees of safety. Mechanisms for compile-time reflection [@huang_morphing:_2011; @ctr] have been proposed to address such safety needs.
In our previous work [@huang_expressive_2008; @huang_morphing:_2011; @gerakios_forsaking_2013] we presented and extended *MorphJ*. MorphJ is a language that adds compile-time reflection capabilities to . A programmer is able to capture compile-time patterns and encode them in (meta-)classes. Each pattern is associated with a generative scenario. For instance, a morphed class [[`Listify`]{}]{} may statically iterate over all the methods of another, unknown, type, [[`Subj`]{}]{}, pick those that have a single argument, and offer isomorphic methods: whenever [[`Subj`]{}]{} has a method with argument [[`A`]{}]{}, [[`Listify`]{}]{} accepts a [[`List<A>`]{}]{} . (The implementation of every method in [[`Listify`]{}]{} can then, e.g., iterate over all list elements, and manipulate them using [[`Subj`]{}]{}’s methods.)
``` {style="java"}
class Listify<Subj> {
Subj ref;
Listify(Subj s) {ref = s;}
<R,A>[m] for (public R m(A): Subj.methods)
public R m (List<A> a) {
... /* e.g., call m for all elements */
}
}
```
MorphJ offers program transformation capabilities but with modular type-safety guarantees: type-checking (via MorphJ) the code of [[`Listify`]{}]{} guarantees that all the classes it may produce (for any type [[`Subj`]{}]{}) also type-check (via the plain Java type system).
In this work we complement MorphJ with the ability to statically reflect over classes, instead of just fields and methods. We discuss our early motivation with examples over nested classes.
Application: (Static) Nested Classes
====================================
Classes are the typical unit of modularity in an object-oriented language. To form larger modules, one can group classes together into components such as packages, or assemblies. At the language level, the class mechanism itself can serve as a component, encapsulating other classes. This is elegant from a modeling standpoint (a single concept for all levels of modularity) and even captures existing language features that allow the nesting of classes.
Nested classes can be either inner classes or static nested classes in . Folklore in the community suggests to favor static nested classes over inner classes and use the latter only if it is absolutely needed (Item 22 in [@bloch_effective_2008]). Programmers use static nested classes in various practical scenarios. In compiler engineering, static nested classes are usually used when representing abstract syntax tree (AST) nodes. [[`javac`]{}]{} in fact, contains static nested classes for AST nodes that also extend the top-level class, [[`JCTree`]{}]{}.[^1] Tools such as ANTLR that generate parsers also generate code of this form. In UI engineering, several tools generate class definitions that contain static nested classes—e.g., the Android Asset Packaging Tool that generates the [[`R`]{}]{} class, a strongly-typed view of resource IDs for all the resources in the resources directory.[^2]
Our universal morphing techniques find interesting applications in (static) nested classes.
#### Ex1. Replace inheritance with delegation for all classes in a library.
In this example we want to replace inheritance with delegation automatically for all static nested classes of [[`Library`]{}]{}. This feature is offered as a refactoring mechanism in IDEs today but the user may need to generate a delegation-view via an existing hierarchy for all classes. Such existing hierarchy is enclosed in the class [[`Library`]{}]{} below:
``` {style="java"}
class Library {
static class Vector {
boolean isEmpty() {}
}
static class Stack extends Vector { }
}
```
The programmer’s intention is to have a view of the library that relies on delegation like the one below:
``` {style="java"}
class Library {
static class Vector {
boolean isEmpty() {}
}
static class Stack {
Vector subobject;
boolean isEmpty() { subobject.isEmpty(); }
}
}
```
We introduce the static [[`for`]{}]{} keyword for static reflection over classes. In line 2 of the [[`LibraryDelegated`]{}]{} we use it to iterate over all classes in the type [[`Library`]{}]{}. The pattern that we look for is that of classes that extend some other class. All classes inside [[`L`]{}]{} that are going to be captured will have a corresponding definition in [[`Delegate<L>`]{}]{}. Inside each class definition we define a [[`subobject`]{}]{} field of type [[`S`]{}]{} (the supertype). In lines 5-6 we rely on the [[`static-for`]{}]{} we introduced in MorphJ.
``` {style="java"}
class Delegate<L> {
<C,S> for (C extends S : L.classes)
static class C {
S subobject#S;
<R, A*> [m] for(public R m(A) : S.methods)
R m(A a){ return subobject#S.m(a); }
}
}
```
#### Ex2. Introduce interface and add a new method.
In the following we introduce an interface that is implemented by all static nested classes. Again this is realized by reflecting over all classes of the type that is going to parameterize the [[`AlertingGraph`]{}]{} type.
``` {style="Java"}
interface Alert { void alert(); }
class AlertingGraph <class X> {
[N] for (N : X.classes)
static class N extends X.N implements Alert {
[m] for(public void m () : N.methods)
public void m() {
alert();
m();
}
void alert() { System.out.println("Alerted!"); }
}
}
```
#### Ex3. Merge two classes into one (including nested classes).
We can create a highly generic class that consists of the union of members (methods and classes) of two others, with one of them taking precedence.
``` {style="Java"}
class Union<class B, class C> {
<R, A*> [m] for (R m(A) : B.methods)
R m(A a) { super.m(a); }
<R, A*> [m] for (R m(A) : C.methods;
no R m(A): B.methods)
R m(A a) { super.m(a); }
[N] for (N : B.classes)
class N {
<R,A> [m] for (R m(A) : N.methods)
R m(A a) { b.m(a); }
<NB> for (NB : N.classes)
class NB extends N.NB { }
}
[N] for (N : C.classes; not N : B.classes)
class N {
<R,A*>[m] for (R m(A) : N.methods)
R m(A a) { b.m(a); }
<NC> for (NC : N.classes)
class NC extends N.NC { }
}
}
```
There is a wealth of other examples of universal morphing. For instance, we can iterate over all interfaces implemented by a class, we can offer highly-generic *mixin layers* [@mixinlayers], we can scrap the traversal boilerplate in external visitor patterns.
Conclusion
==========
We are working on [jUCM]{}, an extension of MorphJ that enables more compile-time reflection patterns. A major challenge includes designing the type system extension that will ensure modular type-safety of meta-programs.
##### Acknowledgments. {#acknowledgments. .unnumbered}
We gratefully acknowledge funding by the Greek Secretariat for Research and Technology under the “MorphPL” Excellence (Aristeia) award.
[^1]: <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/langtools/file/jdk8-b132/src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/tree/JCTree.java>
[^2]: <http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/resources/accessing-resources.html>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We extend the dynamical systems analysis of Scalar-Fluid interacting dark energy models performed in C. G. Boehmer et al Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 123002 (2015), by considering scalar field potentials beyond the exponential type. The properties and stability of critical points are examined using a combination of linear analysis, computational methods and advanced mathematical techniques, such as centre manifold theory. We show that the interesting results obtained with an exponential potential can generally be recovered also for more complicated scalar field potentials. In particular, employing power-law and hyperbolic potentials as examples, we find late time accelerated attractors, transitions from dark matter to dark energy domination with specific distinguishing features, and accelerated scaling solutions capable of solving the cosmic coincidence problem.'
author:
- '** Jibitesh Dutta$^{1,2}$[^1], Wompherdeiki Khyllep$^3$[^2], Nicola Tamanini$^4$[^3]**'
title: |
Scalar-Fluid interacting dark energy:\
cosmological dynamics beyond the exponential potential
---
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
As by now confirmed by precise cosmological observations [@Riess:1998cb; @Perlmutter:1998np; @Betoule:2014frx; @Ade:2013zuv; @Ade:2015xua], our Universe is presently undergoing through a period of accelerated expansion. In the standard cosmological picture, this phenomenon can be explained by an exotic repulsive cosmic fluid known as dark energy (DE), whose fundamental nature is still unclear. The easiest theoretical model for DE, which well fits the present cosmological observations [@Betoule:2014frx; @Ade:2013zuv; @Ade:2015xua], is the so called $\Lambda$CDM model, resulting by a simple addition of a positive cosmological constant $\Lambda$ to the Einstein field equations. This model accounts for both DE, through $\Lambda$, and dark matter (DM), the other invisible component needed to match the astronomical data, through a pressure-less fluid which does not interact with electromagnetic radiation. Unfortunately, although well in agreement with observations, $\Lambda$CDM is plagued by unsolved theoretical issues, such as the cosmological constant problem [@Weinberg:1988cp; @Martin:2012bt] and the cosmic coincidence problem [@Steinhardt:1999nw].
In order to alleviate these problems, a dynamical scalar field, which is capable to reproduce the properties of a cosmological constant at late times, has been proposed as an alternative explanation to the present cosmological acceleration (see [@Copeland:2006wr; @Tsujikawa:2013fta] for reviews). Models based on scalar field theories are enough complex to produce a non trivial cosmological dynamics and nonetheless sufficiently simple to handle. They are collectively known under the name [*quintessence*]{} and can be well motivated by the lower energy limit of some well known high energy theories like string theory. Moreover in a cosmological context, apart from describing DE, scalar fields are also used to describe inflation [@Liddle:2000cg], DM [@Magana:2012ph] and also unified dark sector models [@Bertacca:2010ct].
Once one assumes DE to be a dynamical entity, in contrast with the time-independent cosmological constant, nothing prevents a possible interaction between the two dark sector components, namely between DE and DM. One of the advantages of considering a dark sector coupling is the existence of late time accelerated scaling attractors, which normally cannot be obtained without an interaction, and can in principle represent a possible solution to the cosmic coincidence problem [@Amendola:1999er; @Zimdahl:2001ar; @Mangano:2002gg; @Chimento:2003iea]. Unfortunately, given the absence of a fundamental satisfying description of both DM and DE, no one knows how to theoretically implement such a coupling, and all the models proposed so far rely on some simple phenomenological approaches (see [@Wang:2016lxa] for a recent review), which in general might give rise to complications at the cosmological perturbation level [@Valiviita:2008iv; @Skordis:2015yra].
Recently, a new phenomenological approach for interacting DE theories, which uses a well posed variational method and thus is completely well defined also at the fully covariant level, has been introduced in [@Boehmer:2015kta; @Boehmer:2015sha] (see [@Pourtsidou:2013nha; @Tamanini:2015iia] for similar ideas). In this theory, DM is characterized by a perfect fluid and integrated into a variational principle using Brown’s Lagrangian formulation of relativistic fluids [@Brown:1992kc]. The general class of theories defined in this way has been called [*Scalar-Fluid theories*]{} [@Koivisto:2015qua; @Boehmer:2015ina], and besides interacting DE it has also been applied to build models of screened scalar fields [@Brax:2015fcf; @Tamanini:2016klr]. Unlike previous interacting DE proposals, e.g. [@Boehmer:2008av; @Boehmer:2009tk; @Dutta:2016dnt; @Wang:2016lxa], in this approach the interaction is introduced directly in a suitably defined action, whereby the conservation equation is automatically satisfied. Therefore, this type of coupling has the advantage over the usual phenomenological interactions of being consistently constructed at the Lagrangian level and thus of being well motivated by an underlining theoretical framework, even though not a fundamental one.
In this paper, we extend the cosmological dynamical systems analysis of Scalar-Fluid interacting DE models performed in [@Boehmer:2015kta]. Dynamical system techniques are a useful tool to study the asymptotic behaviour and to determine the complete dynamics of a cosmological model. For an introduction to the applications of dynamical system in cosmology we refer the reader to [@Garcia-Salcedo:2015ora; @Boehmer:2014vea] (see also [@WainwrightEllis; @Coley:2003mj]). These techniques have been largely applied to several cosmological models. For some recent studies we refer the reader to the following works: quintessence field [@Roy:2014yta; @Paliathanasis:2015gga; @Alho:2015ila; @Landim:2016gpz], $k$-essence [@Tamanini:2014mpa; @Dutta:2016bbs], Brans-Dicke theory [@Cid:2015pja; @Quiros:2015bfa; @Garcia-Salcedo:2015naa], $f(R)$ gravity [@Alho:2016gzi], hybrid metric-Palatini gravity [@Tamanini:2013ltp; @Carloni:2015bua], $f(T)$ theory [@Cai:2015emx], chameleon theories [@Roy:2014hsa; @Tamanini:2016klr], holographic DE [@Banerjee:2015kva], braneworld theories [@Escobar:2013js; @Dutta:2015jaq], interacting DE [@Dutta:2016dnt; @Landim:2015poa; @Landim:2015uda].
In [@Boehmer:2015kta], the scalar field potential is taken to be of the exponential kind, leading to three dimensional dynamical systems whose dynamical evolution is rather simple to analyse. The aim of this paper is to investigate the cosmological dynamics of the same Scalar-Fluid interacting quintessence models considered in [@Boehmer:2015kta] for a class of scalar fields whose self interacting potential $V(\phi)$ is left arbitrary. In order to accomplish our scopes, we will introduce a parameter $\Gamma\left(=V\frac{d^2V}{d \phi^2}\left(\frac{d V}{d \phi}\right)^{-2}\right)$ and assume that it can be written as a function of another parameter $s\left(=-\frac{1}{V}\frac{d V}{d \phi}\right)$. In this case, the dynamical systems become four dimensional and consequently the analysis is slightly more complicated if compared to the case of exponential potential. In order to investigate the cosmological dynamics for the general scalar field potential, we use the method introduced in [@Fang:2008fw]. We shall see that there are some critical points which exist for a general potential but which do not exist in the exponential potential case. This type of generalization has been done earlier in the context of braneworld theories [@Leyva:2009zz; @Escobar:2011cz; @Escobar:2012cq; @Dutta:2016dnt], tachyon field [@Quiros:2009mz; @Fang:2010zze; @Farajollahi:2011ym], quintom field [@Leon:2012vt], $k$-essence [@Dutta:2016bbs] and loop quantum gravity [@Xiao:2011nh]. Moreover, for this type of analysis beyond the exponential potential, non-hyperbolic points (critical points whose stability matrix contains a vanishing eigenvalue) are usually obtained. For this type of points, linear stability theory fails and other complicated mathematical tools, such as Lyapunov function or center manifold theory [@Wiggins; @Perko; @Boehmer:2011tp; @Fang:2008fw; @TamaniniPhDthesis], or numerical methods, like perturbation analyses near the critical point [@Dutta:2016dnt; @Dutta:2016bbs; @Roy:2015cna], need to be employed in order to find the asymptotic behaviour. Moreover, in order to better understand the cosmological dynamics of this particular models (especially regarding non-hyperbolic critical points), in what follows we also consider two concrete potentials as an example: the hyperbolic potential $V=V_0 \sinh^{-\eta}(\lambda\phi)$ and the inverse powerlaw potential $V=\frac{M^{4+n}}{\phi^n}$.
The organization of the paper is the following. In Sec. \[sec:scalar\], we briefly review the theoretical framework of Scalar-Fluid theories following [@Boehmer:2015kta]. In Sec. \[sec:alg\], we present the basic cosmological equations of the model and the formation of an autonomous system of differential equations. In Secs. \[sec:model1\] and \[sec:model2\], we consider two models corresponding to two distinct algebraic couplings and investigate their dynamics using dynamical systems technique. For the first interacting model given in Sec. \[sec:model1\], we present two subsections where we focus on two distinct values for one of the parameters. In both subsections, we consider the two specific potentials mentioned above as examples in order to understand in details the cosmological dynamics in these situations.
[*Notation*]{}: In this work, we consider the $(-,+,+,+)$ signature convention for the metric tensor. We also consider units where $8\pi G=c=\hslash=1$. The comma notation denotes partial derivatives (i.e. $\phi_{,\mu}=\partial_{\mu}\phi$).
Scalar Fluid Theories: action and field equations {#sec:scalar}
=================================================
In this section we briefly present the action and field equations of Scalar-Fluid theories without entering in further theoretical details. The reader interested in more information and applications of Scalar-Fluid theories can refer to [@Boehmer:2015kta; @Boehmer:2015sha; @Koivisto:2015qua; @Boehmer:2015ina; @Brax:2015fcf; @Tamanini:2016klr].
The total action of Scalar-Fluid theories is given by $$\label{action}
S=\int d^4x\left[\mathcal{L}_{\rm grav}+\mathcal{L}_{\rm mat}+\mathcal{L}_{\phi}+\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}\right],$$ where $\mathcal{L}_{\rm grav}$ denotes the gravitational Lagrangian, $\mathcal{L}_{\rm mat}$ denotes the matter Lagrangian, $\mathcal{L}_{\phi}$ denotes the scalar field Lagrangian and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}$ denotes the interacting Lagrangian. The gravitational sector $\mathcal{L}_{\rm grav}$ is given by the usual Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian $$\label{Lgrav}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm grav}=\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-g} R,$$ where $g$ is the determinant of the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $R$ is the Ricci scalar. The matter Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{\rm mat}$ for relativistic fluid described in [@Brown:1992kc] is given by $$\label{Lmat}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm mat}=-\sqrt{-g} \rho(\mathfrak{n},\mathfrak{s})+J^{\mu}\left(\varphi_{,\mu}+\mathfrak{s}\, \theta_{,\mu}+\beta_A \alpha^A_{,\mu}\right),$$ where $\rho(\mathfrak{n},\mathfrak{s})$ is the energy density of the fluid, assuming that it depends on the particle number density $\mathfrak{n}$ and the entropy density per particle $\mathfrak{s}$. Here $\theta,\,\varphi$ and $\beta_A$ are Lagrange multipliers with $A=1,\,2,\,3$ and $\alpha_A$ are the Lagrangian coordinates of the fluid. The vector density particle number $J^{\mu}$ is related to $\mathfrak{n}$ as $$\label{Jmun}
J^{\mu}=\sqrt{-g}\,\mathfrak{n}\,u^{\mu},\quad |J|=\sqrt{-g_{\mu\nu} J^{\mu}J^{\nu}},\quad \mathfrak{n}=\frac{|J|}{\sqrt{-g}},$$ where $u^{\mu}$ is the fluid 4-velocity satisfying $u_{\mu}u^{\mu}=-1$. The scalar field Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{\phi}$ is taken in its canonical form $$\label{Lphi}
\mathcal{L}_{\phi}=-\sqrt{-g}\left[\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}{\phi}\partial^{\mu}{\phi}+V(\phi)\right],$$ where $V$ denotes an arbitrary potential for the scalar field $\phi$. Finally, we have to determine the interacting Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}$. In this work, we consider an algebraic coupling between the fluid and the scalar field of the type $$\begin{aligned}
\label{algLag}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}=-\sqrt{-g}f(\mathfrak{n},\mathfrak{s},\phi),\end{aligned}$$ where $f(\mathfrak{n},\mathfrak{s},\phi)$ is an arbitrary function. This type of coupling has been studied in [@Boehmer:2015kta; @Tamanini:2016klr] and can lead to late time accelerated scaling solutions similar to the ones obtained in standard interacting models constructed in the past [@Amendola:1999er; @Zimdahl:2001ar; @Mangano:2002gg; @Chimento:2003iea].
Variation of (\[action\]) with respect to $g_{\mu\nu}$ yields the following Einstein field equations $$\label{EFE}
G_{\mu\nu}=T_{\mu\nu}+T_{\mu\nu}^{(\phi)}+T_{\mu\nu}^{(\rm int)},$$ where $$\label{matTmunu}
T_{\mu\nu}=pg_{\mu\nu}+(\rho+p)u_{\mu}u_{\nu},$$ $$\label{matTphi}
T_{\mu\nu}^{(\phi)}=\partial_{\mu}\phi \partial_{\nu}\phi-g_{\mu\nu}\left[\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial^{\mu}\phi+V(\phi)\right],$$ $$\label{matTmunuint}
T_{\mu\nu}^{\rm int}=p_{\rm int}g_{\mu\nu}+(\rho_{\rm int}+p_{\rm int})u_{\mu}u_{\nu},$$ are the fluid energy momentum tensor, the scalar field energy momentum tensor and the interacting energy momentum tensor, respectively. In the above, the fluid pressure is defined as $$\label{pressure}
p=\mathfrak{n}\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial \mathfrak{n}}-\rho.$$ whereas $\rho_{\rm int}$ and $p_{\rm int}$ are the interacting energy density and pressure respectively defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\rm int}=f(\mathfrak{n},\mathfrak{s},\phi),\qquad p_{\rm int}=\mathfrak{n}\frac{\partial f(\mathfrak{n},\mathfrak{s},\phi)}{\partial \mathfrak{n}}-f(\mathfrak{n},\mathfrak{s},\phi).\end{aligned}$$ Varying the action (\[action\]) with respect to the scalar field yields the modified Klein-Gordon equation $$\begin{aligned}
\Box\phi-\frac{\partial V}{\partial\phi}-\frac{\partial f}{\partial\phi} =0,
\label{Klein_Alg}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Box= \nabla^\mu \nabla_\mu$ and $\nabla_\mu$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$.
Basic Cosmological equations {#sec:alg}
============================
In this section, we will consider the cosmological evolution of the Universe based on the interacting model considered in Sec. \[sec:scalar\]. As favoured by astronomical observations, we shall consider a spatially flat, homogeneous and isotropic Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe [@Ade:2013zuv; @Ade:2015xua; @Miller:1999qz], described by the metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=-dt^2+a^2(t)(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2),\end{aligned}$$ where $a(t)$ is the scale factor, $t$ is the coordinate time and $x$, $y$, $z$ are Cartesian coordinates.
Applying this metric to the Einstein field equations (\[EFE\]) and the Klein-Gordon equation (\[Klein\_Alg\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Fried_Alg}
3H^2=\left(\rho+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2+V+f\right),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
2 \dot{H}+3 H^2=-\left(p+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2-V+p_{\rm int}\right),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Klein_Alg2}
\ddot{\phi}+3H\dot{\phi}+\frac{\partial V}{\partial \phi}+\frac{\partial f}{\partial \phi}=0,\end{aligned}$$ respectively, where $H=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}$ is the Hubble parameter. It can be shown that at the background level the interaction does not modify the equation of motion of matter [@Boehmer:2015kta] $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}+3H(\rho+p)=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho$ and $p$ denote the energy density and pressure of the fluid with a linear equation of state (EoS) $w$ defined by $p=w\rho$ ($-1\leq w \leq 1$).\
The effective EoS $w_{\rm eff}$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
w_{\rm eff}=\frac{p_{\rm eff}}{\rho_{\rm eff}}=\frac{p+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2-V+p_{\rm int}}{\rho+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2+V+f} \,.\end{aligned}$$ The Universe undergoes accelerated expansion if the condition $w_{\rm eff}<-\frac{1}{3}$ is satisfied.
As in [@Boehmer:2015kta], in order to convert the cosmological equations (\[Fried\_Alg\])-(\[Klein\_Alg2\]) into an autonomous system of equations, we introduce the following dimensionless variables $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma=\frac{\sqrt{\rho}}{\sqrt{3}H}\,, \quad x=\frac{\dot\phi}{\sqrt{6}H}\,,\quad
y=\frac{\sqrt{V}}{\sqrt{3}H}\,,\quad
z=\frac{ f}{3H^2}\,,\quad s=-\frac{1}{V}\frac{d V}{d \phi}.
\label{variable1}\end{aligned}$$ Here the variable $s$ accounts for the arbitrariness of the self-interacting potentials [@Steinhardt:1999nw; @delaMacorra:1999ff; @Ng:2001hs; @Zhou:2007xp; @Fang:2008fw; @Matos:2009hf; @UrenaLopez:2011ur; @TamaniniPhDthesis]. Using the dimensionless variables (\[variable1\]), the Friedmann equation (\[Fried\_Alg\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
1=\sigma^2+x^2+y^2+z.
\label{constraint_alg}\end{aligned}$$ This serves as a constraint equation for the phase space, effectively reducing its dimension by one. Using the above dimensionless variables (\[variable1\]), the cosmological equations (\[Fried\_Alg\])-(\[Klein\_Alg2\]) can be recast into the following autonomous system of equations $$\begin{aligned}
x' &= -\frac{1}{2} \left(3x \left((w+1) y^2+w z-w+1\right) + 3 (w-1) x^3-\sqrt{6} s y^2\right) + x A -B, \label{x_alg}\\
y' &= -\frac{1}{2} y \left( 3 (w-1) x^2 + 3 \left((w+1) y^2+w z - w-1\right)+\sqrt{6} s x\right) + y A, \label{y_alg}\\
z' &= 2 A (z-1)+2 B x-3 z \left((w-1) x^2 + (w+1) y^2 + w (z-1)\right),\label{z_alg}\\
s'&=-\sqrt{6}\, x\, g(s).\label{s_alg}\end{aligned}$$ where $g(s)=s^2(\Gamma(s)-1)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gamma}
\Gamma=V\frac{d^2V}{d \phi^2}\left(\frac{d V}{d \phi}\right)^{-2}.\end{aligned}$$ In Eqs. (\[x\_alg\])-(\[s\_alg\]), we have defined $$\begin{aligned}
A=\frac{p_{\rm int}}{2 H^2} \quad\mbox{and}\quad B=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6} H^2}\frac{\partial\rho_{\rm int}}{\partial\phi} \,.\end{aligned}$$
Different types of potentials lead to different forms of $\Gamma$, which we assume to be a function of $s$. Note that the following analysis is applicable only to potentials where $\Gamma$ can be written as a function of $s$. If this is not the case then more complicated dynamical systems analysis are needed, usually requiring the addition of further dimensionless variables; see e.g. [@Xiao:2011nh; @Barrow:1995xb; @Parsons:1995ew; @Lazkoz:2007mx; @Nunes:2000yc]. In general if $\Gamma$ is a function of $s$ then scaling solutions naturally appear in the phase space [@Nunes:2000yc], the simplest case being $\Gamma=1$ which corresponds to the case of exponential potential. In Eqs. (\[x\_alg\])-(\[s\_alg\]) and throughout, a prime denotes differentiation with respect to the number of $e$-folds $N$ defined as $dN=H dt$. It can be seen from Eq. (\[s\_alg\]) that $s'=0$ only when either $x=0$ or $s=0$ or $\Gamma(s)=1$. We also notice that for $x\neq 0$ it is possible to obtain $s'\neq 0$ and $ g(s)\neq 0$ even when $s=0$, since a particular potential could render the combination $g(s)=s^2(\Gamma(s)-1)$ different from zero. Hence, the necessary condition that $s'=0$ when $x\neq 0$ is $g(s)=0$.
$\rho_{\rm int}$ $p_{\rm int}$ $A$ $B$
---------- --------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
Model I $\gamma\,\rho^\alpha\exp(-\beta\phi)$ $[\alpha(w+1)-1]\rho_{\rm int}$ $\frac{3}{2}[\alpha(w+1)-1]z$ $-\beta\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}z$
Model II $\gamma\phi\rho$ $w\rho_{\rm int}$ $\frac{3}{2}wz$ $\gamma\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\left(1-x^2-y^2-z\right)$
: Explicit forms of $A$ and $B$ for given $\rho_{\rm int}$. Here $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are dimensionless parameters.[]{data-label="models"}
In order to close the system, we must specify the function $\rho_{\rm int}$ from which the quantities $A$ and $B$ can be obtained. Specific choices of $\rho_{\rm int}$ let the quantities $A$ and $B$ to depend on $x$, $y$, $z$ only and the resulting system is thus closed without the addition of further dynamical variables. On the other hand if $A$ and $B$ do not depend solely on $x$, $y$, $z$ then additional extra variables are required, increasing in this manner the dimension of the system. In what follows, we consider the two choices of $\rho_{\rm int}$ given in Table \[models\], as already studied in [@Boehmer:2015kta] for the case of the exponential potential. For such choices of $\rho_{\rm int}$, it can be seen that $A$ and $B$ depend only on $x$, $y$, $z$; see Table \[models\]. From the mathematical point of view, they are simple to analyse and from a physical point of view they are sufficiently complicated to lead to a new and rich cosmological dynamics. Moreover, as shown in [@Brax:2015fcf], Model I nicely generalizes the well known chameleon coupling used to screen scalar fields at Solar System scales, while Model II represents the simplest linear coupling between $\phi$ and $\rho$ one can think of. As mentioned before different choices from the ones in Table \[models\] in general require the introduction of further dimensionless variables: for example simply taking $\rho_{\rm int} = \gamma\phi\rho^2$ would yield $A = \gamma \rho^2 / (\sqrt{6} H^2) = 3\sqrt{3/2} \,\gamma \sigma^4 H^2$, which cannot be rewritten in terms of the variables , but it can be analysed introducing the (compact) variable $u = H_0 / (H + H_0)$; c.f. [@Boehmer:2009tk; @Tamanini:2013ltp].
Finally we note that from the physical condition $\rho\geq 0$, one has $\sigma^2 \geq 0$, so from Eq. (\[constraint\_alg\]) one obtains the constraint equation $$\begin{aligned}
x^2+y^2+z\leq 1.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the four dimensional phase space of the system (\[x\_alg\])-(\[s\_alg\]) is given by $$\Psi=\left\lbrace(x,y,z)\in \mathbb{R}^3:0\leq x^2+y^2+z\leq 1\right\rbrace \times \left\lbrace s \in \mathbb{R}\right\rbrace.$$
Model I {#sec:model1}
=======
This section deals with the phase space analysis of the dynamical system (\[x\_alg\])-(\[s\_alg\]) for the Model I, as given in Table \[models\]. In terms of dimensionless variables (\[variable1\]), an effective EoS parameter $w_{\rm eff}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{weff1}
w_{\rm eff} &= \frac{p_{\rm eff}}{\rho_{\rm eff}} =
w - (w-1)x^2 - (1+w)y^2 + (1+w) (\alpha-1) z.\end{aligned}$$ We note that the system (\[x\_alg\])-(\[s\_alg\]) is invariant with respect to the transformation $y\rightarrow -y$. So we will restrict the analysis only with positive values of $y$. In general, there are up to nine critical points of the system, depending on the values of parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, $w$ and $s_*$ as given in Table \[tab:alg\_A\]. The corresponding eigenvalues of all critical points are given in Table \[tab:eigen\_alg\_A\]. In all cases, $s_*$ represents a solution of the equation $g(s)=0$ and $dg(s_*)$ is the derivative of $g(s)$ evaluated at $s=s_*$.
Critical point $O$ does not depend on the potential for its existence and its stability ($s$ is arbitrary). Critical points $A_{1\pm}$, $A_2$, $A_3$, $A_4$, $A_5$ and $A_6$ depend on the particular potential under consideration and there is a copy of each of these point for each solution of $g(s)=0$, i.e. for each $s_*$. On the other hand, critical point $A_7$ corresponds to the case where the potential is constant, as the $\phi$-derivative of the potential vanishes. It however depends on the concrete form of the potential for its stability. Moreover, it can be seen that point $A_7$ is a special case of point $A_3$ when $s_*=0$.
Here: $\Xi=\frac{-2\beta^2+3(\alpha(w+1)-1)(\alpha(w+1)-2)}{3(\alpha(w+1)-2)}$
[width=1]{}
[ccccccc]{} Point & $x$ & $y$ & $z$ & $s$ &Existence& $w_{\rm eff}$\
$O$ & 0 & 0 & 0 &$s$&Always&$w$\
$A_{1 \pm}$ & $\pm 1$ & 0 & 0&$s_*$ &Always&1\
$A_2$ & $\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \frac{(1+w)}{s_*}$ & $\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \frac{\sqrt{(1+w)(1-w)}}{s_*}$ & $0$ &$s_*$&$s_*^2\geq 3(1+w)$&$w$\
$A_3$ & $\frac{s_*}{\sqrt{6}}$ & $\sqrt{1-\frac{s_*^2}{6}}$ & $0$&$s_*$ &$s_*^2 \leq 6$&$\frac{s_*^2-3}{3}$\
$A_4$ & $-\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} \frac{\beta}{\alpha(w+1)-2}$ & 0 & $1 - \frac{2\beta^2}{3(\alpha+\alpha w-2)^2}$ &$s_*$&Always&$\Xi$\
$A_5$ & $\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \frac{(1+w)(1-\alpha)}{\beta}$ & 0 & $\frac{3}{2} \frac{(1-\alpha)(1+w)(1-w)}{\beta^2}$&$s_*$&$0 \leq \frac{3(\alpha-1)(w+1)(\alpha(w+1)-2)}{2 \beta^2} \leq 1$&$w$\
$A_6$ & $\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \frac{(1+w)\alpha}{s_*-\beta}$ & $\frac{\sqrt{6(w+1)\alpha-3(w+1)^2\alpha^2+2\beta(\beta-s_*)}}{\sqrt{2}|s_*-\beta|}$ & $\frac{s_*(s_*-\beta)-3(1+w)\alpha}{(\beta-s_*)^2}$&$s_*$&$0 \leq 2\beta(\beta-s_*)$&$-1-\frac{\alpha s_*(w+1)}{\beta-s_*}$\
&&&&&$-3\alpha(w+1)(\alpha(w+1)-2)$\
$A_7$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$&$0$ &Always&$-1$\
Here we have defined: $\Delta^{*}_{\pm}=-\frac{3}{4}(1-w)\left[1\pm\sqrt{\frac{24(1+w)}{s_*^2}-\frac{(7+9w)}{(1-w)}}\right]$\
$\Theta_{\pm}=\frac{3}{4}\left[(w-1)\pm \frac{1}{\beta} \left((w-1) 12\,{\alpha}^{3}{w}^{3}+36\,{\alpha}^{3}{w
}^{2}-24\,{\alpha}^{2}{w}^{3}+36\,{\alpha}^{3}w-96\,{\alpha}^{2}{w}^{2
}-8\,\alpha\,{\beta}^{2}w+12\,\alpha\,{w}^{3}\right.\right.$\
$
\left.\left.+12\,{\alpha}^{3}-120\,{
\alpha}^{2}w-8\,\alpha\,{\beta}^{2}+84\,\alpha\,{w}^{2}+9\,w{\beta}^{2
}-48\,{\alpha}^{2}+132\,\alpha\,w+7\,{\beta}^{2}-24\,{w}^{2}+60\,
\alpha-48\,w-24 \right)^{1/2}
\right]$\
$\Lambda^{*}_{\pm}=\frac{1}{4(\beta-s_*)}\left[-3\,\alpha\,s_{*}\,(w+1)-6\,(\beta-s_{*})\pm
\left\lbrace-216\,{\alpha}^{3}{w}^{3}-72\,{\alpha}^{2}\beta\,s_{*}\,{w}^{2}
+81\,{\alpha}^{2}{s_{*}}^{2}{w}^{2}-648\,{\alpha}^{3}{w}^{2}-144\,{
\alpha}^{2}\beta\,s_{*}\,w\right.\right.$\
$\left.\left.+162\,{\alpha}^{2}{s_{*}}^{2}w-648\,{\alpha}
^{3}w-72\,{\alpha}^{2}\beta\,s_{*}+81\,{\alpha}^{2}{s_{*}}^{2}+432\,{
\alpha}^{2}{w}^{2}+144\,\alpha\,{\beta}^{2}w+36\,\alpha\,\beta\,s_{*}
\,w-180\,\alpha\,{s_{*}}^{2}w+48\,{\beta}^{3}s_{*}\right.\right.$\
$\left.\left.-96\,{\beta}^{2}{s_{
*}}^{2}+48\,\beta\,{s_{*}}^{3}-216\,{\alpha}^{3}+864\,{\alpha}^{2}w+
144\,\alpha\,{\beta}^{2}+36\,\alpha\,\beta\,s_{*}-180\,\alpha\,{s_{*}}
^{2}+432\,{\alpha}^{2}+36\,{\beta}^{2}-72\,\beta\,s_{*}+36\,{s_{*}}^{2
}\right\rbrace^{1/2}\right]$
[width=1]{}
[ccccccc]{} Point &$E_1$ & $E_2$ &$E_3$ &$E_4$ & Stability\
$O$ & $0$ & $\frac{3}{2}(w-1)$ &$\frac{3}{2}(w+1)$ &$3(w+1)(1-\alpha)$& Saddle\
$A_{1 \pm}$&$3(1-w)$&$3 \mp \frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}s_*$&$\sqrt{6}(\sqrt{6}\mp \beta)-3\alpha(w+1)$&$\mp \sqrt{6}\,dg(s_*)$&Unstable node/Saddle\
\[1.5ex\]
$A_2$ & $-\frac{3(\beta+s_*(\alpha-1))(w+1)}{s_*}$ & $\Delta^{*}_+$ &$\Delta^{*}_-$&$-\frac{3(w+1)\,dg(s_*)}{s_*}$& Figs. \[fig:C\_G\_stable\_alpha1\], \[fig:E\_G\_stable\_alpha3\].\
$A_3$ & $\frac{s_*^2}{2}-3$ & $s_*^2-3(w+1)$ & $s_*(s_*-\beta)-3\alpha(w+1)$ & $-s_* dg(s_*)$&Stable node/Saddle\
&&&&& Unstable node/Saddle\
$A_4$&$\frac{-2\beta^2+3(\alpha(w+1)-2)^2}{\alpha(w+1)-2}$&$\frac{-2\beta^2+3(w+1)(\alpha-1)(\alpha(w+1)-2)}{\alpha(w+1)-2}$&$\frac{1}{2}\frac{2\beta(s_*-\beta)+3\alpha(w+1)(\alpha(w+1)-2)}{\alpha(w+1)-2}$&$\frac{2\beta\, dg(s_*)}{\alpha(w+1)-2}$& ($\alpha=1$)\
&&&&& See Fig. \[fig:E\_G\_stable\_alpha3\] for $\alpha=3$\
$A_5$&$\frac{3}{2}\frac { \left( w+1 \right) \left( \alpha\,s_{*}+\beta-s_{*}
\right) }{\beta}
$&$\Theta_{+}$&$\Theta_{-}$&$\frac{3(\alpha-1)(w+1) dg(s_*)}{\beta}$&Saddle (for $w=0$)\
$A_6$&$\frac{-3(\beta+(\alpha-1) s_*)(w+1)}{(\beta-s_*)}$&$\Lambda^{*}_{+}$&$\Lambda^{*}_{-}$&$\frac{3\alpha (w+1) dg(s_*)}{\beta-s_*}$& Figs. \[fig:C\_G\_stable\_alpha1\], \[fig:E\_G\_stable\_alpha3\].\
&&&&&Stable if $g(0)>0$, $\alpha>0$\
$A_7$ & $-3(w+1)$ & $-3\alpha(w+1)$ & $\frac{1}{2}\left(-\sqrt{12 g(0)+9}-3\right)$& $\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{12 g(0)+9}-3\right)$&Saddle if $g(0)<0$\
&&&&& or $\alpha<0.$\
&&&&&See App. if $g(0)=0$\
Due to the complexity of model I, we will consider only two distinct values of $\alpha$: namely $\alpha=1$ or 3. For these two choices of $\alpha$, we can see how these interacting models can well describe the observed late time dynamics of the Universe.
The case $\alpha=1$ {#alpha1}
-------------------
We will now investigate the phase space analysis for the choice $\alpha=1$. For this particular choice of $\alpha$, critical point $A_5$ coincides with the origin $O$. So the total number of critical points reduces to eight. Critical points $O$, $A_{1\pm}$, $A_4$ exist for any values of parameters $\beta$, $w$, $s_*$. Critical point $A_2$ exists for $s_*^2\geq 3(w+1)$, critical point $A_3$ exists for $s_*^2\leq 6$ and point $A_6$ exists whenever $3(1-w^2)\geq 2\beta(s_*-\beta)$.
Critical point $O$ corresponds to an unaccelerated matter dominated universe ($w_{\rm eff}=w$). It is non-hyperbolic in nature due to the vanishing of at least one of its eigenvalues, however it behaves as a saddle as two of its corresponding non-vanishing eigenvalues are opposite in sign. Points $A_{1 \pm}$ correspond to an unaccelerated, scalar field kinetic energy dominated solution with stiff fluid effective EoS ($w_{\rm eff}=1$). Point $A_{1+}$ is an unstable node whenever $\beta<\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}(1-w)$, $s_*<\sqrt{6}$ and $dg(s_*)<0$, otherwise it is a saddle, whereas point $A_{1-}$ is an unstable node whenever $\beta>-\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}(1-w)$, $s_*>-\sqrt{6}$ and $dg(s_*)>0$, otherwise it is a saddle. Point $A_2$ corresponds to a scaling solution with $w_{\rm eff}=w$ where the energy densities of DM and DE are both non zero. This means that the Universe behaves as if it is dominated by matter completely, even though both DE and DM contribute to the total energy. It is a stable node when $0<\frac{24 (1+w)}{s_*^2}-\frac{(7+9w)}{(1-w)}<1$, $\frac{\beta}{s_*}>0$ and $s_*\,dg(s_*)>0$, it is a stable spiral when $\frac{24 (1+w)}{s_*^2}-\frac{(7+9w)}{(1-w)}<0$, $\frac{\beta}{s_*}>0$ and $s_*\,dg(s_*)>0$, otherwise it is a saddle. Point $A_3$ corresponds to a scalar field dominated universe. It represents an accelerated universe whenever $s_*^2<2$. It is a stable node when $s_*^2<3(w+1)$, $s_*\beta<s_*^2-3(w+1)$ and $s_*dg(s_*)>0$, otherwise it is a saddle. Point $A_4$ corresponds to a solution where the matter energy density vanishes but the kinetic part of the scalar field and the interacting energy density are non-zero. It is not stable as its eigenvalue $E_2>0$ (it is an unstable node when $2\beta^2>3(1-w)$, $2\beta\,s_*<3(1-w)+2\beta^2$ and $\beta\,dg(s_*)<0$, otherwise it is a saddle). It corresponds to an accelerated universe when $2\beta^2<(3w-1)(1-w)$. Due to the complexity of critical point $A_6$, we will analyse its stability only on a physically interesting case, i.e. for $w=0$. It corresponds to an accelerated universe when $\frac{s_*}{\beta}>-2$ and it stands for a solution where the matter energy density vanishes but the scalar field and interacting energy density are both non-zero (see [@Tamanini:2015iia] for a discussion regarding this kind of solutions). It is either stable or a saddle node depending on the values of $s_*$ and $\beta$.
![Regions of stability of critical points $A_2$, $A_3$ and $A_6$ in the $(\beta,s_*)$ parameter space. Region I$_+$ corresponds to the region of stability of point $A_3$ when $dg(s_*)>0$, whereas region I$_-$ corresponds to the region of stability of point $A_3$ when $dg(s_*)<0$. Region II$_+$ and II$_{-}$ corresponds to the region of stability of point $A_6$ when $dg(s_*)>0$ and $dg(s_*)<0$ respectively. Region III$_{+}$ corresponds to the regions of stability of point $A_2$ when $dg(s_*)>0$ whereas region III$_{-}$ for $dg(s_*)<0$. Here we have taken $w=0$ and $\alpha=1$.[]{data-label="fig:C_G_stable_alpha1"}](region_stability_alpha1_A2_A3_A6){width="8cm" height="6cm"}
The stability analysis for points $A_2$, $A_3$ and $A_6$ is confirmed numerically as shown in Fig. \[fig:C\_G\_stable\_alpha1\] by considering $s_*$ as a parameter without specifying the concrete form of the scalar field potential and by focusing on the most physically interesting case ($w=0$). Critical point $A_7$ corresponds to an accelerated scalar field dominated solution ($w_{\rm eff}=-1$). It is stable whenever $g(0)>0$ and a saddle whenever $g(0)<0$. However, it is a non-hyperbolic point if $g(0)=0$, in which case linear stability theory fails to determine its stability and other more complicated mathematical tools, like center manifold theory, are required [@Boehmer:2011tp; @Fang:2008fw; @TamaniniPhDthesis]. The full analysis of the stability of this point using center manifold theory is given in the appendix A. From that analysis, point $A_7$ corresponds to a late time scalar field dominated attractor if $\Gamma(0)>1$ (c.f. Eq. ).
From the above stability analysis, we can see that whenever $\beta$ and $s_*$ are of the same sign (see Fig. \[fig:C\_G\_stable\_alpha1\]), the late time behaviour of the universe is undistinguishable from the case of a canonical scalar field without interaction [@Fang:2008fw]. In this scenario, the late time universe will correspond to a scalar field dominated point $A_3$ (or $A_7$) or a scaling solution $A_2$. However, whenever $\beta$ and $s_*$ have opposite sign (see Fig. \[fig:C\_G\_stable\_alpha1\]), then a new late time behaviour arises. In this case the late universe will either correspond to a scalar field dominated solution $A_3$ (or $A_7$) or to an accelerated solution $A_6$ where the scalar field energy density and the interacting energy density do not vanish, but the matter energy density does vanish. This solution can thus alleviate the coincidence problem as it corresponds to an accelerated late time attractor where the DE density does not dominate completely. This is similar to what one can achieve by introducing interacting terms at the level of the field equations [@Amendola:1999er; @Zimdahl:2001ar; @Mangano:2002gg; @Chimento:2003iea]. Note also that points $A_2$, $A_3$ and $A_6$ cannot be late time attractors simultaneously (see Fig. \[fig:C\_G\_stable\_alpha1\]). Hence, depending on the choice of parameters, the Universe either evolves from a matter dominated solution to a late time, accelerated, scalar field dominated solution, describing in this way the DM to DE transition, or it reaches an accelerated scaling solution capable of solving the cosmic coincidence problem.
In order to better understand the dynamics of these cosmological models, it is now interesting to focus the analysis above on concrete forms of the scalar field potential, especially given the fact that the stability of the critical points depends strongly on the values of $s_*$ and $dg(s_*)$. In the following examples we choose two specific potentials and analyze their dynamics in detail.
### Example I: $V=V_0\sinh^{-\eta}(\lambda\phi)$ {#example-ivv_0sinh-etalambdaphi .unnumbered}
In this first case, we consider the hyperbolic potential $$\begin{aligned}
V=V_0\sinh^{-\eta}(\lambda\phi)\end{aligned}$$ where $V_0$ and $\lambda$ are parameters with suitable dimensions and $\eta$ is a dimensionless parameter. This potential was first introduced in [@Sahni:1999gb]. For a canonical scalar field, it has been studied using dynamical systems techniques in [@Fang:2008fw; @Roy:2013wqa], the cosmological dynamics of some alternative cosmological models using this potential has been also studied in [@Leyva:2009zz; @Dutta:2016bbs]. For this potential, we have $$\begin{aligned}
g(s)=\frac{s^2}{\eta}-\eta\lambda^2\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
s_*=\pm \eta\lambda,~~dg(s_*)=\frac{2s_*}{\eta}\end{aligned}$$ Critical points $A_{1\pm}$, $A_2$, $A_3$, $A_4$, $A_6$ will have each exactly two copies for two solutions $s_*=\pm \eta\lambda$, point $O$ exists for any arbitrary potential.
![Evolution of the relative energy density of DE ($\Omega_\phi$), DM ($\Omega_m$), interaction ($\Omega_{\rm int}$) together with effective equation of state ($w_{\rm eff}$) for interacting model I with potential $V=V_0 \sinh^{-\eta}(\lambda\phi)$. Here we have taken $w=0$, $\alpha=1$, $\beta=10$, $\lambda=-2$, $\eta=1$. []{data-label="fig:weff_omega_m_phi_int_alpha_1"}](weff_omega_m_phi_int_1_rev2){width="8cm" height="6cm"}
As already mentioned above, the properties of the critical point $O$ do not depend on the scalar field potential. Point $A_{1+}$ is an unstable node whenever $\beta<\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}(1-w)$, $\eta\lambda<\sqrt{6}$ and $\lambda<0$, otherwise it is a saddle, whereas point $A_{1-}$ is an unstable node whenever $\beta>-\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}(1-w)$, $\eta\lambda>-\sqrt{6}$ and $\lambda>0$, otherwise it is a saddle. Point $A_2$ is a stable node when $0<\frac{24 (1+w)}{\eta^2\lambda^2}-\frac{(7+9w)}{(1-w)}<1$, $\frac{\beta}{\eta\lambda}>0$ and $\eta>0$, it is a stable spiral when $\frac{24 (1+w)}{\eta^2\lambda^2}-\frac{(7+9w)}{(1-w)}<0$, $\frac{\beta}{\eta\lambda}>0$ and $\eta>0$, otherwise it is a saddle. Point $A_3$ corresponds to a scalar field dominated universe. It represents an accelerated universe whenever $\eta^2\lambda^2<2$. It is a stable node when $\eta^2\lambda^2<3(w+1)$, $\eta\lambda\beta<\eta^2\lambda^2-3(w+1)$ and $\eta>0$, otherwise it is a saddle. Point $A_4$ is an unstable node when $2\beta^2>3(1-w)$, $2\beta\,\eta\lambda<3(1-w)+2\beta^2$ and $\beta\,\lambda<0$, otherwise it is a saddle. As in the general potential case, for critical point $A_6$ we will consider only the physically interesting value $w=0$. For this choice $A_6$ represents an accelerated universe when $\frac{\eta\lambda}{\beta}>-2$. It is either a stable or a saddle node depending on the values of $\eta$, $\lambda$ and $\beta$. This solution can solve the coincidence problem as it corresponds to an accelerated late time attractor where the DE density does not dominate completely. For example if we numerically choose $\alpha=1,\,\beta=10,\,\lambda=-2,\,\eta=1$, we obtain $E_1=-2.5$, $E_2=-1.53-8.16\,i $, $E_3=-1.53+8.16\,i$, $E_4=-0.67$, $w_{\rm eff}=-0.83$ and the DE density parameter denoted by $\Omega_{\phi}=x^2+y^2=0.85$. Finally, critical point $A_7$ corresponds to a late time accelerated solution whenever $\eta<0$, and it is a saddle otherwise. Hence, depending on the choices of the model parameters, the universe starts from a stiff matter dominated solution $A_{1\pm}$ ($w_{\rm eff}=1$) and evolves towards either an accelerated scalar field dominated solution $A_3$ (or $A_7$), an unaccelerated scaling solution $A_2$, or an accelerated scaling solution $A_6$ through a matter dominated solution $O$. Thus, this model can well describe the deceleration to acceleration transition corresponding to the domination of DE over DM at late times. Moreover it can solve the cosmic coincidence problem whenever point $A_6$ is the late time attractor, regardless of fine tuning issues concerning the amplitude of the scalar field potential $V_0$ which is allowed to take any positive non-vanishing value. This behaviour is shown by Fig. \[fig:weff\_omega\_m\_phi\_int\_alpha\_1\] where the time evolution of all energy densities involved, together with the effective EoS of the universe, have been plotted choosing initial conditions leading to a long lasting matter dominated phase, as required by cosmological observations. From the figure it is clear that the final stage of the universe is an accelerated expansion where the energy densities of matter and dark energy remain fixed to the same order of magnitude. Furthermore during the transition from dark matter to dark energy domination the effective EoS of the universe presents some non-linear behaviour, the “oscillations” in Fig. \[fig:weff\_omega\_m\_phi\_int\_alpha\_1\], which distinguish this model from the standard $\Lambda$CDM evolution and could in principle lead to observational signatures to look for in future astronomical observations.
### Example II: $V=\frac{M^{4+n}}{\phi^n}$ {#example-ii-vfracm4nphin .unnumbered}
In this second example, we consider the potential $$V=\frac{M^{4+n}}{\phi^n} \,,$$ where $M$ is a mass scale and $n$ is a dimensionless parameter. This potential can lead to tracking behaviour [@Zlatev:1998tr] and the cosmological evolution of some cosmological models where this potential appears have recently been studied using dynamical system technique [@Dutta:2016dnt; @Dutta:2016bbs].
In this case, we have simply $$\label{eq30}
g(s)=\frac{s^2}{n} \,,$$ implying that $s_*=0$. This means that critical point $A_2$ does not exist for this potential, and that point $A_3$ reduces to point $A_7$. Looking at the eigenvalues given in Table \[tab:eigen\_alg\_A\] for the case $s_*=0$ and $dg(s_*)=0$, one can immediately realise that all the allowed critical points are non-hyperbolic. Point $A_{1+}$ behaves as an unstable node whenever $\beta<\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}(1-w)$, otherwise it behaves as a saddle, whereas point $A_{1-}$ behaves as an unstable node whenever $\beta>-\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}(1-w)$, otherwise it behaves as a saddle. Point $A_4$ is not stable as its eigenvalue $E_2>0$ (it behaves as unstable node when $2\beta^2>3(1-w)$, otherwise it behaves as a saddle). Point $A_6$ behaves as a saddle since the eigenvalue $E_2$ is always positive and $E_1$ is negative. For critical point $A_7$, eigenvalues $E_1$, $E_2$ are negative whereas $E_3$ and $E_4$ vanish. Therefore, linear stability theory fails to determine its stability and other complicated mathematical tools like center manifold theory are required. The full analysis of the stability of this point using center manifold theory is given in the appendix A. From the analysis, point $A_7$ corresponds to a late time scalar field dominated attractor if $\Gamma(0)>1$ (or $n>0$). From the above analysis we see that for $n>0$ the Universe evolve towards a unique late time attractor $A_7$ through a matter dominated phase $O$. Thus, we see that for this potential with $n>0$, this cosmological interacting model has only one late time accelerated, scalar field dominated attractor for a wide range of initial conditions. If instead $n<0$ then there is no finite late time attractor and all trajectories evolve towards some critical point at infinity. This can be shown for example in the behaviour displayed in Fig. \[fig:stream plot\_A7\_powerlaw\_1\], where point $A_7$ is a global attractor for $n>0$ while it becomes a saddle if $n<0$.
The case $\alpha=3$
-------------------
![Stability region of critical points $A_2$, $A_3$, $A_4$ and $A_6$ in the $(\beta,s_*)$ parameter space. Regions I$_{+}$, V$_{-}$, VII$_{+}$ correspond to the regions of stability of point $A_2$ when $dg(s_*)>0$, regions I$_{-}$, V$_{+}$, VII$_{-}$ correspond to the regions of stability of point $A_2$ when $dg(s_*)<0$. Regions III$_+$, IV$_{-}$ and VI$_{+}$ correspond to the regions where $A_3$ is stable when $dg(s_*)>0$ and regions III$_-$, IV$_{+}$ and VI$_{-}$ correspond to the regions where $A_3$ is stable when $dg(s_*)<0$. Regions I$_{+}$, II$_{+}$, III$_{+}$, IV$_{+}$ and V$_{+}$ correspond to regions where point $A_4$ is stable when $dg(s_*)>0$ and regions I$_{-}$, II$_{-}$, III$_{-}$, IV$_{-}$ and V$_{-}$ correspond to regions where point $A_4$ is stable when $dg(s_*)<0$. Region II$_{+}$ corresponds to region where point $A_6$ is stable when $dg(s_*)>0$ whereas region II$_{-}$ corresponds to region where point $A_6$ is stable when $dg(s_*)<0$. Here we have assumed $w=0$ and $\alpha=3$.[]{data-label="fig:E_G_stable_alpha3"}](stability_G_E_alpha3){width="8cm" height="6cm"}
We will now investigate the case where $\alpha$ is different from $1$. Following [@Boehmer:2015kta] we will consider $\alpha=3$ for simplicity of the analysis. The qualitative properties of critical points $O$, $A_{1 \pm}$, $A_2$, $A_3$, $A_7$ remain roughly the same as the case $\alpha=1$, except a slightly difference in the stability regions of $(\beta,s_*)$ parameter space. The stability regions of the critical points in the $(\beta,s_*)$ parameter space are shown in Fig. \[fig:E\_G\_stable\_alpha3\]. Point $O$ corresponds again to an unaccelerated matter dominated universe ($w_{\rm eff}=w$). It is still a saddle as two of its corresponding non-vanishing eigenvalues are opposite in sign. Points $A_{1 \pm}$ correspond to an unaccelerated scalar field kinetic energy dominated solution, with stiff fluid effective EoS ($w_{\rm eff}=1$). Point $A_{1+}$ is an unstable node whenever $\beta<-\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}(3w+1)$, $s_*<\sqrt{6}$ and $dg(s_*)<0$, otherwise it is a saddle, whereas point $A_{1-}$ is an unstable node whenever $\beta>\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}(3w+1)$, $s_*>-\sqrt{6}$ and $dg(s_*)>0$, otherwise it is a saddle. Point $A_2$ corresponds to a scaling solution with $w_{\rm eff}=w$: the Universe behaves as if it is matter dominated even though both DE and DM contributions are both non-zero. Point $A_3$ characterises a scalar field dominated universe. It represents an accelerated universe whenever $s_*^2<2$. It is a stable node when $s_*^2<3(w+1)$, $s_*^2<s_*\beta+(9w+1)$ and $s_*dg(s_*)>0$, otherwise it is a saddle. Point $A_4$ corresponds to a solution where the scalar field kinetic energy and the interacting energy density do not vanish, while the matter energy density instead vanishes. It stands for an accelerated universe whenever $\frac{2(\beta^2-3)-27w(w+1)}{3w+1}>1$ and it can be stable as illustrated numerically in Fig. \[fig:E\_G\_stable\_alpha3\] (at least for $w=0$) as contrary to the case $\alpha=1$. Point $A_5$ exists only when $\beta^2\geq 3(w+1)(3w+1)$. It corresponds to the solution where the potential energy density vanishes but the scalar field kinetic energy, matter energy density and interacting energy density do not vanish. It also represents an unaccelerated scaling solution where the Universe expands as if it was matter dominated ($w_{\rm eff}=w$). This point is saddle (at least for $w=0$). Again, due to the complexity of critical point $A_6$, we will focus only on pressure-less fluid ($w=0$) to analyse its stability. It corresponds to an accelerated universe when $\frac{s_*}{\beta}>-\frac{2}{7}$, and it defines a solution where the matter energy density vanishes but the scalar field and interacting energy density are both non-zero. It is either a stable or a saddle node depending on the values of $s_*$ and $\beta$. This behaviour has been confirmed numerically as shown in Fig. \[fig:E\_G\_stable\_alpha3\] by considering $s_*$ as a parameter without specifying the concrete form of the scalar field potentials. Finally, critical point $A_7$ corresponds to an accelerated scalar field dominated solution ($w_{\rm eff}=-1$). Similarly to the case $\alpha=1$, it is stable whenever $g(0)>0$ and saddle whenever $g(0)<0$. It is a non-hyperbolic point if $g(0)=0$. Exactly as in the case $\alpha=1 $ this point is stable whenever $\Gamma(0)>1$, as can be verified using center manifold theory.
From the above analysis, we see that the cosmological dynamics is complicated compared to the case of $\alpha=1$. In this case depending on some values of the parameters, we obtain multiple attractors, namely $A_4$ and $A_2$ or $A_4$ and $A_3$ (see Fig. \[fig:E\_G\_stable\_alpha3\]). However as in the case $\alpha=1$, this model can successfully describe the late time behaviour of the Universe. We shall now study the stability of critical points for the same two concrete potentials considered before.
### Example I: $ V=V_0\sinh^{-\eta}(\lambda\phi)$ {#subsec:model_I_3 .unnumbered}
![Stability region of critical points $A_2$, $A_3$, $A_4$ and $A_6$ in the $(\beta,\lambda)$ parameter space. Regions I, V, VII correspond to the regions of stability of point $A_2$. Regions III, IV and VI correspond to the regions where $A_3$ is stable. Regions I, II, III, IV and V correspond to regions where point $A_4$ is stable. Region II corresponds to region where point $A_6$ is stable. Here we have assumed the potential $ V=V_0\sinh^{-\eta}(\lambda\phi)$ with $w=0$, $\alpha=3$, $\eta=1$.[]{data-label="region_sinh3"}](stability_alpha3_A2_A3_A4_A6_sinh){width="8cm" height="6cm"}
![Plot of $w_{\rm eff}$ versus $N$ of model I with potential $ V=V_0\sinh^{-\eta}(\lambda\phi)$ showing a transition from matter dominated epoch (point $O$) to a DE dominated epoch (point $A_3$). Here we have taken $w=0$, $\alpha=3$, $\beta=2$, $\lambda=0.5$, $\eta=1$.[]{data-label="fig:weff_I_3"}](weff_I_3){width="8cm" height="6cm"}
![Evolution of the effective equation of state ($w_{\rm eff}$) for interacting model I with potential $V=V_0 \sinh^{-\eta}(\lambda\phi)$. Here we have taken $w=\frac{1}{3}$, $\alpha=3$, $\beta=2\sqrt{3}$, $\lambda=1$, $\eta=2$. []{data-label="fig:weff3_phn_cross"}](weff3_phn_cross_rev2){width="8cm" height="6cm"}
As in the case $\alpha=1$, critical points $A_{1\pm}$, $A_2$, $A_3$, $A_4$, $A_5$, $A_6$ will have each exactly two copies for two solutions $s_*=\pm \eta\lambda$. Point $O$ always exists and its properties do not depend on the scalar field potential. Point $A_{1+}$ is an unstable node whenever $\beta<-\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}(3w+1)$, $\eta\lambda<\sqrt{6}$ and $\lambda<0$, otherwise it is a saddle, whereas point $A_{1-}$ behaves as an unstable node whenever $\beta>\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}(3w+1)$, $\eta\lambda>-\sqrt{6}$ and $\lambda>0$, otherwise it behaves as a saddle. The regions of stability of points $A_2$, $A_4$ and $A_6$ in $(\beta,\lambda)$ parameter space are given in Fig. \[region\_sinh3\] for $w=0$ and $\eta=1$. Point $A_2$ corresponds to an unacclerated scaling solution with $w_{\rm eff}=w$. It is a late time attractor for some values of parameters $\beta$, $\lambda$. For example if we numerically choose $w=0$, $\beta=1$, $\eta=1$, $\lambda=3$ we obtain eigenvalues $E_1=-7$, $E_2=-6$, $E_3=-0.75+1.56 i$, $E_3=-0.75-1.56 i$. Point $A_3$ represents an accelerated universe whenever $\eta^2\lambda^2<2$. It is a stable node when $\eta^2\lambda^2<3(w+1)$, $\eta^2\lambda^2<\eta\lambda\beta+(9w+1)$ and $\eta>0$, otherwise it is a saddle. Point $A_4$ corresponds to an accelerated solution. It is a late time accelerated attractor for some values of parameters $\beta$, $\lambda$ as outline in Fig. \[region\_sinh3\]. For example if we numerically choose $w=0$, $\beta=-2$, $\eta=1$, $\lambda=2$, we obtain eigenvalues $E_1=-3.5$, $E_2=-2.5$, $E_3=-16$, $E_4=-2$ and $w_{\rm eff}=-0.66$. Due to complicated eigenvalues of point $A_5$, we consider only the physically interesting case $w=0$, for which it can be seen that this critical point is a saddle. In a similar fashion, due to the complexity of critical point $A_6$, we will study its stability only for a pressure-less matter fluid. It corresponds to an accelerated universe when $\frac{\eta\lambda}{\beta}>-\frac{2}{7}$. It is either a stable or a saddle node depending on the values of $\eta$, $\lambda$ and $\beta$ (see Fig. \[region\_sinh3\]). Critical point $A_7$ corresponds to a late time attractor whenever $\eta<0$, it is a saddle whenever $\eta>0$.
To summarise, depending on the initial conditions, the Universe can evolve from a stiff matter solution $A_{1\pm}$ to either a scaling solution $A_2$, to an accelerated scalar field dominated solution $A_3$ (or $A_7$), to an accelerated attractor $A_4$, or to an accelerated attractor $A_6$ through a matter dominated solution $O$. Thus, this model can describe a transition of the Universe from a matter dominated phase to a DE dominated phase. This phenomena can be clearly seen from Fig. \[fig:weff\_I\_3\], which shows that after a long lasting period of matter domination ($w_{\rm eff}=0$), the Universe is then dominated by DE ($w_{\rm eff}=-1$). On the other hand this model can also be used to describe an early inflationary cosmological phase with a crossing of the phantom barrier, as shown in Fig. \[fig:weff3\_phn\_cross\]. This scenario is represented by trajectories starting from a stiff dominated solution, then evolving towards point $A_4$, which characterises the inflationary era, and finally ending in the late time attractor point $A_2$, where radiation domination is attained for $w = 1/3$. As it is clear from Fig. \[fig:weff3\_phn\_cross\], phantom crossing might be achieved before a period of standard inflation, whose duration depends on the initial conditions. Moreover a graceful exit from inflation is automatically obtained since radiation domination is achieved right after the period of accelerated expansion without the need of a reheating process. This model can thus be applied to both late time and early time phenomenology with distinguishing features that might provide useful observational signatures to look for in the astronomical data.
### Example II: $ V=\frac{M^{4+n}}{\phi^n}$ {#example-ii-vfracm4nphin-1 .unnumbered}
As discussed in the case $\alpha=1$, for this potential $s_*=0$. All critical points except point $A_2$ exist and all of them are non-hyperbolic (see Table \[tab:eigen\_alg\_A\]). Point $A_{1+}$ behaves as an unstable node whenever $\beta<-\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}(3w+1)$ otherwise it is a saddle, whereas point $A_{1-}$ behaves as an unstable node whenever $\beta>\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2}(3w+1)$ otherwise it is a saddle. Critical point $A_3$ coincides with $A_7$. This point is non-hyperbolic for this potential as $s_*=0$ and $g(0)=0$. The stability of the center manifold of point $A_3$ is analyzed in the appendix A. As in the case of $\alpha=1$ it can be seen that this point corresponds to a late time attractor if $\Gamma(0)>1$ (i.e. if $n>0$). Linear analysis fails to determine the stability of the non-hyperbolic critical point $A_4$. However, due to its complicated expression we use numerical perturbation methods to check its stability, rather than doing it analytically with the centre manifold techniques. These numerical methods have been used in several cosmological models and found to be successful to determine the stability of complicated non-hyperbolic critical points [@Dutta:2016dnt; @Dutta:2016bbs; @Roy:2015cna]. Numerically we thus observe that perturbed trajectories around critical point $A_4$ do not asymptotically approach its coordinates, instead they are always attracted to the coordinates of point $A_7$ (or $A_3$). We can therefore conclude that critical point $A_4$ is not stable. Critical point $A_5$ is not stable as its eigenvalue $E_1$ is positive whereas critical point $A_6$ behaves as a saddle as its eigenvalues $E_2$ and $E_3$ are of opposite sign.
From the above analysis, we see that, choosing a suitable set of model parameters, the Universe can undergo a transition from a matter dominated phase $O$ to a DE dominated phase $A_3$, meaning that in this case the model can successfully describe the late time behaviour of the Universe.
Model II {#sec:model2}
========
This section deals with the analysis of model II of the dynamical system (\[x\_alg\])-(\[s\_alg\]) where we assume the interacting energy density to take the simple form $\rho_{\rm int}=\gamma \phi\rho$, where $\gamma$ is a dimensionless parameter; see Table \[models\]. As before we can define the effective EoS parameter in this model to be $$\begin{aligned}
w_{\rm eff}=w-(w-1)x^2-(1+w)y^2 \,.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $w_{\rm eff}$ is independent of the interacting energy component since it does not depend on $z$.
Point $x$ $y$ $z$ $s$ Existence $w_{\rm eff}$ Acceleration
------------ ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------- ------------------- ------------------------ ------------------
$B_{1\pm}$ $\pm 1$ 0 0 $s_*$ Always $1$ No
$B_2$ $\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \frac{(1+w)}{s_*}$ $\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \frac{\sqrt{(1+w)(1-w)}}{s_*}$ $\frac{s_*^2-3(1+w)}{s_*^2}$ $s_*$ Always $w$ No
$B_3$ $\frac{s_*}{\sqrt{6}}$ $\sqrt{1-\frac{s_*^2}{6}}$ $0$ $s_*$ $s_*^2 \leq 6$ $\frac{s_*^2}{3}-1$ $s_*^2<2$
$B_4$ 0 0 1 $s$ Always $w$ No
$B_5$ $0$ $1$ $0$ $0$ Always $-1$ Always
: Critical points of Model II.[]{data-label="tab:alg_B"}
$\Xi_{\pm}=-\frac{3}{4}(1-w)\pm\frac{3}{4s_*}\sqrt{(1-w)(24(1+w)^2-s_*^2(7+9w))}$
Point $E_1$ $E_2$ $E_3$ $E_4$ Stability
------------ --------------------- ---------------- ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------
$B_{1\pm}$ $3(1-w)$ $3(1-w)$ $3 \mp \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}s_*$ $\mp \sqrt{6}dg(s_*)$ Unstable node/saddle
$B_2$ $0$ $\Xi_+$ $\Xi_-$ $-\frac{3(w+1)dg(s_*)}{s_*}$ Non-hyperbolic
$B_3$ $\frac{s_*^2-6}{2}$ $s_*^2-3(1+w)$ $s_*^2-3(1+w)$ $-s_* dg(s_*)$ Stable node/saddle
$B_4$ $0$ $0$ $\frac{3}{2}(w-1)$ $\frac{3}{2}(w+1)$ Saddle
\[1.5ex\] Stable if $g(0)>0$
$B_5$ $-3(w+1)$ $-3(w+1)$ $\frac{1}{2}\left(-\sqrt{12 g(0)+9}-3\right)$ $\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{12 g(0)+9}-3\right)$ Saddle if $g(0)<0$
See App. B if $g(0)=0$
: Stability of critical points of Model II.[]{data-label="tab:eigen_alg_B"}
The existence and cosmological properties of the critical points for this model are given in Table \[tab:alg\_B\]. There are up to six critical points, and all critical points are independent of the parameter $\gamma$. The corresponding eigenvalues of the critical points, determining their stability properties, are given in Table \[tab:eigen\_alg\_B\]. Critical points $B_{1\pm}$, $B_2$ and $B_3$ depend on the particular potential considered. Point $B_2$ exists for any values of $s_*$ and $w$ in contrast to the canonical case without interaction, whereas point $B_3$ exists only when $s_*^2\leq6$. Critical point $B_4$ exists for any arbitrary potentials. On the other hand critical point $B_5$ corresponds to the case where the scalar field potential is effectively constant as the $\phi$-derivative of the potential vanishes. Nevertheless its stability depends on the concrete form of the potential. Note that critical point $B_3$ reduces to $B_5$ when $s_*=0$.
Critical points $B_{1\pm}$ correspond to a scalar field kinetic energy dominated solutions with stiff fluid effective EoS ($w_{\rm eff}=1$). Critical point $B_{1+}$ is an unstable node when $s_*<\sqrt{6}$ and $dg(s_*)>0$, whereas point $B_{1-}$ is an unstable node when $s_{*}>-\sqrt{6}$ and $dg(s_*)<0$, otherwise they are both saddles. Critical point $B_2$ represents a solution dominated by the scalar field energy density and the interacting energy density, with the Universe behaving as if it was matter dominated ($w_{\rm eff}=w$). This point is non-hyperbolic due to at least one vanishing eigenvalue. Therefore, one cannot determine the stability of the point using linear stability theory. Due to the complicated expressions of the eigenvalues of critical point $B_2$, we will not apply center manifold theory here. Instead we will study its stability numerically, postponing the analysis once a specific potential has been selected. Critical point $B_3$ corresponds to a scalar field dominated universe. This point describes an accelerated universe whenever $s_*^2<2$. It is a stable node when $s_*^2<3(1+w)$ and $s_*dg(s_*)>0$, otherwise it is a saddle. Point $B_4$ stands for a solution dominated by the interacting energy density with vanishing scalar field and matter energy densities, where the universe behaves as if it was matter dominated ($w_{\rm eff}=w$). This point is non-hyperbolic but it behaves as a saddle since the non-vanishing eigenvalues are opposite in sign. Critical point $B_5$ corresponds to an accelerated scalar field dominated solution. It is stable whenever $g(0)>0$, it is a saddle whenever $g(0)<0$ and it is non-hyperbolic in nature for $g(0)=0$. For this latter case the full analysis of the stability of this point using center manifold theory is given in appendix B. Again this point corresponds to a late time scalar field dominated attractor if $\Gamma(0)>1$.
From the above analysis, we see that the dynamics of this model is similar to the case of canonical scalar field without interaction. In this case, the Universe evolves from stiff matter solutions $B_{1\pm}$ and evolves toward a scaling solution $B_2$ or an accelerated scalar field dominated solution $B_3$ (or $B_5$). Note that points $B_2$ and $B_3$ cannot be late time attractors simultaneously as $B_2$ is not stable when $s_*^2<3(1+w)$. Interestingly, the matter dominated phase, usually described by the origin $O$, is in this case replaced by point $B_4$, corresponding to an interaction dominated phase with $w_{\rm eff}=w$. In order to deeper understand the role of the scalar field potential on the cosmological dynamics of this model and to analyze in detail the stability of non-hyperbolic critical points, in what follows we consider two distinct concrete potentials in analogy to what done for model I.
\[pert\_model\_II\_B\]
### Example I: $V=V_0\sinh^{-\eta}(\lambda\phi)$ {#example-i-vv_0sinh-etalambdaphi .unnumbered}
In this case critical points $B_{1\pm}$, $B_2$, $B_3$ will have each exactly two copies for two solutions $s_*=\pm \eta\lambda$, while point $B_4$ exist for any arbitrary potentials. Point $B_5$ does not exist for this potential. Critical point $B_{1+}$ is an unstable node when $\eta\lambda<\sqrt{6}$ and $\lambda>0$, whereas point $B_{1-}$ is an unstable node when $\eta\lambda>-\sqrt{6}$ and $\lambda<0$, otherwise they are saddles. The stability of critical point $B_2$ can now be determined in detail using numerical perturbation technique. In Figs. \[fig1\]-\[fig4\], we have numerically plotted the projections of the phase space on the $x$, $y$, $z$, and $s$ axes separately. We observe that depending on the values of parameters $\lambda$ and $\eta$, the perturbed solutions will asymptotically approach the point $B_2$ as $N\rightarrow \infty$. Critical point $B_3$ corresponds to an accelerated universe whenever $\eta^2\lambda^2<2$. It is a stable node when $\eta^2\lambda^2<3(1+w)$ and $\eta>0$, otherwise it is a saddle. Critical point $B_4$ behaves as a saddle. Critical point $B_5$ is stable when $\eta<0$, it is a saddle whenever $\eta>0$. Thus, we find that for some range values of the parameters, the observed late time behaviour of our Universe can be successfully described by this model, as shown for example by Fig. \[fig:weff\_2\] where the values $w=0$, $\gamma=1$, $\lambda=4$, $\eta=-0.5$ have been chosen.
![Plot of $w_{\rm eff}$ versus $N$ of model II with potential $ V=V_0\sinh^{-\eta}(\lambda\phi)$ showing a transition from interaction dominated epoch (point $B_4$) with $w_{\rm eff}=0$ to a DE dominated epoch (point $B_5$). Here we have taken $w=0$, $\gamma=1$, $\lambda=4$, $\eta=-0.5$.[]{data-label="fig:weff_2"}](weff_2){width="8cm" height="6cm"}
### Example II: $ V=\frac{M^{4+n}}{\phi^n}$ {#example-ii-vfracm4nphin-2 .unnumbered}
As discussed earlier for this potential $s_*=0$, and so critical point $B_2$ does not exist. In this case, point $B_3$ coincides with point $B_5$. All remaining critical points are non-hyperbolic points. Critical points $B_{1\pm}$ behaves as an unstable node, whereas critical point $B_4$ behaves as a saddle. The stability of point $B_3$ (or $B_5$) is determined using center manifold theory (since the eigenvalues $E_2$, $E_3$ vanish as $g(0)=0$). The full analysis is shown in appendix B and leads to the result that this point corresponds to a late time attractor if $\Gamma(0)>1$ (i.e. if $n>0$). Hence, we see that the Universe can evolve from a stiff matter dominated phase towards a DE dominated phase through a matter phase dominated by the interaction between DE and DM for a wide range of initial conditions. The evolution is in this case similar to the one found in the previous example (see Fig. \[fig:weff\_2\]) and roughly coincides with the one described by $\Lambda$CDM, although during the matter phase the interaction between DE and DM is present and thus differences might arise at the level of perturbations for example.
Conclusion {#sec:conc}
==========
In the present paper, we have employed dynamical systems techniques to study the background cosmological evolution of two interacting DE models derived from a newly proposed variational method. This type of interacting theories, named Scalar-Fluid theories, is constructed at the Lagrangian level and thus is well motivated by an underlining theoretical framework, even though not a fundamental one. In analogy with the investigation of [@Boehmer:2015kta], in our analysis we have considered two different algebraic coupling functions defining the DM-DE interaction within the Scalar-Fluid action; see Table \[models\]. In fact the main scope of our work has been to extend the dynamical analysis of [@Boehmer:2015kta], performed only for a scalar field exponential potential, to a broader class of potentials. This in general leads to higher dimensional dynamical systems than the three-dimensional ones obtained with an exponential potential. We found that these extended autonomous systems contain more critical points than the cases studied in [@Boehmer:2015kta]. We also found that there are some critical points which depend on the specific form of the potential for their existence (e.g., $A_{1\pm}- A_6$, $B_{1\pm} - B_3$), or their stability (e.g., $A_7$ and $B_5$), while other critical points are independent of the specific form of the scalar field potential (e.g., points $O$, $B_4$). For this type of extension, we also obtained some non-hyperbolic critical points such as points $A_7$ (see Table \[tab:eigen\_alg\_A\]), $B_2$ and $B_5$ (see Table \[tab:eigen\_alg\_B\]). For these points we have used center manifold theory or numerical methods of perturbed trajectories to determine their stability. In order to better understand the cosmological dynamics, we also have considered two concrete potentials as examples: the hyperbolic potential $V=V_0\sinh^{-\eta}(\lambda\phi)$ and the power law potential $V=\frac{M^{4+n}}{\phi^n}$.
In model I, where the DE-DM coupling term in the Scalar-Fluid Lagrangian is chosen to be $\rho_{\rm int} = \gamma\,\rho^\alpha\exp(-\beta\phi)$, we obtained physically interesting solutions like a standard matter dominated solution (point $O$), late time accelerated scalar field dominated solutions (points $A_3$, $A_7$) and also a late time accelerated scaling solution (point $A_6$) which can possibly alleviate the coincidence problem (see Sec. \[alpha1\]). The behaviour of this last critical point is similar to the one generally arising in standard interacting DE models, where accelerating scaling solutions are usually attained. Model I can also be employed to describe an inflationary era with interesting features, for example crossing of the phantom barrier (see \[subsec:model\_I\_3\]). This shows that the model can also be applied to explain the observed phenomenology at early times, with possible distinguishing signatures that might be present in the astronomical data. Finally in model I (with $\alpha=3$), we also obtain multiple late time attractors for some choices of the parameters. These kinds of situations are usually of great theoretical and mathematical interest, for example regarding the choice of initial conditions and bifurcation theory.
The background cosmological dynamics of model II, where the $\rho_{\rm int} = \gamma\phi\rho$ coupling is considered, is similar to the case of an uncoupled standard scalar field model, except that the matter dominated solution is replaced by an interacting dominated solution between DE and DM (point $B_4$). This scenario well reproduces the observed dynamics of the universe and, although undistinguishable at the background level from the standard $\Lambda$CDM evolution, might produce differences at the perturbation level. Cosmological perturbation analysis and comparison against astronomical observations constitute the next natural step in the investigations of these interacting models, but they lie beyond the scope of our present study, and will be left for future works.
To summarise, the analysis presented in this paper reveals that the results of [@Boehmer:2015kta] obtained with an exponential potential only, can be equally derived for other scalar field potentials, similarly e.g. to the case of quintessence [@Fang:2008fw] and $k$-essence [@Dutta:2016bbs]. On a physical ground we note in fact that in both Model I and Model II a matter to DE transition can be achieved at late times. This situation well describes the observed background behaviour of our Universe and could in principle produce detectable discrepancies from $\Lambda$CDM at the linear (or non-linear) perturbation levels.
Appendix: Center Manifold Theory (CMT) {#appendix-center-manifold-theory-cmt .unnumbered}
======================================
Mathematical Background {#mathematical-background .unnumbered}
-----------------------
In this section we briefly briefly review the mathematical background of CMT. The detailed mathematical background with examples is given in [@Wiggins; @Perko], while similar applications to cosmology can be found in [@Boehmer:2011tp; @TamaniniPhDthesis]. Linear stability theory fails to determine the stability of a critical point whose stability matrix contains at least one vanishing eigenvalue. If at least (the real part of) one of the non vanishing eigenvalues is positive then the critical point is unstable, but if all non vanishing eigenvalues are negative then stability is not guaranteed. In these cases CMT can be applied. The main objective of CMT is to investigate the dynamics on the dimensionally reduced space identified by the eigenvectors corresponding to the vanishing eigenvalues. This reduced space is called the center manifold and its existence is always guaranteed.
Without any loss of generality we assume that the critical point is the origin (this can always be achieved by translating the origin to the critical point). Any arbitrary non-linear system of differential equations with only negative and vanishing eigenvalues in the stability matrix can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
u'&=A u+f(u,v)\label{cmteqn1} \\
v'&=B v+g(u,v)\label{cmteqn2}\end{aligned}$$ where $(u,v)\in \mathbb{R}^c \times \mathbb{R}^s$ with $f$ and $g$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
f(0,0)=0,\quad Df(0,0)=0\\
g(0,0)=0,\quad Dg(0,0)=0\end{aligned}$$ Here $A$ is a $c\times c$ matrix with eigenvalues having zero real part ($c$ is the number of vanishing eigenvalues), $B$ is a $s\times s$ matrix with eigenvalues having negative real part ($s$ is the number of non vanishing eigenvalues) and $Df$ denotes the Jacobian matrix of $f$. The center manifold is characterized by a function $h: \mathbb{R}^c\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^s$ and is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
W^c(0)=\left\lbrace (u,v)\in \mathbb{R}^c\times \mathbb{R}^s: v=h(u), \Vert u \Vert < \delta, h(0)=0, D h(0)=0\right\rbrace \,,\end{aligned}$$ for a sufficiently small $\delta$. $h$ is at least of class $C^2$ and $\Vert\,\cdot\, \Vert$ denotes the Euclidean norm. The dynamics of the system (\[cmteqn1\])-(\[cmteqn2\]) restricted to the center manifold $W^c(0)$ is determine by the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cmtreduce}
u'=A u+f(u,h(u))
\end{aligned}$$ for a sufficiently small $u \in \mathbb{R}^c$. The stability/instability of the system (\[cmtreduce\]) implies the stability/instability of the original system (\[cmteqn1\])-(\[cmteqn2\]). The problem now is how to determine $h$. It can be proven that $h$ must satisfy the following quasilinear partial differential equation [@Wiggins; @Perko] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{quasi}
\mathcal{N}h(u)\equiv Dh(u)\left(A u+f(u,h(u))-B h(u)-g(u,h(u))\right)=0\end{aligned}$$ In general it is often impossible to solve $h$ from Eq. (\[quasi\]) analytically. Fortunately, the solution $h$ of (\[quasi\]) can be approximate by a power series expansion valid up to a desired degree of accuracy (see [@Wiggins; @Perko]). In order to explain how this works, we shall now apply this method to determine the stability of point $A_7$ for model I and point $B_6$ of model II.
Appendix A: Center manifold dynamics for point $A_7$ of model I {#appendix-a-center-manifold-dynamics-for-point-a_7-of-model-i .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------------------------
In this appendix, we apply center manifold theory to study the stability of point $A_7=(0,1,0,0)$ when $g(0)=0$ for general values of $\alpha$. As mentioned in the main text this point is a saddle whenever $\alpha<0$. Firstly, we translate the point $(0,1,0,0)$ to the origin by using the transformation $x\rightarrow x$, $y\rightarrow y+1$, $z\rightarrow z$, $s\rightarrow s$. Eqs. (\[x\_alg\])–(\[s\_alg\]) then become $$\begin{aligned}
x' &= -\frac{1}{2} \left(3x \left((w+1) (y+1)^2+w z-w+1\right) + 3 (w-1) x^3-\sqrt{6} s (y+1)^2\right) + \frac{3}{2} x z \left(\alpha(w+1)-1\right)+\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\beta z, \\
y' &=-\frac{1}{2} (y+1) \left( 3 (w-1) x^2 + 3 \left((w+1) (y+1)^2+w z - w-1\right)+\sqrt{6} s x\right) + (y+1) \frac{3}{2} z \left(\alpha(w+1)-1\right), \\
z' &= 3 z \left(\alpha(w+1)-1\right) (z-1)-2 \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\beta z x-3 z \left((w-1) x^2 + (w+1) (y+1)^2 + w (z-1)\right),\\
s'&=-\sqrt{6}\, x\, g(s),\end{aligned}$$ Using the eigenvectors of the stability matrix of $A_7$ in the transformed system to form a new basis, we now introduce a new set of variables given by $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
X\\
Y\\
Z\\
S \end{array} \right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & \frac{1}{6}\frac{\beta \sqrt{6}}{\alpha(w+1)-1} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\\
0 & 1 & -\frac{1}{2} & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right) \left(\begin{array}{c}
x\\
y\\
z\\
s \end{array} \right)$$ In terms of these new set of variables, the system of equations can now be written as $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
X'\\
Y'\\
Z'\\
S' \end{array} \right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-3 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -3(w+1) & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -3\alpha (w+1) & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right) \left(\begin{array}{c}
X\\
Y\\
Z\\
S \end{array} \right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}
g_1\\
g_2\\
g_3\\
f \end{array} \right)$$ where $f,\,g_1,\,g_2,\,g_3$ are polynomials of degree greater than 2 in $(X,\,Y,\,Z,\,S)$ with $$f(X,Y,Z,S)=-{\frac {\left( \Gamma(S)-1 \right) {S}^{2} \left( \sqrt {6}\alpha\,X (w+1)+\alpha\, S (w+1)-\sqrt {6} X-\beta\,Z-S \right) }{\alpha\,(w+1)-1}},$$ whereas $g_1$, $g_2$ and $g_3$ are not shown due to their lengths. Note that the dynamical system is now in the form –. At this point the coordinates which correspond to non-zero eigenvalues $(X,Y,Z)$ can be approximated in terms of $S$ by functions $$h_1(S)=a_2 S^2+a_3 S^3+\mathcal{O}(S^4),$$ $$h_2(S)=b_2 S^2+b_3 S^3+\mathcal{O}(S^4),$$ $$h_3(S)=c_2 S^2+c_3 S^3+\mathcal{O}(S^4),$$ respectively. Thus the quasilinear partial differential equation which the functions $$\mathbf{h}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
h_1\\
h_2\\
h_3 \end{array} \right)$$ have to satisfy is given by $$\label{quasiI}
D \mathbf{h(S)}\left[A S+\mathbf{F}(S,\mathbf{h}(S))\right]-B \mathbf{h}(S)-\mathbf{g}(S,\mathbf{h}(S))=\mathbf{0}$$ Here, $$\mathbf{g}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
g_1\\
g_2\\
g_3 \end{array} \right),~~~~~ \mathbf{F}=g, ~~~~~B= \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
-3 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -3(w+1) & 0\\
0 & 0 & -3\alpha (w+1) \end{array} \right), \quad A=0 \,.$$ In order to solve the Eq. (\[quasi\]), we substitute $A$, $\textbf{h}$, $\mathbf{F}$, $B$, $\mathbf{g}$ into it and compare equal powers of $S$ in order to obtain the series that approximates $\mathbf{h}(S)$. Thus on comparing powers of $S$ from both sides of Eq. (\[quasi\]) we obtain the constants $a_2$, $a_3$, $b_2$, $b_3$, $c_2$, $c_3$ where $$\begin{aligned}
a_2=0,~ a_3=\frac{\Gamma(0)-1}{3\sqrt{6}}, ~~ b_2=-\frac{1}{12},~~ b_3=0,~~ c_2=0,~~ c_3=0.\end{aligned}$$ Now, the dynamics of the reduced system is determined by the equation $$\begin{aligned}
S'=A\,S+\mathbf{F}(S,\mathbf{h}(S)) \,,\end{aligned}$$ namely $$\begin{aligned}
S'&=-\left(\Gamma(0)-1\right) S^3+\mathcal{O}(S^4) \,.\end{aligned}$$ From this last equation we can immediately conclude that point $A_7$ corresponds to a late time attractor if $\Gamma(0)>1$ and $\alpha>0$.
Appendix B: Center manifold dynamics for point $B_5$ of model II {#appendix-b-center-manifold-dynamics-for-point-b_5-of-model-ii .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------------
In this appendix we apply center manifold theory to study the stability of point $B_5$ when $g(0)=0$. As in App. A, we first translate the point $(0,1,0,0)$ to the origin by using the transformation $x\rightarrow x$, $y\rightarrow y+1$, $z\rightarrow z$, $s\rightarrow s$. Then Eqs. (\[x\_alg\])-(\[s\_alg\]) become $$\begin{aligned}
x' &= -\frac{1}{2} \left(3x \left((w+1) (y+1)^2+w z-w+1\right) + 3 (w-1) x^3-\sqrt{6} s (y+1)^2\right) + \frac{3}{2} x w z +\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\gamma (1-x^2-(y+1)^2-z), \\
y' &=-\frac{1}{2} (y+1) \left( 3 (w-1) x^2 + 3 \left((w+1) (y+1)^2+w z - w-1\right)+\sqrt{6} s x\right) + \frac{3}{2} (y+1)\, z \left(\alpha(w+1)-1\right), \\
z' &= 3 w z (z-1)-2 \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\gamma (1-x^2-(y+1)^2-z) x-3 z \left((w-1) x^2 + (w+1) (y+1)^2 + w (z-1)\right),\\
s'&=-\sqrt{6}\, x\, g(s),\end{aligned}$$ Using the eigenvectors of the Jacobian matrix of point $B_5$ in the transformed system as a new basis, we now introduce a new set of variables given by $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
X\\
Y\\
Z\\
S \end{array} \right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & \frac{1}{3}\frac{\gamma\sqrt{6}}{w} & \frac{1}{6}\frac{\gamma \sqrt{6}}{w} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right) \left(\begin{array}{c}
x\\
y\\
z\\
s \end{array} \right)$$ In terms of these new set of variables the system of equations can now be written as $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
X'\\
Y'\\
Z'\\
S' \end{array} \right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-3 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -3(w+1) & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -3(w+1) & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right) \left(\begin{array}{c}
X\\
Y\\
Z\\
S \end{array} \right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}
g_1\\
g_2\\
g_3\\
f \end{array} \right)$$ where $f,\,g_1,\,g_2,\,g_3$ are polynomials of degree greater than 2 in $(X,\,Y,\,Z,\,S)$ with $$f(X,Y,Z,S)=\frac{S^2 \left(\Gamma(S)-1\right)}{w}(\sqrt{6} w X+2\gamma Z-\gamma Y-S w),$$ whereas $g_1$, $g_2$ and $g_3$ are again not shown due to their lengths. Again, following the steps outlined in App. A, by comparing powers of $S$ from both sides of Eq. (\[quasi\]) we obtain the constants $a_2$, $a_3$, $b_2$, $b_3$, $c_2$, $c_3$ where $$\begin{aligned}
a_2=-\frac{1}{36}\frac{\gamma\sqrt{6}}{w},~ a_3=\frac{\Gamma(0)-1}{3\sqrt{6}}, ~~ b_2=0,~~ b_3=0,~~ c_2=-\frac{1}{12},~~ c_3=0.\end{aligned}$$ The dynamics of the reduced system on the center manifold is thus determined by the equation $$\begin{aligned}
S'&=-\left(\Gamma(0)-1\right) S^3+\mathcal{O}(S^4) \,.\end{aligned}$$ We can then conclude that point $B_5$ corresponds to a late time attractor if $\Gamma(0)>1$, otherwise it is unstable (saddle).
[99]{} A. G. Riess [*et al.*]{} \[Supernova Search Team Collaboration\], Astron. J. [**116**]{}, 1009 (1998) \[astro-ph/9805201\].
S. Perlmutter [*et al.*]{} \[Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. [**517**]{}, 565 (1999) \[astro-ph/9812133\].
M. Betoule [*et al.*]{} \[SDSS Collaboration\], Astron. Astrophys. [**568**]{} (2014) A22 \[arXiv:1401.4064 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], Astron. Astrophys. [**571**]{}, A16 (2014) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321591 \[arXiv:1303.5076 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], arXiv:1502.01589 \[astro-ph.CO\].
S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**61**]{}, 1 (1989). J. Martin, Comptes Rendus Physique [**13**]{}, 566 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.3365 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
P. J. Steinhardt, L. M. Wang and I. Zlatev, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{} (1999) 123504 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.123504 \[astro-ph/9812313\].
E. J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**15**]{}, 1753 (2006) doi:10.1142/S021827180600942X \[hep-th/0603057\].
S. Tsujikawa, Class. Quant. Grav. [**30**]{}, 214003 (2013) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/30/21/214003 \[arXiv:1304.1961 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, Cambridge, UK: Univ. Pr. (2000) 400 p
J. Magana and T. Matos, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. [**378**]{}, 012012 (2012) doi:10.1088/1742-6596/378/1/012012 \[arXiv:1201.6107 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
D. Bertacca, N. Bartolo and S. Matarrese, Adv. Astron. [**2010**]{}, 904379 (2010) doi:10.1155/2010/904379 \[arXiv:1008.0614 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 043511 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.043511 \[astro-ph/9908023\].
W. Zimdahl and D. Pavon, Phys. Lett. B [**521**]{} (2001) 133 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01174-1 \[astro-ph/0105479\].
G. Mangano, G. Miele and V. Pettorino, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**18**]{} (2003) 831 doi:10.1142/S0217732303009940 \[astro-ph/0212518\].
L. P. Chimento, A. S. Jakubi, D. Pavon and W. Zimdahl, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{} (2003) 083513 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.67.083513 \[astro-ph/0303145\].
B. Wang, E. Abdalla, F. Atrio-Barandela and D. Pavon, arXiv:1603.08299 \[astro-ph.CO\].
J. Valiviita, E. Majerotto and R. Maartens, JCAP [**0807**]{} (2008) 020 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/07/020 \[arXiv:0804.0232 \[astro-ph\]\].
C. Skordis, A. Pourtsidou and E. J. Copeland, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{} (2015) no.8, 083537 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.083537 \[arXiv:1502.07297 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
C. G. Boehmer, N. Tamanini and M. Wright, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, no. 12, 123002 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.123002 \[arXiv:1501.06540 \[gr-qc\]\].
C. G. Boehmer, N. Tamanini and M. Wright, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, no. 12, 123003 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.123003 \[arXiv:1502.04030 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. Pourtsidou, C. Skordis and E. J. Copeland, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{} (2013) no.8, 083505 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.083505 \[arXiv:1307.0458 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
N. Tamanini, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{} (2015) no.4, 043524 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.043524 \[arXiv:1504.07397 \[gr-qc\]\].
J. D. Brown, Class. Quant. Grav. [**10**]{} (1993) 1579 \[gr-qc/9304026\].
T. S. Koivisto, E. N. Saridakis and N. Tamanini, JCAP [**1509**]{} (2015) 047 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/09/047 \[arXiv:1505.07556 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
C. G. Boehmer, N. Tamanini and M. Wright, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, no. 12, 124067 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.124067 \[arXiv:1510.01477 \[gr-qc\]\].
P. Brax and N. Tamanini, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{} (2016) no.10, 103502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.103502 \[arXiv:1512.07399 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
N. Tamanini and M. Wright, JCAP [**1604**]{} (2016) no.04, 032 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/04/032 \[arXiv:1602.06903 \[gr-qc\]\].
C. G. Boehmer, G. Caldera-Cabral, R. Lazkoz and R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 023505 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.023505 \[arXiv:0801.1565 \[gr-qc\]\].
C. G. Boehmer, G. Caldera-Cabral, N. Chan, R. Lazkoz and R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 083003 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.083003 \[arXiv:0911.3089 \[gr-qc\]\].
J. Dutta, W. Khyllep and E. Syiemlieh, Eur. Phys. J. Plus [**131**]{}, no. 2, 33 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjp/i2016-16033-7 \[arXiv:1602.03329 \[gr-qc\]\].
R. García-Salcedo, T. Gonzalez, F. A. Horta-Rangel, I. Quiros and D. Sanchez-Guzmán, Eur. J. Phys. [**36**]{}, no. 2, 025008 (2015) doi:10.1088/0143-0807/36/2/025008 \[arXiv:1501.04851 \[gr-qc\]\].
C. G. Boehmer and N. Chan, arXiv:1409.5585 \[gr-qc\].
J. Wainwright and G. F. R. Ellis, [*Dynamical systems in cosmology*]{}, Cambridge University Press (1997).
A.A. Coley, [*Dynamical systems and cosmology*]{}, Astrophysics and space science library, 291, Kluwer Academic Publishers (2003).
N. Roy and N. Banerjee, Eur. Phys. J. Plus [**129**]{}, 162 (2014) doi:10.1140/epjp/i2014-14162-7 \[arXiv:1402.6821 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. Paliathanasis, M. Tsamparlis, S. Basilakos and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, no. 12, 123535 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.123535 \[arXiv:1503.05750 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. Alho and C. Uggla, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, no. 10, 103502 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.103502 \[arXiv:1505.06903 \[gr-qc\]\].
R. G. Landim and F. F. Bernardi, arXiv:1607.03506 \[gr-qc\].
N. Tamanini, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 083521 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.083521 \[arXiv:1401.6339 \[gr-qc\]\].
J. Dutta, W. Khyllep and N. Tamanini, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 6, 063004 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.063004 \[arXiv:1602.06113 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. Cid, G. Leon and Y. Leyva, JCAP [**1602**]{}, no. 02, 027 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/02/027 \[arXiv:1506.00186 \[gr-qc\]\].
I. Quiros, R. García-Salcedo, T. Gonzalez and F. A. Horta-Rangel, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, no. 4, 044055 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.044055 \[arXiv:1506.05420 \[gr-qc\]\].
R. García-Salcedo, T. González and I. Quiros, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, no. 12, 124056 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.124056 \[arXiv:1504.08315 \[gr-qc\]\].
A. Alho, S. Carloni and C. Uggla, arXiv:1607.05715 \[gr-qc\].
N. Tamanini and C. G. Boehmer, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, no. 8, 084031 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.084031 \[arXiv:1302.2355 \[gr-qc\]\].
S. Carloni, T. Koivisto and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, no. 6, 064035 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.064035 \[arXiv:1507.04306 \[gr-qc\]\].
Y. F. Cai, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis and E. N. Saridakis, arXiv:1511.07586 \[gr-qc\].
N. Roy and N. Banerjee, Annals Phys. [**356**]{}, 452 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2015.03.013 \[arXiv:1411.1164 \[gr-qc\]\].
N. Banerjee and N. Roy, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**47**]{}, no. 8, 92 (2015). doi:10.1007/s10714-015-1933-1
D. Escobar, C. R. Fadragas, G. Leon and Y. Leyva, Astrophys. Space Sci. [**349**]{}, 575 (2014) doi:10.1007/s10509-013-1650-8 \[arXiv:1301.2570 \[gr-qc\]\].
J. Dutta and H. Zonunmawia, Eur. Phys. J. Plus [**130**]{}, no. 11 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjp/i2015-15221-3 \[arXiv:1601.00283 \[gr-qc\]\].
R. C. G. Landim, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**24**]{}, no. 11, 1550085 (2015) doi:10.1142/S0218271815500856 \[arXiv:1505.03243 \[hep-th\]\].
R. C. G. Landim, Eur. Phys. J. C [**76**]{}, no. 1, 31 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3894-2 \[arXiv:1507.00902 \[gr-qc\]\].
W. Fang, Y. Li, K. Zhang and H. Q. Lu, Class. Quant. Grav. [**26**]{} (2009) 155005 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/26/15/155005 \[arXiv:0810.4193 \[hep-th\]\].
Y. Leyva, D. Gonzalez, T. Gonzalez, T. Matos and I. Quiros, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 044026 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.044026 \[arXiv:0909.0281 \[gr-qc\]\].
D. Escobar, C. R. Fadragas, G. Leon and Y. Leyva, Class. Quant. Grav. [**29**]{}, 175005 (2012) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/17/175005 \[arXiv:1110.1736 \[gr-qc\]\].
D. Escobar, C. R. Fadragas, G. Leon and Y. Leyva, Class. Quant. Grav. [**29**]{}, 175006 (2012) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/17/175006 \[arXiv:1201.5672 \[gr-qc\]\].
I. Quiros, T. Gonzalez, D. Gonzalez and Y. Napoles, Class. Quant. Grav. [**27**]{}, 215021 (2010) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/21/215021 \[arXiv:0906.2617 \[gr-qc\]\].
W. Fang and H. Q. Lu, Eur. Phys. J. C [**68**]{}, 567 (2010) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1352-0 \[arXiv:1007.2330 \[hep-th\]\].
H. Farajollahi, A. Salehi, F. Tayebi and A. Ravanpak, JCAP [**1105**]{}, 017 (2011) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2011/05/017 \[arXiv:1105.4045 \[gr-qc\]\].
G. Leon, Y. Leyva and J. Socorro, Phys. Lett. B [**732**]{}, 285 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.03.053 \[arXiv:1208.0061\].
K. Xiao and J. Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 083501 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.083501 \[arXiv:1102.2695 \[gr-qc\]\].
S. Wiggins, *Introduction to Applied Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Chaos*. (Springer, New York Heidelberg Berlin, 1990).
L. Perko, *Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems*. (SpringerVerlag, 1991).
N. Tamanini, [*Dynamical systems in dark energy models*]{}, PhD thesis, University College London (2014).
C. G. Boehmer, N. Chan and R. Lazkoz, Phys. Lett. B [**714**]{} (2012) 11 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.06.064 \[arXiv:1111.6247 \[gr-qc\]\].
N. Roy and N. Banerjee, Annals Phys. [**356**]{} (2015) 452. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2015.03.013
A. D. Miller [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**524**]{}, L1 (1999) doi:10.1086/312293 \[astro-ph/9906421\].
A. de la Macorra and G. Piccinelli, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 123503 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.123503 \[hep-ph/9909459\].
S. C. C. Ng, N. J. Nunes and F. Rosati, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{} (2001) 083510 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.083510 \[astro-ph/0107321\].
S. Y. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B [**660**]{} (2008) 7 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.12.020 \[arXiv:0705.1577 \[astro-ph\]\].
T. Matos, J. R. Luevano, I. Quiros, L. A. Urena-Lopez and J. A. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 123521 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.123521 \[arXiv:0906.0396 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
L. A. Urena-Lopez, JCAP [**1203**]{} (2012) 035 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/03/035 \[arXiv:1108.4712 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
J. D. Barrow and P. Parsons, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{} (1995) 5576 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.5576 \[astro-ph/9506049\]. P. Parsons and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{} (1995) 6757 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.6757 \[astro-ph/9501086\].
R. Lazkoz, G. Leon and I. Quiros, Phys. Lett. B [**649**]{} (2007) 103 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.03.060 \[astro-ph/0701353\].
A. Nunes and J. P. Mimoso, Phys. Lett. B [**488**]{} (2000) 423 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00919-9 \[gr-qc/0008003\].
V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**9**]{}, 373 (2000) doi:10.1142/S0218271800000542 \[astro-ph/9904398\].
N. Roy and N. Banerjee, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**46**]{} (2014) 1651 doi:10.1007/s10714-013-1651-5 \[arXiv:1312.2670 \[gr-qc\]\].
I. Zlatev, L. M. Wang and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 896 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.896 \[astro-ph/9807002\].
[^1]: [email protected], [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Given N relativistic scalar free particles described by N mass-shell first class constraints in their 8N-dimensional phase space, their N-time description is obtained by means of a series of canonical transformations to a quasi-Shanmugadhasan basis adapted to the constraints. Then the same system is reformulated on spacelike hypersurfaces: the restriction to the family of hyperplanes orthogonal to the total timelike momentum gives rise to a covariant intrinsic 1-time formulation called the “rest-frame instant form" of dynamics. The relation between the N- and 1-time descriptions, the mass spectrum of the system and the way how to introduce mutual interactions among the particles are studied. Then the 1-time description of the isolated system of N charged scalar particles plus the electromagnetic field is obtained. The use of Grassmann variables to describe the charges together with the determination of the field and particle Dirac observables leads to a formulation without infinite self-energies and with mutual Coulomb interactions extracted from classical electromagnetic field theory. A comparison with the Feshbach-Villars Hamiltonian formulation of the Klein-Gordon equation is made. Finally a 1-time covariant formulation of relativistic statistical mechanics is found.
1truecm November 1995 1truecm This work has been partially supported by the network “Constrained Dynamical Systems" of the E.U. Programme “Human Capital and Mobility".
address: |
Sezione INFN di Firenze\
L.go E.Fermi 2 (Arcetri)\
50125 Firenze, Italy\
e-mail [email protected]
author:
- Luca Lusanna
title: 'The N- and 1-time Classical Descriptions of N-body Relativistic Kinematics and the Electromagnetic Interaction'
---
Introduction
============
Relevant physical models are described by singular Lagrangians, so that their Hamiltonian formulation is based on the Dirac theory of constraints[@diraca]. The qualitative aspects of this theory are now understood[@lusa], in particular the role of the Shanmugadhasan canonical transformation[@shan] in the determination of a canonical basis of Dirac’s observables allowing the elimination of gauge degrees of freedom from the classical description of physical systems[@lusb]. This programme was initiated by Dirac[@diracb] for the electromagnetic field with charged fermions. More recently, Dirac’s observables for Yang-Mills theory with fermions (whose typical application is QCD) have been found[@lusc] in suitable function spaces in which the Gribov ambiguity is absent. Also the ones for the Abelian Higgs model are known[@lusd] and those for the $SU(2)
\times U(1)$ electroweak theory with fermions can be found[@luse] with the same method that works for the Abelian case. The main task along these lines will now be the search of Dirac’s observables for tetrad gravity in the case of asymptotically flat 3-manifolds.
The price for having only physical degrees of freedom is the nonlocal (and in general nonpolynomial) nature of the physical Hamiltonians and Lagrangians, as already known from Dirac’s work on the electromagnetic field[@diracb], for which the origin of the difficulties is the Coulomb self-interaction of the fermion fields. Two obstacles appear immediately: 1) the lack of manifest Lorentz covariance of the Hamiltonian formalism, which requires the choice of a 3+1 splitting of Minkowski spacetime; 2) the inapplicability of the standard methods of regularization and renormalization due to the nonlocality (and nonpolynomiality) of the interactions and the failure of the power counting rule.
In Ref.[@lush], I reviewed these problems and I pointed out that the Lorentz covariance problem can be solved by reformulating the theory on spacelike hypersurfaces[@diraca] (see also Ref.[@lusc]) and then reducing it to the hyperplanes orthogonal to the total momentum $p^{\mu}$ (for the configurations in which it is timelike, $p^2 > 0$; see Ref.[@ku] for a general study of the embeddings of spacelike hypersurfaces in a given Riemannian spacetime). In this way, the breaking of Lorentz covariance is reduced to a minimum: only the three degrees of freedom that describe the canonical centre of mass 3-position of the overall isolated system are not covariant. In Ref.[@lush], it is also stressed that only one tool has until now emerged for attacking the difficult task of quantizing a nonlocal (and generically nonpolynomial) theory. Namely, the problem of the center-of-mass extended relativistic systems in irreducible representations of the Poincaré group with $P^2 > 0$, $W^2=-P^2{\vec {\bar S}}^2\not= 0$ (they are dense in the set of all allowed field configurations) identifies a finite worldtube of noncovariance of the canonical center of mass, whose radius $\rho =\sqrt{-W^2}
/P^2=|\, {\vec {\bar S}}\, |\, /\sqrt{P^2}$ represents a classical intrinsic unit of length that can be used as a ultraviolet cutoff at the quantum level in the spirit of Dirac and Yukawa. As noted in Ref.\[6\], the distances corresponding to the interior of the worldtube are connected with problems coming from both quantum theory and general relativity: 1) pair production occurs if an attempt is made to localize particles at these distances; 2) relativistic extended bodies with a material radius less than $\rho$ cannot have the classical energy density positive definite everywhere in every reference frame, and the peripheral rotation velocity may be higher than the velocity of light. Therefore, the worldtube is the flat remnant of the energy conditions of general relativity; in this theory, the radius $\rho$ is defined in terms of the asymptotic Poincaré group that exists in the case of asymptotically flat 3-manifolds.
In this way, one has perceives the possibility of formulating a “rest-frame field theory" on these special hyperplanes[@lush], in which the ultraviolet cutoff just identified could be used in a constructive way. The asymptotic states of this theory should be connected with the description of free particles on these hyperplanes. But this implies that the phase space description of the particles involves only 6 degrees of freedom per particle, that there is an 1-time description (“rest-frame instant form" of the dynamics in the language of Ref.[@diracc], the time parameter being the rest frame time, which describes the foliation of Minkowski spacetime with these hyperplanes), and that there is no room left for relative times and energies, which are precisely the variables connected with the spurious solutions of the Bethe-Salpeter equation[@saz] for relativistic bound states in ordinary quantum field theory. Actually, the standard Fock space describes asymptotic states defined as tensor products of free one-particle states without any restriction on their mutual temporal ordering (an in-particle may be in the absolute future of another in-particle): the classical background is an N-time description of N free particles, each one of which has 8 degrees of freedom and an associated mass-shell first class constraint (connected with the inverse of the standard propagators).
Therefore, in Ref.[@lush] there was a review of the problems of relativistic particle mechanics, especially the two main ones: i) the No-Interaction Theorem[@nit; @nita] (see Ref.[@chel] for a review), which turns out to be also present in Galilean mechanics[@pons] and to be connected with the use of an N-time description; ii) the many definitions of relativistic center-of-mass position (see Ref.[@com] for a review), since the Lorentz signature of Minkowski spacetime precludes the existence of an object with all the properties of the nonrelativistic center-of-mass.
Behind all these descriptions there is the theory of the irreducible representations of the canonical realizations of the Poincaré group[@pp] in given phase spaces.
In this paper, I will consider N free relativistic scalar particles, and I will study their description both in the N-time approach (following jointly Ref. [@lusf] and the complete analysis of the N=2 case in Ref.[@longhi]) and in the 1-time approach, which was developed in Ref.[@karp] for completely different reasons. While the N-time theory identifies a set of variables that makes it possible to disentangle the relative times and energies from the relevant variables, the 1-time theory allows the identification of the branches of the mass spectrum of the N-body isolated system. Then the two descriptions are compared, and it is found that the final physically relevant variables are the same in the two approaches and that they also seem to be the best relativistic kinematical variables (carrying the knowledge of the geometry of the timelike Poincaré orbits) for the study of interactions.
In Section II, there is a study of the canonical transformations needed to find a quasi-Shanmugadhasan canonical basis adapted to the N-1 combinations of the original first class constraints that define the vanishing of the relevant N-1 relative energies. Due to the nonlinearity of the final canonical transformation, it is not known how to find the mass spectrum and the inverse of the transformation.
In Section III, the system is reformulated on spacelike hypersurfaces, on which each particle is now identified only by three coordinates. After the identification of the first class constraints, the reduction to the special intrinsic family of spacelike hyperplanes orthogonal to the total four-momentum, when it is timelike, is studied. The 1-time covariant rest-frame instant form of dynamics is identified.
In Section IV, the N- and 1- time descriptions are compared, and the mass spectrum is found.
In Section V, there is a study of the mass spectrum in the N-time theory. Then action-at-a-distance interactions are introduced among the particles in the 1-time theory with a comment on their separability.
In Section VI, the isolated system of N charged scalar particles plus the electromagnetic field is formulated on spacelike hypersurfaces and then reduced to the hyperplanes orthogonal to the total timelike four-momentum. The charges of the particles are described in a pseudoclassical way by means of Grassmann variables. The Dirac observables of the particles and of the electromagnetic field with respect to electromagnetic gauge transformations are found. The final resulting four first class constraints contain the interparticle Coulomb potential (extracted covariantly from the classical electromagnetic field theory) but not the classical electromagnetic self-energy due to the vanishing of the square of the Grassmann charges: the underlying hypothesis of charge quantization generates a regularization of the pseudoclassical description.
In Section VII, the 1-time theory of one charged scalar particle plus the electromagnetic field is compared with the Feshbach-Villars Hamiltonian formulation of the Klein-Gordon equation in an external electromagnetic field.
InSection VIII, after a review of the main problems of covariant relativistic statistical mechanics, its reformulation in the 1-time theory is given.
The Conclusions IX contain some final remarks and the outline of future research.
In Appendix A, there is a review of the properties of the standard Wigner boost for timelike Poincaré orbits. In Appendix B, the formulas for the case N=2 are reviewed. In Appendix C, some notation in the description with spacelike hypersurfaces is given.
The N-time Theory
=================
A system of N free scalar relativistic particles is usually described in phase space by 8N variables $x^{\mu}_i,\, p^{\mu}_i,$ i=1,..,N, $\lbrace
x^{\mu}_i,p^{\nu}_j\rbrace =-\delta_{ij}\eta^{\mu\nu}$ \[$\eta^{\mu\nu}=
(1,-1,-1,-1)$\] restricted by N first class constraints \[to start with, we assume arbitrary masses $m_i$ for the particles\]
$$\phi_i =p^2_i-m^2_i \approx 0,\quad\quad
\lbrace \phi_i,\phi_j\rbrace =0.
\label{1}$$
The evolution in a scalar parameter $\tau$ is described by the Dirac Hamiltonian
$$H_D=\sum_{i=1}^N\lambda_i(\tau )\, \phi_i,
\label{2}$$
where $\lambda_i(\tau )$ are Dirac’s multipliers. This description is obtained by starting from the Lagrangian
$${\cal L}=- \sum_{i=1}^N m_i\sqrt{ {\dot x}^2_i(\tau ) },
\label{3}$$
whose associated canonical momenta are
$$p^{\mu}_i=- { {\partial {\cal L}}\over {\partial {\dot x}_{i\mu}} }=
m_i\, { {{\dot x}^{\mu}_i}\over {\sqrt{{\dot x}^2_i}} }.
\label{4}$$
Therefore, the configuration position variables, describing the worldlines of the particles, are $q^{\mu}_i(\tau )=x^{\mu}_i(\tau )$. An alternative N-time Hamiltonian description is the multi-time one [@lusb], in which the N scalar time parameters $\tau_i$ are defined by $d\tau_i=\lambda_i(\tau )
d\tau$. In this description one has $q^{\mu}_i(\tau_i)=x^{\mu}_i(\tau_i)$, $\lbrace x^{\mu}_i(\tau_i),p^{\nu}_j(\tau_j)\rbrace
=-\delta_{ij}\eta^{\mu\nu}$, and the first class constraints $\phi_i\approx 0$ are the Hamiltonians for the evolution in the $\tau_i$’s \[${ {\partial A(x_k,p_k)}\over {\partial
\tau_i} }{\buildrel \circ \over =}\lbrace A,\phi_i\rbrace$ are the many-time Hamilton equations and $\lbrace \phi_i,\phi_j\rbrace =0$ are their integrability conditions; ${\buildrel \circ \over =}$ means evaluated on the solutions of the equations of motion\]. The Lagrangian description derives from the action $S=\sum_{i=1}^N\int d\tau_i\, {\cal L}_i$ with ${\cal L}_i=-
m_i\, \sqrt{{\dot x}^2_i(\tau_i)}$.
Let us remark that in presence of interactions, the No-Interaction-Theorem [@nit; @nita] implies $q^{\mu}_i(\tau_i)\not= x^{\mu}_i(\tau_1,..,\tau_N)$. As shown in Ref.[@pons] (see also Ref.[@lush]), this result is also present at the nonrelativistic level: it is not connected with the Lorentz signature but with the many-time description. If the particles are charged, the minimal coupling to an external electromagnetic field requires the canonical covariant coordinates $x^{\mu}_i$’s and not the configuration $q^{\mu}_i$’s, which describe the particle worldlines: therefore the electric charges cannot be localized on the worldlines in the interacting case.
In Ref.[@lusf], a study of the kinematics of N relativistic free scalar particles was started with a double aim. Firstly, the spurious solutions of the Bethe-Salpeter equation[@saz] stimulated a search for nonlinear canonical transformation replacing N-1 linear combinations of the first class constraints $\phi_i\approx 0$ with suitable“relative energy variables". Secondly, it was investigated how to introduce action-at-a-distance interactions while preserving the first class nature of the constraints (only nonseparable interactions were found).
Subsequently, for the case N=2 with $p^2 > 0$ \[$p^{\mu}=\sum_{i=1}^Np^{\mu}_i$ is the total momentum\] suitable canonical variables adapted to the timelike orbits of the Poincaré group were found. Then, in Ref.[@seplon], a study of the N=3 case was initiated, with the aim of understanding how to describe separable action-at-a-distance interactions.
Collecting all these results and simplifying the notation, we start with the canonical tranformation from the basis $x^{\mu}_i, p^{\mu}_i$, i=1,..,N, to a first set of linear center-of-mass and relative variables \[a=1,..,N-1\]
$$\begin{minipage}[t]{1cm}
\begin{tabular}{|l|} \hline
$x^{\mu}_i$ \\
$p^{\mu}_i$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage} \ {\longrightarrow \hspace{.2cm}} \
\begin{minipage}[t]{2 cm}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|} \hline
$x^{\mu}$ & $p^{\mu}$ \\ \hline
$R^{\mu}_a$ & $Q^{\mu}_a$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\label{5}$$
defined by
$$\begin{aligned}
&x^{\mu}={1\over \sqrt{N}}\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_ix^{\mu}_i,\quad\quad
&\lbrace x^{\mu},p^{\nu}\rbrace =-\eta^{\mu\nu}\nonumber \\
&p^{\mu}=\sum_{i=1}^Np^{\mu}_i,\quad\quad\quad\quad &{}\nonumber \\
&R^{\mu}_a=\sqrt{N} \sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}x^{\mu}_i,\quad\quad
&\lbrace R^{\mu}_a,Q^{\nu}_b\rbrace =-\delta_{ab}\eta^{\mu\nu}\nonumber \\
&Q^{\mu}_a={1\over \sqrt{N}}\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}p^{\mu}_i,
\quad\quad &{},
\label{6}\end{aligned}$$
where ${\hat {\vec \gamma}}$, ${\hat {\vec \gamma}}_a$ is a basis of orthogonal unit vectors satisfying
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_i=\sqrt{N},\quad\quad\quad \sum_{i=1}^N{\hat
\gamma}_{ai}=0,\nonumber \\
&&\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_i{\hat \gamma}_{ai}=0,\quad\quad\quad \sum_{i=1}^N
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}=\delta_{ab},\nonumber \\
&&{\hat \gamma}_i{\hat \gamma}_j+\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\hat
\gamma}
_{aj}=\delta_{ij}.
\label{7}\end{aligned}$$
From now on, we shall choose ${\hat \gamma}_i=1/\sqrt{N}$, i=1,..,N, so that we have
$$x^{\mu}={1\over N}\sum_{i=1}^Nx^{\mu}_i,\quad\quad\quad \sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\hat \gamma}_{aj}=\delta_{ij}-{1\over N}.
\label{8}$$
Here $x^{\mu}$ is a canonical covariant center-of-mass coordinate, which however does not have free motion, since ${\dot x}^{\mu}=\lbrace x^{\mu},H_D\rbrace =-
{2\over N}\sum_{i=1}^N\lambda_i(\tau )p^{\mu}_i/\sqrt{p^2_i}\not=
\lambda (\tau )p^{\mu}/\eta \sqrt{p^2}=\lambda (\tau )u^{\mu}(p)$ \[$\lambda
(\tau )=\sqrt{{\dot x}^2}$; $\eta =sign\, p^o$\]; it moves with a “classical zitterbewegung" that depends on the choice of the arbitrary Dirac multipliers $\lambda_i(\tau )$ (it is a gauge effect).
The inverse canonical transformation is
$$\begin{aligned}
&&x^{\mu}_i=x^{\mu}+{1\over {\sqrt{N}} }\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}
R^{\mu}_a\nonumber \\
&&p^{\mu}_i={1\over N}p^{\mu}+\sqrt{N}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}Q^{\mu}
_a.
\label{9}\end{aligned}$$
The conserved Poincaré generators are
$$\begin{aligned}
&&p^{\mu}=\sum_{i=1}^N p^{\mu}_i\nonumber \\
&&J^{\mu\nu}=\sum_{i=1}^N(x^{\mu}_ip^{\nu}_i-x^{\nu}_ip^{\mu}_i)=L^{\mu\nu}+
S^{\mu\nu}\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&L^{\mu\nu}=x^{\mu}p^{\nu}-x^{\nu}p^{\mu}\nonumber \\
&&S^{\mu\nu}=\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}(R^{\mu}_aQ^{\nu}_a-R^{\nu}_aQ^{\mu}_a).
\label{10}\end{aligned}$$
The isolated system of N particles is assumed to belong to an irreducible timelike representation of the Poincaré group with Casimirs $p^2 > 0$ and $W^2=-p^2{\vec {\bar S}}^2$ \[$W^{\mu}={1\over 2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}
p_{\nu}S_{\alpha\beta}$ is the Pauli-Lubanski fourvector ($\epsilon_{0123}
=1$, $\epsilon^{ijk}=\epsilon_{ijk}$); ${\vec {\bar S}}$ is the rest-frame Thomas spin (see later on)\].
Note that $L^{\mu\nu}$ and $S^{\mu\nu}$ are not separately constants of the motion due to the “classical zitterbewegung of $x^{\mu}$" (which is an analogue of the zitterbewegung associated with the Dirac position operator for the electron).
Extending the results of Ref.[@longhi] for N=2 to arbitrary N (see Appendix A for the notation), one defines the following further canonical transformation
$$\begin{minipage}[t]{2cm}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|} \hline
$x^{\mu}$ & $p^{\mu}$ \\ \hline
$R^{\mu}_a$ & $Q^{\mu}_a{}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage} \ {\longrightarrow \hspace{.2cm}} \
\begin{minipage}[t]{3cm}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|l|} \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c}{${\tilde x}^{\mu}$} & { $p^{\mu}$} \\ \hline
{} & {} & $T_{Ra}$ \\
${\vec \rho}_a$ & ${\vec \pi}_a$ & {} \\
{} & {} & $\epsilon_{Ra}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\label{11}$$
$$\lbrace {\tilde x}^{\mu},p^{\nu}\rbrace =-\eta^{\mu\nu},\quad
\lbrace T_{Ra},\epsilon_{Rb}\rbrace =-\delta_{ab},\quad
\lbrace \rho^i_a,\pi^j_b\rbrace =\delta_{ab}\delta^{ij},
\label{12}$$
with (one has $p_{\mu}{\tilde x}^{\mu}=p_{\mu}x^{\mu}$)
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\tilde x}^{\mu}=x^{\mu}+{1\over 2}\, \epsilon^A_{\nu}(u(p))\eta_{AB}
{ {\partial \epsilon^B_{\rho}(u(p))}\over {\partial p_{\mu}} }\, S^{\nu\rho}
=\nonumber \\
&&=x^{\mu}-{ 1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}(p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2})} }\, [p_{\nu}
S^{\nu\mu}+\eta \sqrt{p^2} (S^{o\mu}-S^{o\nu}{ {p_{\nu}p^{\mu}}\over {p^2} })]
\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&p^{\mu}=p^{\mu}\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&T_{Ra}=\epsilon^o_{\mu}(u(p))R^{\mu}_a={ {p\cdot R_a}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}}
}
\nonumber \\
&&\epsilon_{Ra}=\epsilon^o_{\mu}(u(p))Q^{\mu}_a=
{ {p\cdot Q_a}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }\nonumber \\
&&\rho^r_a=\epsilon^r_{\mu}(u(p))R^{\mu}_a=
R^r_a-{ {p^r}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }
(R^o_a-{ {{\vec p}\cdot {{\vec R}_a} }\over {p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} })
\nonumber \\
&&\pi^r_a=\epsilon^r_{\mu}(u(p))Q^{\mu}_a=Q^r_a-{ {p^r}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}}
}
(Q^o_a-{ {{\vec p}\cdot {{\vec Q}_a} }\over {p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }),
\label{13}\end{aligned}$$
where Eqs.(\[A10\]) and (\[A11\]) have been used to evaluate ${\tilde x}^{\mu}$.
As shown in Ref.[@longhi] and in Appendix A, the canonical transformation of Eqs.(\[13\]) is defined by boosting at rest the relative variables $R^{\mu}_a$, $Q^{\mu}_a$ with the standard Wigner boost $L^A{}_{\mu}
(\stackrel{\circ}{p},p)=\epsilon^A_{\mu}(u(p))$ of Eqs.(\[A2\]), (\[A3\]) for timelike orbits $p^2 > 0$. In Eq.(\[11\]), $T_{Ra}=\epsilon^{\bar o}_{\mu}(u(p))R^{\mu}_a$ and $\epsilon_{Ra}=
\epsilon^{\bar o}_{\mu}(u(p))Q^{\mu}_a$ are Poincaré-scalar relative times and energies, respectively; $\rho^r_a=\epsilon^r_{\mu}(u(p))R^{\mu}_a$ and $\pi^r_a=\epsilon^r_{\mu}(u(p))Q^{\mu}_a$ are, respectively, relative three-coordinates and three-momenta, which transform as Wigner spin-1 3-vectors. It turns out that the new canonical center-of-mass coordinate ${\tilde x}^{\mu}$ is not a fourvector under Lorentz boosts (it has only Euclidean covariance), so that it cannot define a geometrical center-of-mass worldline, but only a frame-dependent line (pseudo-worldline).
The Lorentz generators become
$$\begin{aligned}
&&J^{\mu\nu}={\tilde L}^{\mu\nu}+{\tilde S}^{\mu\nu}\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&{\tilde L}^{\mu\nu}={\tilde x}^{\mu}p^{\nu}-{\tilde x}^{\nu}p^{\mu}
\nonumber \\
&&{\tilde S}^{\mu\nu}=S^{\mu\nu}-{1\over 2}\epsilon^A_{\rho}(u(p))\eta_{AB}
({ {\partial \epsilon^B_{\sigma}(u(p))}\over {\partial p_{\mu}} }\, p^{\nu}-
{ {\partial \epsilon^B_{\sigma}(u(p))}\over {\partial p_{\nu}} }\, p^{\mu})
S^{\rho\sigma}=\nonumber \\
&&=S^{\mu\nu}+{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}(p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2})} } [p_{\beta}
(S^{\beta\mu}p^{\nu}-S^{\beta\nu}p^{\mu})+\eta \sqrt{p^2}(S^{o\mu}p^{\nu}-
S^{o\nu}p^{\mu})]\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&{\tilde S}^{oi}=-{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }[(p^o-\eta \sqrt{p^2})S^{oi}+
{ {p^k(S^{ko}p^i-S^{ki}p^o)}\over {p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }]\nonumber \\
&&{\tilde S}^{ij}=S^{ij}+{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }(S^{oi}p^j-S^{oj}p^i)-
{ {p^k(S^{ki}p^j-S^{kj}p^i)}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}(p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2})} }.
\label{14}\end{aligned}$$
If we introduce the rest-frame spin tensor (the last line gives the Thomas spin)
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\bar S}^{AB}=\epsilon^A_{\mu}(u(p))\epsilon^B_{\nu}(u(p))S^{\mu\nu}
\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&{\bar S}^{\bar or}=\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}(T_{Ra}\pi^r_a-\rho^r_a\epsilon_{Ra})
\nonumber \\
&&{\bar S}^{rs}=\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}(\rho^r_a\pi^s_a-\rho^s_a\pi^r_a)\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&{\bar S}^r={1\over 2}\epsilon^{rst}{\bar S}^{st}=\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\bar
S}^r_a,
\quad\quad {\vec {\bar S}}_a={\vec \rho}_a\times {\vec \pi}_a
\label{15}\end{aligned}$$
we find the following form of the Poincaré generators
$$\begin{aligned}
&&J^{ij}={\tilde x}^ip^j-{\tilde x}^jp^i+\delta^{ir}
\delta^{js}{\bar S}^{rs}\nonumber \\
&&J^{oi}={\tilde x}^op^i-{\tilde x}^ip^o- { {\delta^{ir}{\bar S}^{rs}p^s}\over
{p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }.
\label{16}\end{aligned}$$
and the following form of ${\tilde x}^{\mu}$
$$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde x}^{\mu}&=&x^{\mu}-{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }[\eta^{\mu}_A({\bar S}
^{\bar oA}-{ {{\bar S}^{Ar}p^r}\over {p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} })+
{ {p^{\mu}+2\eta \sqrt{p^2}\eta^{\mu o}}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}(p^o+\eta
\sqrt{p^2})} } {\bar S}^{\bar or}p^r]\nonumber \\
{}&{}&{}\nonumber \\
&{\tilde x}^o&=x^o-{1\over {p^2} }\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}(T_{Ra}\vec p\cdot {\vec \pi}
_a-\epsilon_{Ra}\vec p\cdot {\vec \rho}_a)\nonumber \\
&{\tilde x}^i&=x^i-{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}[T_{Ra}\pi^i_a-
\epsilon_{Ra}\rho^i_a-\nonumber \\
&-&{ {\rho^i_a\vec p\cdot {\vec \pi}_a-\pi^i_a\vec p\cdot{\vec \rho}_a}\over
{p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }+{ {p^i(T_{Ra}\vec p\cdot {\vec \pi}_a-\epsilon_{Ra}
\vec p\cdot {\vec \rho}_a)}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}(p^o+\eta
\sqrt{p^2})} }].
\label{17}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\tilde S}^{ij}=\delta^{ir}\delta^{js}{\bar S}^{rs}\nonumber \\
&&{\tilde S}^{oi}=-{ {\delta^{ir}{\bar S}^{rs}p^s}
\over {p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&{\tilde {\bar S}}^{AB}=\epsilon^A_{\mu}(u(p))\epsilon^B_{\nu}(u(p)){\tilde
S}^{\mu\nu}=\nonumber \\
&&={\bar S}^{AB}-{1\over 2}\eta \sqrt{p^2}(\epsilon^A_{\mu}(u(p))\eta^B_o-
\epsilon^B_{\mu}(u(p))\eta^A_o){ {\partial \epsilon^E_{\sigma}(u(p))}\over
{\partial p_{\mu}} }\epsilon^{\sigma}_D(u(p))\eta_{EC} {\bar S}^{CD}=
\nonumber \\
&&={\bar S}^{AB}.
\label{18}\end{aligned}$$
The inverse canonical transformation is
$$\begin{aligned}
x^o&=&{\tilde x}^o+{1\over {p^2}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}(T_{Ra}\vec p\cdot {\vec \pi}
_a-\epsilon_{Ra}\vec p\cdot {\vec \rho}_a)\nonumber \\
\vec x&=&{\vec {\tilde x}}+{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}(T_{Ra}
{\vec \pi}_a-\epsilon_{Ra}{\vec \rho}_a)+\nonumber \\
&+&{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}(p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2})} }\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}[\vec p
\cdot {\vec \rho}_a {\vec \pi}_a-\vec p\cdot {\vec \pi}_a{\vec \rho}_a+
{ {\vec p}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }(T_{Ra}\vec p\cdot {\vec \pi}_a-
\epsilon_{Ra}\vec p\cdot {\vec \rho}_a)]\nonumber \\
R^o_a&=&{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }(T_{Ra}p^o+\vec p\cdot {\vec \rho}_a)
\nonumber \\
{\vec R}_a&=&{\vec \rho}_a+{ {\vec p}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }(T_{Ra}+
{ {\vec p\cdot {\vec \rho}_a}\over {p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} })\nonumber \\
Q^o_a&=&{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }(\epsilon_{Ra}p^o+\vec p\cdot {\vec \pi}_a)
\nonumber \\
{\vec Q}_a&=&{\vec \pi}_a+{ {\vec p}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }(\epsilon_{Ra}+
{ {\vec p\cdot {\vec \pi}_a}\over {p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} })
\label{19}\end{aligned}$$
and the original variables $x^{\mu}_i$, $p^{\mu}_i$ have the following form in this new canonical basis:
$$\begin{aligned}
x^o_i&=&{\tilde x}^o+{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}[{1\over
{\sqrt{N}} }{\hat \gamma}_{ai}(T_{Ra}p^o+\vec p\cdot {\vec \rho}_a)+
{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}}}(T_{Ra}\vec p\cdot {\vec \pi}_a-\epsilon_{Ra}
\vec p\cdot {\vec \rho}_a)]\nonumber \\
{\vec x}_i&=&{\vec {\tilde x}}+{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
[T_{Ra}{\vec \pi}_a-\epsilon_{Ra}{\vec \rho}_a)+{ {\vec p\cdot {\vec \rho}_a
{\vec \pi}_a-\vec p\cdot {\vec \pi}_a{\vec \rho}_a}\over {p^o+\eta
\sqrt{p^2}} }+\nonumber \\
&+& {{\vec p}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }{ {T_{Ra}\vec p\cdot {\vec \pi}_a-
\epsilon_{Ra}\vec p\cdot {\vec \rho}_a}\over {p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }]+
{1\over {\sqrt{N}} }\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}[{\vec \rho}_a+{{\vec p}
\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }(T_{Ra}+{ {\vec p\cdot {\vec \rho}_a}\over {p^o+
\eta \sqrt{p^2}} })]\nonumber \\
p^o_i&=&{{p^o}\over N}+{{\sqrt{N}}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}(p^o\epsilon_{Ra}+\vec p\cdot {\vec \pi}_a)\nonumber \\
{\vec p}_i&=&{{\vec p}\over N}+\sqrt{N}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}
[{\vec \pi}_a+{{\vec p}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }(\epsilon_{Ra}+ { {\vec p\cdot
{\vec \pi}_a}\over {p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} })].
\label{20}\end{aligned}$$
As shown in Ref.[@longhi], it is then convenient to perform the following canonical transformation
$$\begin{minipage}[t]{3cm}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|l|} \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c}{${\tilde x}^{\mu}$} & {$p^{\mu}$} \\ \hline
{} & {} & $T_{Ra}$ \\
${\vec \rho}_a$ & ${\vec \pi}_a$ & {} \\
{} & {} & $\epsilon_{Ra}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage} \ {\longrightarrow \hspace{.2cm}} \
\begin{minipage}[t]{3cm}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|l|} \hline
{} & {} & T \\
$\vec z$ & $\vec k$ & {} \\
{} & {} & $\epsilon$ \\ \hline
{} & {} & $T_{Ra}$ \\
${\vec \rho}_a$ & ${\vec \pi}_a$ & {} \\
{} & {} & $\epsilon_{Ra}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\label{21}$$
defined by
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\epsilon =\eta \sqrt{p^2} \nonumber \\
&&T={{p\cdot {\tilde x}}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }={{p\cdot x}\over {\eta
\sqrt{p^2}} }=u(p)\cdot x \nonumber \\
&&\vec k=\vec u(p)={{\vec p}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} },\quad k^o=u^o(p)=\sqrt{1+
{\vec k}^2}\nonumber \\
&&\vec z={\eta \sqrt{p^2}}({\vec {\tilde x}}-{{\vec p}\over {p^o}}{\tilde x}^o)
\nonumber \\
&&{} \nonumber \\
&&\lbrace z^i,k^j\rbrace =\delta^{ij}, \quad\quad \lbrace T,\epsilon \rbrace
=-1.
\label{22}\end{aligned}$$
Its inverse is
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\tilde x}^o=\sqrt{1+{\vec k}^2}(T+{{\vec k\cdot \vec z}\over {\epsilon}})
\nonumber \\
&&{\vec {\tilde x}}={{\vec z}\over {\epsilon}}+(T+{{\vec k\cdot \vec z}\over
{\epsilon}})\, \vec k\nonumber \\
&&p^o=\epsilon \sqrt{1+{\vec k}^2}\nonumber \\
&&\vec p=\epsilon \vec k,
\label{23}\end{aligned}$$
and the form of the Poincaré generators is now
$$\begin{aligned}
&&p^{\mu}=\epsilon k^{\mu}\nonumber \\
&&J^{ij}=z^ik^j-z^jk^i+\delta^{ir}\delta^{js}{\bar S}^{rs}\nonumber \\
&&J^{oi}=-z^ik^o+{{\delta^{ir}{\bar S}^{rs}p^s}\over {\epsilon (1+\sqrt{1+
{\vec k}^2})} },\quad\quad J^{io}=-J^{oi}.
\label{24}\end{aligned}$$
Here T is the Lorentz-scalar rest-frame time and $\epsilon$ is the invariant mass of the isolated system of N particles. Actually, Eqs.(\[21\]) define as many canonical transformations as there are disjoint branches of the mass spectrum (half with $\eta =sign\, p^0 > 0$ and half with $\eta < 0$). All the noncovariance of ${\tilde x}^{\mu}$ has been shifted to the 3-vector $\vec z$ \[it has the Euclidean covariance (see Appendix A) of the kinematical stability subgroup of the Poincaré group of timelike orbits\]. The noncovariance of ${\tilde x}^{\mu}$ and $\vec z$ is a consequence of, also in the free case, the Lorentz signature of Minkowski spacetime and of the geometry of timelike Poincaré orbits, when one uses the associated instant form of dynamics according to Dirac[@diracc]. In contrast to what is often said, it is not due to the relativistic version of the No-Interaction-Theorem: until it was recognized that this theorem is independent of the Lorentz signature[@pons], it was difficult to separate this phenomenon from the complications of relativistic kinematics. In the canonical subspace $\vec z,
\vec k$ (treated independently from the canonical pair $T, \epsilon$, whose presence is due to the covariant description with first class constraints) one has $\vec z=\eta \sqrt{p^2} \vec \kappa$, where the canonical noncovariant three-coordinate $\vec \kappa =-\vec K/p^o+{\vec {\bar S}}
\times \vec p/p^o(p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2})$ \[from Eq.(\[24\]) with $K^i=J^{oi}$\] can be shown to depend only on the Poincaré generators (see the theory of the canonical realizations of the Poincaré group[@pp] as a special case of the canonical realizations of Lie groups[@ppp]), to be the classical basis of the Newton-Wigner three-position operator[@nw], and to have free motion without classical zitterbewegung[@pauri] (the problem of classical zitterbewegung will be clarified in Ref.[@luc]). While these results were obtained in the standard instant form of dynamics $x^o=const.$, now they are recovered (in terms of $\vec z$) in a covariant version of the instant form, the “rest-frame instant form $T=const.$". The vector $\vec z$ describes the Jacobi data for the center-of-mass three-variable in this rest-frame instant form and $J^{\mu\nu}$ in Eqs.(\[24\]) is split in two terms that are separately constants of the motion; in this respect, ${\tilde x}^{\mu}$ has all the properties, except covariance, of the Foldy-Wouthuysen mean position for the electron[@fw] (see also Ref.[@pauri], where a covariant canonical zitterbewegung-free ${\check
x}^{\mu}$ is shown to exist for certain pole-dipole systems, though no statement is made about extended systems). As shown in Ref.[@pauri; @lusc; @lush], there are other two notions of center of mass that can be build solely in terms of the Poincaré generators, coincide with $\vec \kappa$ in the rest frame and have the same three-velocity of $\vec \kappa$. In the instant form $x^o=const.$, they are the Fokker center of inertia[@fok] $\vec Y$ and the Moeller center of energy[@moll] $\vec R$; in the rest-frame instant form $T=
const.$ they become $\eta \sqrt{p^2}\vec Y$ and $\eta \sqrt{p^2}\vec R$, respectively. The vector $\vec Y$ is covariant but not canonical ($\lbrace Y^i,Y^j\rbrace
\not= 0$), while $\vec R$ is neither covariant nor canonical. Since in the rest frame $\vec \kappa =\vec Y=\vec R$, in every frame the Fokker center of inertia describes by construction the worldline obtained by applying to the rest-frame $\vec \kappa$ the Lorentz transformation appropriate for going from the rest frame to the given frame. In contrast, $\vec R$ is defined by replacing the masses $m_i$ in the Newtonian center of mass by the energies $p^o_i$. Both $\vec \kappa$ and $\vec R$ define in every frame a pseudo-worldline; if we draw all these pseudo-worldlines in a given reference frame, we get[@pauri; @moll] a worldtube around the worldline of the Fokker center of inertia, whose scalar intrinsic radius $\rho$[@moll] is determined by the Poincaré Casimirs for timelike orbits with spin
$$\rho ={{\sqrt{-W^2}}\over {p^2}}={{|\, {\vec {\bar S}}\, |}\over {\sqrt{p^2}}
}.
\label{25}$$
See Refs.[@lusc; @lush] for the remarkable properties of the worldtube and for the proposal to use $\rho$ as a ultraviolet cutoff.
It should be remarked that the definitions of $\vec \kappa , \vec Y, \vec R$ are naturally given in phase space. Even in the free case ($q^{\mu}_i=x^{\mu}_i$), their definitions in configuration space in terms of the $q^{\mu}_i$’s are very involved, being velocity-dependent. This is the reason why the Newtonian definition $\vec x=\sum_{i=1}^Nm_i{\vec q}_i/\sum_{i=1}^Nm_i$ in configuration space does not extend trivially to the relativistic case.
However the canonical variables of Eqs.(\[21\]), (\[22\]) are not the final ones adapted to the first class constraints of Eq.(\[1\]). This can be seen by replacing those constraints with the following linear combinations
$$\begin{aligned}
\chi &=&N\sum_{i=1}^N\phi_i=p^2-N\sum_{i=1}^N[m^2_i-N\sum_{b,c=1}^{N-1}{\hat
\gamma}_{bi}{\hat \gamma}_{ci}Q_c\cdot Q_c]=\nonumber \\
&=&p^2-N(\sum_{i=1}^N\, m^2_i-N\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}Q_b^2)=\epsilon^2-N[\sum_{i=1}^N
\, m^2_i-N\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}(\epsilon^2_{Rb}-{\vec \pi}_b^2)]\approx 0
\nonumber \\
\chi_a&=&{{\sqrt{N}}\over 2}\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\phi_i=p\cdot Q_a-
{{\sqrt{N}}\over 2}\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}[m^2_i-N\sum_{b,c=1}^{N-1}
{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\hat \gamma}_{ci}Q_c\cdot Q_c]=\nonumber \\
&=&p_{\mu}[Q^{\mu}_a-{{\sqrt{N}}\over 2}{{p^{\mu}}\over {p^2}}\sum_{i=1}^N
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}(m^2_i-N\sum_{b,c=1}^{N-1}
{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\hat \gamma}_{ci}Q_c\cdot Q_c)]=\nonumber \\
&=&\epsilon \epsilon_{Ra}-{{\sqrt{N}}\over 2}\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}
[m^2_i-N\sum_{b,c=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\hat \gamma}_{ci}(\epsilon_{Rb}
\epsilon_{Rc}-{\vec \pi}_b\cdot {\vec \pi}_c)]=\epsilon {\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}
\approx 0\nonumber \\
&{}&\nonumber \\
\phi_i&=&{1\over {N^2}}\chi +{2\over {\sqrt{N}} }\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}
_{ai}\chi_a ={1\over {N^2}}\chi +{{2\epsilon}\over {\sqrt{N}} }\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}\approx 0,
\label{26}\end{aligned}$$
where ${\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}$ will be explicitly defined in Eqs. (\[31\]) later on.
We see that the N-1 constraints $\chi_a\approx 0$ do not determine the $\epsilon_{Ra}$ directly, but they form a system of N-1 quadratic algebraic equations for them. With the constraint $\chi \approx 0$ we obtain a system of N equations for $\epsilon$ and the $\epsilon_{Ra}$’s. By substitution we could arrive at a single ($\epsilon$-dependent) equation for each $\epsilon_{Ra}$ of order $2^{N-1}$; therefore, in general there will be $2^{N-1}$ sets of different solutions for the $\epsilon_{Ra}$’s, a=1,..,N-1. Each one of these sets of solutions, substituted into $\chi \approx 0$, should give the equation for the spectrum of the invariant mass $\epsilon$ of the isolated system of N particles in terms of $m^2_i$ and ${\vec \pi}_b\cdot {\vec \pi}_c$. Since each free particle has two disjoint branches of its mass spectrum ($\eta_i\sqrt{p^2_i}\approx \pm m_i$), the whole system will have $2^N$ disjoint branches for $\epsilon$ ($2^{N-1}$ for $p^2=\epsilon^2$); $2^N$ is a topological number, namely, the dimension of the zeroth homoty group of the mass-spectrum hypersurface in phase space. Even in the free case, these branches are not known because of the difficulty of solving the nonlinear equations for the $\epsilon_{Ra}$’s.
By defining $H_D=\lambda (\tau )\chi +\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}\lambda_a(\tau )\chi_a$, one sees that the splittings $J^{\mu\nu}=L^{\mu\nu}+S^{\mu\nu}={\tilde L}
^{\mu\nu}+{\tilde S}^{\mu\nu}$ do not define separate constants of the motion $L^{\mu\nu}, S^{\mu\nu}$ or ${\tilde L}^{\mu\nu}, {\tilde S}^{\mu\nu}$; only Eqs.(\[24\]) split $J^{\mu\nu}$ into a pair of constants of the motion.
In any case, Eqs.(\[26\]) suggest the following nonlinear (point in the momenta) canonical transformation[@lusf] of the canonical variables of Eqs.(\[5\])
$$\begin{minipage}[t]{2cm}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|} \hline
$x^{\mu}$ & $p^{\mu}$ \\ \hline
$R^{\mu}_a$ & $Q^{\mu}_a{}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage} \ {\longrightarrow \hspace{.2cm}} \
\begin{minipage}[t]{2cm}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|} \hline
${\hat x}^{\mu}$ & $p^{\mu}$ \\ \hline
${\hat R}^{\mu}_a$ & ${\hat Q}^{\mu}_a{}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\label{27}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
{\hat x}^{\mu}&=&x^{\mu}+{N\over {2p^2}}(\eta^{\mu\nu}-{{2p^{\mu}p^{\nu}}\over
{p^2}})\sum_{i=1}^N(m^2_i-N\sum_{u,v=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ui}{\hat \gamma}
_{vi}Q_u\cdot Q_v)\times \nonumber \\
&\times&[{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}
R_{a\nu}-\nonumber \\
&-&\sum_{b,c=1}^{N-1}p\cdot R_bQ_{c\nu}\sum_{j=1}^N{ {(N\delta_{ij}-1){\hat
\gamma}_{cj}}\over {p^2+N\sqrt{N}\sum_{d=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{dj}p\cdot
Q_d} }\times \nonumber \\
&\times&({\hat \gamma}_{bj}+
{ {\sum_{k=1}^N
{ {{\hat \gamma}_{bk}\sum_{u=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{uk}p\cdot Q_u}\over
{p^2+N\sqrt{N}\sum_{v=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{vk}p\cdot Q_v} }
}\over
{\sum_{h=1}^N
{ {\sum_{u=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{uh}p\cdot Q_u}\over
{p^2+N\sqrt{N}\sum_{v=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{vh}p\cdot Q_v} } } })]=
\nonumber \\
&=&x^{\mu}+{N\over {2\epsilon^2}}\sum_{i=1}^N[m^2_i-N\sum_{u,v=1}^{N-1}{\hat
\gamma}_{ui}{\hat \gamma}_{vi}(\epsilon_{Ru}\epsilon_{Rv}-{\vec \pi}_u\cdot
{\vec \pi}_v)]\times \nonumber \\
&\times&[{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}
(\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p))\rho^r_a-u^{\mu}(p)T_{Ra})-\nonumber \\
&-&\sum_{b,c=1}^{N-1}T_{Rb}(\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p))\pi^r_a-u^{\mu}(p)\epsilon
_{Ra})\sum_{j=1}^N { {(N\delta_{ij}-1){\hat \gamma}_{cj}}\over
{\epsilon +N\sqrt{N}\sum_{d=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{dj}\epsilon_{Rd}} }\times
\nonumber \\
&\times& ({\hat \gamma}_{bj}+
{ {\sum_{k=1}^N
{ {{\hat \gamma}_{bk}\sum_{u=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{uk}\epsilon_{Ru}}\over
{\epsilon +N\sqrt{N}\sum_{v=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{vk}\epsilon_{Rv}} }
}\over
{\sum_{h=1}^N
{ {\sum_{u=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{uh}\epsilon_{Ru}}\over
{\epsilon +N\sqrt{N}\sum_{v=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{vh}\epsilon_{Rv}} } }
}
)]\nonumber \\
p^{\mu}&=&p^{\mu}\nonumber \\
{\hat R}^{\mu}_a&=&R^{\mu}_a-n\sqrt{N}\sum_{b,c=1}^{N-1}p\cdot R_bQ^{\mu}_c
\sum_{i=1}^N{ {{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\hat \gamma}_{ci}}\over {p^2+N\sqrt{N}
\sum_{d=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{di}p\cdot Q_d} }\times \nonumber \\
&\times& ({\hat \gamma}_{bi}+
{ {\sum_{k=1}^N
{ {{\hat \gamma}_{bk}\sum_{u=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{uk}p\cdot Q_u}\over
{p^2+N\sqrt{N}\sum_{v=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{vk}p\cdot Q_v} }
}\over
{\sum_{h=1}^N
{ {\sum_{u=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{uh}p\cdot Q_u}\over
{p^2+N\sqrt{N}\sum_{v=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{vh}p\cdot Q_v} } } })]=
\nonumber \\
&=&R^{\mu}_a-n\sqrt{N}\sum_{b,c=1}^{N-1}T_{Rb}Q^{\mu}_c\sum_{i=1}^N
{ {{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\hat \gamma}_{ci}}\over {\epsilon +N\sqrt{N}\sum_{d=1}
^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{di}\epsilon_{Rd}} }\times \nonumber \\
&\times&({\hat \gamma}_{bi}+
{ {\sum_{k=1}^N
{ {{\hat \gamma}_{bk}\sum_{u=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{uk}\epsilon_{Ru}}\over
{\epsilon +N\sqrt{N}\sum_{v=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{vk}\epsilon_{Rv}} }
}\over
{\sum_{h=1}^N
{ {\sum_{u=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{uh}\epsilon_{Ru}}\over
{\epsilon +N\sqrt{N}\sum_{v=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{vh}\epsilon_{Rv}} } }
}
)]\nonumber \\
{\hat Q}^{\mu}_a&=&Q^{\mu}_a-{{\sqrt{N}}\over 2}{{p^{\mu}}\over
{p^2}}\sum_{i=1}
^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}(m^2_i-N\sum_{b,c=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\hat \gamma}
_{ci}Q_b\cdot Q_c)=\nonumber \\
&=&Q^{\mu}_a-{{\sqrt{N}}\over 2}{{p^{\mu}}\over {p^2}}\sum_{i=1}
^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}[m^2_i-N\sum_{b,c=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\hat \gamma}
_{ci}(\epsilon_{Rb}\epsilon_{Rc}-{\vec \pi}_b\cdot {\vec \pi}_c)].
\label{28}\end{aligned}$$
We now have \[it can be checked that eqs.(\[10\]) are reproduced by inserting ${\hat x}^{\mu}$, ${\hat R}^{\mu}_a$, ${\hat Q}^{\mu}_a$ from Eqs.(\[28\])\]
$$\begin{aligned}
J^{\mu\nu}&=&{\hat L}^{\mu\nu}+{\hat S}^{\mu\nu}\nonumber \\
&&{\hat L}^{\mu\nu}={\hat x}^{\mu}p^{\nu}-{\hat x}^{\nu}p^{\mu}\nonumber \\
&&{\hat S}^{\mu\nu}=\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}({\hat R}^{\mu}_a{\hat Q}^{\nu}_a-{\hat R}
^{\nu}_a{\hat Q}^{\mu}_a).
\label{29}\end{aligned}$$
The subsequent canonical transformation
$$\begin{minipage}[t]{2cm}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|} \hline
${\hat x}^{\mu}$ & $p^{\mu}$ \\ \hline
${\hat R}^{\mu}_a$ & ${\hat Q}^{\mu}_a{}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage} \ {\longrightarrow \hspace{.2cm}} \
\begin{minipage}[t]{3cm}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|l|} \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c}{${\hat {\tilde x}}^{\mu}$} & { $p^{\mu}$} \\ \hline
{} & {} & ${\hat T}_{Ra}$ \\
${\hat {\vec \rho}}_a$ & ${\hat {\vec \pi}}_a$ & {} \\
{} & {} & ${\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\label{30}$$
defines the following analogues of the variables of Eqs.(\[13\])
$$\begin{aligned}
{\hat {\tilde x}}^{\mu}&=&{\hat x}^{\mu}+{1\over 2}\, \epsilon^A_{\nu}(u(p))
\eta_{AB}{ {\partial \epsilon^B_{\rho}(u(p))}\over {\partial p_{\mu}} }\,
{\hat S}^{\nu\rho}=\nonumber \\
&=&{\hat x}^{\mu}-{ 1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}(p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2})} }\, [p_{\nu}
{\hat S}^{\nu\mu}+\eta \sqrt{p^2} ({\hat S}^{o\mu}-{\hat S}^{o\nu}
{ {p_{\nu}p^{\mu}}\over {p^2} })]\nonumber \\
p^{\mu}&=&p^{\mu}\nonumber \\
{\hat T}_{Ra}&=&{ {p\cdot {\hat R}_a}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }=T_{Ra}-N\sqrt{N}
\epsilon \sum_{b,c=1}^{N-1}T_{Rb}\epsilon_{Rc}\times \nonumber \\
&\times& \sum_{i=1}^N
{ {{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\hat \gamma}_{ci}}\over {\epsilon +N\sqrt{N}\sum_{d=1}
^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{di}\epsilon_{Rd}} }
({\hat \gamma}_{bi}+
{ {\sum_{k=1}^N
{ {{\hat \gamma}_{bk}\sum_{u=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{uk}\epsilon_{Ru}}\over
{\epsilon +N\sqrt{N}\sum_{v=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{vk}\epsilon_{Rv}} }
}\over
{\sum_{h=1}^N
{ {\sum_{u=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{uh}\epsilon_{Ru}}\over
{\epsilon +N\sqrt{N}\sum_{v=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{vh}\epsilon_{Rv}} } }
}
)]\nonumber \\
{\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}&=&{{p\cdot {\hat Q}_a}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}}}={1\over
{\epsilon}}\chi_a=\nonumber \\
&=&{1\over {\epsilon}}[\epsilon \epsilon_{Ra}-{{\sqrt{N}}\over 2}\sum_{i=1}^N
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}(m^2_i-N\sum_{b,c=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}
{\hat \gamma}_{ci}[\epsilon_{Rb}\epsilon_{Rc}-{\vec \pi}_b\cdot {\vec \pi}_c])]
\approx 0\nonumber \\
{\hat {\vec \rho}}_a&=&{\vec \rho}_a-N\sqrt{N}\sum_{b,c=1}^{N-1}T_{Rb}{\vec
\pi}
_c\times \nonumber \\
&\times& \sum_{i=1}^N
{ {{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\hat \gamma}_{ci}}\over {\epsilon +N\sqrt{N}\sum_{d=1}
^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{di}\epsilon_{Rd}} }
({\hat \gamma}_{bi}+
{ {\sum_{k=1}^N
{ {{\hat \gamma}_{bk}\sum_{u=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{uk}\epsilon_{Ru}}\over
{\epsilon +N\sqrt{N}\sum_{v=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{vk}\epsilon_{Rv}} }
}\over
{\sum_{h=1}^N
{ {\sum_{u=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{uh}\epsilon_{Ru}}\over
{\epsilon +N\sqrt{N}\sum_{v=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{vh}\epsilon_{Rv}} } }
}
)]\nonumber \\
{\hat {\vec \pi}}_a&=&{\vec \pi}_a.
\label{31}\end{aligned}$$
We now have
$$\begin{aligned}
J^{\mu\nu}&=&{\hat {\tilde L}}^{\mu\nu}+{\hat {\tilde S}}^{\mu\nu}\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\tilde L}}^{\mu\nu}={\hat {\tilde x}}^{\mu}p^{\nu}-{\hat {\tilde x}}
^{\nu}p^{\mu}\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\tilde S}}^{\mu\nu}={\hat S}^{\mu\nu}-{1\over
2}\epsilon^A_{\rho}(u(p))
\eta_{AB}({ {\partial \epsilon^B_{\sigma}(u(p))}\over {\partial p_{\mu}} }\,
p^{\nu}-{ {\partial \epsilon^B_{\sigma}(u(p))}\over {\partial p_{\nu}} }\,
p^{\mu}){\hat S}^{\rho\sigma}=\nonumber \\
&&={\hat S}^{\mu\nu}+{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}(p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2})} }
[p_{\beta}
({\hat S}^{\beta\mu}p^{\nu}-{\hat S}^{\beta\nu}p^{\mu})+\eta \sqrt{p^2}
({\hat S}^{o\mu}p^{\nu}-{\hat S}^{o\nu}p^{\mu})]\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\tilde S}}^{oi}=-{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }[(p^o-\eta \sqrt{p^2})
{\hat S}^{oi}+{ {p^k({\hat S}^{ko}p^i-{\hat S}^{ki}p^o)}\over
{p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }]\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\tilde S}}^{ij}={\hat S}^{ij}+{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }({\hat S}
^{oi}p^j-{\hat S}^{oj}p^i)-{ {p^k({\hat S}^{ki}p^j-{\hat S}^{kj}p^i)}\over
{\eta \sqrt{p^2}(p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2})} }\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\bar S}}^{AB}=\epsilon^A_{\mu}(u(p))\epsilon^B_{\nu}(u(p)){\hat S}
^{\mu\nu}\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\bar S}}^{\bar or}=\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}({\hat T}_{Ra}\pi^r_a-
{\hat \rho}^r_a{\hat \epsilon}_{Ra})\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\bar S}}^{rs}=\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}({\hat \rho}^r_a\pi^s_a-
{\hat \rho}^s_a\pi^r_a)\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\bar S}}^r={1\over 2}\epsilon^{rst}{\hat {\bar S}}^{st}=\sum_{a=1}
^{N-1}{\hat {\bar S}}^r_a,
\quad\quad {\hat {\vec {\bar S}}}_a={\hat {\vec \rho}}_a\times {\vec \pi}_a
\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\tilde x}}^{\mu}={\hat x}^{\mu}-{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }[\eta^{\mu}
_A({\hat {\bar S}}^{\bar oA}-{ {{\hat {\bar S}}^{Ar}p^r}\over {p^o+\eta
\sqrt{p^2}} })+{ {p^{\mu}+2\eta \sqrt{p^2}\eta^{\mu o}}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}
(p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2})} } {\hat {\bar S}}^{\bar or}p^r].
\label{32}\end{aligned}$$
Note that if we put $T_{Ra}=0$, a=1,..,N-1, then we get
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\hat T}_{Ra}=0,\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\vec \rho}}_a={\vec \rho}_a,\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\bar S}}^i={\bar S}^i,\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\bar S}}^{\bar or}=-\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}\rho^r_a{\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}
\approx 0,\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\tilde x}}^{\mu}\approx {\hat x}^{\mu}+{ {\eta^{\mu}_s{\hat {\bar S}}
^{sr}p^r}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}(p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2})} },\nonumber \\
&&p\cdot {\hat {\tilde x}}=p\cdot {\hat x}=p\cdot x.
\label{33}\end{aligned}$$
The final canonical transformation, the analogue of Eq.(\[21\]), is
$$\begin{minipage}[t]{3cm}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|l|} \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c}{${\hat {\tilde x}}^{\mu}$} & {$p^{\mu}$} \\ \hline
{} & {} & ${\hat T}_{Ra}$ \\
${\hat {\vec \rho}}_a$ & ${\vec \pi}_a$ & {} \\
{} & {} & ${\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage} \ {\longrightarrow \hspace{.2cm}} \
\begin{minipage}[t]{3cm}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|l|} \hline
{} & {} & ${\hat T}$ \\
${\hat {\vec z}}$ & $\vec k$ & {} \\
{} & {} & $\epsilon$ \\ \hline
{} & {} & ${\hat T}_{Ra}$ \\
${\hat {\vec \rho}}_a$ & ${\vec \pi}_a$ & {} \\
{} & {} & ${\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\label{34}$$
with
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\hat T={{p\cdot {\hat {\tilde x}}}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}}}={{p\cdot {\hat x}}
\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}}}\nonumber \\
&&\epsilon =\eta \sqrt{p^2}\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\vec z}}=\eta \sqrt{p^2}({\hat {\vec {\tilde x}}}-{{\vec p}\over
{p^o}}{\hat {\tilde x}}^o)\nonumber \\
&&\vec k={{\vec p}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}}}.
\label{35}\end{aligned}$$
The canonical basis of Eqs.(\[34\]) is a quasi-Shanmugadhasan basis because the N-1 relative energy variables vanish if the constraints $\chi_a
\approx 0$ are used; therefore, it seems suitable for the description of interactions, which yield relativistic bound states without relative energy excitations at the quantum level. Only the mass-spectrum constraint is not contained in the basis, because it describes $2^N$ disjoint branches
$$\epsilon -\lambda_A(m_i, {\vec
\pi}_a\cdot {\vec \pi}_b)\approx 0,\quad\quad A=1,..,2^N.
\label{36}$$
Therefore, in the free case one could define $2^N$ Shanmugadhasan canonical transformations containing also the variables $\epsilon -\lambda_A$; this is also possible for all Liouville integrable interactions. Moreover, Eqs.(\[34\]) are adapted to the Poincaré Casimir $p^2=\epsilon^2$, single out a rest-frame time $\hat T$ as the natural time parameter, and show that the relative times ${\hat T}_{Ra}$ are gauge variables: namely, it is a freedom of the observer whether to describe the N particles with a 1-time theory (for instance by adding the gauge-fixings ${\hat T}_{Ra}=0$) or with an N-time theory \[or even with an F-time one with $1 < F < N$\].
The only problem with the canonical transformation (\[31\]) is that to get its explicit inversion one has to solve the system of equations
$$\begin{aligned}
{{N\sqrt{N}}\over 2}\sum_{b,c=1}^{N-1}(\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}
{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\hat \gamma}_{ci}&)&\epsilon_{Rb}\epsilon_{Rc}+
\epsilon \epsilon_{Ra}-\epsilon {\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}-\nonumber \\
&-&{{\sqrt{N}}\over 2}\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}[m^2_i+N\sum_{b,c=1}
^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\hat \gamma}_{ci}{\vec \pi}_b\cdot {\vec \pi}_c]=0,
\label{37}\end{aligned}$$
in order to obtain the old variables $\epsilon_{Ra}$ in terms of the new ${\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}$ and the kinetic terms ${\vec \pi}_b\cdot {\vec \pi}
_c$. For ${\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}$, this is the same set of equations discussed previously, whose solution is needed also to determine the branches of the mass spectrum. So far, the inversion is known only for N=2[@longhi; @lusf], as can be checked in Appendix B. Actually, it turns out that one should solve Eqs.(\[37\]) together with the first of Eqs.(\[26\]),
$\chi=\epsilon^2-N[\sum_{i=1}^N
\, m^2_i-N\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}(\epsilon^2_{Rb}-{\vec \pi}_b^2)]\approx 0,$
which determines the mass specturm, as a system of N equations in the N variables $\epsilon$, $\epsilon_{Ra}$, a=1,..,N.
Equations (\[37\]) are still untractable even if we restrict ourselves to a rest-frame 1-time theory by adding the gauge-fixings $T_{Ra}\approx 0$, which imply ${\hat T}_{Ra}\approx 0$ and all the results of Eqs.(\[33\]), so that one can eliminate the N-1 pairs of second class constraints ${\hat T}_{Ra}\approx 0$, ${\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}
\approx 0$ by going to Dirac brackets.
We shall see in the next Section that there is an approach to the 1-time theory that allows us to find the $2^N$ branches of the mass spectrum and the $2^{N-1}$ solutions of Eqs.(\[37\]).
The 1-time Theory
=================
Since in the case of a charged scalar particle interacting with the electromagnetic field it is not clear how, in the absence of a covariant notion of equal times, to evaluate the Poisson bracket of the particle mass-spectrum constraint ${(p(\tau )-eA(x(\tau )))}^2-m^2
\approx 0$ and of the field primary constraint $\pi^o(\vec z,z^o)\approx 0$, this system was reformulated in Ref.[@karp] on spacelike hypersurfaces following Dirac’s approach to parametrized field theory[@diraca]. To describe the intersection of a particle worldline with $\Sigma (\tau )$, only three coordinates $\vec
\sigma =\vec \eta (\tau )$ are needed and not four, since the time variable is the parameter $\tau$ labelling the hypersurfaces of the family. But this implies a covariant solution of the constraint $p^2-m^2\approx 0$ and a choice of the sign $\eta =sign\, p^o$. For N free particles, one obtains a 1-time description for every choice of $\eta_i=sign\, p_i^o$ with particle coordinates ${\vec \eta}_i(\tau )$ and with $x^{\mu}_i(\tau )=
z^{\mu}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))$ describing the i-th particle worldline \[so that ${\dot x}^{\mu}_i(\tau )=z^{\mu}_{\tau}(\tau , {\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))+
z^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )){\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau
)$\]; moreover, $sign\, {\dot x}^o_i(\tau )=\eta_i$. See Appendix C for the notations.
As shown in Ref.[@karp], the system is described by the action
$$\begin{aligned}
S&=& \int d\tau d^3\sigma \, {\cal L}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )=\int d\tau L(\tau )\nonumber \\
&&{\cal L}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=-\sum_{i=1}^N\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i
(\tau ))\eta_im_i\sqrt{ g_{\tau\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+2g_{\tau {\check r}}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma ){\dot \eta}^{\check r}_i(\tau )+g_{{\check r}{\check s}}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma ){\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau ){\dot \eta}_i^{\check s}
(\tau ) }\nonumber \\
&&L(\tau )=-\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_im_i\sqrt{ g_{\tau\tau}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i
(\tau ))+2g_{\tau {\check r}}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )){\dot \eta}^{\check r}
_i(\tau )+g_{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )){\dot \eta}_i
^{\check r}(\tau ){\dot \eta}_i^{\check s}(\tau ) },
\label{38}\end{aligned}$$
where the configuration variables are $z^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ and ${\vec \eta}_i(\tau )$, i=1,..,N. The action is invariant under separate $\tau$- and $\vec \sigma$-reparametrizations.
The canonical momenta are
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&=&-{ {\partial {\cal L}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )}
\over {\partial z^{\mu}_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )} }=\sum_{i=1}^N\delta^3
(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))\eta_im_i\nonumber \\
&&{ {z_{\tau\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+z_{{\check r}\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
{\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau )}\over {\sqrt{g_{\tau\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+
2g_{\tau {\check r}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ){\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau )+
g_{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ){\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau
){\dot
\eta}_i^{\check s}(\tau ) }} }=\nonumber \\
&=&[(\rho_{\nu}l^{\nu})l_{\mu}+(\rho_{\nu}z^{\nu}_{\check r})\gamma^{{\check r}
{\check s}}z_{{\check s}\mu}](\tau ,\vec \sigma )\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
\kappa_{i{\check r}}(\tau )&=&-{ {\partial L(\tau )}\over {\partial {\dot
\eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau )} }=\nonumber \\
&=&\eta_im_i{ {g_{\tau {\check r}}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))+g_{{\check r}
{\check s}}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )){\dot \eta}_i^{\check s}(\tau )}\over
{ \sqrt{g_{\tau\tau}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))+
2g_{\tau {\check r}}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )){\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau
)+
g_{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )){\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}
(\tau ){\dot \eta}_i^{\check s}(\tau ) }} },
\label{39}\end{aligned}$$
and the following Poisson brackets are assumed
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\lbrace z^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),\rho_{\nu}(\tau ,{\vec \sigma}^{'}\rbrace
=-\eta^{\mu}_{\nu}\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \sigma}^{'})\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace \eta^{\check r}_i(\tau ),\kappa_j^{\check s}(\tau )\rbrace =
\delta_{ij}\delta^{{\check r}{\check s}}.
\label{40}\end{aligned}$$
From Eqs.(\[39\]) one obtains the following four primary constraints by using Eqs.(\[C4\]), (\[C5\])
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&=& \rho_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-l_{\mu}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\sum_{i=1}^N\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))
\eta_i\sqrt{ m^2_i-\gamma^{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
\kappa_{i{\check r}}(\tau )\kappa_{i{\check s}}(\tau ) }-\nonumber \\
&-&z_{{\check r}\mu}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\gamma^{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
\sum_{i=1}^N\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))\kappa_{i{\check s}}
\approx 0,
\label{41}\end{aligned}$$
which satisfy
$$\lbrace {\cal H}_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),{\cal H}_{\nu}(\tau ,{\vec \sigma}
^{'})\rbrace =0.
\label{42}$$
Since the canonical Hamiltonian vanishes, one has the Dirac Hamiltonian \[$\lambda^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ are Dirac’s multipliers\]
$$H_D=\int d^3\sigma \lambda^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ){\cal H}_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma ),
\label{43}$$
and one finds that $\lbrace {\cal H}_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),H_D
\rbrace =0$. Therefore, there are only the four first class constraints of Eq.(\[41\]). The constraints ${\cal H}_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx 0$ describe the arbitrariness of the foliation: physical results do not depend on its choice.
The conserved Poincaré generators are (the suffix “s" denotes the hypersurface $\Sigma (\tau )$)
$$\begin{aligned}
&&p^{\mu}_s=\int d^3\sigma \rho^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\nonumber \\
&&J_s^{\mu\nu}=\int d^3\sigma [z^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\rho^{\nu}(\tau ,
\vec \sigma )-z^{\nu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\rho^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )],
\label{44}\end{aligned}$$
and one has
$$\lbrace z^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),p^{\nu}_s\rbrace =-\eta^{\mu}_{\nu}
\label{45}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\int d^3\sigma {\cal H}_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&=& p_s^{\mu}-\sum_{i=1}^N
l^{\mu}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))\eta_i \sqrt{ m^2_i-\gamma^{{\check
r}{\check
s}}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))\kappa_{i{\check r}}(\tau )\kappa_{i{\check s}}
(\tau ) }-\nonumber \\
&-&\sum_{i=1}^Nz^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))\gamma^{{\check
r}{\check s}}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))\kappa_{i{\check s}}(\tau )
\approx 0.
\label{46}\end{aligned}$$
Let us now restrict ourselves to spacelike hyperplanes $\Sigma_H(\tau )$ by imposing the gauge-fixings
$$\begin{aligned}
\zeta^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&=&z^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-x_s^{\mu}(\tau )-
b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )\sigma^{\check r}\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace \zeta^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),{\cal H}_{\nu}(\tau ,{\vec \sigma}
^{'})\rbrace =-\eta^{\mu}_{\nu}\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \sigma}^{'}),
\label{47}\end{aligned}$$
where $b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )$, ${\check r}=1,2,3$, are three orthonormal vectors such that the constant (future pointing) normal to the hyperplane is
$$l^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx l^{\mu}=b^{\mu}_{\tau}=\epsilon^{\mu}
{}_{\alpha\beta\gamma}b^{\alpha}_{\check 1}(\tau )b^{\beta}_{\check 2}(\tau )
b^{\gamma}_{\check 3}(\tau ).
\label{48}$$
Therefore, we get
$$\begin{aligned}
&&z^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )
\nonumber \\
&&z^{\mu}_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx {\dot x}^{\mu}_s(\tau )+{\dot
b}^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )\sigma^{\check r}\nonumber \\
&&g_{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx -\delta_{{\check
r}{\check s}},\quad\quad \gamma^{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
\approx -\delta^{{\check r}{\check s}},\quad\quad \gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )
\approx 1.
\label{49}\end{aligned}$$
By introducing the Dirac brackets for the resulting second class constraints
$$\lbrace A,B\rbrace {}^{*}=\lbrace A,B\rbrace -\int d^3\sigma [\lbrace A,\zeta
^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\rbrace \lbrace {\cal H}_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),
B\rbrace -\lbrace A,{\cal H}_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\rbrace \lbrace \zeta
^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),B\rbrace ],
\label{50}$$
one finds by using Eq.(\[45\])
$$\lbrace x_s^{\mu}(\tau ),p^{\nu}_s(\tau )\rbrace {}^{*}=-\eta^{\mu\nu}.
\label{51}$$
The ten degrees of freedom describing the hyperplane are $x^{\mu}_s(\tau )$ with conjugate momentum $p^{\mu}_s$ and six variables $\phi_{\lambda}(\tau )$, $\lambda =1,..,6$, which parametrize the orthonormal tetrad $b^{\mu}_{\check A}
(\tau )$, with their conjugate momenta $T_{\lambda}(\tau )$.
The preservation in time of the gauge-fixings $\zeta^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
\approx 0$ implies
$${d\over {d\tau}}\zeta^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=\lbrace \zeta^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma ),H_D\rbrace =-\lambda^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-{\dot x}^{\mu}_s(\tau
)-{\dot b}^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )\sigma^{\check r}\approx 0,
\label{52}$$
so that one has \[by using ${\dot b}^{\mu}_{\tau}=0$ and ${\dot b}
^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )b^{\nu}_{\check r}(\tau )=-b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )
{\dot b}^{\nu}_{\check r}(\tau )$\]
$$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&\approx&{\tilde \lambda}^{\mu}(\tau )+
{\tilde \lambda}^{\mu}{}_{\nu}(\tau )b^{\nu}_{\check r}(\tau )
\sigma^{\check r}\nonumber \\
&&{\tilde \lambda}^{\mu}(\tau )=-{\dot x}^{\mu}_s(\tau )\nonumber \\
&&{\tilde \lambda}^{\mu\nu}(\tau )=-{\tilde \lambda}^{\nu\mu}(\tau )={1\over 2}
[{\dot b}^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )b^{\nu}_{\check r}(\tau )-b^{\mu}_{\check r}
(\tau ){\dot b}^{\nu}_{\check r}(\tau )].
\label{53}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore the Dirac Hamiltonian becomes
$$H_D={\tilde \lambda}^{\mu}(\tau ){\tilde {\cal H}}_{\mu}(\tau )-{1\over 2}
{\tilde \lambda}^{\mu\nu}(\tau ){\tilde {\cal H}}_{\mu\nu}(\tau ),
\label{54}$$
and only the following ten first class constraints are left
$$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu}(\tau )&=&\int d^3\sigma {\cal H}^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )=\, p^{\mu}_s-l^{\mu}\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\sqrt{m^2_i+{\vec \kappa}^2_i
(\tau )}+b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )\sum_{i=1}^N\kappa_{i{\check r}}(\tau )
\approx 0,\nonumber \\
{\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu\nu}(\tau )&=&b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )\int d^3\sigma
\sigma^{\check r}\, {\cal H}^{\nu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-b^{\nu}_{\check r}(\tau
)
\int d^3\sigma \sigma^{\check r}\, {\cal H}^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=
\nonumber \\
&=&S_s^{\mu\nu}(\tau )-[b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )b^{\nu}_{\tau}-b^{\nu}_{\check
r}(\tau )b^{\mu}_{\tau}]\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i^{\check r}(\tau )\eta_i
\sqrt{m^2_i+{\vec \kappa}^2_i(\tau )}-\nonumber \\
&-&[b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )b^{\nu}_{\check s}(\tau )-b^{\nu}_{\check r}(\tau
)
b^{\mu}_{\check s}(\tau )]\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i^{\check r}(\tau )\kappa_i^{\check
s}(\tau )\approx 0.
\label{55}\end{aligned}$$
Here $S^{\mu\nu}_s$ is the spin part of the Lorentz generators
$$\begin{aligned}
J^{\mu\nu}_s&=&x^{\mu}_sp^{\nu}_s-x^{\nu}_sp^{\mu}_s+S^{\mu\nu}_s\nonumber \\
&&S^{\mu\nu}_s=b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )\int d^3\sigma \sigma^{\check r}
\rho^{\nu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-b^{\nu}_{\check r}(\tau )\int d^3\sigma
\sigma^{\check r}\rho^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ).
\label{56}\end{aligned}$$
As shown in Ref.[@hans] (see also the Appendix of Ref.[@bard]), instead of finding $\phi_{\lambda}(\tau ), T_{\lambda}(\tau )$, one can use the redundant variables $b^{\mu}_{\check A}(\tau ), S_s^{\mu\nu}(\tau )$, with the following Dirac brackets assuring the validity of the orthonormality condition $\eta^{\mu\nu}-b^{\mu}_{\check A}\eta^{{\check A}{\check b}}b^{\nu}
_{\check B}=0$ \[$C^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}=\eta^{\nu}_{\gamma}
\eta^{\alpha}_{\delta}\eta^{\mu\beta}+\eta^{\mu}_{\gamma}\eta^{\beta}_{\delta}
\eta^{\nu\alpha}-\eta^{\nu}_{\gamma}\eta^{\beta}_{\delta}\eta^{\mu\alpha}-
\eta^{\mu}_{\gamma}\eta^{\alpha}_{\delta}\eta^{\nu\beta}$ are the structure constants of the Lorentz group\]
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\lbrace S_s^{\mu\nu},b^{\rho}_{\check A}\rbrace {}^{*}=\eta^{\rho\nu}
b^{\mu}_{\check A}-\eta^{\rho\mu}b^{\nu}_{\check A}\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace S^{\mu\nu}_s,S_s^{\alpha\beta}\rbrace {}^{*}=C^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}
_{\gamma\delta}S_s^{\gamma\delta},
\label{57}\end{aligned}$$
so that while ${\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu}(\tau )\approx 0$ has zero Dirac bracket with itself and with ${\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu\nu}(\tau )
\approx 0$ these last six constraints have the Dirac brackets
$$\lbrace {\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu\nu}(\tau ),{\tilde {\cal H}}^{\alpha\beta}
(\tau )\rbrace {}^{*}=C^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}{\tilde {\cal H}}
^{\gamma\delta}(\tau )\approx 0.
\label{58}$$
Let us now restrict ourselves to configurations with $p_s^2 > 0$ and let us boost at rest with the Wigner boost $L^{\mu}{}_{\nu}(\stackrel{\circ}{p_s},
p_s)$ the variables $b^{\mu}_{\check A}$, $S_s^{\mu\nu}$ of the non-Darboux basis
${}$
$x^{\mu}_s, p^{\mu}_s, b^{\mu}_{\check A}, S_s^{\mu\nu}, \eta_i^{\check r},
\kappa_i^{\check r}$
${}$
of the Dirac brackets $\lbrace .,.\rbrace {}^{*}$ \[in Refs.[@lusc] this step is missing; the final results in those papers are not changed, but the reduction associated with the following Eqs.(\[62\]) is not sufficient to get them as erroneously stated in Refs.[@lusc]\]. The following new non-Darboux basis is obtained (${\tilde x}^{\mu}_s$ is no more a fourvector)
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\tilde x}^{\mu}_s=x_s^{\mu}+{1\over 2}\, \epsilon^A_{\nu}(u(p_s))\eta_{AB}
{ {\partial \epsilon^B_{\rho}(u(p_s))}\over {\partial p_{s\mu}} }\,
S^{\nu\rho}_s=\nonumber \\
&&=x_s^{\mu}-{ 1\over {\eta \sqrt{p_s^2}(p_s^o+\eta \sqrt{p_s^2})} }\,
[p_{s\nu}
S^{\nu\mu}_s+\eta \sqrt{p_s^2} (S_s^{o\mu}-S_s^{o\nu}{ {p_{s\nu}p_s^{\mu}}\over
{p_s^2} })]=\nonumber \\
&&=x_s^{\mu}-{1\over {\eta_s \sqrt{p_s^2}} }[\eta^{\mu}_A({\bar S}_s^{\bar oA}
-{ {{\bar S}_s^{Ar}p_s^r}\over {p_s^o+\eta_s \sqrt{p_s^2}} })+{ {p_s^{\mu}+2
\eta_s \sqrt{p_s^2}\eta^{\mu o}}\over {\eta_s \sqrt{p_s^2}(p_s^o+\eta_s
\sqrt{p_s^2})} }{\bar S}_s^{\bar or}p_s^r]\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&p^{\mu}_s=p_s^{\mu}\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&\eta_i^{\check r}=\eta_i^{\check r}\nonumber \\
&&\kappa_i^{\check r}=\kappa_i^{\check r}\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&b^A_{\check r}=\epsilon^A_{\mu}(u(p_s))b^{\mu}_{\check r}\nonumber \\
&&{\tilde S}_s^{\mu\nu}=S^{\mu\nu}_s-{1\over 2}\epsilon^A_{\rho}(u(p_s))\eta
_{AB}({ {\partial \epsilon^B_{\sigma}(u(p_s))}\over {\partial p_{s\mu}} }\,
p^{\nu}_s-{ {\partial \epsilon^B_{\sigma}(u(p_s))}\over {\partial p_{s\nu}} }\,
p_s^{\mu})S^{\rho\sigma}_s=\nonumber \\
&&=S^{\mu\nu}_s+{1\over {\eta \sqrt{p_s^2}(p_s^o+\eta \sqrt{p_s^2})} }
[p_{s\beta}(S^{\beta\mu}_sp_s^{\nu}-S_s^{\beta\nu}p_s^{\mu})+\eta \sqrt{p_s^2}
(S_s^{o\mu}p_s^{\nu}-S^{o\nu}_sp_s^{\mu})]\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&J^{\mu\nu}_s={\tilde x}_s^{\mu}p_s^{\nu}-{\tilde x}^{\nu}_sp_s^{\mu}+{\tilde
S}_s^{\mu\nu},
\label{59}\end{aligned}$$
We have \[cf. Eq.(\[A7\])\]
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\lbrace {\tilde x}^{\mu}_s,p^{\nu}_s\rbrace {}^{*}=0\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace {\tilde S}^{oi}_s,b^r_{\check A}\rbrace {}^{*}={ {\delta^{is}(p^r_s
b^s_{\check A}-p^s_sb^r_{\check A})}\over {p^o_s+\eta_s\sqrt{p^2_s}} }
\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace {\tilde S}_s^{ij},b^r_{\check A}\rbrace {}^{*}=(\delta^{ir}\delta
^{js}-\delta^{is}\delta^{jr})b^s_{\check A}\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace {\tilde S}_s^{\mu\nu},{\tilde S}_s^{\alpha\beta}\rbrace {}^{*}=
C^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}_{\gamma\delta}{\tilde S}_s^{\gamma\delta},
\label{60}\end{aligned}$$
and we can define
$$\begin{aligned}
{\bar S}_s^{AB}&=&\epsilon^A_{\mu}(u(p_s))\epsilon^B_{\nu}(u(p_s))S_s^{\mu\nu}
\approx [b^A_{\check r}(\tau )b^B_{\tau}-b^B_{\check r}(\tau )b^A_{\tau}]
\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i^{\check r}(\tau )\eta_i\sqrt{m^2_i+{\vec \kappa}_i^2(\tau
)}+
\nonumber \\
&+&[b^A_{\check r}(\tau )b^B_{\check s}(\tau )-b^B_{\check r}(\tau )b^A
_{\check s}(\tau )]\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i^{\check r}(\tau )\kappa_i^{\check s}
(\tau ).
\label{61}\end{aligned}$$
Let us now add six more gauge-fixings by selecting the special family of spacelike hyperplanes orthogonal to $p^{\mu}_s$ (this is possible for $p^2_s > 0$), which can be called the ‘Wigner foliation’ of Minkowski spacetime. This can be done by requiring (only six conditions are independent)
$$\begin{aligned}
T^{\mu}_{\check A}(\tau )&=&b^{\mu}_{\check A}(\tau )-\epsilon^{\mu}
_{A={\check A}}(u(p_s))\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&\Rightarrow \quad b^A_{\check A}(\tau )=\epsilon^A_{\mu}(u(p_s))b^{\mu}
_{\check A}(\tau )\approx \eta^A_{\check A}.
\label{62}\end{aligned}$$
Now the tetrad $b^{\mu}_{\check A}$ has become $\epsilon^{\mu}_A(u(p_s))$ and the indices ‘${\check r}$’ are forced to coincide with the Wigner spin-1 indices ‘r’, while $\bar o=\tau$ is a Lorentz-scalar index. One has
$$\begin{aligned}
{\bar S}_s^{AB}&\approx& (\eta^A_{\check r}\eta^B_{\tau}-\eta^B_{\check r}
\eta^A_{\tau})\sum_{i=1}^N\eta^{\check r}_i(\tau )\eta_i\sqrt{m_i^2+{\vec
\kappa}_i^2(\tau )}+\nonumber \\
&+&(\eta^A_{\check r}\eta^B_{\check s}-\eta^B_{\check r}\eta^A_{\check s})
\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i^{\check r}(\tau )\kappa_i^{\check s}(\tau )\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
{\bar S}_s^{rs}&\approx& \sum_{i=1}^N(\eta^r_i\kappa_i^s-\eta_i^s\kappa_i^r)
\nonumber \\
{\bar S}_s^{\bar or}&\approx& -{\bar S}_s^{r\bar o}=-\sum_{i=1}^N\eta^r_i\eta_i
\sqrt{m_i^2+{\vec \kappa}_i^2}\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
J_s^{ij}&\approx& {\tilde x}^i_sp_s^j-{\tilde x}_s^jp^i_s+\delta^{ir}\delta
^{js}{\bar S}_s^{rs}\nonumber \\
J_s^{oi}&\approx&{\tilde x}^op^i_s-{\tilde x}_s^ip^o_s-{ {\delta^{ir}{\bar
S}_s^{rs}p^s_s}\over {p^o_s+\eta_s\sqrt{p^2_s}} }.
\label{63}\end{aligned}$$
The time constancy of $T^{\mu}_{\check A}\approx 0$ with respect to the Dirac Hamiltonian of Eq.(\[54\]) gives
$$\begin{aligned}
{d\over {d\tau}}[b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )-\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p_s))]&=&
\lbrace b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )-\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p_s)),H_D\rbrace {}^{*}=
\nonumber \\
&=&{1\over 2}{\tilde \lambda}^{\alpha\beta}(\tau )\lbrace b^{\mu}_{\check r}
(\tau ),S_{s\alpha\beta}(\tau )\rbrace {}^{*}={\tilde \lambda}^{\mu\alpha}
(\tau )b_{\check r\alpha}(\tau )\approx 0\nonumber \\
&\Rightarrow& {\tilde \lambda}^{\mu\nu}(\tau )\approx 0,
\label{64}\end{aligned}$$
so that the independent gauge-fixings contained in Eqs.(\[62\]) and the constraints ${\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu\nu}(\tau )\approx 0$ form six pairs of second class constraints.
Besides Eqs.(\[49\]), now we have \[remember that ${\dot x}_s^{\mu}(\tau )=
-{\tilde \lambda}^{\mu}(\tau )$\]
$$\begin{aligned}
&&l^{\mu}=b^{\mu}_{\tau}=u^{\mu}(p_s)\nonumber \\
&&z^{\mu}_{\tau}(\tau )={\dot x}^{\mu}_s(\tau )=\sqrt{g(\tau )}u^{\mu}(p_s)-
{\dot x}_{s\nu}(\tau )\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p_s))\epsilon^{\nu}_r(u(p_s))
\nonumber \\
&&g(\tau )={[{\dot x}_{s\mu}(\tau )u^{\mu}(p_s))]}^2\nonumber \\
&&g_{\tau\tau}={\dot x}^2_s,\quad\quad g^{\tau\tau}={1\over g},\quad\quad
g^{\tau{\check r}}={1\over g}{\dot x}_{s\mu}\delta^{{\check r}s}\epsilon^{\mu}
_s(u(p_s))\nonumber \\
&&g_{\tau{\check r}}={\dot x}_{s\mu}\delta_{{\check r}s}\epsilon_s^{\mu}
(u(p_s)),\quad\quad g^{{\check r}{\check s}}=-\delta^{{\check r}{\check s}}+
{ {\delta^{{\check r}u}\delta^{{\check s}v}}\over {g(\tau )}}
{\dot x}_{s\mu}\epsilon^{\mu}_u(u(p_s))
{\dot x}_{s\nu}\epsilon^{\nu}_v(u(p_s)).
\label{65}\end{aligned}$$
On the hyperplane $\Sigma_W(\tau )$ all the degrees of freedom $z^{\mu}(\tau ,
\vec \sigma )$ are reduced to the four degrees of freedom ${\tilde x}^{\mu}_s
(\tau )$, which replace $x^{\mu}_s$. The Dirac Hamiltonian is now $H_D={\tilde \lambda}^{\mu}(\tau ){\tilde {\cal H}}_{\mu}
(\tau )$ with
$${\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu}(\tau )=p_s^{\mu}-u^{\mu}(p_s)\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i
\sqrt{m^2_i+{\vec \kappa}^2_i(\tau )}-\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p_s))\sum_{i=1}^N
\kappa^r_i(\tau )\approx 0.
\label{66}$$
To find the new Dirac brackets, one needs to evaluate the matrix of the old Dirac brackets of the second class constraints (without extracting the independent ones)
$$\begin{aligned}
C=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\lbrace {\tilde {\cal H}}^{\alpha\beta},{\tilde {\cal H}}^{\gamma\delta}
\rbrace {}^{*}\approx 0 & \lbrace {\tilde {\cal H}}^{\alpha\beta},T^{\sigma}
_{\check B}\rbrace {}^{*}=\\
{} & =\delta_{{\check B}B}[\eta^{\sigma\beta}\epsilon
^{\alpha}_B(u(p_s))-\eta^{\sigma\alpha}\epsilon_B^{\beta}(u(p_s))] \\
\lbrace T^{\rho}_{\check A},{\tilde {\cal H}}^{\gamma\delta}\rbrace {}^{*}
= & \lbrace T^{\rho}_{\check A},T^{\sigma}_{\check B}\rbrace {}^{*}=0\\
=\delta_{{\check A}A}[\eta^{\rho\gamma}\epsilon^{\delta}_A(u(p_s))-\eta
^{\rho\delta}\epsilon^{\gamma}_A(u(p_s))] & {}.
\end{array} \right)
\label{67}\end{aligned}$$
Since the constraints are redundant, this matrix has the following left and right null eigenvectors: $\left( \begin{array}{c} a_{\alpha\beta}=a_{\beta
\alpha} \\ 0 \end{array} \right)$ \[$a_{\alpha\beta}$ arbitrary\], $\left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ \epsilon^B_{\sigma}(u(p_s))
\end{array} \right)$. Therefore, according to Ref.[@bclu], one has to find a left and right quasi-inverse $\bar C$, $\bar CC=C\bar C=D$, such that $\bar C$ and D have the same left and right null eigenvectors. One finds
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar C&=&\left( \begin{array}{cc}
0_{\gamma\delta\mu\nu} & {1\over
4}[\eta_{\gamma\tau}\epsilon^D_{\delta}(u(p_s))
-\eta_{\delta\tau}\epsilon^D_{\gamma}(u(p_s))] \\ {1\over 4}[\eta_{\sigma\nu}
\epsilon^B_{\mu}(u(p_s))-\eta_{\sigma\mu}\epsilon^B_{\nu}(u(p_s))] &
0^{BD}_{\sigma\tau} \end{array} \right) \nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
\bar CC=C\bar C=D&=&\left( \begin{array}{cc}
{1\over 2}(\eta^{\alpha}_{\mu}\eta^{\beta}_{\nu}-\eta^{\alpha}_{\nu}\eta_{\mu}
^{\beta}) & 0^{\alpha\beta D}_{\tau} \\
0^{\rho}_{A\mu\nu} & {1\over 2}(\eta^{\rho}_{\tau}\eta^D_A-\epsilon^{D\rho}
(u(p_s))\epsilon_{A\tau}(u(p_s)) \end{array} \right)
\label{68}\end{aligned}$$
and the new Dirac brackets are
$$\begin{aligned}
\lbrace A,B\rbrace {}^{**}&=&\lbrace A,B\rbrace {}^{*}-{1\over 4}[\lbrace
A,{\tilde {\cal H}}^{\gamma\delta}\rbrace {}^{*}[\eta_{\gamma\tau}\epsilon^D
_{\delta}(u(p_s))-\eta_{\delta\tau}\epsilon^D_{\gamma}(u(p_s))]\lbrace
T^{\tau}_D,B\rbrace {}^{*}+\nonumber \\
&+&\lbrace A,T^{\sigma}_B\rbrace {}^{*}[\eta_{\sigma\nu}\epsilon^B_{\mu}(u(p
_s))-\eta_{\sigma\mu}\epsilon^B_{\nu}(u(p_s))]\lbrace {\tilde {\cal
H}}^{\mu\nu}
,B\rbrace {}^{*}].
\label{69}\end{aligned}$$
While the check of $\lbrace {\tilde {\cal H}}^{\alpha\beta},B\rbrace
{}^{**}=0$ is immediate, we must use the relation $b_{{\check A}\mu}T^{\mu}
_D\epsilon^{D\rho}=-T^{\rho}_{\check A}$ \[at this level we have $T^{\mu}_{\check
A}=T^{\mu}_A$\] to check $\lbrace T^{\rho}_A,B\rbrace {}^{**}=0$.
Then, we find the following brackets for the remaining variables ${\tilde
x}^{\mu}_s, p_s^{\mu}, \eta^r_i, \kappa_i^r$
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\lbrace {\tilde x}^{\mu}_s,p^{\nu}_s\rbrace {}^{**}=-\eta^{\mu\nu}\nonumber
\\
&&\lbrace \eta_i^r,\kappa^s_j\rbrace {}^{**}=\delta_{ij}\delta^{rs},
\label{70}\end{aligned}$$
and the following form of the Poincaré generators
$$\begin{aligned}
p^{\mu}_s&&{}\nonumber \\
J^{\mu\nu}_s&=&{\tilde x}^{\mu}_sp^{\nu}_s-{\tilde x}^{\nu}_sp_s^{\mu}+{\tilde
S}_s^{\mu\nu}\nonumber \\
&&{\tilde S}_s^{oi}=-{ {\delta^{ir}{\bar S}_s^{rs}p_s^s}\over {p^o_s+\eta_s
\sqrt{p_s^2}} }\nonumber \\
&&{\tilde S}_s^{ij}=\delta^{ir}\delta^{js}{\bar S}_s^{rs}.
\label{71}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, ${\tilde x}_s^{\mu}$ is not a fourvector and ${\vec \eta}
_i, {\vec \kappa}i$ transform as Wigner spin-1 3-vectors.
Let us come back to the four first class constraints ${\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu}
(\tau )\approx 0$, $\lbrace {\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu},{\tilde {\cal H}}^{\nu}
\rbrace {}^{**}=0$, of Eq.(\[66\]). They can be rewritten in the following form
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}(\tau )&=&u^{\mu}(p_s){\tilde {\cal H}}_{\mu}(\tau )=
\eta_s\sqrt{p^2_s}-\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\sqrt{m_i^2+{\vec \kappa}^2_i
(\tau )}=\epsilon_s-\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\sqrt{m_i^2+{\vec \kappa}^2_i
(\tau )}\approx 0\nonumber \\
{\vec {\cal H}}_p(\tau )&=&{\vec \kappa}_{+}=\sum_{i=1}^N{\vec \kappa}_i(\tau )
\approx 0.
\label{72}\end{aligned}$$
The first one gives the mass spectrum of the isolated system, while the other three say that the total 3-momentum of the N particles on the hyperplane $\Sigma_W(\tau )$ vanishes. The Dirac Hamiltonian is now $H_D=
\lambda (\tau ){\cal H}(\tau )-\vec \lambda (\tau )\cdot {\vec {\cal H}}_p
(\tau )$ and we have ${\dot {\tilde x}}_s^{\mu}=\lbrace {\tilde x}_s^{\mu},
H_D\rbrace {}^{**}=-\lambda (\tau )u^{\mu}(p_s)$. Therefore, while the old $x^{\mu}_s$ had a velocity ${\dot x}_s^{\mu}$ not parallel to the normal $l^{\mu}=u^{\mu}(p_s)$ to the hyperplane as shown by Eqs.(\[65\]), the new ${\tilde x}_s^{\mu}$ has ${\dot {\tilde x}}^{\mu}_s \| l^{\mu}$ and no classical zitterbewegung. Moreover, we have that $T_s=l\cdot {\tilde x}_s=
l\cdot x_s$ is the Lorentz-invariant rest frame time.
Let us do the following canonical transformation \[with the ${\hat \gamma}
_{ai}$ of Eqs.(\[6\]), (\[7\])\]
$$\begin{minipage}[t]{2cm}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|} \hline
${\tilde x}_s^{\mu}$ & $p_s^{\mu}$ \\ \hline
${\vec \eta}_i$ & ${\vec \kappa}_i$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage} \ {\longrightarrow \hspace{.2cm}} \
\begin{minipage}[t]{3cm}
\begin{tabular}{|ll|l|} \hline
{} & {} & $T_s$ \\
${\vec z}_s$ & ${\vec k}_s$ & { } \\
{} & {} & $\epsilon_s$ \\ \hline
${\vec \rho}^{'}_a$ & ${\vec \pi}^{'}_a$ & {} \\ \hline
${\vec \eta}_{+}$ & ${\vec \kappa}_{+}$ & {} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\label{73}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
&&T_s={ {p_s\cdot {\tilde x}_s}\over {\eta_s\sqrt{p^2_s}}}=
{ {p_s\cdot x_s}\over {\eta_s\sqrt{p^2_s}}}\nonumber \\
&&\epsilon_s=\eta_s\sqrt{p_s^2}\nonumber \\
&&{\vec z}_s=\eta_s\sqrt{p_s^2}({\vec {\tilde x}}_s-{ {{\vec p}_s}\over
{p^o_s}}{\tilde x}^o_s)\nonumber \\
&&{\vec k}_s={{{\vec p}_s}\over {\eta_s\sqrt{p_s^2}}}\nonumber \\
&&{\vec \eta}_{+}={1\over N}\sum_{i=1}^N{\vec \eta}_i\nonumber \\
&&{\vec \kappa}_{+}=\sum_{i=1}^N{\vec \kappa}_i\nonumber \\
&&{\vec \rho}^{'}_a=\sqrt{N}\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec
\eta}_i\nonumber
\\
&&{\vec \pi}^{'}_a={1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec
\kappa}_i,
\label{74}\end{aligned}$$
whose inverse is
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\tilde x}^o_s=\sqrt{1+{\vec k}^2_s}(T_s+{ { {\vec k}_s\cdot {\vec z}_s}
\over {\epsilon_s} })\nonumber \\
&&{\vec {\tilde x}}_s={ { {\vec z}_s}\over {\epsilon_s}}+(T_s+{ { {\vec k}_s
\cdot {\vec z}_s}\over {\epsilon_s} }){\vec k}_s\nonumber \\
&&p^o_s=\epsilon_s\sqrt{1+{\vec k}^2_s}\nonumber \\
&&{\vec p}_s=\epsilon_s{\vec k}_s\nonumber \\
&&{\vec \eta}_i={\vec \eta}_{+}+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat
\gamma}_{ai}{\vec \rho}^{'}_a\nonumber \\
&&{\vec \kappa}_i={1\over N}{\vec \kappa}_{+}+\sqrt{N}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}^{'}_a.
\label{75}\end{aligned}$$
By using the constraints ${\vec \kappa}_{+}\approx 0$, we get
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\vec \kappa}^2_i\approx N{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}
^{'}_a)}^2\nonumber \\
&&{\bar S}_s^{rs}\approx \sum_{a=1}^{N-1}(\rho^{{'}r}_a\pi^{{'}s}_a-
\rho^{{'}s}_a\pi^{{'}r}_a)\nonumber \\
&&{\bar S}_s^{\bar or}\approx -\eta^r_{+}\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\sqrt{m^2_i+N
{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}
^{'}_a)}^2}-{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}\rho^{{'}r}_a\sum_{i=1}^N
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\eta_i\sqrt{m^2_i+N
{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}
^{'}_a)}^2}.
\label{76}\end{aligned}$$
Note that we have N+1 3-vectors ${\vec z}_s, {\vec \eta}_{+}, {\vec
\rho}^{'}_a$ for the N particles, but that the constraints ${\vec \kappa}_{+}\approx 0$ imply that the ${\vec \eta}_{+}$’s are gauge variables. We can decouple these 3 canonical pairs from the others: the simplest way is to add the gauge-fixings ${\vec
\eta}_{+}\approx 0$ \[let us remark that $z^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec 0)=x^{\mu}_s
(\tau )$, i.e. this is the origin of the coordinate system on the hyperplane from the point of view of Minkowski spacetime\]; so we remain with the correct number of N-1 relative variables ${\vec \rho}^{'}_a, {\vec \pi}^{'}_a$ plus the center-of-mass ones ${\tilde x}^{\mu}_s, p_s^{\mu}$ and with \[compare with ${\bar S}^{\bar or}=-
\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}\rho^r_a\epsilon_{Ra}$ at $T_{Ra}=0$, eq.(\[15\])\]
$${\bar S}_s^{\bar or}=-{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}\rho^{{'}r}_a\sum
_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\eta_i\sqrt{m^2_i+N
{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}
^{'}_a)}^2}=-\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}\rho^{{'}r}_a\epsilon_{Ra},
\label{77}$$
where we anticipated a result of next Section.
In this way we obtain the rest-frame instant form $T_s=const.$ of the reduced problem for the N-body system with the center-of-mass motion separated out. This constant motion is taken into account by the observer which looks at the hyperplane $\Sigma_W(\tau )$. The evolution in $T_s$ of the reduced system is governed by the remaining constraint
$${\hat {\cal H}}(\tau )
=\epsilon_s-\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\sqrt{m^2_i+N{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}^{'}_a)}^2}=\epsilon_s -H^{(T_s)}_R\approx 0.
\label{78}$$
If we would add the gauge-fixing $T_s-\tau \approx 0$ and would go to Dirac brackets, we would obtain a Hamilton-Jacobi description in terms of Jacobi data. If we want to reintroduce an evolution for the relative variables, the natural time parameter is $T_s$ and the associated Hamiltonian is $\epsilon
_s\equiv H^{(T_s)}_R$; the Jacobi data would then become the Cauchy data for this evolution. In the nonrelativistic limit $H^{(T_s)}_R$ would go (modulo $m_ic^2$ terms) in the Hamiltonian $H_R$ of the reduced \[N-1 relative variables\] problem: $H={{{\vec p}^2}\over {2\sum_{i=1}^Nm_i}}+H_R$ would be the total Newtonian Hamiltonian.
The vectors ${\vec z}_s, {\vec k}_s$ describe the frame-dependent position of the canonical center of mass; in the rest frame, $\stackrel{\circ}{p}{}^{\mu}_s=\epsilon_s
(1;\vec 0), \stackrel{\circ}{{\vec z}_s}$ defines a point in the hyperplane $\Sigma_W(\tau )$ orthogonal to $\stackrel{\circ}{p}{}_s^{\mu}$, which can be used to build the covariant noncanonical Fokker center of inertia. Therefore, the worldtube defined by the frame-dependent canonical center-of-mass positions ${\vec \zeta}_s={\vec z}_s/\eta_s\sqrt{p^2_s}$ arises naturally also in this 1-time descritpion (the rest-frame instant form $T_s=const.$). Let us note that, while $\epsilon_s=\eta_s\sqrt{p_s^2}$ is determined by the invariant mass of the physical system on the hypersurface \[see Eq.(\[78\])\], ${\vec k}
_s$ describes the orientation of the hyperplane with normal $l^{\mu}=u^{\mu}
(p_s)$ embedded in Minkowski spacetime with respect to an arbitrary observer: ${\vec k}_s$ is the collective velocity of the physical system as seen from outside the hyperplane and not the three-momentum, determined by the energy-momentum tensor, on the hypersurface, which is the vanishing ${\vec
\kappa}_{+}=0$, since the hyperplane corresponds to the rest frame.
For generic masses $m_i$, Eq.(\[78\]) describes all the $2^N$ branches of the mass spectrum by considering all the possible combinations of $\eta_i=sign\, p^o_i
=\pm$, i.e. the solutions in $\epsilon$ of $\chi \approx 0$ of Eq.(\[26\]) when ${\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}\approx 0$. In the 1-time theory there is a different action (\[38\]) associated with each branch of the mass spectrum of the N-time theory.
The connection between the 1- and N-time descriptions
=====================================================
We have arrived at two descriptions of N scalar free particles: i) the 1-time theory with variables ${\tilde x}_s^{\mu}, p_s^{\mu}, {\vec \rho}_a
^{'}, {\vec \pi}_a^{'}, {\vec \eta}_{+}, {\vec \kappa}_{+}$ and with the first class constraints (\[72\]), i.e. ${\vec \kappa}_{+}\approx 0$ and ${\hat {\cal H}}=\epsilon_s-\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\sqrt{m_i^2+N{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}^{'}_a)}^2}\approx 0$; ii) the N-time theory with variables ${\hat {\tilde x}}^{\mu}, p^{\mu}, {\hat {\vec \rho}}_a,
{\vec \pi}_a, {\hat T}_{Ra}$ and with the first class constraints ${\hat
\epsilon}_{Ra}\approx 0$ plus a mass-spectrum constraint $\chi \approx 0$, Eq.(\[26\]). The last line of Eqs.(\[21\]), giving the original constraints $\phi_i
\approx 0$, shows that it is the mass-spectrum constraint $\chi \approx 0$ that governs the dynamics in both descriptions, since ${\hat {\cal H}}\approx
0$ identifies one of the $2^N$ branches of $\chi \approx 0$.
To compare the two descriptions, we have to identify two isomorphic phase spaces: i) in the 1-time theory, we add the gauge-fixings ${\vec \eta}_{+}
\approx 0$ \[natural from the comparison of Eqs.(\[15\]) and (\[77\])\], so that the first phase space is spanned by ${\tilde x}_s^{\mu}, p_s^{\mu}, {\vec
\rho}_a^{'}, {\vec \pi}_a^{'},$ with the constraint ${\hat {\cal H}}\approx
0$; ii) in the N-time theory we add the gauge-fixings $T_{Ra}\approx 0$ implying Eqs.(\[33\]) \[so that the final variables of the second phase space are ${\hat {\tilde x}}^{\mu},
p^{\mu}, {\hat {\vec \rho}}_a,{\vec \pi}_a$\], and we choose among the $2^N$ branches of the mass spectrum the one corresponding to the given choice of the signs $\eta_i$ of the 1-time theory.
Since we do not know the expression of the original variables $x^{\mu}_i,
p_i^{\mu}$ in terms of the variables of Eqs.(\[31\]), to find the relation among the variables of the two phase spaces we have initially to go back to Eqs.(\[9\])
$$\begin{aligned}
x^{\mu}_i&=&x^{\mu}+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}
R^{\mu}_a= x^{\mu}+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}
\epsilon^{\mu}_A(u(p))\epsilon^A_{\nu}(u(p))R^{\nu}_a=\nonumber \\
&=&x^{\mu}+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}({{p^{\mu}}
\over {\epsilon}}T_{Ra}+\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p))\rho^r_a)\rightarrow
\nonumber \\
&&{\rightarrow}_{T_{Ra}={\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}=0} x^{\mu}{|}_{T_{Ra}={\hat
\epsilon}_{Ra}=0}+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p))\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\rho^r_a\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
p^{\mu}_i&=&{1\over N}p^{\mu}+\sqrt{N}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}Q_a
^{\mu}=\nonumber \\
&=&({{\epsilon}\over N}+\sqrt{N}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\epsilon
_{Ra})u^{\mu}(p)+\sqrt{N}\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p))\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}
_{ai}\pi^r_a\rightarrow \nonumber \\
&&{\rightarrow}_{T_{Ra}={\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}=0} ?
\label{79}\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, Eqs.(\[39\]), (\[62\]) and (\[66\]) imply the following identification with the variables on the hyperplane orthogonal to $p_s^{\mu}$
$$\begin{aligned}
x^{\mu}_i{|}_{T_{Ra}={\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}=0}&=&z^{\mu}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i
(\tau ))\approx x^{\mu}_s+\epsilon^{\mu}_{\check r}(u(p_s))\eta^{\check r}_i
(\tau )\approx {|}_{{\vec \eta}_{+}=0}\nonumber \\
&\approx&
{\tilde x}^{\mu}_s-{1\over 2}\, \epsilon^A_{\nu}(u(p_s))\eta_{AB}
{ {\partial \epsilon^B_{\rho}(u(p_s))}\over {\partial p_{s\mu}} }\,
S^{\nu\rho}_s+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p_s))\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\rho^{{'}r}_a=\nonumber \\
&=&{\tilde x}_s^{\mu}+
{ 1\over {\eta \sqrt{p_s^2}(p_s^o+\eta \sqrt{p_s^2})} }\, [p_{s\nu}
S^{\nu\mu}_s+\eta \sqrt{p_s^2} (S_s^{o\mu}-S_s^{o\nu}{ {p_{s\nu}p^{s\mu}}\over
{p_s^2} })]+\nonumber \\
&+&{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p_s))\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\rho^{{'}r}_a=\nonumber \\
&=&{\tilde x}_s^{\mu}+{1\over {\eta_s \sqrt{p_s^2}} }[\eta^{\mu}_A({\bar S}_s
^{\bar oA}-{ {{\bar S}_s^{Ar}p_s^r}\over {p_s^o+\eta_s \sqrt{p_s^2}} })+
{ {p_s^{\mu}+2\eta_s \sqrt{p_s^2}\eta^{\mu o}}\over {\eta_s \sqrt{p_s^2}(p_s^o
+\eta_s \sqrt{p_s^2})} }{\bar S}_s^{\bar or}p_s^r]+\nonumber \\
&+&{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p_s))\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\rho^{{'}r}_a\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
p^{\mu}_i{|}_{T_{Ra}={\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}=0}&=&\eta_i\sqrt{m_i^2+{\vec \kappa}
^2_i(\tau )}u^{\mu}(p_s)+\epsilon^{\mu}_{\check r}(u(p_s))\kappa^{\check r}_i
(\tau )=\nonumber \\
&=&\eta_i\sqrt{m^2_i+{\vec \kappa}_i^2(\tau )}u^{\mu}(p_s)+\epsilon^{\mu}
_{\check r}(u(p_s))[{1\over N}\kappa_{+}^{\check r}+\sqrt{N}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\pi^{{'}{\check r}}_a]
\approx {|}_{{\vec \kappa}_{+}=0}\nonumber \\
&\approx&\eta_i\sqrt{m^2_i+N{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}^{'}
_a(\tau ))}^2}u^{\mu}(p_s)+\sqrt{N}\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p_s))\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\pi^{{'}r}_a.
\label{80}\end{aligned}$$
We see that $p^{\mu}_i{|}_{T_{Ra}={\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}=0}$ satisfies automatically $p_i^2=m_i^2$ and that
$$p^{\mu}=\sum_{i=1}^Np^{\mu}_i\approx {|}_{T_{Ra}={\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}=0}
\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\sqrt{m^2_i+N{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}
^{'}_a(\tau ))}^2} {{p^{\mu}_s}\over {\epsilon_s}}+\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p_s))
\kappa^r_{+}\approx p_s^{\mu}
\label{81}$$
if we have
$$\epsilon \approx \epsilon_s\approx \sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\sqrt{m^2_i+N{(\sum_{a=1}
^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}^{'}_a(\tau ))}^2},
\label{82}$$
by using Eqs.(\[59\]). Moreover, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
Q^{\mu}_a{|}_{T_{Ra}={\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}=0}&=&{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{i=1}
^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}p^{\mu}_i{|}_{T_{Ra}={\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}=0}=\nonumber \\
&=&{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\eta_i\sqrt{m_i^2+{\vec
\kappa}^2_i}u^{\mu}(p_s)+\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p_s))\kappa^r_{+}\approx
\nonumber \\
&\approx& {1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\eta_i
\sqrt{m^2_i+N{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}
^{'}_a(\tau ))}^2}u^{\mu}(p),
\label{83}\end{aligned}$$
so that for ${\hat T}_{Ra}={\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}={\vec \kappa}_{+}=0$ we find
$$\epsilon_{Ra}{|}_{T_{Ra}={\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}=0}\approx {1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\eta_i
\sqrt{m^2_i+N{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}
^{'}_a(\tau ))}^2}.
\label{84}$$
Equation (\[84\]), with Eq.(\[8\]), implies that the second one of Eqs. (\[79\]) becomes the second one of Eq.(\[80\]) with ${\vec \pi}^{'}_a=
{\vec \pi}_a$. Equation (\[84\]) gives all the looked for solutions of Eq.(\[26\]) \[or of Eqs.([37]{})\] for ${\hat T}_{Ra}={\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}=0$ according to which branch of $\epsilon \approx \epsilon_s$ has been chosen in Eq.(\[82\]), as can be explicitly checked.
Moreover, for each branch the mass spectrum, given by Eq.(\[82\]) for a given choice of the signs $\eta_i$, we have the following solution of Eqs.(\[37\]) without the restriction ${\hat T}_{Ra}={\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}=0$ \[remember that ${\vec \pi}_a={\hat {\vec \pi}}_a={\vec \pi}_a^{'}$\]
$$\epsilon_{Ra}={1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\eta_i
\sqrt{m^2_i+N{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}
^{'}_a(\tau ))}^2+{{2\epsilon}\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}
_{bi}{\hat \epsilon}_{Rb} }
\label{85}$$
if Eq.(\[82\]) is rewritten in the weakly equivalent form
$$\epsilon \approx \epsilon_s\approx \sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\sqrt{m^2_i+N{(\sum_{a=1}
^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}^{'}_a(\tau ))}^2+{{2\epsilon}\over
{\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\hat \epsilon}_{Rb} }.
\label{86}$$
On the branch defined by Eq.(\[86\]), Eqs.(\[85\]) imply the following form for $p^{\mu}_i$ of Eqs.(\[20\])
$$\begin{aligned}
&&p_i^o\approx {1\over {\epsilon}}[p^o\eta_i\sqrt{m^2_i+N{(\sum_{a=1}
^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}^{'}_a(\tau ))}^2+{{2\epsilon}\over
{\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\hat \epsilon}_{Rb} } +
\sqrt{N}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\vec p\cdot {\vec \pi}_a]
\nonumber \\
&&{\vec p}_i\approx \sqrt{N}[\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}_a+
{{\vec p}\over {\epsilon}}({{\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\vec p\cdot
{\vec \pi}_a}\over {p^o+\epsilon}}+\nonumber \\
&&+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\eta_i\sqrt{m^2_i+N{(\sum_{a=1}
^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}^{'}_a(\tau ))}^2+{{2\epsilon}\over
{\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\hat \epsilon}_{Rb} }],
\label{87}\end{aligned}$$
and Eqs.(\[26\]) give
$$\phi_i\approx {{2\epsilon}\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}
{\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}\approx 0,
\label{88}$$
consistently with $\chi \approx 0$ due to Eq.(\[86\]). Therefore, one has \[$\prod_{\eta_i}$ means a product over all the $2^N$ choices of the signs $\eta_i$\]
$$\begin{aligned}
\chi &=& \epsilon^2-N[\sum_{i=1}^Nm_i^2-N\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}(\epsilon_{Ra}^2-
{\vec \pi}_a^2)]=\nonumber \\
&=& {[\epsilon]}^{-2^{N-1}}\, \prod_{\eta_i}[\epsilon -\sum_{i=1}^N
\eta_i\sqrt{m^2_i+N{(\sum_{a=1}
^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}^{'}_a(\tau ))}^2+{{2\epsilon}\over
{\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\hat \epsilon}_{Rb} }]
\approx 0.
\label{89}\end{aligned}$$
Even with Equations (\[85\]), (\[86\]), we cannot get the explicit inverse canonical transformation giving $x^{\mu}_i, p^{\mu}_i$ of Eqs.(\[20\]) in terms of ${\hat {\tilde x}}^{\mu}, p^{\mu}, {\hat T}_{Ra}, {\hat \epsilon}
_{Ra}, {\hat {\vec \rho}}_a, {\hat {\vec \pi}}_a={\vec \pi}_a$ of Eqs.(\[31\]) independently from the choice of the branch of the mass spectrum, since Eqs.(\[85\]) are a branch-dependent solution of Eqs.(\[37\]).
While Equations (\[87\]) give the answer for the second half of Eqs.(\[79\]), the discussion of the first half is more involved.
By using Eqs.(\[31\]), (\[33\]), (\[28\]), (\[15\]) evaluated at ${\hat T}_{Ra}={\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}=0$, we get
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\hat {\tilde x}}^{\mu}\approx {\hat x}^{\mu}+{ {\eta^{\mu}_s{\hat {\bar
S}}^{sr}p^r}\over {\epsilon (p^o+\epsilon )} }\approx {\hat x}^{\mu}+
{ {\eta^{\mu}_s{\bar S}^{sr}p^r}\over {\epsilon (p^o+\epsilon )} }\nonumber \\
&&{\hat x}^{\mu}\approx x^{\mu}+{1\over {\epsilon}}\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p))
\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}\rho^r_a\epsilon_{Ra}=x^{\mu}-{1\over {\epsilon}}\epsilon^{\mu}
_r(u(p)){\bar S}^{\bar or}\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&\Rightarrow {\hat {\tilde x}}^{\mu}\approx x^{\mu}-{1\over {\epsilon}}
\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p)){\bar S}^{\bar or}+
{ {\eta^{\mu}_s{\bar S}^{sr}p^r}\over {\epsilon (p^o+\epsilon )} },
\label{90}\end{aligned}$$
so that Eqs.(\[79\]) and (\[80\]) imply at ${\hat T}_{Ra}={\hat \epsilon}
_{Ra}=0$
$$\begin{aligned}
x^{\mu}_i&\approx &x^{\mu}+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p))
\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\rho^r_a\approx\nonumber \\
&\approx& {\hat {\tilde x}}^{\mu}+{1\over {\epsilon}}
\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p)){\bar S}^{\bar or}-
{ {\eta^{\mu}_s{\bar S}^{sr}p^r}\over {\epsilon (p^o+\epsilon )} }
+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p))
\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\rho^r_a\approx\nonumber \\
&\approx&{\tilde x}_s+{1\over {\epsilon} }[\eta^{\mu}_A({\bar S}_s
^{\bar oA}-{ {{\bar S}_s^{Ar}p_s^r}\over {p_s^o+\epsilon} })+
{ {p_s^{\mu}+2\epsilon\eta^{\mu o}}\over {\epsilon(p_s^o
+\epsilon)} }{\bar S}_s^{\bar or}p_s^r]
+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p))
\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\rho^{{'}r}_a.\nonumber \\
\label{91}\end{aligned}$$
By comparing the two expressions for $\mu =0$ and for $\mu =k$, we find
$$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde x}^{\mu}_s\approx {\hat {\tilde x}}^{\mu}\nonumber \\
{\vec \rho}_a^{'}={\vec \rho}_a
\label{92}\end{aligned}$$
due to Eqs.(\[76\]) and (\[77\]) \[for ${\vec \rho}^{'}_a={\vec \rho}_a$ we have ${\bar S}_s^{\bar or}={\bar S}^{\bar or}$ and ${\bar S}_s^{rs}={\bar
S}^{rs}$\], consistently with the identification of the two reduced phase spaces, whose final variables can be chosen as ${\tilde x}^{\mu}_s, p^{\mu}, {\vec \rho}_a, {\vec \pi}_a$.
The mass spectrum and the introduction of interactions
======================================================
In the 1-time theory, by varying $\eta_i=sign\, p^o_i$ in Eq.(\[78\]) we obtain the $2^N$ branches of the mass spectrum of N free scalar particles in the rest-frame instant form, when $p^2 > 0$ and the masses $m_i$’s are generic, so that degeneracies are avoided. For each of these branches there is a well defined Lagrangian, which gives rise to the constraints of Eqs.(\[55\]) on arbitrary spacelike hyperplanes: only the configurations with $p^2 > 0$ can be reduced to the rest-frame instant form. Being in classical relativistic mechanics, we must take into account also negative masses and energies.
To see which other configurations may be allowed, we have to revert to a study of the N-time theory with its first class constraints $\phi_i=p_i^2-
m_i^2\approx 0$.
Let us consider in detail the case N=2; when $p^2 > 0$ and $\eta_i=+$, i=1,2, we are considering, in absence of interactions, the special configuration of the kinematics of forward s-channel eleastic scattering, in which we have $s={(p_1+p_2)}^2=p^2=\epsilon^2$, t=0, $u={(p_1-p_2)}^2=4Q^2$ as special values of the Mandelstam variables \[see Ref.[@bk]\], so that, given the following two combinations of the $\phi_i$’s \[see Appendix B\]
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\chi_{+}=2(\phi_1+\phi_2)=p^2+4Q^2-2(m_1^2+m_2^2)\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&\chi_{-}={1\over 2}(\phi_1-\phi_2)=p\cdot Q-{1\over 2}(m_1^2-m_2^2)\approx 0,
\label{93}\end{aligned}$$
we find that $\chi_{+}\approx 0$ is equivalent to the fundamental relation $s+t+u=2(m_1^2+m_2^2)$.
Let us discuss the various possibilities of choice of the value of the masses.
1\) $m_1\not= m_2$ ($m_1 > m_2 \geq 0$). In this case, the first class constraints (\[93\]) define a constraint submanifold $\bar \gamma$ (coisotropically embedded in phase space[@lusb]), which is the disjoint union of three strata with $p^2 > 0$ (the main stratum dense in $\bar \gamma$), $p^2 =0$ and $p^2 < 0$ respectively \[the stratum with $p^{\mu}=0$ is excluded by $\chi_{-}\approx 0$\].
1a) Stratum with $p^2 > 0$. According to Appendix B, one has \[${\hat Q}^2
\approx Q^2_{\perp}=-{\vec \pi}^2 < 0$; $Q^2\approx {\hat Q}^2+{{m_1^2-m_2^2}
\over {4p^2}}$\]
$$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{-}&=&p\cdot {\hat Q}\approx 0 \nonumber \\
\chi_{+}&=&p^2+4Q^2_{\perp}+4{{(p\cdot Q)^2}\over {p^2}}-2(m_1^2+m_2^2)\approx
p^2+4{\hat Q}^2+{{m_1^2-m_2^2}\over {p^2}}-2(m_1^2+m_2^2)=\nonumber \\
&=&{1\over {p^2}}(p^2-M_{+}^2)(p^2-M_{-}^2)\approx 0.
\label{94}\end{aligned}$$
with $M_{\pm}$ given in Eqs.(\[B4\]).
There are four branches for $\epsilon =\eta \sqrt{p^2}$ in terms of ${\vec \pi}
^2=-Q^2_{\perp}\approx -{\hat Q}^2$
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\epsilon \approx \pm (\sqrt{m_1^2+{\vec \pi}^2}+\sqrt{m_2^2+{\vec \pi}^2}),
\quad\quad \eta_1=\eta_2\nonumber \\
&&\epsilon \approx \pm |\, (\sqrt{m_1^2+{\vec \pi}^2}-\sqrt{m_2^2+{\vec
\pi}^2},
|\, \quad\quad \eta_1=-\eta_2
\label{95}\end{aligned}$$
For ${\vec \pi}^2\rightarrow 0$ \[corresponding to ${\hat Q}^{\mu}
=0$ ($p_1^{\mu}\, //\, p_2^{\mu}$); ${\hat Q}^2=0$ is excluded by $\chi_{-}
\approx 0$\] we have the (s-channel) thresholds $\epsilon \approx \pm (m_1+
m_2)$ and (u-channel) pseudo-thresholds $\epsilon \approx \pm |\, m_1-m_2\, |$.
1b) Stratum with $p^2=0$. It exists for $\eta_1=-\eta_2$: for $p^{\mu}_i$ timelike, i=1,2, we have $0=(p_1+p_2)^2=(\eta_1|\, p^o_1|+\eta_2|\, p^o_2|)^2
-{({\vec p}_1+{\vec p}_2)}^2\approx {(\eta_1\sqrt{m_1^2+{\vec p}_1^2}+\eta_2
\sqrt{m_2^2+{\vec p}_2^2})}^2-{({\vec p}_1+{\vec p}_2)}^2=m_1^2+m_2^2+2\eta_1
\eta_2\sqrt{m_1^2+{\vec p}_1^2}\sqrt{m_2^2+{\vec p}_2^2}-2{\vec p}_1\cdot
{\vec p}_2 \Rightarrow {}_{{\vec p}_2=0}\, -2\eta_1\eta_2m_2\sqrt{m_1^2+{\vec
p}_1^2}=m_1^2+m_2^2 \Rightarrow \eta_1\eta_2=-$.
Now the constraint $\chi_{+}\approx 0$ implies $Q^2\approx {1\over 2}(m_1^2+
m_2^2) > 0$ and two branches
$$Q^o\approx \pm \sqrt{{1\over 2}(m_1^2+m_2^2)+{\vec Q}^2}
\label{96}$$
of excitations of relative energy with total energy given by
$$p^o\approx {1\over {Q^o}}[{1\over 2}(m_1^2-m_2^2)+\vec p\cdot \vec Q].
\label{97}$$
1c) Stratum with $p^2 < 0$. It exists for $\eta_1=-\eta_2$; the constraint $\chi_{+}
\approx 0$ implies $Q^2\approx {1\over 4}[2(m_1^2+m_2^2)-p^2] > 0$. In terms of $Q^2_{\perp}=Q^2-{{(p\cdot Q)^2}\over {p^2}}\approx Q^2-{{(m_1^2-m_2^2)^2}
\over {4p^2}}$, we have two tachionic branches
$$p^2\approx -{(\sqrt{Q^2_{\perp}-m_1^2}\pm \sqrt{Q^2_{\perp}-m_2^2})}^2
\label{98}$$
2\) $m_1=m_2=m > 0$. We have
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\chi_{+}=p^2+4Q^2-4m^2\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&\chi_{-}=p\cdot Q\approx 0,
\label{99}\end{aligned}$$
and there are three strata with $p^2 > 0$, $p^{\mu}=0$, $p^2 < 0$ respectively \[$p^2=0$ is excluded by $Q^2\approx m^2 > 0$ and $p\cdot Q\approx
0$\].
2a) Stratum with $p^2 > 0$. We have $Q^2\approx Q^2_{\perp}=-{\vec \pi}^2
< 0$ and there are two branches
$$\epsilon \approx \pm 2\sqrt{m^2+{\vec \pi}^2},\quad\quad [\epsilon \approx
\pm 2m\, for\, p^{\mu}_1=p^{\mu}_2,\, i.e.\, Q^{\mu}=0],
\label{100}$$
which are the limit for $m_1-m_2\rightarrow 0$ of the two branches with $\eta_1=\eta_2$ of the $p^2 > 0$ stratum with $m_1\not= m_2$.
2b) Stratum with $p^{\mu}=0$ \[$p_1^{\mu}=-p_2^{\mu} \Rightarrow \eta_1=-
\eta_2$\]. Since we have the constraint $\chi_{+}=4(Q^2-m^2)\approx 0$, there are two branches
$$Q^o\approx \pm \sqrt{m^2+{\vec Q}^2}
\label{101}$$
of excitations of relative energy: they correspond to two degenerate $\epsilon =0$ levels obtained from the limit $m_1-m_2\rightarrow 0$ with $\eta_1=-\eta_2$ of the $p^2 > 0$ stratum with $m_1\not= m_2$ \[see Ref.[@mosh] for the spin 1/2 case\].
2c) Stratum with $p^2 < 0$. It exists for $\eta_1=-\eta_2$ \[$p^2 < 0$ is equivalent for ${\vec p}_2=0$ to $2m(m+\eta_1\eta_2\sqrt{m^2+{\vec p}_1^2})
< 0$\], and we have $Q^2-{1\over 4}p^2 > 0$, so that there is a tachionic branch
$$p^2\approx -4(Q^2-m^2)\approx -4(Q^2_{\perp}-m^2).
\label{102}$$
3\) $m_1=m_2=0$. The constraints $p_1^2\approx 0, p_2^2\approx 0$ give
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\chi_{+}=p^2+4Q^2\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&\chi_{-}=p\cdot Q\approx 0,
\label{103}\end{aligned}$$
so that there are three strata with $p^2 > 0$, $p^2=0$, $p^{\mu}=0$, respectively \[$p^2 < 0$ is excluded, because it would imply $p^2={(\eta_1|\, {\vec p}_1|+
\eta_2|\, {\vec p}_2|)}^2-{({\vec p}_1+{\vec p}_2)}^2=2|\, {\vec p}_1| |\,
{\vec p}_2| (\eta_1\eta_2-cos\, \theta_{12}) < 0$\].
3a) Stratum with $p^2 > 0$. It has $Q^2\approx Q^2_{\perp}=-{\vec \pi}^2
< 0$ and there are two branches (with $\eta_1=\eta_2$)
$$\epsilon \approx \pm 2 \sqrt{{\vec \pi}^2}
\label{104}$$
tangent at ${\vec \pi}^2=0$ ($Q^{\mu}=0$).
3b) Stratum with $p^2=0$. It implies $2|\, {\vec p}_1| |\, {\vec p}_2|
(\eta_1\eta_2-cos\, \theta_{12})=0$, i.e. ${\vec p}_1 // {\vec p}_2$ with $\eta_1=\eta_2$ for $\theta_{12}=0$ and with $\eta_1=-\eta_2$ for $\theta_{12}
=\pi$. We have $Q^2\approx 0$, namely two branches
$$Q^o\approx \pm \sqrt{{\vec Q}^2}
\label{105}$$
of excitations of relative energy with total energy
$$p^o\approx {{\vec p\cdot \vec Q}\over {Q^o}}\approx \pm {{\vec p\cdot \vec Q}
\over {\sqrt{{\vec Q}^2}}}.
\label{106}$$
3c) Stratum with $p^{\mu}=0$ \[$p^{\mu}_1=-p_2^{\mu}$, $\eta_1=-\eta_2$\]. It has $Q^2 \approx 0$: there are two branches of excitations of relative energy
$$Q^o\approx \pm \sqrt{{\vec Q}^2}.
\label{107}$$
For $N > 2$ the discussion is more involved, since there are many degenerate cases with complicated discussions of the allowed Poincaré orbits.
For N=3, $p^2 > 0$ and $m_1, m_2, m_3$ generic, there are 8 branches
$$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon &\approx& \pm [+\sqrt{m_1^2+3{({\hat \gamma}_{11}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{21}{\vec \pi}_2)}^2}+\sqrt{m_2^2+3{({\hat \gamma}_{12}{\vec \pi}_1+
{\hat \gamma}_{22}{\vec \pi}_2)}^2}+\nonumber \\
&+&\sqrt{m_3^2+3{({\hat \gamma}_{13}{\vec \pi}
_1+{\hat \gamma}_{23}{\vec \pi}_2)}^2}]\nonumber \\
\epsilon &\approx& \pm |\, +\sqrt{m_1^2+3{({\hat \gamma}_{11}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{21}{\vec \pi}_2)}^2}+\sqrt{m_2^2+3{({\hat \gamma}_{12}{\vec \pi}_1+
{\hat \gamma}_{22}{\vec \pi}_2)}^2}-\nonumber \\
&-&\sqrt{m_3^2+3{({\hat \gamma}_{13}{\vec \pi}
_1+{\hat \gamma}_{23}{\vec \pi}_2)}^2}\, | \nonumber \\
\epsilon &\approx& \pm |\, -\sqrt{m_1^2+3{({\hat \gamma}_{11}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{21}{\vec \pi}_2)}^2}+\sqrt{m_2^2+3{({\hat \gamma}_{12}{\vec \pi}_1+
{\hat \gamma}_{22}{\vec \pi}_2)}^2}+\nonumber \\
&+&\sqrt{m_3^2+3{({\hat \gamma}_{13}{\vec \pi}
_1+{\hat \gamma}_{23}{\vec \pi}_2)}^2}\, | \nonumber \\
\epsilon &\approx& \pm |\, +\sqrt{m_1^2+3{({\hat \gamma}_{11}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{21}{\vec \pi}_2)}^2}-\sqrt{m_2^2+3{({\hat \gamma}_{12}{\vec \pi}_1+
{\hat \gamma}_{22}{\vec \pi}_2)}^2}+\nonumber \\
&+&\sqrt{m_3^2+3{({\hat \gamma}_{13}{\vec \pi}
_1+{\hat \gamma}_{23}{\vec \pi}_2)}^2}\, | .
\label{108}\end{aligned}$$
In the limit $m_1=m_2=m_3=m$, the first two branches start from $\epsilon \approx \pm 3m$, while the other three positive (negative) branches are tangent at $\epsilon \approx m$ ($\epsilon \approx -m$).
This pattern is valid for all N=2k+1.
For N=4, $p^2 > 0$ and $m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4$ generic, there are 16 branches
$$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon &\approx& \pm [ +\sqrt{m_1^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{11}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{21}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{31}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+
\sqrt{m_2^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{12}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{22}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{32}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+\nonumber \\
&+&\sqrt{m_3^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{13}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{23}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{33}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+
\sqrt{m_4^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{14}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{24}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{34}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2} ]\nonumber \\
\epsilon &\approx& \pm |\, +\sqrt{m_1^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{11}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{21}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{31}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+
\sqrt{m_2^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{12}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{22}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{32}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+\nonumber \\
&+&\sqrt{m_3^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{13}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{23}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{33}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}-
\sqrt{m_4^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{14}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{24}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{34}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}\, | \nonumber \\
\epsilon &\approx& \pm |\,-\sqrt{m_1^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{11}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{21}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{31}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+
\sqrt{m_2^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{12}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{22}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{32}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+\nonumber \\
&+&\sqrt{m_3^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{13}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{23}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{33}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+
\sqrt{m_4^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{14}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{24}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{34}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}\, | \nonumber \\
\epsilon &\approx& \pm |\, +\sqrt{m_1^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{11}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{21}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{31}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}-
\sqrt{m_2^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{12}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{22}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{32}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+\nonumber \\
&+&\sqrt{m_3^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{13}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{23}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{33}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+
\sqrt{m_4^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{14}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{24}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{34}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}\, | \nonumber \\
\epsilon &\approx& \pm |\, +\sqrt{m_1^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{11}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{21}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{31}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+
\sqrt{m_2^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{12}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{22}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{32}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}-\nonumber \\
&-&\sqrt{m_3^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{13}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{23}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{33}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+
\sqrt{m_4^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{14}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{24}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{34}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}\, | \nonumber \\
\epsilon &\approx& \pm |\, +\sqrt{m_1^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{11}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{21}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{31}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+
\sqrt{m_2^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{12}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{22}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{32}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}-\nonumber \\
&-&\sqrt{m_3^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{13}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{23}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{33}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}-
\sqrt{m_4^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{14}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{24}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{34}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}\, | \nonumber \\
\epsilon &\approx& \pm |\, -\sqrt{m_1^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{11}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{21}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{31}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+
\sqrt{m_2^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{12}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{22}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{32}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+\nonumber \\
&+&\sqrt{m_3^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{13}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{23}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{33}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}-
\sqrt{m_4^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{14}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{24}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{34}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}\, | \nonumber \\
\epsilon &\approx& \pm |\, +\sqrt{m_1^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{11}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{21}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{31}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}-
\sqrt{m_2^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{12}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{22}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{32}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}+\nonumber \\
&+&\sqrt{m_3^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{13}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{23}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{33}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}-
\sqrt{m_4^2+4{({\hat \gamma}_{14}{\vec \pi}_1+{\hat
\gamma}_{24}{\vec \pi}_2+{\hat \gamma}_{34}{\vec \pi}_3)}^2}\, | .
\label{109}\end{aligned}$$
In the equal mass limit, there are two branches starting at $\epsilon \approx \pm 4m$, four positive (negative) branches starting at $\epsilon \approx 2m$ ($\epsilon \approx -2m$) and six (three positive and three negative) branches starting from $\epsilon \approx 0$.
This is the pattern for N=2k.
As we have seen, already in the free case there are generically tachionic strata corresponding to spacelike Poincaré orbits. At least at the classical level, these strata have to be excluded to avoid problems with Einstein causality. Instead, the rest-frame 1-time instant form is, by construction, free of these tachionic strata.
For N=2, strata with $p^2 < 0$ appear always when $\eta_1=-\eta_2$; this fact will extend to $N > 2$. Now there is the problem of the interpretation of particles of negative mass and energy ($\eta_i=-$); they are present in classical relativistic mechanics due to the two branches of timelike Poincaré orbits and have a well defined nonrelativistic limit, connected with the negative mass representations of the extended Galileo group [@gal].
If we make the first quantization of a scalar particle, the first class constraint $p^2-m^2\approx 0$ goes into the one-particle Klein-Gordon equation $(\Box +m^2)\phi (x)=0$ with $\phi (x)$ a complex wave function. It is known[@nor] (see also Ref.[@longhi]) that this equation admits two kinds of scalar products: i) the standard nondefinite positive one ${(\phi_A,\phi_B)}_1=\int d^3\sigma_{\mu}\, \phi^{*}_A(x) {i\over 2}
\tensor{\partial}{}^{\mu}\phi_B(x)$ \[$\tensor{\partial}{}^{\mu}=
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\partial}{}^{\mu}-\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}{}^{\mu}
$\] associated with the conserved current $j_1^{\mu}(x)={i\over 2}\phi^{*}(x)
\tensor{\partial}{}^{\mu}\phi (x)$, which is interpreted as a charge (electric charge, strangeness,..) current with the sign of the charge corresponding to positive- and negative- norm (i.e. energy) states; ii) a positive definite nonlocal one ${(\phi_A,\phi_B)}_2=\int d^3\sigma_{\mu}\, {i\over 4}\phi^{*}_A
(x)({\hat \eta}-{\hat \eta}^{\dagger})\tensor{\partial}{}^{\mu}\phi_B(x)$ \[${\hat \eta}=i\partial^o/\sqrt{m^2-{\vec \partial}^2}$ is the nonlocal Lorentz-scalar (under proper Lorentz transformations) “sign of the energy" operator satisfying $[\hat \eta ,x^{\mu}]=[\hat \eta ,i\partial^{\mu}]=0$\], associated with the conserved current $j^{\mu}_2(x)={i\over 4}\phi^{*}(x)
({\hat \eta}-{\hat \eta}^{\dagger})\tensor{\partial}{}^{\mu}\phi(x)$. The negative mass (and energy) states are interpreted as describing antiparticles: for charged scalar particles ($\pi^{+}\pi^{-}, K^{+}K^{-}, K^o{\bar K}^o$) positive- (negative-) energy states describe particles with charge $+Q$ (antiparticles with charge $-Q$), which can be connected by a “charge conjugation" operation $\phi (x)\mapsto \eta_c\phi^{*}(x)$, $|\eta_c|=1$, under which the action is invariant \[for the electromagnetic potential one has $A_{\mu}(x)\mapsto -A_{\mu}(x)$\]; for neutral particles like $\pi^o$, coinciding with the antiparticle, see Ref.[@fv].
In Ref.[@stuc], it was shown at the classical level that, since the proper time of a particle is defined by $ds=\pm \sqrt{dx^{\mu}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\nu}}$ if $dx^o\, \stackrel{>}{<} 0$, we have $ds=\pm md\tau \sqrt{{\dot x}^{\mu}
\eta_{\mu\nu}{\dot x}^{\nu}}$, so that $d\tau > 0$ corresponds to $dx^o\, \stackrel{>}{<} 0$ if ${\dot x}^o={{dx^o}\over {d\tau}}
\stackrel{>}{<} 0$; therefore, an evolution towards the future in $d\tau$ for a particle with negative mass -m corresponds to an evolution towards the past in $dx^o$ and this is in accord with the use of the complex Stueckelberg- Feynman Green function $G_F(x)$ \[see for instance Ref.[@iz]\], which propagates the positive- (negative-) frequencies forward (backward) in $x^o$, in association with the first-quantized Klein-Gordon equation. Finally, the equations of motion of a particle of mass m and electric charge e in presence of gravitational and electromagnetic fields depend only on the ratio e/m, so that an antiparticle of mass -m (propagating forward in $\tau$ but backwards in $x^o$) and charge -e satisfies the same equations as the particle (m,e) if parametrized in $\tau$, in accord with the charge conjugation invariance.
This is what happens with the parametrization in $\tau$ of the 1-time theory. Let us remark that in the rest-frame instant form one has $\lbrace \epsilon
=\eta \sqrt{p^2}, T={{p\cdot x}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}}}\rbrace =1$, so that $\eta m$ is associated with $\eta |\, T|$.
In contrast, in the Klein-Gordon quantum field theory, a hermitean quantum field $\hat \phi (x)$ \[quantization of a classical real Klein-Gordon field $\phi
(x)=\phi^{*}(x)$ for which the complex Green function $G_F(x)$ cannot be used, but only the real retarded and advanced ones\] has the positive- (negative-) frequency part associated with the creation (annihilation) operators of a scalar particle with positive energy. For a complex quantum field $\hat \phi (x), {\hat \phi}^{\dagger}(x)$ \[quantization of two real Klein-Gordon fields, $\phi (x)={1\over {\sqrt{2}}}(\phi_1(x)+i\phi_2(x))$\] the two kinds of creation and annihilation operators are associated with a particle of mass m and charge +1 and with an antiparticle of mass m and charge -1 respectively.
The conclusion of this discussion is that, in the classical background of relativistic particle physics, we have to consider only the branch of the mass spectrum of N scalar particles with all the masses positive and with particle and antiparticle distinguished by opposite charges \[only neutral scalar particles cannot be described in this way, but they (by the way also the charged scalar ones) are supposed to be bound states of spin 1/2 quarks\]; the pseudothresholds of the lower positive branches are connected to the thresholds of the other existing kinematical invariants (relevant for scattering theory due to the crossing property).
Let us now consider the introduction of action-at-a-distance interactions. This problem has been studied in the N-time theory (see the bibliography of Refs.[@lusi; @todor; @taka]). In the framework of models with N first class constraints, a closed form of the constraints is known for N=2: this is the DrozVincent-Todorov-Komar model[@dv; @todo; @komar], on which Ref.[@longhi] is based. The constraints take the general form (only the case $V(R^2_{\perp})$ has been studied in detail; see Refs.[@longhi; @pons] for the nonrelativistic limit)
$$\begin{aligned}
\phi_i&=&p_i^2-m_i^2+V(R^2_{\perp}, p^2,Q^2,Q\cdot R_{\perp})\approx 0,
\quad i=1,2,\quad\quad
R^{\mu}_{\perp}=(\eta^{\mu}_{\nu}-{{p^{\mu}p_{\nu}}\over {p^2}})R^{\nu}
\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace \phi_1,\phi_2\rbrace =0.
\label{110}\end{aligned}$$
By construction we have $p^2 > 0$. The potential V may be either confining or separable (see Ref.[@long] for a finite-range potential, in which the particles see each other only if their Cauchy data are restricted to be compatible with the first class constraints in the interacting region).
For $N > 2$ there are models with a closed form of the constraints $\phi_i
\approx 0$, $\lbrace \phi_i,\phi_j\rbrace =0$, only for confining potentials (see for instance Ref.[@lusf]). To find separable potentials such that $\lbrace \phi_i,\phi_j\rbrace =0$ requires the solution of complicated nonlinear partial differential equations connected with the necessity of introducing 3-, 4-,.. N-body forces[@ror], and no one succeeded in solving them; it was only shown that solutions exist, in which the first class constraints are expressed as series in the coupling constants[@sazt] and that the solution is unique[@hk]. See also Refs.[@seplon; @pons].
In contrast, in the 1-time theory (the rest-frame instant form for $p^2 > 0$), we can introduce the interactions like in Newtonian mechanics and use the nonrelativistic definition of separability of the interactions. It is the transition from the 1-time to the N-time theory that contains all the previous difficulties.
The most general form of the final constraint (\[78\]) of the 1-time theory is
$$\begin{aligned}
{\hat {\cal H}}&=&\epsilon_s-\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\sqrt{ m_i^2+V_i+N{(\sum_{a=1}
^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}_a)}^2 }-\sum_{i\not= j}^{1..N}\, U_{ij}
=\epsilon_s-H_R^{(T_s)}\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&V_i=V_i[\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}({\hat \gamma}_{ah}-{\hat \gamma}_{ak}){\vec \rho}_a]
\nonumber \\
&&U_{ij}=U_{ij}[\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}({\hat \gamma}_{ai}-{\hat \gamma}_{aj}){\vec
\rho}_a].
\label{111}\end{aligned}$$
With $V_i=0$ and N=2, it is the form prescribed in Ref.[@baka] \[see also the bibliography of Ref.[@ppl], but, as we shall see in the next Section, the 2-body Coulomb potential coming from the longitudinal modes of the electromagnetic field is of the type $U_{ij}$; therefore the models with U-type potentials can be thought as deriving from couplings to gauge field theories.
The action-at-a-distance interactions (instantaneous in the rest frame) of models like the one of Refs.[@dv; @todo; @komar] (for instance the relativistic harmonic oscillator) are of the type $V_i$ (additive to $m_i^2$). If $V_i=\sum_{k\not= i}^{1..N}V_{ik}
[\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}({\hat \gamma}_{ai}-{\hat \gamma}_{ak}){\vec \rho}_a]+
\sum_{k,h\not= i}^{1..N}V_{ikh}[\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}({\hat \gamma}_{ai}-{\hat
\gamma}_{ak}){\vec \rho}_a, \sum_{a=1}^{N-1}({\hat \gamma}_{ai}-{\hat \gamma}
_{ah}){\vec \rho}_a]+...$, we have 2-body potentials $V_{ik}$, 3-body potentials $V_{ikh}$ and so on. The potentials are separable if, whenever particle i decouples from the other N-1 (the same must hold true for clusters of particles), we have $V_i
\rightarrow 0$ and $U_{ij}\rightarrow 0$, so that no one of the surviving potentials depend on the index “i".
Let us remark that we can have two different 1-time theories with the same nonrelativistic limit $H_R$: i) $H^{(T_s)}_R=\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\sqrt{ m_i^2+
V_i+N{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}_a)}^2 }$; ii) $H_R^{(T_s)}=
\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\sqrt{ m_i^2+N{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}
_a)}^2 }\, +U$ if $U=\sum_{i=1}^N{{V_i}\over {2m_i}}$; instead, the N-time theory with a unique potential[@lusf] \[$p_i^2-m_i^2+{1\over {N^2}}{\tilde
V}\approx 0$\] would give N nonrelativistic constraints \[see Ref.[@pons] for the case N=2\] $\psi_i=E_i-{{{\vec p}^2_i}\over {2m_i}}-{{\tilde V}\over
{2m_iN}}\approx 0$ with $\sum_{i=1}^N\psi_i=E-H=E-{{{\vec p}^2}\over {2\sum
_{i=1}^Nm_i}}+H_R\approx 0$ with the same $H_R$ of the 1-time theories if $U=
\tilde V$.
Therefore, there are two 1-time models for the relativistic harmonic oscillator when N=2: i) the 1-time version of the DrozVincent-Todorov-Komar model $H^{(T_s)}_R=\eta_1\sqrt{m_1^2+V({\vec \rho}^2)+2{\vec \pi}^2}+\eta_2
\sqrt{m_2^2+V({\vec \rho}^2)+2{\vec \pi}^2}$; ii) a model with $H^{(T_s)}_R=
\eta_1\sqrt{m_1^2+2{\vec \pi}^2}+\eta_2\sqrt{m_2^2+2{\vec \pi}^2}+U({\vec
\rho}^2)$ with $U={1\over {\mu}}V$ \[$\mu={{m_1m_2}\over {m_1+m_2}}$ is the reduced mass\]. The second model should be interpreted as coming from a gauge field theory producing action-at-a-distance interparticle harmonic forces.
Let us also note that the number of branches of the mass spectrum in the free case is a topological number: it is the dimension of the zeroth homotopy group of the constraint hypersurface, counting how many disjoint components are in it. While certain interactions preserve this number, generic interactions will change it; therefore, the interactions should be classified according to the (lacking) theory of intersections of noncompact hypersurfaces in phase space (when certain mass gaps disappear).
In the approach of this paper, based on the theory of canonical realizations of the Poincaré group in phase space, we cannot introduce external interactions, without destroying the technology we are using, which presupposes the existence of ten finite conserved Poincaré generators for every system under study. External interactions should be thought as limits from our isolated systems, when some its subsystem has the invariant mass tending to infinity; alternatively one can try to introduce them in the final reduced form of the constraints, like those in Eqs.(\[111\]).
The Electromagnetic Interaction
===============================
In Ref.[@karp], the case of a charged scalar particle interacting with the electromagnetic field was considered. The 1-time theory was used because it is not known to us how to develop a covariant N-time description, in which the Poisson brackets of particle and field constraints can be evaluated in a covariant way. Here, the case of N charged scalar particles will be considered, with the electric charge of each particle described in a pseudoclassical way[@casal] by means of a pair of complex conjugate Grassmann variables[@casala] $\theta_i(\tau ), \theta
^{*}_i(\tau )$ satisfying \[$I_i=I^{*}_i=\theta^{*}_i\theta_i$ is the generator of the $U_{em}(1)$ group of particle i\]
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\theta^2_i=\theta_i^{{*}2}=0,\quad\quad \theta_i\theta^{*}_i+\theta^{*}_i
\theta_i=0,\nonumber \\
&&\theta_i\theta_j=\theta_j\theta_i,\quad\quad \theta_i\theta^{*}_j=
\theta_j^{*}\theta_i,\quad\quad \theta^{*}_i\theta^{*}_j=\theta^{*}_j\theta
^{*}_i,\quad\quad i\not= j.
\label{112}\end{aligned}$$
This amounts to assume that the electric charges $Q_i=e_i\theta^{*}_i
\theta_i$ are quatized with levels 0 and $e_i$[@casala].
On the hypersurface $\Sigma (\tau )$, we describe the electromagnetic potential and field strength with Lorentz-scalar variables $A_{\check A}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma
)$ and $F_{{\check A}{\check B}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ respectively, defined by
$$\begin{aligned}
&&A_{\check A}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=z^{\mu}_{\check A}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
A_{\mu}(z(\tau ,\vec \sigma ))\nonumber \\
&&F_{{\check A}{\check B}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )={\partial}_{\check A}A_{\check
B}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-{\partial}_{\check B}A_{\check A}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=
z^{\mu}_{\check A}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )z^{\nu}_{\check B}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
F_{\mu\nu}(z(\tau ,\vec \sigma )).
\label{113}\end{aligned}$$
The system is described by the action
$$\begin{aligned}
S&=& \int d\tau d^3\sigma \, {\cal L}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )=\int d\tau L(\tau )\nonumber \\
L(\tau )&=&\int d^3\sigma {\cal L}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\nonumber \\
{\cal L}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&=&{i\over 2}\sum_{i=1}^N\delta^3(\vec \sigma
-{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))[\theta^{*}_i(\tau ){\dot \theta}_i(\tau )-
{\dot \theta}^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )]-\nonumber \\
&&-\sum_{i=1}^N\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i
(\tau ))[\eta_im_i\sqrt{ g_{\tau\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+2g_{\tau {\check r}}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma ){\dot \eta}^{\check r}_i(\tau )+g_{{\check r}{\check s}}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma ){\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau ){\dot \eta}_i^{\check s}
(\tau ) }+\nonumber \\
&&+e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )(A_{\tau }(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+
A_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ){\dot \eta}^{\check r}_i(\tau ))]-\nonumber \\
&&-{1\over 4}\, \sqrt {g(\tau ,\vec \sigma )}
g^{{\check A}{\check C}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )g^{{\check B}{\check D}}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )F_{{\check A}{\check B}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
F_{{\check C}{\check D}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),
\label{114}\end{aligned}$$
where the configuration variables are $z^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ $A_{\check A}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$, ${\vec \eta}_i(\tau )$, $\theta_i(\tau )$ and $\theta^{*}_i(\tau )$, i=1,..,N. We have
$-{1\over 4}\sqrt{g} g^{\check A\check C}g^{\check B\check D}F_{\check A
\check B}F_{\check C\check D}=-\sqrt{\gamma}[{1\over 2}\sqrt{ {{\gamma}\over
g} } F_{\tau \check r}\gamma^{\check r\check s}F_{\tau \check s}-{{\gamma}
\over g} g_{\tau \check v}\gamma^{\check v\check r}F_{\check r\check s}
\gamma^{\check s\check u}F_{\tau \check u}+{1\over 4}\sqrt{ {g\over {\gamma}}}
\gamma^{\check r\check s}F_{\check r\check u}F_{\check s\check
v}(\gamma^{\check
u\check v}+2{{\gamma}\over g}g_{\tau \check m}\gamma^{\check m\check u}
g_{\tau \check n}\gamma^{\check n\check v})].$
The action is invariant under separate $\tau$- and $\vec \sigma$-reparametrizations, since $A_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma
)$ transforms as a $\tau$-derivative; moreover, it is invariant under the odd phase transformations $\delta \theta_i\mapsto i\alpha \theta_i$, generated by the $I_i$’s.
The canonical momenta are \[$E_{\check r}=F_{{\check r}\tau}$ and $B_{\check r}
=\epsilon_{{\check r}{\check s}{\check t}}F_{{\check s}{\check t}}$ are the electric and magnetic fields respectively\]
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&=&-{ {\partial {\cal L}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )}
\over {\partial z^{\mu}_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )} }=\sum_{i=1}^N\delta^3
(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))\eta_im_i\nonumber \\
&&{ {z_{\tau\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+z_{{\check r}\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
{\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau )}\over {\sqrt{g_{\tau\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+
2g_{\tau {\check r}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ){\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau )+
g_{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ){\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau
){\dot
\eta}_i^{\check s}(\tau ) }} }+\nonumber \\
&&+{ {\sqrt {g(\tau ,\vec \sigma )}}\over 4}[(g^{\tau \tau}z_{\tau \mu}+
g^{\tau {\check r}}z_{\check r\mu})(\tau ,\vec \sigma )g^{{\check A}{\check C}}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )g^{{\check B}{\check D}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )F_{{\check A}
{\check B}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )F_{{\check C}{\check D}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
-\nonumber \\
&-&2[z_{\tau \mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )(g^{\check A\tau}g^{\tau \check C}
g^{{\check B}{\check D}}+g^{{\check A}{\check C}}g^{\check B\tau}g^{\tau
\check D})(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+\nonumber \\
&+&z_{\check r\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
(g^{{\check A}{\check r}}g^{\tau {\check C}}+g^{{\check A}\tau}g^{{\check r}
{\check C}})(\tau ,\vec \sigma )g^{{\check B}{\check D}}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]F_{{\check A}{\check B}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
F_{{\check C}{\check D}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]=
\nonumber \\
&&=[(\rho_{\nu}l^{\nu})l_{\mu}+(\rho_{\nu}z^{\nu}_{\check r})\gamma^{{\check r}
{\check s}}z_{{\check s}\mu}](\tau ,\vec \sigma )\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
\pi^{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&=&{ {\partial L}\over {\partial \partial_{\tau}
A_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )} }=0,\nonumber \\
\pi^{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&=&{ {\partial L}\over {\partial \partial
_{\tau}A_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )} }=-{ {\gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )}
\over {\sqrt {g(\tau ,\vec \sigma )}} }\gamma^{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,
\vec \sigma )(F_{\tau {\check s}}-g_{\tau {\check v}}\gamma^{{\check v}
{\check u}}F_{{\check u}{\check s}})(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=\nonumber \\
&&={ {\gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )}\over {\sqrt {g(\tau ,\vec \sigma )}} }
\gamma^{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )(E_{\check s}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )-g_{\tau {\check v}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\gamma^{{\check v}{\check u}}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\epsilon_{{\check u}{\check s}{\check t}} B_{\check t}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )),\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
\kappa_{i{\check r}}(\tau )&=&-{ {\partial L(\tau )}\over {\partial {\dot
\eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau )} }=\nonumber \\
&=&\eta_im_i{ {g_{\tau {\check r}}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))+g_{{\check r}
{\check s}}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )){\dot \eta}_i^{\check s}(\tau )}\over
{ \sqrt{g_{\tau\tau}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))+
2g_{\tau {\check r}}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )){\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau
)+
g_{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )){\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}
(\tau ){\dot \eta}_i^{\check s}(\tau ) }} }+\nonumber \\
&+&e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )A_{\check r}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i
(\tau ),\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
\pi_{\theta \,i}(\tau )&=&{{\partial L(\tau )}\over {\partial {\dot \theta}_i
(\tau )}}=-{i\over 2}\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\nonumber \\
\pi_{\theta^{*} \, i}(\tau )&=&{{\partial L(\tau )}\over {\partial {\dot
\theta}^{*}_i(\tau )}}=-{i\over 2}\theta_i(\tau ),
\label{115}\end{aligned}$$
and the following Poisson brackets are assumed
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\lbrace z^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),\rho_{\nu}(\tau ,{\vec \sigma}^{'}\rbrace
=-\eta^{\mu}_{\nu}\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \sigma}^{'})\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace A_{\check A}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),\pi^{\check B}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma^{'} )\rbrace =\eta^{\check B}_{\check A}
\delta^3(\vec \sigma -\vec \sigma^{'})\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace \eta^{\check r}_i(\tau ),\kappa_j^{\check s}(\tau )\rbrace =
\delta_{ij}\delta^{{\check r}{\check s}}\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace \theta_i(\tau ),\pi_{\theta \, j}(\tau )\rbrace =-\delta_{ij}
\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace \theta^{*}_i(\tau ),\pi_{\theta^{*} \, j}(\tau )\rbrace
=-\delta_{ij}.
\label{116}\end{aligned}$$
The Grassmann momenta give origin to the second class constraints $\pi_{\theta
\, i}+{i\over 2}\theta^{*}_i\approx 0$, $\pi_{\theta^{*}\, i}+{i\over 2}
\theta_i\approx 0$ \[$\lbrace \pi_{\theta \, i}+{i\over 2}\theta^{*}_i,
\pi_{\theta^{*}\, j}+{i\over 2}\theta_j\rbrace =-i\delta_{ij}$\]; $\pi
_{\theta \, i}$ and $\pi_{\theta^{*}\, i}$ are then eliminated with the Dirac brackets
$$\lbrace A,B\rbrace {}^{*}=\lbrace A,B\rbrace -i[\lbrace A,\pi_{\theta \, i}+
{i\over 2}\theta^{*}_i\rbrace \lbrace \pi_{\theta^{*}\, i}+{i\over 2}
\theta_i,B\rbrace +\lbrace A,\pi_{\theta^{*}\, i}+{i\over 2}
\theta_i \rbrace \lbrace \pi_{\theta \, i}+{i\over 2}\theta^{*}_i,B\rbrace ]
\label{117}$$
so that the remaining Grassmann variables have the fundamental Dirac brackets \[which we will still denote $\lbrace .,.\rbrace$ for the sake of simplicity\]
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\lbrace \theta_i(\tau ),\theta_j(\tau )\rbrace = \lbrace \theta_i^{*}(\tau ),
\theta_j^{*}(\tau )\rbrace =0\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace \theta_i(\tau ),\theta_j^{*}(\tau )\rbrace =-i\delta_{ij}.
\label{118}\end{aligned}$$
Again, we obtain four primary constraints
$$\begin{aligned}
&{\cal H}_{\mu}&(\tau ,\vec \sigma )= \rho_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-
l_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )[T_{\tau\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+
\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{i=1}^N\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))\times
\nonumber \\
&\eta_i&\sqrt{ m^2_i-\gamma^{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
[\kappa_{i{\check r}}(\tau )-e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )A_{\check r}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )][\kappa_{i{\check s}}(\tau ) -e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )
\theta_i(\tau )A_{\check s}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )] }]-\nonumber \\
&-&z_{{\check r}\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\gamma^{{\check r}{\check s}}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\lbrace
T_{\tau \check s}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+\sum_{i=1}^N\delta^3(\vec \sigma -
{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))[\kappa_{i{\check s}}-e_i\theta_i^{*}(\tau )\theta_i
(\tau )A_{\check s}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )] \rbrace \approx 0,
\label{119}\end{aligned}$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
T_{\tau \tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
&=&-{1\over 2}({1\over {\sqrt {\gamma}} }\pi^{\check r}g_{{\check r}{\check s}}
\pi^{\check s}-{ {\sqrt {\gamma}}\over 2}\gamma^{{\check r}{\check s}}
\gamma^{{\check u}{\check v}}F_{{\check r}{\check u}}F_{{\check s}{\check v}})
(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),\nonumber \\
T_{\tau {\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&=&F_{{\check s}{\check t}}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )\pi^{\check t}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )={[\vec B(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
\times \vec \pi (\tau ,\vec \sigma )]}_{\check s},
\label{120}\end{aligned}$$
are the energy density and the Poynting vector respectively.
Since the canonical Hamiltonian is (we assume boundary conditions for the electromagnetic potential such that all the surface terms can be neglected; see Ref.[@lusc])
$$\begin{aligned}
H_c&=&-\sum_{i=1}^N\kappa_{i{\check r}}(\tau ){\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau )+
\int d^3\sigma [\pi^{\check A}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\partial_{\tau}A_{\check A}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-\rho_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )z^{\mu}_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )-{\cal L}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]=\nonumber \\
&=&\int d^3\sigma [\partial_{\check r}(\pi^{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
A_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-A_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\Gamma
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]=-\int d^3\sigma A_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma ),
\label{121}\end{aligned}$$
with
$$\Gamma(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=-\partial^r\pi^r(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+\sum_{i=1}
^Ne_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i
(\tau )),
\label{122}$$
we have the Dirac Hamiltonian ($\lambda^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ and $\lambda_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ are Dirac’s multipliers)
$$H_D=\int d^3\sigma \lambda^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ){\cal H}_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )+
\lambda_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\pi^{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-
A_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )].
\label{123}$$
The Lorentz scalar constraint $\pi^{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx 0$ is generated by the gauge invariance of S; its time constancy will produce the only secondary constraint (Gauss law)
$$\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx 0.
\label{124}$$
The six constraints ${\cal H}_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx 0$, $\pi^{\tau}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx 0$, $\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx 0$ are first class with the only non vanishing Poisson brackets
$$\begin{aligned}
\lbrace {\cal H}_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&,&{\cal H}_{\nu}(\tau ,{\vec
\sigma}^{'} )\rbrace =\nonumber \\
&=&\lbrace [l_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )z_{{\check r}\nu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
-l_{\nu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )z_{{\check r}\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]
{ {g_{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\pi^{\check s}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )}\over {\sqrt{\gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )}} }+\nonumber \\
&+&z^{\check r}_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )F_{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )z^{\check s}_{\nu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\rbrace
\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \sigma}^{'})\approx 0.
\label{125}\end{aligned}$$
Let us remark that the simplicity of Eqs.(\[125\]) is due to the use of Cartesian coordinates: if we had used the constraints ${\cal H}_l(\tau ,
\vec \sigma )=l^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ){\cal H}_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$, ${\cal H}_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=z^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
{\cal H}_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ (i.e. nonholonomic coordinates), so that their associated Dirac multipliers $\lambda_l(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$, $\lambda
_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ would have been the lapse and shift functions of general relativity, one would have obtained the universal algebra of Ref.[@diraca].
The ten conserved Poincaré generators are
$$\begin{aligned}
P_s^{\mu}&=&\int d^3\sigma \, \rho^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),\nonumber \\
J_s^{\mu\nu}&=&\int d^3\sigma \, (z^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\rho^{\nu}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-z^{\nu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\rho^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma
)),
\label{126}\end{aligned}$$
so that the total momentum is built starting from the existing energy momentum densities on the hypersurface
$$\begin{aligned}
&\int& d^3\sigma {\cal H}^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=p^{\mu}_s-
\int d^3\sigma l_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )[T_{\tau\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+
\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{i=1}^N\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))\times
\nonumber \\
&\eta_i&\sqrt{ m^2_i-\gamma^{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
[\kappa_{i{\check r}}(\tau )-e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )A_{\check r}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )][\kappa_{i{\check s}}(\tau )-e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )
\theta_i(\tau )A_{\check s}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )] }]-\nonumber \\
&-&\int d^3\sigma
z_{{\check r}\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\gamma^{{\check r}{\check s}}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\lbrace
T_{\tau \check s}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{i=1}^N\delta^3(\vec \sigma -
{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))[\kappa_{i{\check s}}(\tau )-e_i\theta_i^{*}(\tau
)\theta_i
(\tau )A_{\check s}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )] \rbrace \approx 0.
\label{127}\end{aligned}$$
If we add the gauge-fixings (\[47\]) and the Dirac brackets (\[51\]), (\[57\]), we remain with the variables $x^{\mu}_s, p^{\mu}_s,b^{\mu}_{\check
A}, S_s^{\mu\nu}, A_{\check A}, \pi^{\check A}, {\vec \eta}_i, {\vec \kappa}_i,
\theta_i, \theta^{*}_i$ and the twelve constraints
$$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu}(\tau )
&=&\int d^3\sigma {\cal H}^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=
p^{\mu}_s-l_{\mu}\lbrace {1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma [{\vec \pi}^2(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )+{\vec B}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]+\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\sqrt{ m^2_i+
{[{\vec \kappa}^2_i(\tau )-e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau ){\vec A}
(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]}^2 }\rbrace -\nonumber \\
&-&b_{{\check r}\mu}(\tau )\lbrace \int d^3\sigma {[\vec B(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
\times \vec \pi (\tau ,\vec \sigma )]}_{\check r}+\sum_{i=1}^N
[\kappa_{i{\check r}}(\tau )-e_i\theta_i^{*}(\tau )\theta_i
(\tau )A_{\check r}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))] \rbrace
\approx 0\nonumber \\
{\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu\nu}(\tau )&=& b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )\int d^3\sigma
\sigma^{\check r}\, {\cal H}^{\nu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-b^{\nu}_{\check r}(\tau
)
\int d^3\sigma \sigma^{\check r}\, {\cal H}^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=
\nonumber \\
&=&S_s^{\mu\nu}(\tau )-[b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )b^{\nu}_{\tau}-b^{\nu}_{\check
r}(\tau )b^{\mu}_{\tau}]\, [{1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma \sigma^{\check r}\,
[{\vec \pi}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+{\vec B}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]+\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i^{\check r}(\tau )\eta_i
\sqrt{m^2_i+[{\vec \kappa}_i(\tau )-e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )
\vec A(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]{}^2 }]-\nonumber \\
&-&[b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )b^{\nu}_{\check s}(\tau )-b^{\nu}_{\check r}(\tau
)
b^{\mu}_{\check s}(\tau )]\, [\int d^3\sigma \sigma^{\check r}\,
{[\vec B(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\times \vec \pi (\tau ,\vec \sigma )]}_{\check s}+
\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i^{\check r}(\tau )[\kappa_i^{\check s}(\tau )-e_i\theta
^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )A^{\check s}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]\,\, ]
\approx 0\nonumber \\
\pi^{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&\approx& 0\nonumber \\
\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )&\approx& 0,
\label{128}\end{aligned}$$
with Poisson algebra
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\lbrace {\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu}(\tau ),{\tilde {\cal H}}^{\nu}
(\tau )\rbrace {}^{*}=\int d^3\sigma \lbrace [b^{\mu}_{\tau}b^{\nu}_{\check r}
(\tau )-b^{\nu}_{\tau}b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )] \pi_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )+\nonumber \\
&&+b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )F_{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
b^{\nu}_{\check s}(\tau )\rbrace \Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace {\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu}(\tau ),{\tilde {\cal H}}^{\alpha
\beta}(\tau )\rbrace {}^{*}=\int d^3\sigma \, \sigma^{\check t}\, \lbrace
[b^{\alpha}_{\tau}b^{\beta}_{\check t}(\tau
)-b^{\beta}_{\tau}b^{\alpha}_{\check
t}(\tau )]b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )\pi_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+
\nonumber \\
&&+b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )F_{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
[b^{\alpha}_{\check t}(\tau )b^{\beta}_{\check s}(\tau )-b^{\beta}_{\check t}
(\tau )b^{\alpha}_{\check s}(\tau )]\rbrace
\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace {\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu\nu}(\tau ),{\tilde {\cal H}}
^{\alpha\beta}(\tau )\rbrace {}^{*}=C^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}
_{\gamma\delta}{\tilde {\cal H}}^{\gamma\delta}(\tau )+\int d^3\sigma \,
\sigma^{\check u}\, \sigma^{\check v}\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace b^{\mu}_{\check u}(\tau )b^{\alpha}_{\check v}(\tau )([b^{\nu}
_{\tau}b^{\beta}_{\check r}(\tau )-b^{\beta}_{\tau}b^{\nu}_{\check r}(\tau )]
\pi_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+b^{\nu}_{\check r}(\tau )F_{{\check
r}{\check
s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )b^{\beta}_{\check s}(\tau ))-\nonumber \\
&&-b^{\mu}_{\check u}(\tau )b^{\beta}_{\check v}(\tau )([b^{\nu}
_{\tau}b^{\alpha}_{\check r}(\tau )-b^{\alpha}_{\tau}b^{\nu}_{\check r}(\tau )]
\pi_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+b^{\nu}_{\check r}(\tau )F_{{\check
r}{\check
s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )b^{\alpha}_{\check s}(\tau ))-\nonumber \\
&&-b^{\nu}_{\check u}(\tau )b^{\alpha}_{\check v}(\tau )([b^{\mu}
_{\tau}b^{\beta}_{\check r}(\tau )-b^{\beta}_{\tau}b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )]
\pi_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )F_{{\check
r}{\check
s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )b^{\beta}_{\check s}(\tau ))+\nonumber \\
&&+b^{\nu}_{\check u}(\tau )b^{\beta}_{\check v}(\tau )([b^{\mu}
_{\tau}b^{\alpha}_{\check r}(\tau )-b^{\alpha}_{\tau}b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )]
\pi_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+b^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau )F_{{\check
r}{\check
s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )b^{\alpha}_{\check s}(\tau ))\rbrace
\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma ),
\label{129}\end{aligned}$$
and the form of Eq.(\[56\]) for the Poincaré generators.
Then we make the canonical transformation of Eqs.(\[59\]), so that the new variables are ${\tilde x}^{\mu}_s, p_s^{\mu}, b^A_{\check A}, {\tilde S}_s
^{\mu\nu}, A_{\check A}, \pi^{\check A}, {\vec \eta}_i, {\vec \kappa}_i,
\theta_i, \theta_i^{*}$ and one has
$$\begin{aligned}
{\bar S}_s^{AB}&=&\epsilon^A_{\mu}(u(p_s))\epsilon^B_{\nu}(u(p_s))S_s^{\mu\nu}
\approx [b^A_{\check r}(\tau )b^B_{\tau}-b^B_{\check r}(\tau )b^A_{\tau}]\,
[{1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma \sigma^{\check r}\,
[{\vec \pi}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+{\vec B}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]+\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i^{\check r}(\tau )\eta_i
\sqrt{m^2_i+[{\vec \kappa}_i(\tau )-e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )
\vec A(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]{}^2 }]+\nonumber \\
&+&[b^A_{\check r}(\tau )b^B_{\check s}(\tau )-b^B_{\check r}(\tau )b^A
_{\check s}(\tau )]\, [\int d^3\sigma \sigma^{\check r}\,
{[\vec B(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\times \vec \pi (\tau ,\vec \sigma )]}_{\check s}+
\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i^{\check r}(\tau )[\kappa_i^{\check s}(\tau )-e_i\theta
^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )A^{\check s}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]\,\, ].
\label{130}\end{aligned}$$
The final gauge-fixings (\[62\]) reduce the variables to ${\tilde x}^{\mu}_s,
p^{\mu}_s, A_{\tau}, \pi^{\tau}, A_r, \pi^r, \eta^r_i, \kappa_{ir}, \theta_i,
\theta^{*}_i,$ with “r" being a Wigner spin-1 index and $\bar o=\tau$ a Lorentz-scalar one.
We have
$$\begin{aligned}
{\bar S}_s^{AB}&\approx& (\eta^A_{\check r}\eta^B_{\tau}-\eta^B_{\check
r}\eta^A
_{\tau})\, [{1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma \sigma^{\check r}\,
[{\vec \pi}^2 (\tau ,\vec \sigma )+{\vec B}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]+\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i^{\check r}(\tau )\eta_i
\sqrt{m^2_i+[{\vec \kappa}_i(\tau )-e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )
\vec A(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]{}^2 }]+\nonumber \\
&+&(\eta^A_{\check r}\eta^B_{\check s}-\eta^B_{\check r}\eta^A_{\check s})\,
[\int d^3\sigma \sigma^{\check r}\,
{[\vec B(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\times \vec \pi (\tau ,\vec \sigma )]}_{\check s}+
\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i^{\check r}(\tau )[\kappa_i^{\check s}(\tau )-e_i\theta
^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )A^{\check s}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]\,\, ]
\nonumber \\
{\bar S}_s^{rs}&\approx&
\sum_{i=1}^N(\eta_i^{\check r}(\tau )[\kappa_i^{\check s}(\tau )-e_i\theta
^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )A^{\check s}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]-
\nonumber \\
&-&\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i^{\check s}(\tau )[\kappa_i^{\check r}(\tau )-e_i\theta
^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )A^{\check r}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]\, )-
\nonumber \\
&-&\int d^3\sigma \, (\sigma^r\,
{[\vec B(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\times \vec \pi (\tau ,\vec \sigma )]}^s-
\sigma^s\,
{[\vec B(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\times \vec \pi (\tau ,\vec \sigma )]}^r)
\nonumber \\
{\bar S}_s^{\bar or}&\approx& -{\bar S}_s^{r\bar o}=-
\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i^r(\tau )\eta_i
\sqrt{m^2_i+[{\vec \kappa}_i(\tau )-e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )
\vec A(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]{}^2 }-\nonumber \\
&-&{1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma \sigma^r\,
[{\vec \pi}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+{\vec B}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]
\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
J_s^{ij}&\approx& {\tilde x}^i_sp_s^j-{\tilde x}_s^jp^i_s+\delta^{ir}\delta
^{js}{\bar S}_s^{rs}\nonumber \\
J_s^{oi}&\approx&{\tilde x}_s^op^i_s-{\tilde x}_s^ip^o_s-{ {\delta^{ir}{\bar
S}_s^{rs}p^s_s}\over {p^o_s+\eta_s\sqrt{p^2_s}} }.
\label{131}\end{aligned}$$
The Poincaré generators now have the form of Eqs.(\[71\]) and only six first class constraints are left
$$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu}(\tau )&=&p_s^{\mu}-u^{\mu}(u(p_s))\,
[{1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma
[{\vec \pi}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+{\vec B}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]+\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i
\sqrt{m^2_i+[{\vec \kappa}_i(\tau )-e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )
\vec A(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]{}^2 }]-\nonumber \\
&-&\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p_s))\, [-\int d^3\sigma
{[\vec B(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\times \vec \pi (\tau ,\vec \sigma )]}^r+
\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{i=1}^N[\kappa_i^r(\tau )-e_i\theta
^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )A^r(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]\,\, ]
\approx 0\nonumber \\
\pi^{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&\approx& 0\nonumber \\
\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )&\approx& 0,\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace {\tilde {\cal H}}^{\mu},{\tilde {\cal H}}^{\nu}\rbrace {}^{**}=
\int d^3\sigma \lbrace [\epsilon^{\mu}_{\tau}(u(p_s))\epsilon^{\nu}_r
(u(p_s))-\epsilon^{\nu}_{\tau}(u(p_s))\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p_s))] \pi_r(\tau
,\vec
\sigma )+\nonumber \\
&&+\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p_s))F_{rs}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
\epsilon^{\nu}_s(u(p_s))\rbrace \Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )
\label{132}\end{aligned}$$
or
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}(\tau )&=&\eta_s\sqrt{p^2_s}-
[\sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i
\sqrt{m^2_i+[{\vec \kappa}_i(\tau )-e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )
\vec A(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]{}^2 }+\nonumber \\
&+&{1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma
[{\vec \pi}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+{\vec B}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma ) ]
\approx 0\nonumber \\
{\vec {\cal H}}_p(\tau )&=&
\sum_{i=1}^N[{\vec \kappa}_i(\tau )-e_i\theta
^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )\vec A(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]-
\nonumber \\
&-&\int d^3\sigma
\vec B(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\times \vec \pi (\tau ,\vec \sigma )
\approx 0\nonumber \\
\pi^{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&\approx& 0\nonumber \\
\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )&\approx& 0,
\label{133}\end{aligned}$$
Then, for $N \geq 2$, we do the canonical transformation (\[73\]), (\[74\]): the new form of the constraints is
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal H}(\tau )=\epsilon_s-\lbrace \sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\times \nonumber \\
&& \sqrt{m^2_i+[{1\over N}{\vec \kappa}_{+}(\tau )+\sqrt{N}
\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}_a(\tau )-e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )
\theta_i(\tau )\vec A(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \rho}_a(\tau ))]{}^2 }+\nonumber \\
&+&{1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma
[{\vec \pi}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+{\vec B}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma ) ]\rbrace
=\epsilon_s-E_{(P+I)s}-E_{(F)s}\approx 0\nonumber \\
\nonumber \\
&&{\vec {\cal H}}_p(\tau )={\vec \kappa}_{+}(\tau )-\sum_{i=1}^N
e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )
\theta_i(\tau )\vec A(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \rho}_a(\tau ))-
\nonumber \\
&-& \int d^3\sigma \vec B(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\times \vec \pi (\tau ,\vec
\sigma )={\vec P}_{(P+I)s}+{\vec P}_{(F)s}\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&\pi^{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx 0,
\label{134}\end{aligned}$$
where $E_{(F)s}={1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma [{\vec \pi}^2(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )+{\vec B}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]$ and ${\vec P}_{(F)s}=-
\int d^3\sigma \vec \pi (\tau ,\vec \sigma )\times \vec B(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )$ are the rest-frame field energy and three-momentum respectively \[now we have $\vec \pi (\tau ,\vec \sigma )=\vec E(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$\], while $E_{(P+I)s}$ and ${\vec P}_{(P+I)s}$ denote the particle+interaction total rest-frame energy and three-momentum, before the decoupling from the electromagnetic gauge degrees of freedom.
The final form of the rest-frame spin tensor is
$$\begin{aligned}
{\bar S}_s^{rs}&=&-\sum_{i=1}^Ne_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )
[\eta^r_{+}(\tau )A^s(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\vec \rho}_b(\tau ))-\nonumber \\
&-&\eta^s_{+}(\tau )A^r(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\vec \rho}_b(\tau ))]+\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}[\rho^r_a(\tau )(\pi^s_a(\tau )-{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )
A^s(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\vec \rho}_b(\tau ))-\nonumber \\
&-&\rho^s_a(\tau )(\pi^r_a(\tau )-{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )
A^r(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\vec \rho}_b(\tau ))]-\nonumber \\
&-&\int d^3\sigma \, (\sigma^r\, {[\vec B(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
\times \vec \pi (\tau ,\vec \sigma )]}^s-\sigma^s\,
{[\vec B(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\times \vec \pi (\tau ,\vec \sigma )]}^r)=
{\bar S}_{(P+I)s}^{rs}+{\bar S}_{(F)s}^{rs}\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
{\bar S}_s^{\bar or}&=&-{\bar S}_s^{r\bar o}=-\sum_{i=1}^N(\eta^r_{+}(\tau )
+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\rho^r_a(\tau ))
\eta_i \times \nonumber \\
&&\sqrt{m^2_i+[{1\over N}{\vec \kappa}_{+}(\tau )+\sqrt{N}
\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}_a(\tau )-e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )
\theta_i(\tau )\vec A(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \rho}_a(\tau ))]{}^2 }\nonumber \\
&-&{1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma \sigma^r\,
[{\vec \pi}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+{\vec B}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )],
\label{135}\end{aligned}$$
while the Dirac Hamiltonian is
$$H_D=\lambda (\tau ){\cal H}-\vec \lambda (\tau ){\vec {\cal H}}_p+\int d^3
\sigma [\lambda_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\pi^{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-
A_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )].
\label{136}$$
We can check that $\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )$ is a constant of motion for each i=1,..,N, so that we will write it as $\theta^{*}_i\theta_i$.
Let us now look at the electromagnetic Dirac observables, namely at the functions on phase space invariant under electromagnetic gauge transformations. Referring to Ref.[@lusc] for the detailed calculations, for the electromagnetic field we have the following decompositions
$$\begin{aligned}
A^r(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&=&{ {\partial}\over {\partial \sigma^r} }\eta_{em}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+A^r_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\nonumber \\
\pi^r(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&=&\pi^r_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )+{1\over {\triangle_{\sigma}} }{ {\partial}\over {\partial \sigma^r}}
[\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )-\sum_{i=1}^Ne_i\theta^{*}_i\theta_i\delta^3
(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
\eta_{em}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&=&-{1\over {\triangle_{\sigma}} }{ {\partial}
\over {\partial \vec \sigma} }\cdot \vec A(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace \eta_{em}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),\Gamma (\tau ,{\vec \sigma}^{'} )
\rbrace {}^{**}=-\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \sigma}^{'})\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace A^r_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),\pi^s_{\perp}(\tau ,{\vec \sigma}
^{'})\rbrace {}^{**}=-(\delta^{rs}+{{\partial^r_{\sigma}\partial^s_{\sigma}}
\over {\triangle_{\sigma} }})\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \sigma}^{'}),
\label{137}\end{aligned}$$
with the pairs of conjugate variables $A_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),
\pi^{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx 0, \eta_{em}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),
\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx 0$ spanning the Lorentz-scalar gauge subspace of phase space, and with ${\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),
{\vec \pi}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ \[${\vec \partial}_{\sigma}\cdot
{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )={\vec \partial}_{\sigma}\cdot {\vec
\pi}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=0$\] being a canonical basis of electromagnetic Dirac observables, transforming as Wigner spin-1 3-vectors.
Since we have
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\lbrace \eta^r_i(\tau ), \Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )\rbrace {}^{**}=0
\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace \kappa^r_i(\tau ), \Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )\rbrace {}^{**}=
-e_i\theta^{*}_i\theta_i{{\partial}\over {\partial \eta^r_i}}\delta^3
(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )),
\label{138}\end{aligned}$$
the particle momenta ${\vec \kappa}_i(\tau )$ are not gauge invariant. Also the Grassmann variables $\theta_i(\tau ), \theta^{*}_i(\tau )$ are not gauge invariant
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\lbrace \theta_i(\tau ),\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )\rbrace {}^{**}=-i
e_i\theta_i(\tau )\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace \theta^{*}_i(\tau ),\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )\rbrace {}^{**}=i
e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )).
\label{139}\end{aligned}$$
The Grassmann Dirac observables are
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\hat \theta}_i(\tau )=e^{-i\eta_{em}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))}\theta_i
(\tau ),\quad \quad \lbrace {\hat \theta}_i(\tau ),\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )
\rbrace {}^{**}=0,\nonumber \\
&&{\hat \theta}_i^{*}(\tau )=e^{i\eta_{em}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))}\theta_i
^{*}(\tau ),\quad \quad \lbrace {\hat \theta}^{*}_i(\tau ),\Gamma (\tau ,\vec
\sigma )\rbrace {}^{**}=0,\nonumber \\
&&\Rightarrow {\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat
\theta}_i=\theta^{*}_i\theta_i,\quad\quad
\lbrace \theta^{*}_i\theta_i,\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )\rbrace {}^{**}=0.
\label{140}\end{aligned}$$
Since we have
$${\vec \kappa}_i(\tau )-e_i\theta^{*}_i\theta_i\vec A(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau
))={\hat {\vec \kappa}}_i(\tau )-e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i{\vec
A}_{\perp}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )),
\label{141}$$
with
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\hat {\vec \kappa}}_i(\tau )={\vec \kappa}_i(\tau )-e_i\theta^{*}_i\theta_i
\vec \partial \eta_{em}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )),\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace {\hat \kappa}^r_i(\tau ),\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )\rbrace {}^{**}
=0\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace \eta^r_i(\tau ),{\hat \kappa}^s_j(\tau )\rbrace {}^{**}=\delta
_{ij}\delta^{rs},\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace {\hat \kappa}^r_i(\tau ),{\hat \theta}_j(\tau )\rbrace {}^{**}=0,
\quad\quad \lbrace {\hat \kappa}^r_i(\tau ),{\hat \theta}^{*}_j(\tau )\rbrace
{}^{**}=0,
\label{142}\end{aligned}$$
the particle Dirac observables are ${\vec \eta}_i(\tau ), {\hat
{\vec \kappa}}_i(\tau )$: the scalar particles have been dressed with the Coulomb cloud (like the fermion fields in Ref.[@lusc]).
From Equations (\[137\]), we have
$$\begin{aligned}
{\vec \pi}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&=&\lbrace {\vec \pi}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )+{1\over {\triangle_{\sigma}} }{{\partial}\over {\partial \vec \sigma}}
[\Gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )-\sum_{i=1}^Ne_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i
\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))]\rbrace {}^2\approx \nonumber \\
&\approx& {\vec \pi}^2_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-2{\vec \pi}_{\perp}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\cdot {1\over {\triangle_{\sigma}}}{{\partial}\over
{\partial \vec \sigma}}\sum_{i=1}^Ne_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i
\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))+\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{i,j=1}^N[e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i][e_j{\hat \theta}^{*}_j
{\hat \theta}_j]{1\over {\triangle_{\sigma}}}{{\partial}\over {\partial \vec
\sigma}}\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))\, \cdot \, {1\over
{\triangle_{\sigma}}}{{\partial}\over {\partial \vec \sigma}}\delta^3(\vec
\sigma -{\vec \eta}_j(\tau )),
\label{143}\end{aligned}$$
so that by integrating by parts and using the property $Q^2_i=0$, $Q_i=e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i$, of Grassmann variables, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\int d^3\sigma {\vec \pi}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=\nonumber \\
&&=\int d^3\sigma \lbrace {\vec \pi}^2_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-\sum
_{i\not= j}^{1..N}Q_iQ_j\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )){1\over
{\triangle_{\sigma}}}\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_j(\tau ))\rbrace =
\nonumber \\
&&=\int d^3\sigma {\vec \pi}^2_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-\sum_{i\not= j}
^{1..N}Q_iQ_j\, c({\vec \eta}_i(\tau )-{\vec \eta}_j(\tau )),
\label{144}\end{aligned}$$
where we have introduced the Green function $c(\vec x)$ defined by
$$c(\vec x-\vec y)={{-1}\over {4\pi |\, \vec x-\vec y\, |}}={1\over {\triangle
_x}}\delta^3(\vec x-\vec y).
\label{145}$$
Having decoupled the electromagnetic gauge variables, the canonical basis of Dirac observables ${\tilde x}^{\mu}_s(\tau ),
p^{\mu}_s, {\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma ), {\vec \pi}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ), {\vec \eta}_i(\tau ),
{\hat {\vec \kappa}}_i(\tau ), {\hat \theta}_i(\tau ), {\hat \theta}_i^{*}
(\tau )$ spans the phase space, where the remaining gauge invariant four first class constraints in Eqs.(\[134\]) have the form
$$\begin{aligned}
{\hat {\cal H}}(\tau )&=&\epsilon_s-\lbrace \sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i\nonumber \\
&&\sqrt{m^2_i+[{1\over N}{\hat {\vec \kappa}}_{+}
(\tau )+\sqrt{N}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\hat {\vec \pi}}_a(\tau )
-e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}
(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \rho}_a
(\tau ))]{}^2 }-\nonumber \\
&-&{1\over 2}\sum_{i\not= j}^{1..N}[e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i]
[e_j{\hat \theta}^{*}_j{\hat \theta}_j]\, c[{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
({\hat \gamma}_{ai}-{\hat \gamma}_{aj}){\vec \rho}_a(\tau )]
+\nonumber \\
&+&{1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma [{\vec \pi}_{\perp}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+{\vec B}
^2[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]\, ]\rbrace \approx 0\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
{\hat {\vec {\cal H}}}_p(\tau )&=&
{\hat {\vec \kappa}}_{+}(\tau )-\sum_{i=1}^N
e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}
(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \rho}_a
(\tau ))-\nonumber \\
&-&\int d^3\sigma \, \vec B[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]\times
{\vec \pi}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace {\hat {\cal H}},{\hat {\cal H}}^r_p\rbrace {}^{**}=\lbrace {\hat
{\cal H}}^r_p,{\hat {\cal H}}^s_p\rbrace {}^{**}=0;
\label{146}\end{aligned}$$
the Bianchi identity $\vec \partial \cdot \vec B(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
=0$ has been used to obtain ${\hat {\cal H}}^r_p$. The variables ${\hat {\vec \kappa}}_{+},
{\hat {\vec \pi}}_a$ are the Dirac observables induced by ${\hat {\vec \kappa}}
_i$. Now the Dirac Hamiltonian is $H_D=\lambda (\tau ){\hat {\cal H}}(\tau )-
{\vec \lambda}(\tau )\cdot {\hat {\vec {\cal H}}}_p(\tau )$.
The rest-frame spin tensor becomes
$$\begin{aligned}
{\bar S}_s^{rs}&=&-\sum_{i=1}^Ne_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i
[\eta^r_{+}(\tau )A_{\perp}^s(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\vec \rho}_b(\tau ))-\nonumber \\
&-&\eta^s_{+}(\tau )A_{\perp}^r(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over
{\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\vec \rho}_b(\tau ))]+\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}[\rho^r_a(\tau )({\hat \pi}^s_a(\tau )-{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i
A_{\perp}^s(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\vec \rho}_b(\tau ))-\nonumber \\
&-&\rho^s_a(\tau )({\hat \pi}^r_a(\tau )-{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i
A_{\perp}^r(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\vec \rho}_b(\tau ))]-\nonumber \\
&-&\sum_{i=1}^Ne_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i\int d^3\sigma
(\sigma^r\epsilon^{suv}-\sigma^s\epsilon^{ruv})[{1\over {\triangle_{\sigma}}}
{{\partial}\over {\partial \sigma^u}}\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau
))]\, B^v[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]-\nonumber \\
&-&\int d^3\sigma \, (\sigma^r\, {[\vec B[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]
\times {\vec \pi}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\, ]}^s-\sigma^s\,
{[\vec B[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]\times
{\vec \pi}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\, ]}^r)=\nonumber \\
&=&\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}[\rho^r_a(\tau ){\hat \pi}_a^s(\tau )-\rho^s_a(\tau ){\hat
\pi}_a^r(\tau )]-\nonumber \\
&-&\int d^3\sigma \, (\sigma^r\, {[\vec B[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]
\times {\vec \pi}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\, ]}^s-\sigma^s\,
{[\vec B[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]\times
{\vec \pi}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\, ]}^r)-\nonumber \\
&-&\sum_{i=1}^Ne_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i
[\eta^r_{+}(\tau )A_{\perp}^s(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\vec \rho}_b(\tau ))-\nonumber \\
&-&\eta^s_{+}(\tau )A_{\perp}^r(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over
{\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\vec \rho}_b(\tau ))]+\nonumber \\
&-&{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}[\rho^r_a(\tau )
\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i
A_{\perp}^s(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\vec \rho}_b(\tau ))-\nonumber \\
&-&\rho^s_a(\tau )
\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i
A_{\perp}^r(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\vec \rho}_b(\tau ))]-\nonumber \\
&-&\epsilon^{rsk} \sum_{i=1}^N e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i\int
d^3\sigma c(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )) \lbrace 2B^k[{\vec A}_{\perp}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]-\nonumber \\
&-&\vec \sigma \cdot {{\partial}\over {\partial \vec \sigma}}
B^k[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]+\vec \sigma \cdot {{\partial}\over
{\partial \sigma^k}}\vec B[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]\rbrace =
\nonumber \\
&=&{\bar S}^{rs}_{s,FREE}+{\bar S}^{rs}_{s,INT}\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
{\bar S}_s^{\bar or}&=&-{\bar S}_s^{r\bar o}=-\sum_{i=1}^N(\eta^r_{+}(\tau )
+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\rho^r_a(\tau ))
\eta_i \times \nonumber \\
&&\sqrt{m^2_i+[{1\over N}{\hat {\vec \kappa}}_{+}(\tau )+\sqrt{N}
\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\hat {\vec \pi}}_a(\tau )-e_i{\hat \theta}
^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over
{\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \rho}_a(\tau ))]{}^2 }-
\nonumber \\
&-&{1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma \sigma^r\, [-2{\vec \pi}_{\perp}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\cdot {1\over {\triangle_{\sigma}}}{{\partial}\over
{\partial \vec \sigma}}\sum_{i=1}^Ne_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i
\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))+\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{i,j=1}^N[e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i][e_j{\hat \theta}^{*}_j
{\hat \theta}_j]{1\over {\triangle_{\sigma}}}{{\partial}\over {\partial \vec
\sigma}}\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))\, \cdot \, {1\over
{\triangle_{\sigma}}}{{\partial}\over {\partial \vec \sigma}}\delta^3(\vec
\sigma -{\vec \eta}_j(\tau ))]-\nonumber \\
&-&{1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma \sigma^r\,
[{\vec \pi}_{\perp}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+{\vec B}^2[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,
\vec \sigma )]=\nonumber \\
&=&-\sum_{i=1}^N(\eta^r_{+}(\tau )
+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}\rho^r_a(\tau ))
\eta_i \times \nonumber \\
&&\sqrt{m^2_i+[{1\over N}{\hat {\vec \kappa}}_{+}(\tau )+\sqrt{N}
\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\hat {\vec \pi}}_a(\tau )-e_i{\hat \theta}
^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over
{\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \rho}_a(\tau ))]{}^2 }+
\nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{i=1}^Ne_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i\lbrace \sum^{1..N}
_{j\not= i} e_j{\hat \theta}^{*}_j{\hat \theta}_j[{1\over {\triangle
_{{\vec \eta}_j}} }{{\partial}\over {\partial \eta^r_j}} c({\vec \eta}_i(\tau
)-
{\vec \eta}_j(\tau ))-\eta^r_j(\tau ) c({\vec \eta}_i(\tau )-{\vec \eta}_j
(\tau ))]+\nonumber \\
&+&\int d^3\sigma \pi^r_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ) c(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}
_i(\tau ))\rbrace-{1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma \sigma^r\,
({\vec \pi}_{\perp}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+{\vec B}^2[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,
\vec \sigma )]).
\label{147}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore the final result is the extraction of the static action-at-a-distance Coulomb potential from the electromagnetic field theory, which is reduced to the transverse radiation field.This is obtained at the pseudoclassical level, where the hypothesis of charge quantization is reflected in the property $Q^2_i=0$, which regularizes the classical electromagnetic self-energy and produces the rule $\sum_{i\not= j}$ without the need to introduce Feuynman-Wheeler[@feyw] theory of the absorbers. Clearly all the effects of order $e_i^2$ (like those producing the runaway solutions in the Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac equation; see Refs.[@teitel; @grandy]) are killed: only the interference effects of order $e_ie_j$, $i\not= j$ are preserved. These problems will be investigated in more detail elsewhere. In any case, it is clear that in this formulation the initial data problem consists in specifying Cauchy data for the radiation field and Newton-like action-at-a-distance initial data for the charged particles with mutual Coulomb interaction.
In particular, if we put equal to zero the radiation field, ${\vec A}_{\perp}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )={\vec \pi}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=0$, we obtain a well defined relativistic 1-time reduced N-body problem with the Coulomb potential extracted from field theory and with a decoupling of the motion of the center of mass, whose constraints are
$$\begin{aligned}
{\hat {\cal H}}(\tau )&=&\epsilon_s-\lbrace \sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i
\sqrt{m^2_i+[{1\over N}{\hat {\vec \kappa}}_{+}
(\tau )+\sqrt{N}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\hat {\vec \pi}}_a(\tau )
]{}^2 }-\nonumber \\
&-&{1\over 2}\sum_{i\not= j}^{1..N}[e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i]
[e_j{\hat \theta}^{*}_j{\hat \theta}_j]\, c[{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
({\hat \gamma}_{ai}-{\hat \gamma}_{aj}){\vec \rho}_a(\tau )]\rbrace
\approx \nonumber \\
&\approx& \epsilon_s-\lbrace \sum_{i=1}^N\eta_i
\sqrt{m^2_i+N[\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\hat {\vec \pi}}_a(\tau )
]{}^2 }-\nonumber \\
&-&{1\over 2}\sum_{i\not= j}^{1..N}[e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i]
[e_j{\hat \theta}^{*}_j{\hat \theta}_j]\, c[{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}
({\hat \gamma}_{ai}-{\hat \gamma}_{aj}){\vec \rho}_a(\tau )]\rbrace \approx 0
\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
{\hat {\vec {\cal H}}}_p(\tau )&=&{\hat {\vec \kappa}}_{+}(\tau )\approx 0
\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace {\hat {\cal H}},{\hat {\cal H}}^r_p\rbrace {}^{**}=\lbrace {\hat
{\cal H}}^r_p,{\hat {\cal H}}^s_p\rbrace {}^{**}=0;
\label{148}\end{aligned}$$
whose natural gauge-fixing for decoupling the last three constraints is ${\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )\approx 0$ as in the free case \[the nonrelativistic limit, using the methods of Refs.[@pons], would give the first class constraint ${\hat {\cal H}}=E_R-H_R\approx 0$ (where $E_R$ and $H_R$ are the reduced energy and Hamiltonian respectively) for the parametrized Newtonian N-body problem with Coulomb interaction\]. See also Ref.[@ppl] and its bibliography for models with additive potentials like the Coulomb one in Eq.(\[148\]). For the N=2 case, Eqs.(\[148\]) were already found in Refs.[@gst], where there is a study of the classical equations of motion and their explicit solution in the equal mass case.
It is difficult to find the gauge-fixings replacing ${\vec \eta}_{+}\approx 0$, i.e. which is the point of the system to be identified with ${\tilde x}_s^{\mu}
$, for the full theory, and then the final form of the rest-frame spin tensor (\[147\]). Given these gauge-fixings, we have to find a canonical basis of Dirac’s observables with vanishing Poisson brackets with the constraints ${\hat {\vec {\cal H}}}_p\approx 0$ of Eqs.(\[146\]) and with the gauge-fixings, and to reexpress ${\hat {\cal H}}\approx 0$ of Eqs.(\[146\]) in terms of them: this will give the final 1-time reduced Hamiltonian for N charged scalar particles interacting through the Coulomb potential and coupled to the radiation field. However, an implicit form of the three gauge-fixings may be found by remembering that in any instant form of the dynamics there are only four generators of the Poincaré group which depend on the interaction. In the rest-frame instant form they are $\epsilon_s=\eta_s\sqrt{p_s^2}$, given by the first of Eqs.( \[146\]), and the three boosts $J^{oi}_s$, given in the last of Eqs.(\[131\]) \[they depend on the interaction through the term $\eta_s\sqrt{p_s^2}$\]. The other six, i.e. ${\vec p}_s$ and $J_s^{ij}$ \[namely ${\bar S}^{rs}_s$\], must be identical to the analogous generators in absence of interactions, namely to the ganerators for N neutral scalar particles plus the electromagnetic field. Therefore, from Eqs.(\[147\]) we must require the vanishing of the interacting part ${\bar S}^{rs}_{s,INT}$ of the rest-frame three-spin
$$\begin{aligned}
\chi^k(\tau )&=&{1\over 2}\epsilon^{krs}{\bar S}^{rs}_{s,INT}=
-\epsilon^{krs}\eta^r_{+}(\tau )\sum_{i=1}^Ne_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}
_iA_{\perp}^s(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\vec \rho}_b(\tau ))-\nonumber \\
&-&{{\epsilon^{krs}}\over {\sqrt{N}}}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}\rho^r_a(\tau )
\sum_{i=1}^N{\hat \gamma}_{ai}e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i
A_{\perp}^s(\tau ,{\vec \eta}_{+}(\tau )+{1\over {\sqrt{N}}}
\sum_{b=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{bi}{\vec \rho}_b(\tau ))-\nonumber \\
&-&\sum_{i=1}^N e_i{\hat \theta}^{*}_i{\hat \theta}_i\int
d^3\sigma c(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau )) \lbrace 2B^k[{\vec A}_{\perp}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]-\nonumber \\
&-&\vec \sigma \cdot {{\partial}\over {\partial \vec \sigma}}
B^k[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]+\vec \sigma \cdot {{\partial}\over
{\partial \sigma^k}}\vec B[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]\rbrace
\approx 0.
\label{new148}\end{aligned}$$
The time constancy of these constrains determines the Dirac multipliers $\vec \lambda (\tau)$, so that the final Dirac Hamiltonian becomes $H_D=\lambda (\tau ){\hat {\cal H}}(\tau )$. The problem of evaluating the Dirac brackets of the three pairs of second class constraints ${\hat {\vec {\cal H}}}_p\approx 0$ and $\chi^r
\approx 0$ as well as the attempt of diagonalizing these brackets will be studied elsewhere.
Let us remark that, if in Eqs.(\[146\]) we disregard the constraints ${\hat {\vec {\cal
H}}}_p\approx 0$ and eliminate the field energy term in ${\hat {\cal H}}
\approx 0$, we get a constraint ${\hat {\cal H}}^{'}\approx 0$ in which ${\vec
A}_{\perp}$ is an external radiation field coupled to the system.
If we eliminate the particles and we remain with only the field, the four constraints are
$$\begin{aligned}
{\hat {\cal H}}(\tau )&=&\epsilon_s-
{1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma [{\vec \pi}_{\perp}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+{\vec B}
^2[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]\, ]\rbrace \approx 0\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
{\hat {\vec {\cal H}}}_p(\tau )&=&
\int d^3\sigma \, \vec B[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]\times
{\vec \pi}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )={\vec P}_{(F)s}\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace {\hat {\cal H}},{\hat {\cal H}}^r_p\rbrace {}^{**}=\lbrace {\hat
{\cal H}}^r_p,{\hat {\cal H}}^s_p\rbrace {}^{**}=0.
\label{149}\end{aligned}$$
Now the gauge-fixing should be the vanishing of a center-of-mass field three-coordinate conjugate to the total three-momentum ${\vec P}_{(F)s}
={\hat {\cal H}}_p\approx 0$. Therefore, we have indirectly shown that there must exist a center-of-mass decomposition also for classical gauge field theory and that this is the lacking ingredient to get a reformulation of classical field theory as a “1-time rest-frame field theory" with Wigner covariance of the variables relative to the center of mass when restricted to configurations belonging to timelike representations of the Poincaré group. Again, only three center-of-mass coordinates would not be covariant.
The 1-time Theory versus the Feshbach-Villars Hamiltonian Theory
================================================================
In Ref.[@fv] (see also Ref.[@cors]), the first quantized one-particle second order Klein-Gordon equation coupled to an external electromagnetic field, $(D^2+m^2)\phi (x)=0$, $D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}-ieA_{\mu}(x)$, was put in Hamiltonian form after having rewritten it in the first order formalism: $\phi_o(x)-{i\over m}D_o\phi (x)=0$, $({\vec D}^2-m^2)\phi (x)+imD_o\phi_o
(x)=0$. If we put $\phi (x)={1\over {\sqrt{2}}}[\varphi (x)+\chi (x)]$, $\phi_o(x)={1\over {\sqrt{2}}}[\varphi (x)-\chi (x)]$, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
&&i\partial_o\varphi (x)={1\over {2m}}{(-i\vec \partial -e\vec A(x))}^2
(\varphi (x)+\chi (x))+(eA_o(x)+m)\varphi (x)\nonumber \\
&&i\partial_o\chi (x)=-{1\over {2m}}{(-i\vec \partial -e\vec A(x))}^2
(\varphi (x)+\chi (x))+(eA_o(x)-m)\chi (x).
\label{150}\end{aligned}$$
In a $2\times 2$ matrix formalism we have ($\tau_i$ are the Pauli matrices)
$$\begin{aligned}
i\partial_o \Psi (x)&=& H\, \Psi (x)\nonumber \\
&&\Psi (x)=\left( \begin{array}{c} \varphi (x)\\ \chi (x) \end{array} \right)
\nonumber \\
&&H={1\over {2m}}{(-i\vec \partial -e\vec A(x))}^2\, (\tau_3+i\tau_2)+m\tau_3
+eA_o(x) 1\nonumber \\
&&{\rightarrow}_{A_{\mu}\rightarrow 0}\,\, H_o={ {{(-i\vec \partial )}^2}
\over {2m}}(\tau_3+i\tau_2)+m\tau_3.
\label{151}\end{aligned}$$
In the momentum representation we have $H_o={ {{\vec p}^2}\over {2m}}(\tau_3+
i\tau_2)+m\tau_3$ and this Hamiltonian can be diagonalized ($p^o=+\sqrt{m^2+
{\vec p}^2}$)
$$\begin{aligned}
H_{o,U}&=&U^{-1}(\vec p)H_oU(\vec p)=p^o\tau_3=\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt{m^2+{\vec p}^2}&0\\ 0&-\sqrt{m^2+{\vec p}^2} \end{array} \right)
\nonumber \\
&&\Psi_U(p)=U^{-1}(\vec p)\Psi (p)\nonumber \\
&&i\partial_o\Psi_U=H_{o,U}\Psi_u\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&U(\vec p)={1\over {2\sqrt{mp^o}}}[(m+p^o) 1-(m-p^o)\tau_1]\nonumber \\
&&U^{-1}(\vec p)={1\over {2\sqrt{mp^o}}}[(m+p^o) 1+(m-p^o)\tau_1].
\label{152}\end{aligned}$$
Like in the case of the Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation for particles of spin 1/2, also in the spin 0 case the exact diagonalization of the Hamiltonian cannot be achieved in presence of an arbitrary external electromagnetic field [@fv].
At the classical level, the first class constraint ${(p-eA(x))}^2-m^2\approx 0$ may be resolved as $(p^o-eA^o(x)-\sqrt{m^2+{(\vec p-e\vec A(x))}^2})
(p^o-eA^o(x)+\sqrt{m^2+{(\vec p-e\vec A(x))}^2})\approx 0$, which can be replaced by the $2\times 2$ matrix
$\left( \begin{array}{cc} (p^o-eA^o(x)-
\sqrt{m^2+{(\vec p-e\vec A(x))}^2}) & 0\\ 0& (p^o-eA^o(x)+
\sqrt{m^2+{(\vec p-e\vec A(x))}^2}) \end{array} \right) =(p^o-eA^o(x)) 1+
\sqrt{m^2+{(\vec p-e\vec A(x))}^2} \tau_3 \approx 0$.
This shows that the $2\times 2$ matrix formalism has a topological origin in the two disjoint branches of the timelike orbits. However, in presence of the external electromagnetic field $p^{\mu}$ is no more a constant of the motion and it is not clear how to apply the theory of the canonical realizations of the Poincaré group.
In contrast, in the 1-time theory for N=1 in presence of a dynamical (not external) electromagnetic field, from Eqs.(\[133\]), (\[134\]) \[in the canonical transformation (\[73\]), (\[74\]), $\vec \eta (\tau )$ and $\vec \kappa
(\tau )$ remain fixed\], we have the following rest-frame first class constraints
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\cal H}(\tau )
=\epsilon_s-\eta \sqrt{m^2+{[\vec \kappa (\tau )-e\theta^{*}\theta
\vec A(\tau ,\vec \eta (\tau ))]}^2}-{1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma [{\vec \pi}^2
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+{\vec B}^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&{\vec {\cal H}}_p(\tau )
=\vec \kappa (\tau )-e\theta^{*}\theta \vec A(\tau ,\vec
\eta (\tau ))+\int d^3\sigma \vec \pi (\tau ,\vec \sigma )\times \vec B(\tau ,
\vec \sigma )\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&\pi^{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&\Gamma(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=-\vec \partial \cdot \vec \pi (\tau ,\vec \sigma )
+e\theta^{*}\theta \delta^3(\vec \sigma -\vec \eta (\tau ))\approx 0,
\label{153}\end{aligned}$$
or in terms of Dirac observables \[see Eq.(\[146\]); again we have ${(e\theta^{*}\theta )}^2=0$\]
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\hat {\cal H}}(\tau )
=\epsilon_s-\eta \sqrt{m^2+{[{\hat {\vec \kappa}}(\tau )-
e{\hat \theta}^{*}\hat \theta {\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \eta (\tau ))]}^2}-
{1\over 2}\int d^3\sigma \, ({\vec \pi}^2_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+
{\vec B}^2[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )])\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\vec {\cal H}}}_p(\tau )={\hat {\vec \kappa}}(\tau )-e{\hat
\theta}^{*}
\hat \theta {\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \eta (\tau ))+\int d^3\sigma {\vec \pi}
_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\times \vec B[{\vec A}_{\perp}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )]
\approx 0.
\label{154}\end{aligned}$$
Even if it is not yet clear which are the natural gauge-fixings to decouple the constraints ${\hat {\vec {\cal H}}}_p\approx 0$ \[i.e. which is the point of the plane to be identified with ${\tilde x}_s^{\mu}$; in absence of the field, the gauge-fixing is $\vec \eta (\tau )\approx 0$, namely the particle position is described by ${\tilde x}_s^{\mu}$\] so to remain only with one final first class constraint ${\check {\cal H}}\approx
0$ for the final Dirac observables, some remarks may be done.
There is a well defined coupling of the electromagnetic field to each branch $\eta =\pm$ of the particle mass spectrum, independently from the other: in a sense for $p_s^2 > 0$ we have obtained a diagonalization of the overall particle +field mass spectrum. However this has been achieved by treating the electromagnetic field as a dynamical field and not as an external one. Moreover, we have used a definition of rest frame based on the conserved Poincaré generator $p_s^{\mu}$, which is associated with the isolated system particle+field and which does not exist when the field is external. Finally, even if we can form a $2\times 2$ matrix constraint $\left( \begin{array}{cc}
{\hat {\cal H}}{|}_{\eta =+} & 0 \\ 0 & {\hat {\cal H}}{|}_{\eta =-}
\end{array} \right) \approx 0$, both ${\hat {\cal H}}{|}_{\eta}$ contain the term in the field energy: only after having found the rest-frame field theory based on a decomposition of the fields in center-of-mass and relative variables we will have the tools to try to understand better this matrix formulation and its connection with the Klein-Gordon equation (the coupling of the 1-time theory could be a nonminimal nonlocal coupling of the original Klein-Gordon equation to the electromagnetic field).
In Ref.[@fv], there is also a discussion of the first-quantized effect of zitterbewegung of the canonical noncovariant Newton-Wigner 3-position operator ${\vec x}_{op}$ for a scalar particle and of its nonlocalizability. Since the positive energy states (with the standard scalar product) do not satisfy a completeness relation, the narrowest wave packet containing only positive frequencies has a width of the order of the Compton wavelength 1/m. Equivalently, the eigenstates of ${\vec x}_{op}=i\vec \partial /\partial \vec
p$ contain both positive and negative energies: in the diagonal $2\times 2$ representation we define a “mean position operator" \[which has $\delta^3
(\vec x-{\vec x}^{'})$ as eigenfunctions\] as ${\vec x}_{U,op}=U^{-1}(\vec p)
i{{\vec \partial}\over {\partial \vec p}}\, U(\vec p)=i
{{\vec \partial}\over {\partial \vec p}}\, 1-{{i\vec p}\over {2(m^2+{\vec
p}^2)}
}\tau_1 ={\vec x}^{(+)}_{U,op}+{\vec x}^{(-)}_{U,op}$, where the odd matrix $\tau_1$ couples positive and negative energies. The operator ${\vec x}^{(+)}_{U,op}$, with velocity $\partial_o{\vec x}^{(+)}_{U,op}={{\vec p}\over {\sqrt{m^2+
{\vec p}^2}}} \tau_3$, describes the steady motion of the particle, is the Newton-Wigner position operator in this representation but has eigenfunctions delocalized over a region of radius of the order 1/m (they have the previous velocity as group velocity); instead a wavepacket with a localization more accurate than 1/m (built with eigenfunctions of ${\vec x}_{U,op}$) will contain both kinds of energies and will have a trembling motion (zitterbewegung) superimposed to the steady motion in a region of the order 1/m.
In Klein-Gordon quantum field theory[@lurie], the byproducts of these effects are the nonexistence of perfectly localized states (eigenstates of a local occupation number operator $N_{V,op}(x^o)=\int_Vd^3x\, N_{op}(\vec x,
x^o)$ for an infinitesimally small volume V; $[N_{V,op}(\vec x,x^o),
N_{V,op}({\vec x}^{'},x^o)]$ is different from zero for distances $|\, \vec x-
{\vec x}^{'}|$ of the order 1/m[@ht]): we cannot fix the particle number in a volume smaller than 1/m and the number of particles in two volumes V and $V^{'}$ cannot be measured simultaneously unless V and $V^{'}$ are separated by distances greater than 1/m. In contrast, we can define a local charge operator ${\hat Q}_V$ and build states with perfect localization of charge in infinitesimally small volumes; however $[{\hat Q}_V,N_{op}]\not= 0$, i.e. the eigenstates of ${\hat Q}_V$ do not have a sharp particle number.
In contrast, in the classical rest-frame 1-time theory of a scalar particle, positive and negative energy states are completely decoupled (the upper and lower branches), and, instead of the zitterbewegung effect, we have the impossibility to localize the center-of-mass canonical 3-position ${\vec
{\tilde x}}_s$ \[to which collapses the particle position after the gauge-fixings $\vec \eta (\tau )\approx 0$; the first class constraint becomes ${\cal H}=\epsilon_s-\eta m\approx 0$ and we have a Hamilton-Jacobi description of the free particle, with ${\vec z}_s/\eta m$ as Jacobi data\] inside the noncovariance worldtube of radius $|\, {\vec {\bar S}}|\, /m$ in a frame independent way.
1-time Relativistic statistical mechanics
=========================================
In Ref.[@hakim], there is a a review with rich bibliography till 1966 of the two types of approaches to classical relativistic statistical mechanics: i) the nonmanifestly covariant and ii) the covariant ones. While the former approaches started in 1911 with Refs.[@jutt], where the equilibrium of a relativistic (classical Boltzmann and also quantum either Bose or Fermi) gas was studied, only in 1940 in Ref.[@lichn] a first relativistic Boltzmann equation was given in the framework of relativistic kinetic theory; then the studies in plasma physics focused on equal-time Hamiltonians
$$H=\sum_{i=1}^N\lbrace \sqrt{m_i^2+{({\vec p}_i-e_i\vec A({\vec x}_i,x^o))}^2}+
V({\vec x}_i,x^o)\rbrace +{1\over 4}\int d^3z [{\vec \pi}^2(\vec z,x^o)+
{\vec B}^2(\vec z,x^o)],
\label{155}$$
derived a relativistic Liouville equation for a density involving both particles and fields and were extensively studied in the sixties \[see the bibliography of Ref.[@hakim]\].
In contrast, the covariant approach started with Ref.[@berg], where, taking into account constraints, there are the first steps in defining covariant relativistic kinetic theory, relativistic statistical mechanics (canonical ensembles) and relativistic thermodynamics following the first developments of relativistic hydrodynamics \[see the bibliography of Ref.[@hakim]\]; the Vlasov-, Boltzmann-, Landau-, Fokker-Planck- relativistic kinetic equations came out as ad hoc semiphenomenological equations \[again see the bibliography of Ref.[@hakim]\].
In Ref.[@hakim], there is a critical analysis of the problems in the foundations of relativistic kinetic theory and relativistic statistical mechanics stemming from the covariant relativistic description of particles with either action-at-a-distance or field-mediated interactions. Due to the absence of an absolute time, relativistic kinetic theory ($\mu$-space) is a statistical theory of curves (worldlines) and not of points (Cauchy data) as at the nonrelativistic level. Analogously, due to the presence of N times in the description of N particle systems, relativistic statistical mechanics ($\Gamma$-space, Gibbs ensembles) was a statistical theory of N-dimensional manifolds (the gauge orbits spanned by the N times in the 7N constraint manifold defined in the 8N-dimensional phase space by the N mass-shell first class constraints $p_i^2-m^2\approx 0$) instead of 1-dimensional manifolds as in the nonrelativistic case (so that one has N and not 1 relativistic Liouville equations in $\Gamma$-space and associated problems with the definition of measures). These problems were already posed in Ref. [@berg]. However, there was a not clear understanding that the transition from the configuration space \[worldlines with coordinates $q^{\mu}_i(\tau )$ or ${\vec q}_i(q^o_i)$; see predictive mechanics[@bel] and the predictive conditions on the relativistic forces for the implementation of a realization of the Poincaré group[@ch]\] to phase space \[with coordinates $x_i^{\mu}(\tau ), p_i^{\mu}(\tau )$\] had to face the No-Interaction-Theorem [@nit; @nita], so that $q^{\mu}_i(\tau )=x_i^{\mu}(\tau )$ is allowed only in the free case. Moreover, in Ref.[@hakim] there is the recognition that to build relativistic kinetic theory and statistical mechanics the initial data must be chosen as the mathematical Cauchy data on a spacelike hypersurface \[it is not clear whether they can be measured\] and not for instance as data on the backward light-cone of an observer \[in the case of the electromagnetic field, the light cone is a characteristic surface of Maxwell equations and does not define a well posed Cauchy problem: the future field is not completely and uniquely determined\]: in this case, in $\mu$-space, starting from the predictive equations of motion in the first-order formalism \[${\dot q}
^{\mu}(\tau )=u^{\mu}(\tau )$, $m{\dot u}^{\mu}(\tau )=F^{\mu}$\], from the density $R(q^{\mu},u^{\mu},q^{\mu}_o,u^{\mu}_o,\tau )=\delta^4[q^{\mu}-q^{\mu}
(\tau ,q_o,u_o)]\times \delta^4[u^{\mu}-u^{\mu}(\tau ,q_o,u_o)]$ and from an ensemble of such systems with a random distribution $D_o(q_o,u_o)$ of Cauchy data, it is possible to define the density in $\mu$-space $D(q^{\mu},u^{\mu},\tau )=\int_{\mu}R(q^{\mu},u^{\mu},q_o^{\mu},u_o^{\mu},\tau
)
D_o(q_o,u_o) d^4q_od^4u_o$, to find the one-particle relativistic equation for D \[and then, by adding ad hoc collision terms, various kinetic equations\], to show that ${\cal N}(q^{\mu},u^{\mu})=\int^{+\infty}_{-\infty}d\tau
D(q^{\mu},u^{\mu},\tau )$ is a distribution function such that $j^{\mu}(q)=
\int d^4p\, {\cal N}(q^{\mu},p^{\mu}=mu^{\mu})\, u^{\mu}2m\theta(p^o)
\delta^4(p^2-m^2)$ \[if one chooses $u^2=1$\] is the particle four-current, that ${\cal N}(q^{\mu},u^{\mu})$ satisfies the one-particle Liouville equation, which in turn, by adding ad hoc collision terms ${\cal C}({\cal N})$, becomes a kinetic transport equation. When the external force $F^{\mu}$ vanishes, the equation ${\cal C}({\cal N})=0$ is satisfied by the relativistic version of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution function, i.e. the classical Jüttner[@jutt] -Synge[@synge] distribution \[$K_2(x)$ is the modified Bessel function of order two\]
$${\cal N}(q^{\mu},p^{\mu})={ {N\rho (q)}\over {4\pi m^2K_2(m\beta )} }
e^{-\beta^{\mu}p_{\mu}}.
\label{156}$$
In this equation $\beta^{\mu}$ is the reciprocal temperature timelike fourvector[@synge] \[$\beta =\sqrt{\beta^2}=1/kT$ with k being the Boltzmann constant\].
In Refs.[@groot], there was a further development of relativistic kinetic theory and a discussion of how to formulate covariant relativistic thermodynamics \[see Ref.[@haar] for the bibliography on the subject and for a review of the associated problems\], whose final formulation \[containing the solution of the problem of having causal propagation of heat flow (parabolic transport equations replaced by hyperbolic ones) with some molecular speed less than the velocity of light\] was given in Refs.[@isra] for fluids both in equilibrium and out of it. The conclusion was that at equilibrium all relevant fourvectors \[the reciprocal temperature $\beta^{\mu}$, the entropy four-current $s^{\mu}$, the volume fourvector $V^{\mu}$, the number density of particles $n^{\mu}$, the four-momentum $p^{\mu}$\] should be all proportional, through their rest-frame values, to the hydrodynamical four-velocity $u^{\mu}$ \[$u^2=1$\]: $\beta^{\mu}=\beta u^{\mu}=
u^{\mu}/kT$, $V^{\mu}=Vu^{\mu}$, $s^{\mu}=su^{\mu}$, $n^{\mu}=nu^{\mu}$, $p^{\mu}=pu^{\mu}$; $u^{\mu}$ is a timelike eigenvector of the energy-momentum tensor $T^{\mu\nu}$ if it satisfies certain positivity conditions[@synge].
At equilibrium, starting from the Jüttner-Synge distribution, we can derive the covariant canonical partition function $Q_N(V^{\mu},\beta^{\mu})$ for an ideal classical relativistic Boltzmann gas of N scalar particles of mass m (and going to the quantum level of Bose and Fermi ideal quantum gases) and then the covariant grand-canonical partition function $\Xi(V^{\mu},\beta^{\mu},
i^{\mu})=\sum_Ne^{i_{\mu}n^{\mu}}Q_N(V^{\mu},\beta^{\mu})$ \[$i^{\mu}=\mu \beta
^{\mu}$ with $\mu$ the relativistic chemical potential, related to the nonrelativistic one by $\mu=\mu_{NR}+m$\] and the covariant thermodynamical potential $\Omega(V^{\mu},\beta^{\mu},i^{\mu})=-kT\, ln\, \Xi(V^{\mu},\beta
^{\mu},i^{\mu})$. This has been done in Ref.[@chai] following previous results in Refs.[@lepore; @maga], after the identification of the invariant microcanonical density of states
$$\sigma_N(p^2,V^2,p_{\mu}V^{\mu})=\int \delta^4(p-\sum_{i=1}^Np_i) \prod_{i=1}^N
d\sigma_i(p_i,m),
\label{157}$$
based on the invariant momentum space measure[@tousc; @jabs]
$$d\sigma (p,m)=2V_{\mu}p^{\mu} \theta(p^o)\delta (p^2-m^2) d^4p.
\label{158}$$
Then the canonical partition function for the ideal Boltzmann gas of N free scalar particles is \[$1/N!$ is the Boltzmann counting factor for identical particles\]
$$\begin{aligned}
Q_N(V^{\mu},\beta^{\mu})&=&{1\over {N!}}\, \int d^4p e^{-\beta^{\mu}p_{\mu}}
\sigma_N(p^2,V^2,p_{\mu}V^{\mu})=\nonumber \\
&=&{1\over {N!}}[ {2\over {(2\pi )^3}} \int d^4p \theta (p^o)\delta (p^2-m^2)
p_{\mu}V^{\mu} e^{-\beta^{\mu}p_{\mu}} ]{}^N=\nonumber \\
&=&{1\over {N!}}\prod_{i=1}^N [{{2V}\over {(2\pi )^3}} \int d^3p_i e^{-\beta
\sqrt{m^2+{\vec p}^2_i}}]{}^N\nonumber \\
&=&{1\over {N!}} [ { {Vm^2}\over {2\pi^2\beta}} K_2(m\beta ) ]{}^N,\quad\quad
\beta =1/kT,
\label{159}\end{aligned}$$
where the last evaluation has been made in the rest frame of the volume V.
This same result may be obtained[@karsch] from the phase space description of N scalar particles with N first class constraints, by using a Faddeev-Popov measure in which N gauge-fixings \[of the kind $p_i\cdot x_i/\sqrt{p_i^2}-\tau_i\approx 0$\] have been added to the N first class constraints $\phi_i\approx 0$ to eliminate particles’ times and energies (the many-time problem). The resulting form of $Q_N$ for a system of N interacting particles is \[$p^{\mu}=\sum_{i=1}^N
p_i^{\mu}$\]
$$Q_N(V^{\mu},\beta^{\mu})={1\over {N!}}\int_{V^{\mu}} e^{-\beta^{\mu}p_{\mu}}
\prod_{i=1}^N \theta(p_i^o)\delta (\phi_i)\delta (\chi_i) det\, |\, \lbrace
\phi_i,\chi_j\rbrace |\, {{d^4x_id^4p_i}\over {(2\pi )^3}},
\label{160}$$
where $\phi_i=p^2_i-m^2_i-...\approx 0$ \[the dots are for the (generically unknown) interaction terms in the N-time theory\] are the original first class constraints and $\chi_i\approx 0$ are the N gauge-fixings. In Ref.[@karsch], there is also a study of a gas of N 2-body bound states based on the model of Refs.[@todo; @komar].
Moreover, Feynman nonrelativistic result[@feynm] that the partition function of quantum statistical mechanics can be obtained by evaluating the density matrix for an N particle system from the continuation to imaginary times ($x^o\rightarrow -i\hbar/kT$) of the path integral used for the evaluation of the kernel of the evolution operator, may be extended to free relativistic scalar particles ($p^2-m^2\approx 0$) in the proper time gauge and the result is again $Q_N$[@lusm].
See for instance Refs.[@hakimb] for applications of relativistic statistical mechanics to relativistic plasmas.
Coming back, after this sketchy review, to the 1-time description of N relativistic scalar particles, we see that now we have a natural kinematical framework (when the system is isolated and the total momentum is timelike) for developing an 1-time covariant formulation of relativistic statistical mechanics of systems of interacting scalar particles along the lines of the nonrelativistic one; it could be termed “rest-frame instant form relativistic statistical mechanics".
To arrive at this formulation, let us start from the ideal gas in the formulation of Eq.(\[160\]) and let us try to reproduce the canonical partition function of Eq.(\[159\]) with the new formulation. Let us make the canonical transformation from the basis $x_i^{\mu}, p_i^{\mu}$ of the N-time theory to the basis ${\hat
{\tilde x}}^{\mu}, p^{\mu}, {\hat T}_{Ra}, {\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}, {\hat {\vec
\rho}}_a, {\vec \pi}_a$ of Eqs.(\[31\]) and then to the basis ${\hat T},
\epsilon ,{\hat {\vec z}}, \vec k, {\hat T}_{Ra}, {\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}, {\hat
{\vec \rho}}_a, {\vec \pi}_a$ of Eqs.(\[35\]). We have
$$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{i=1}^Nd^4x_id^4p_i&=&d^4{\hat {\tilde x}}d^4p\prod_{a=1}^{N-1}
d{\hat T}_{Ra}d{\hat \epsilon}_{Ra},d^3{\hat \rho}_ad^3\pi_a=\nonumber \\
&=&d\epsilon d^3k d\hat T d^3{\hat z} \prod_{a=1}^{N-1}
d{\hat T}_{Ra}d{\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}d^3{\hat \rho}_ad^3\pi_a,
\label{161}\end{aligned}$$
since $d^4{\hat {\tilde x}}=\sqrt{1+{\vec k}^2}d\hat Td^3\hat z
/{|\, \epsilon |}^3$ and $d^4p={|\, \epsilon |}^3d\epsilon d^3k/\sqrt{1+
{\vec k}^2}$[@longhi].
The gauge-fixings needed to go to the rest-frame instant form are $\hat T -\tau
\approx 0$ and ${\hat T}_{Ra}\approx 0$. Since we do not know explicitely the inverse canonical transformations, we could expect to have a Jacobian coming out in the following transformation \[to avoid the problem of degenaracies we start by making calculations with different masses $m_i$\]
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\prod_{i=1}^N \theta(p^o_i)\delta(p_i^2-m_i^2)\delta(\hat T(x,p)-\tau )
\prod_{a=1}^{N-1}\delta [{\hat T}_{Ra}(x,p)]=\nonumber \\
&&=J\, \prod_{i=1}^N \theta (\eta_i)\delta (p^2-...)\delta (\hat T-\tau )
\prod_{a=1}^{N-1}\delta ({\hat \epsilon}_{Ra})\delta ({\hat T}_{Ra})=
\nonumber \\
&&=J\, \prod_{i=1}^N \theta (\eta_i)\delta (\epsilon^2-...)\delta (\hat T-
\tau ) \prod_{a=1}^{N-1}\delta ({\hat \epsilon}_{Ra})\delta ({\hat T}_{Ra}).
\label{162}\end{aligned}$$
We have written $p^2-...=\epsilon^2-..\approx 0$ for the (explicitely unknown) mass spectrum constraint; but with the help of Eq.(\[82\]) and due to the $\theta (\eta_i)$, Eq.(\[162\]) may be rewritten as
$$\tilde J\, \delta (\epsilon -\sum_{i=1}^N\sqrt{m^2+N{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat
\gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}_a)}^2}\delta (\hat T-\tau ) \prod_{a=1}^{N-1}
\delta ({\hat T}_{Ra})\delta ({\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}),
\label{163}$$
where we have put $m_i=m$, because now there is no ambiguity with the uppest positive branch of the mass spectrum.
By using Equations (\[161\]), (\[163\]), and our gauge-fixings, the analogue of Eq.(\[160\]) is \[the Jacobian $\tilde J$ is to be fixed by comparison with Eq,(\[159\])\]
$$\begin{aligned}
&&Q_N(V^{\mu},\beta^{\mu})={1\over {N!}}\int_{V^{\mu}}\prod_{i=1}^N e^{-\beta
_{\mu}p_i^{\mu}} \theta (p_i^o)\delta (p_i^2-m^2)\delta (\hat T(x_k,p_k)-\tau )
\prod_{a=1}^{N-1}\delta ({\hat T}_{Ra}(x_k,p_k)) \nonumber \\
&&\prod_{i=1}^N{{d^4x_id^4p_i}
\over {(2\pi )^3}}=\nonumber \\
&&={1\over {N!}}{{\tilde J}\over {(2\pi )^{3N}}} \int_{V^{\mu}} \delta
(\epsilon -\sum_{i=1}^N\sqrt{m^2+N{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec
\pi}_a)}^2}) \delta (\hat T-\tau ) \prod_{a=1}^{N-1}\delta ({\hat T}_{Ra})
\delta ({\hat \epsilon}_{Ra}) \prod_{i=1}^N e^{-\beta_{\mu}p_i^{\mu}}
\nonumber \\
&&d\epsilon d^3k d\hat T d^3\hat z \prod_{a=1}^{N-1} d{\hat T}_{Ra}d{\hat
\epsilon}_{Ra} d^3\rho_a d^3\pi_a=\nonumber \\
&&={1\over {N!}}{{\tilde J}\over {(2\pi )^{3N}}} \int_{V^{\mu}} d^3\hat z
d^3k \prod_{a=1}^{N-1}d^3\rho_a d^3\pi_a \prod_{i=1}^N e^{-\beta_{\mu}p_i
^{\mu}}.
\label{164}\end{aligned}$$
What is lacking in the N-time theory is the evaluation of $\beta_{\mu}
p_i^{\mu}$, because we do not know explicitely the inverse canonical transformation.
Let us shift to the 1-time description on the rest-frame hyperplane: in the rest frame one had the constraints ${\vec \kappa}_{+}\approx 0$ and the gauge-fixings ${\vec \eta}_{+}\approx 0$ \[identifying the rest frame center of mass with ${\tilde x}^{\mu}_s$\], so that $\sqrt{m^2+{\vec \kappa}_i^2}\approx \sqrt{m^2+
N{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec \pi}_a)}^2}$ and $\beta_{\mu}
p_i^{\mu}\approx \beta \sqrt{m^2+N{(\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}{\hat \gamma}_{ai}{\vec
\pi}_a)}^2}$ due to Eq.(\[80\]). But if we look at the rest-frame hyperplane from an arbitrary frame in Minkowski spacetime, the Minkowski canonical 3-position and 3-momentum of the center of mass are ${\vec z}_s/\epsilon_s$ and $\epsilon_s{\vec k}_s$ respectively with $d^3z_sd^3k_s=(d^3z_s/{|\,
\epsilon_s|}^3)({|\, \epsilon_s|}^3d^3k_s$) \[it is a Lorentz scalar [@longhi]: $d^3z_sd^3k_s=(\sqrt{1+{\vec k}_s^2}d^3z_s)(d^3k_s/\sqrt{1+
{\vec k}_s^2})$\] and we would like to identify $d^3{\hat z}d^3k=d^3z_sd^3k_s$ with the Lorentz scalar one $d^3\eta_{+}d^3\kappa_{+}$. In this way ${\vec
\eta}
_{+}$ and ${\vec \kappa}_{+}$ would be Wigner spin-1 quantities simulating on the rest-frame hyperplane \[relaxing the constraints ${\vec \kappa}_{+}
\approx 0$\] the motion of the three-dimensional center of mass in an arbitrary Minkowski frame: the 3-coordinates and the 3-momenta of the particles in this descritpion would be the Wigner spin-1 3-vectors ${\vec \eta}_i$ and ${\vec
\kappa}_i$ in Eq.(\[74\]).
This suggests the replacement of the unknown $\beta_{\mu}p_i^{\mu}$ with $\beta \sqrt{m^2+{\vec \kappa}_i^2}$, which is a Lorentz scalar \[$\beta$ is the rest-frame reciprocal temperature\]. With this prescription, by using $d^3\eta_{+}d^3\kappa_{+}\prod_{a=1}^{N-1}d^3\rho_ad^3\pi_a=\prod_{i=1}^N
d^3\eta_id^3\kappa_i$ and by replacing $V^{\mu}$ with its rest-frame value $V=\int_Vd^3\eta_i$, Eq.(\[164\]) becomes
$$\begin{aligned}
Q_N(V,\beta )&=&{1\over {N!}}{{\tilde J}\over {(2\pi )^{3N}}}\prod_{i=1}^N
\int_V d^3\eta_id^3\kappa_i e^{-\beta \sqrt{m^2+{\vec \kappa}_i^2}}=
\nonumber \\
&=&{{\tilde J}\over {N!}} \prod_{i=1}^N [ {V\over {(2\pi )^3}} \int d^3\kappa_i
e^{-\beta \sqrt{m^2+{\vec \kappa}_i^2}} ]=\nonumber \\
&=&{1\over {N!}}{{\tilde J}\over {2^N}} [ {{2V}\over {(2\pi )^3}} \int
d^3\kappa
e^{-\beta \sqrt{m^2+{\vec \kappa}^2_i}} ]{}^N=\nonumber \\
&=&{1\over {N!}}{{\tilde J}\over {2^N}} [ {{Vm^2}\over {2\pi^2\beta}}
K_2(m\beta )]{}^N.
\label{165}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, if we choose $\tilde J=2^N$, we get the following definition of the Lorentz scalar canonical partition function of an ideal Boltzmann gas in the rest-frame instant form
$$Q_N(V,\beta )={1\over {N!}}({2\over {(2\pi )^3}}){}^N \int_V \prod_{i=1}^N
d^3\eta_id^3\kappa_i e^{-\beta \sqrt{m^2+{\vec \kappa}_i^2}}.
\label{166}$$
If, following Ref.[@karsch], we consider a relativistic gas formed by N 2-body bound states defined by the following 2-body reduced Hamiltonian \[obtained from Eq.(\[111\]) with the previous prescriptions and where ${\vec R}_{12}={\vec \eta}_1-{\vec \eta}_2$\]
$$H_R=\sqrt{m_1^2+V_1({\vec R}_{12}^2)+{\vec \kappa}_1^2}+
\sqrt{m_2^2+V_2({\vec R}_{12}^2)+{\vec \kappa}_2^2}+U({\vec R}_{12}^2)'
\label{167}$$
then the definition of the Lorentz-scalar canonical partition function is \[${\vec \eta}_{12}={1\over 2}({\vec \eta}_1+{\vec \eta}_2)$\]
$$\begin{aligned}
Q_N(V,\beta )&=&{1\over {(2\pi )^{6N} N!}} [\int_Ve^{-\beta H_R} d^3\eta_1
d^3\eta_2d^3\kappa_1d^3\kappa_2 ]{}^N=\nonumber \\
&=&{1\over {(2\pi )^{6N} N!}} [\int_Ve^{-\beta H_R} d^3\eta_{12}d^3R_{12}
d^3\kappa_1d^3\kappa_2 ]{}^N=\nonumber \\
&=&{{V^N}\over {(2\pi )^{6N} N!}} [\int_Ve^{-\beta H_R} d^3R_{12}d^3\kappa_1
d^3\kappa_2 ]{}^N.
\label{168}\end{aligned}$$
Clearly this can be extended to more complicated situations. When a better understanding of the gauge-fixings for the case of charged particles interacting with the electromagnetic field will be obtained, Eqs.(\[146\]) will serve to define the covariant analogue of the canonical partition function associated with the noncovariant Hamiltonian of Eq.(\[155\]). Finally, Feynman path integral approach should now be based on the continuation of the scalar rest-frame time $T_s$ to imaginary values $-i\hbar /kT$.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper a covariant 1-time formulation, the rest-frame instant form, of classical relativistic dynamics has been developed for those isolated systems of both N scalar particles with action-at-a-distance interactions and of charged scalar particles plus the electromagnetic field, which belong to timelike irreducible Poincaré representations. While with only particles the kinematics is completely understood, in the case of particles plus fields more work will be needed to identify which point of the system has to be identified with the canonical 3-position of the center of mass on the spacelike hyperplane orthogonal to the total momentum, due to the presence of the interaction term in the constraints ${\hat {\vec {\cal H}}}_p\approx 0$ of Eqs.(\[146\]). This problem is non trivial and is connected with the action-reaction problem and with the classical basis of the electromagnetic interaction vertex of a scalar particle. In turn this point is associated with the pseudoclassical regularization of the classical electromagnetic self-energies of charged particles. Again more work is needed to clarify the meaning of the pseudoclassical theory with Dirac observables where the effects of order $e_i^2$ are absent and only the $e_ie_j$, $i\not= j$, effects are present: one has to compare the theory with Dirac observables to the standard methods of separation of the Coulomb and radiation effects in the Lienard-Wiechert potentials[@teitel; @grandy], to revisit the Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac equation and the problem of classical bound states (Eqs.(\[148\]) define a regularized bound system with Coulomb interactions without emission of radiation and without fall on the centre).
For free particles a quasi-Shanmugadhasan canonical basis has been found, which is suited to the description of the relativistic Cauchy problem for bound states, because the relative energies and times can be explicitely eliminated in a covariant way. It is under investigation[@luc] how to introduce the second Poincaré Casimir $W^2=-p^2{\vec {\bar S}}^2$ of timelike Poincaré representations in the basis and how to present in a clear form the gauge character of the classical zitterbewegung. The next step will be the introduction of the spin 1/2 degrees of freedom by means of Grassmann variables[@casal; @crater] both in the N- and 1-time theories and the comparison with the results coming from the Dirac equation. A further development will be to replace the electromagnetic field with a non-Abelian Yang-Mills one and the search of the associated interparticle potential.
When the electromagnetic field is considered, the 1-time theory shows clearly the existence of a new formulation of the classical theory of free linear fields, i.e. the rest-frame field theory based on a center-of-mass and relative variables decomposition of field configurations. The formulation of rest-frame field theory, which is under active investigation, will be the necessary tool for attempting a quantization of the nonlocal field theories with Dirac’s observables, for utilizing the ultraviolet cutoff induced by the noncovariance of the canonical center-of-mass 3-position and for a fresh start to the problem of putting relativistic bound states among its Tomonaga-Schwinger-like asymptotic states.
Furthermore, we have to understand the quantization of the 1-time covariant relativistic mechanics in the rest-frame instant form and to compare it with relativistic quantum mechanics \[see the rich bibliography Refs.[@lev; @kei] for the status of this theory,which also originated from Ref.[@diracc]\], which is used in low energy (below the pion mass threshold) nuclear physics, where at the order $1/c^2$ one can define a theory with a fixed number of nucleons.
On the other hand, 1-time covariant relativistic statistical mechanics should be developed to a stage to be compared with the existing applications of relativistic statistical mechanics to relativistic (either astrophysical or nuclear) plasmas[@hakimb].
In particular one should revisit the case of charged particles plus the electromagnetic field in the pseudoclassical approach with Grassmann charges. One should obtain simplifications of the transport equations evaluated by taking into account the Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac equation with its dependence on higher accelerations[@hakim]. More in general, it is still completely open the problem of how to get a Hamiltonian formulation of the integro-differential equations of motion coming from the Tetrode-Fokker-Feynman-Wheeler actions, in which the radiation electromagnetic degrees of freedom have been eliminated: these actions admit reparametrization invariance of each particle worldline notwithstanding the interaction, are supposed to replace the nonexisting (due to the No-Interaction-Theorem) Lagrangians for predictive mechanics[@pons] and are formally equivalent to an infinite system of differential eqations for accelerations of every order, whose study with constraint theory is just at the beginning[@gaida].
I wish to thank Dr.R.De Pietri for let me know Ref.[@ku].
The rest frame form of the timelike fourvector $p^{\mu}$ is $\stackrel
{\circ}{p}{}^{\mu}=\eta \sqrt{p^2} (1;\vec 0)= \eta^{\mu o}\eta \sqrt{p^2}$, $\stackrel{\circ}{p}{}^2=p^2$, where $\eta =sign\, p^o$.
The standard Wigner boost transforming $\stackrel{\circ}{p}{}^{\mu}$ into $p^{\mu}$ is
$$\begin{aligned}
L^{\mu}{}_{\nu}(p,\stackrel{\circ}{p})&=&\epsilon^{\mu}_{\nu}(u(p))=
\nonumber \\
&=&\eta^{\mu}_{\nu}+2{ {p^{\mu}{\stackrel{\circ}{p}}_{\nu}}\over {p^2}}-
{ {(p^{\mu}+{\stackrel{circ}{p}}^{\mu})(p_{\nu}+{\stackrel{\circ}{p}}_{\nu})}
\over {p\cdot \stackrel{\circ}{p} +p^2} }=\nonumber \\
&=&\eta^{\mu}_{\nu}+2u^{\mu}(p)u_{\nu}(\stackrel{\circ}{p})-{ {(u^{\mu}(p)+
u^{\mu}(\stackrel{\circ}{p}))(u_{\nu}(p)+u_{\nu}(\stackrel{\circ}{p}))}
\over {1+u^o(p)} }\nonumber \\
&&{} \nonumber \\
\nu =0 &&\epsilon^{\mu}_o(u(p))=u^{\mu}(p)=p^{\mu}/\eta \sqrt{p^2} \nonumber \\
\nu =r &&\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p))=(-u_r(p); \delta^i_r-{ {u^i(p)u_r(p)}\over
{1+u^o(p)} }).
\label{A1}\end{aligned}$$
The inverse of $L^{\mu}{}_{\nu}(p,\stackrel{\circ}{p})$ is $L^{\mu}{}_{\nu}
(\stackrel{\circ}{p},p)$, the standard boost to the rest frame, defined by
$$L^{\mu}{}_{\nu}(\stackrel{\circ}{p},p)=L_{\nu}{}^{\mu}(p,\stackrel{\circ}{p})=
L^{\mu}{}_{\nu}(p,\stackrel{\circ}{p}){|}_{\vec p\rightarrow -\vec p}.
\label{A2}$$
Therefore, we can define the following vierbeins \[the $\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p))$’s are also called polarization vectors; the indices r, s will be used for A=1,2,3 and $\bar o$ for A=0\]
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\epsilon^{\mu}_A(u(p))=L^{\mu}{}_A(p,\stackrel{\circ}{p})\nonumber \\
&&\epsilon^A_{\mu}(u(p))=L^A{}_{\mu}(\stackrel{\circ}{p},p)=\eta^{AB}\eta
_{\mu\nu}\epsilon^{\nu}_B(u(p))\nonumber \\
&&{} \nonumber \\
&&\epsilon^{\bar o}_{\mu}(u(p))=\eta_{\mu\nu}\epsilon^{\nu}_o(u(p))=u_{\mu}(p)
\nonumber \\
&&\epsilon^r_{\mu}(u(p))=-\delta^{rs}\eta_{\mu\nu}\epsilon^{\nu}_r(u(p))=
(\delta^{rs}u_s(p);\delta^r_j-\delta^{rs}\delta_{jh}{{u^h(p)u_s(p)}\over
{1+u^o(p)} })\nonumber \\
&&\epsilon^A_o(u(p))=u_A(p),
\label{A3}\end{aligned}$$
which satisfy
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\epsilon^A_{\mu}(u(p))\epsilon^{\nu}_A(u(p))=\eta^{\mu}_{\nu}\nonumber \\
&&\epsilon^A_{\mu}(u(p))\epsilon^{\mu}_B(u(p))=\eta^A_B\nonumber \\
&&\eta^{\mu\nu}=\epsilon^{\mu}_A(u(p))\eta^{AB}\epsilon^{\nu}_B(u(p))=u^{\mu}
(p)u^{\nu}(p)-\sum_{r=1}^3\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(p))\epsilon^{\nu}_r(u(p))
\nonumber \\
&&\eta_{AB}=\epsilon^{\mu}_A(u(p))\eta_{\mu\nu}\epsilon^{\nu}_B(u(p))\nonumber
\\
&&p_{\alpha}{{\partial}\over {\partial p_{\alpha}} }\epsilon^{\mu}_A(u(p))=
p_{\alpha}{{\partial}\over {\partial p_{\alpha}} }\epsilon^A_{\mu}(u(p))
=0.
\label{A4}\end{aligned}$$
The Wigner rotation corresponding to the Lorentz transformation $\Lambda$ is
$$\begin{aligned}
R^{\mu}{}_{\nu}(\Lambda ,p)&=&{[L(\stackrel{\circ}{p},p)\Lambda^{-1}L(\Lambda
p,\stackrel{\circ}{p})]}^{\mu}{}_{\nu}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & R^i{}_j(\Lambda ,p)
\end{array}
\right) \nonumber \\
{} && {}\nonumber \\
R^i{}_j(\Lambda ,p)&=&{(\Lambda^{-1})}^i{}_j-{ {(\Lambda^{-1})^i{}_op_{\beta}
(\Lambda^{-1})^{\beta}{}_j}\over {p_{\rho}(\Lambda^{-1})^{\rho}{}_o+\eta
\sqrt{p^2}} }-\nonumber \\
&-&{{p^i}\over {p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }[(\Lambda^{-1})^o{}_j- {
{((\Lambda^{-1})^o
{}_o-1)p_{\beta}(\Lambda^{-1})^{\beta}{}_j}\over {p_{\rho}(\Lambda^{-1})^{\rho}
{}_o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }].
\label{A5}\end{aligned}$$
The polarization vectors and the variables of Eq.(\[13\]) transform under the Poincaré transformations $(a,\Lambda )$ in the following way
$$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon^{\mu}_r(u(\Lambda p))&=&(R^{-1})_r{}^s\, \Lambda^{\mu}{}_{\nu}\,
\epsilon^{\nu}_s(u(p))\nonumber \\
&& {}\nonumber \\
p^{'\mu}&=&\Lambda^{\mu}{}_{\nu} p^{\nu}\nonumber \\
{\tilde x}^{'\mu}&=&\Lambda^{\mu}{}_{\nu}[{\tilde x}^{\nu}+{1\over 2}{\bar S}
_{rs}R^r{}_k(\Lambda ,p){{\partial}\over {\partial p_{\nu}} }R^s{}_k(\Lambda ,
p)]+a^{\mu}=\nonumber \\
&=&\Lambda^{\mu}{}_{\nu}\{ {\tilde x}^{\nu}+{ {{\bar S}_{rs}}\over {\Lambda^o
{}_{\alpha}p^{\alpha}+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }[\eta^{\nu}_r(\Lambda^o{}_s-
{ {(\Lambda^o{}_o-1)p_s}\over {p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} })-\nonumber \\
&-&{ {(p^{\nu}+\eta^{\nu}_o\eta \sqrt{p^2})p_r\Lambda^o{}_s}\over
{\eta \sqrt{p^2}(p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2})} }] \} +a^{\mu}\nonumber \\
T^{'}_{Ra}&=&T_{Ra}\nonumber \\
\epsilon^{'}_{Ra}&=&\epsilon_{Ra}\nonumber \\
\rho^{'}_{ar}&=&\rho_{as}R^s{}_r(\Lambda ,p)\nonumber \\
\pi^{'}_{ar}&=&\pi_{as}R^s{}_r(\Lambda ,p).
\label{A6}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, ${\tilde x}^{\mu}$ is not a fourvector and ${\vec \rho}_a, {\vec
\pi}_a$ are Wigner spin-1 3-vectors; their infinitesimal transformation properties under Lorentz transformations generated by $J^{\mu\nu}={\tilde L}
^{\mu\nu}+{\tilde S}^{\mu\nu}$ of Eq.(\[14\]), are
$$\begin{aligned}
\lbrace {\tilde x}^{\mu},J^{\alpha\beta}\rbrace &=&\eta^{\mu\alpha}{\tilde x}
^{\beta}-\eta^{\mu\beta}{\tilde x}^{\alpha}+\lbrace {\tilde x}^{\mu},
{\tilde S}^{\alpha\beta}\rbrace \nonumber \\
&&\lbrace {\tilde x}^{\mu},{\tilde S}^{oi}\rbrace =-{1\over {p^o+\eta
\sqrt{p^2}} }[\eta^{\mu j}{\tilde S}^{ji}+{ {(p^{\mu}+\eta^{\mu o}\eta
\sqrt{p^2}){\tilde S}^{ik}p^k}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}(p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2})} }]
\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace {\tilde x}^{\mu},{\tilde S}^{ij}\rbrace =0\nonumber \\
\lbrace \rho^r_a,J^{oi}\rbrace &=&-{ {\delta^{is}(p^r\rho^s_a-p^s\rho^r_a)}
\over {p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }\nonumber \\
\lbrace \rho^r_a,J^{ij}\rbrace &=&\delta^{is}\delta^{jt}\lbrace \rho^r_a,{\bar
S}^{st}\rbrace =(\delta^{is}\delta^{jr}-\delta^{ir}\delta^{js})\rho^s_a
\nonumber \\
\lbrace \pi^r_a,J^{oi}\rbrace &=&-{ {\delta^{is}(p^r\pi^s_a-p^s\pi^r_a)}
\over {p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }\nonumber \\
\lbrace \pi^r_a,J^{ij}\rbrace
&=&(\delta^{is}\delta^{jr}-\delta^{ir}\delta^{js})
\pi^s_a.
\label{A7}\end{aligned}$$
In contrast, the variables of Eqs.(\[22\]) transform under the Poincaré transformations $(a,\Lambda )$ in the following way
$$\begin{aligned}
&&T^{'}=T+k_{\mu}{(\Lambda^{-1}a)}^{\mu}\nonumber \\
&&\epsilon^{'}=\epsilon \nonumber \\
&&z^{{'}i}=(\Lambda^i{}_j-{ {\Lambda^i{}_{\mu}k^{\mu}}\over {\Lambda^o{}_{\nu}
k^{\nu}} }\Lambda^o{}_j)+\epsilon (\Lambda^i{}_{\mu}-{ {\Lambda^i{}_{\nu}
k^{\nu}}\over {\Lambda^o{}_{\rho}k^{\rho}} }\Lambda^o{}_{\mu}){(\Lambda^{-1}a
)}^{\mu}\nonumber \\
&&k^{{'}\mu}=u^{\mu}(p^{'})=\Lambda^{\mu}{}_{\nu}k^{\nu}\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace T,p^o\rbrace =-\sqrt{1+{\vec k}^2},\quad\quad \lbrace T,p^i\rbrace =
-k^i\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace k^h,J^{oi}\rbrace =-\delta^{hi}\sqrt{1+{\vec k}^2},\quad\quad
\lbrace k^h,J^{ij}\rbrace =\delta^{hj}k^i-\delta^{hi}k^j\nonumber \\
&&\lbrace z^h,p^o\rbrace ={{\epsilon k^h}\over {\sqrt{1+{\vec k}^2}} },\quad
\quad \lbrace z^h,p^i\rbrace =\delta^{hi}\epsilon \nonumber \\
&&\lbrace z^h,J^{oi}\rbrace ={{z^ik^h}\over {\sqrt{1+{\vec k}^2}} },\quad\quad
\lbrace z^h,J^{ij}\rbrace =\delta^{hj}z^i-\delta^{hi}z^j.
\label{A8}\end{aligned}$$
Some further useful formulas are ($\epsilon =\eta \sqrt{p^2}$)
$$\begin{aligned}
{{\partial}\over {\partial p_{\mu}} }&\epsilon^B_{\rho}&(u(p))=
{{\partial}\over {\partial p_{\mu}} }L^B{}_{\rho}(\stackrel{\circ}{p},p)=
\nonumber \\
&=&{2\over {\epsilon}}\eta^B_o(\eta^{\mu}_{\rho}-{{p^{\mu}p_{\rho}}\over
{\epsilon^2}})-{1\over {\epsilon^2(p^o+\epsilon)}}[(p^B+\epsilon \eta^B_o)
(p^{\mu}\eta^o_{\rho}+\epsilon \eta^{\mu}_{\rho})+(p^{\mu}\eta^B_o+
\epsilon \eta^{\mu B})(p_{\rho}+\epsilon \eta^o_{\rho})]+\nonumber \\
&+&{ {(p^B+\epsilon \eta^B_o)(p_{\rho}+\epsilon \eta^o_{\rho})[(p^o+2\epsilon )
p^{\mu}+\epsilon^2\eta^{\mu}_o]}\over {\epsilon^3{(p^o+\epsilon )}^2} },
\label{A9}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
{1\over 2}\epsilon^{\nu}_A(u(p))\eta^{AB}&&{{\partial \epsilon^{\rho}_B(u(p))}
\over {\partial p_{\mu}} }S_{\rho\nu}=-{1\over 2}\eta_{AC}{{\partial \epsilon
^C_{\rho}(u(p))}\over {\partial p_{\mu}} }\epsilon^{\rho}_B(u(p)){\bar S}
^{AB}=\nonumber \\
&=&-{1\over {\epsilon}}[\eta^{\mu}_A({\bar S}^{\bar oA}-{{{\bar S}^{Ar}p^r}
\over {p^o+\epsilon}})+{\bar S}^{\bar or}p^r{{p^{\mu}+2\epsilon \eta^{\mu}_o}
\over {\epsilon (p^o+\epsilon )}}]=\nonumber \\
&=&-{1\over {\epsilon (p^o+\epsilon )}}[p_{\rho}S^{\rho\mu}+\epsilon (S^{o\mu}
-S^{o\rho}{{p_{\rho}p^{\mu}}\over {\epsilon^2}})],
\label{A10}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
{{\partial}\over {\partial p_{\nu}} }&R^i{}_k&(\Lambda ,p)={{(\Lambda^{-1})^i
{}_o}\over {(p_{\rho}(\Lambda^{-1})^{\rho}{}_o+\epsilon )^2}}\times \nonumber
\\
&&\times [{1\over
{\epsilon}}(p^{\nu}+\epsilon (\Lambda^{-1})^{\nu}{}_o)p_{\beta}(\Lambda^{-1})
^{\beta}{}_k-(p_{\rho}(\Lambda^{-1})^{\rho}{}_o+\epsilon )(\Lambda^{-1})
^{\nu}{}_k]-\nonumber \\
&-&{{\eta^{i\nu}}\over {p^o+\epsilon}}[(\Lambda^{-1})^o{}_k-{ {((\Lambda^{-1})
^o{}_o-1)p_{\beta}(\Lambda^{-1})^{\beta}{}_k}\over {p_{\rho}(\Lambda^{-1})
^{\rho}{}_o+\epsilon} }]+{{p^i}\over {(p^o+\epsilon )^2}}\{ {1\over
{\epsilon}}(p^{\nu}+\epsilon \eta^{\nu o})(\Lambda^{-1})^o{}_k+
\nonumber \\
&+& {{p^o+\epsilon}\over {p_{\rho}(\Lambda^{-1})^{\rho}{}_o+\epsilon}}
((\Lambda^{-1})^o{}_o-1)\times \nonumber \\
&&\times [(\Lambda^{-1})^{\nu}{}_k-{1\over {\epsilon}}
({{p^{\nu}+\epsilon \eta^{\nu o}}\over {p^o+\epsilon}}+{{p^{\nu}+
\epsilon (\Lambda^{-1})^{\nu}{}_o}\over {p_{\rho}(\Lambda^{-1})^{\rho}{}_o+
\epsilon}})p_{\beta}(\Lambda^{-1})^{\beta}{}_k]\} .
\label{A11}\end{aligned}$$
In the N=2 case[@longhi] Eqs.(\[6\]), (\[9\]), (\[13\]), (\[26\]), (\[28\]), (\[31\]) become respectively
$$\begin{aligned}
&&x^{\mu}={1\over 2}(x^{\mu}_1+x^{\mu}_2)\nonumber \\
&&p^{\mu}=p^{\mu}_1+p^{\mu}_2\nonumber \\
&&R^{\mu}=x^{\mu}_1-x^{\mu}_2\nonumber \\
&&Q^{\mu}={1\over 2}(p^{\mu}_1-p^{\mu}_2);
\label{B1}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
&&x^{\mu}_1=x^{\mu}+{1\over 2}R^{\mu}\nonumber \\
&&x^{\mu}_2=x^{\mu}-{1\over 2}R^{\mu}\nonumber \\
&&p^{\mu}_1={1\over 2}p^{\mu}+Q^{\mu}\nonumber \\
&&p^{\mu}_2={1\over 2}p^{\mu}-Q^{\mu};
\label{B2}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\tilde x}^{\mu}=x^{\mu}+{1\over 2}\, \epsilon^A_{\nu}(u(p))\eta_{AB}
{ {\partial \epsilon^B_{\rho}(u(p))}\over {\partial p_{\mu}} }\, S^{\nu\rho}
=\nonumber \\
&&=x^{\mu}-{ 1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}(p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2})} }\, [p_{\nu}
S^{\nu\mu}+\eta \sqrt{p^2} (S^{o\mu}-S^{o\nu}{ {p_{\nu}p^{\mu}}\over {p^2} })]
\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&p^{\mu}\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&T_{R}={ {p\cdot R}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }
\nonumber \\
&&\epsilon_{R}=
{ {p\cdot Q}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }\nonumber \\
&&\rho^r=
R^r-{ {p^r}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }
(R^o-{ {{\vec p}\cdot {{\vec R}} }\over {p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} })
\nonumber \\
&&\pi^r=Q^r-{ {p^r}\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }
(Q^o-{ {{\vec p}\cdot {{\vec Q}} }\over {p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2}} }),
\label{B3}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{-}&=&{1\over 2}(\phi_1-\phi_2)=p\cdot Q-{1\over 2}(m_1^2-m_2^2)=\epsilon
\epsilon_R-{1\over 2}(m^2_1-m_2^2)\approx 0\nonumber \\
\chi_{+}&=&2(\phi_1+\phi_2)={1\over {p^2}}(p^2-M^2_{+})(p^2-M^2_{-})+4\chi_{-}
(\chi_{-}+m_1^2-m_2^2)=\nonumber \\
&=&{1\over {\epsilon^2}}(\epsilon^2-M^2_{+})(\epsilon^2-M^2_{-})+4\chi_{-}
(\chi_{-}+m_1^2-m_2^2)\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&M_{\pm}=\sqrt{m_1^2-Q^2_{\perp}}\pm\sqrt{m_2^2-Q^2_{\perp}}=\sqrt{m_1^2+
{\vec \pi}^2}\pm \sqrt{m_2^2+{\vec \pi}^2},\nonumber \\
&&Q^{\mu}_{\perp}=
(\eta^{\mu\nu}-{{p^{\mu}p^{\nu}}\over {p^2}})Q_{\nu};
\label{B4}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\hat x}^{\mu}=x^{\mu}+{ {m^2_1-m^2_2}\over {2p^2}}(\eta^{\mu\nu}-
{{2p^{\mu}p^{\nu}}\over {p^2}})R_{\nu}\nonumber \\
&&p^{\mu}\nonumber \\
&&{\hat R}^{\mu}=R^{\mu}\nonumber \\
&&{\hat Q}^{\mu}=Q^{\mu}-{{m_1^2-m_2^2}\over {2p^2}}p^{\mu},\quad\quad
{\hat Q}^{\mu}_{\perp}=Q^{\mu}_{\perp};
\label{B5}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
&&{\hat {\tilde x}}={\hat x}^{\mu}+{1\over 2}\, \epsilon^A_{\nu}(u(p))
\eta_{AB}{ {\partial \epsilon^B_{\rho}(u(p))}\over {\partial p_{\mu}} }\,
{\hat S}^{\nu\rho}=\nonumber \\
&&={\hat x}^{\mu}-{ 1\over {\eta \sqrt{p^2}(p^o+\eta \sqrt{p^2})} }\, [p_{\nu}
{\hat S}^{\nu\mu}+\eta \sqrt{p^2} ({\hat S}^{o\mu}-{\hat S}^{o\nu}
{ {p_{\nu}p^{\mu}}\over {p^2} })]\nonumber \\
&&p^{\mu}\nonumber \\
&&{\hat T}_R=T_R\nonumber \\
&&{\hat \epsilon}_R=\epsilon_R-{{m_1^2-m_2^2}\over {2\epsilon}}\quad
\Rightarrow \chi_{-}=\epsilon {\hat \epsilon}_R\approx 0\nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\vec \rho}}=\vec \rho \nonumber \\
&&{\hat {\vec \pi}}=\vec \pi .
\label{B6}\end{aligned}$$
Let us remark that Todorov’s quasipotential-like Hamiltonian[@todo; @todor] corresponds to the following rewriting of the constraint $\chi_{+}$ (modulo $\chi_{-}\approx 0$):
$$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{+}&\approx& 4[{({\hat Q}^{\mu}_{\perp}+\epsilon_p{{p^{\mu}}\over
{\epsilon}})}^2-m_p^2]=-4[{\vec \pi}^2-b^2(\epsilon^2)]\approx 0
\nonumber \\
&&{}\nonumber \\
&&m_p={{m_1m_2}\over {\epsilon}},\quad\quad \epsilon_p={{\epsilon^2-m_1^2-
m_2^2}\over {2\epsilon}}\nonumber \\
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
&&b^2(\epsilon^2)={{\epsilon^4+m_1^4+m_2^4-2(m_1^2+m_2^2)\epsilon^2-2m_1^2m_2^2}
\over {4\epsilon^2}}=\epsilon^2_p-m_p^2;
\label{B7}\end{aligned}$$
$m_p$ and $\epsilon_p$ are interpreted as the relativistic reduced mass and energy of a fictitious particle of relative motion.
Let $\lbrace \Sigma (\tau )\rbrace$ be a one-parameter family of spacelike hypersurfaces foliating Minkowski spacetime $M^4$. At fixed $\tau$, let $z^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ be the coordinates of the points on $\Sigma
(\tau )$ in $M^4$, $\lbrace \vec \sigma \rbrace$ a system of coordinates on $\Sigma (\tau )$. If $\sigma^{\check A}=(\sigma^{\tau}=\tau ;\vec \sigma
=\lbrace \sigma^{\check r}\rbrace)$ \[the notation ${\check A}=(\tau ,
{\check r})$ with ${\check r}=1,2,3$ will be used; note that ${\check A}=
\tau$ and ${\check A}={\check r}=1,2,3$ are Lorentz-scalar indices\] and $\partial_{\check A}=\partial /\partial \sigma^{\check A}$, one can define the vierbeins
$$z^{\mu}_{\check A}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=\partial_{\check A}z^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma ),\quad\quad
\partial_{\check B}z^{\mu}_{\check A}-\partial_{\check A}z^{\mu}_{\check B}=0,
\label {C1}$$
so that the metric on $\Sigma (\tau )$ is
$$\begin{aligned}
&&g_{{\check A}{\check B}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=z^{\mu}_{\check A}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )\eta_{\mu\nu}z^{\nu}_{\check B}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),\quad\quad
g_{\tau\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ) > 0\nonumber \\
&&g(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=-det\, ||\, g_{{\check A}{\check B}}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )\, || ={(det\, ||\, z^{\mu}_{\check A}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\, ||)}^2
\nonumber \\
&&\gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )=-det\, ||\, g_{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )\, ||.
\label{C2}\end{aligned}$$
If $\gamma^{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ is the inverse of the 3-metric $g_{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ \[$\gamma^{{\check r}
{\check u}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )g_{{\check u}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )=\delta^{\check r}_{\check s}$\], the inverse $g^{{\check A}{\check B}}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ of $g_{{\check A}{\check B}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ \[$g^{{\check A}{\check C}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )g_{{\check c}{\check b}}(\tau ,
\vec \sigma )=\delta^{\check A}_{\check B}$\] is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
&&g^{\tau\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )={{\gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )}\over
{g(\tau ,\vec \sigma )}}\nonumber \\
&&g^{\tau {\check r}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=-[{{\gamma}\over g} g_{\tau {\check
u}}\gamma^{{\check u}{\check r}}](\tau ,\vec \sigma )\nonumber \\
&&g^{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=\gamma^{{\check r}{\check s}}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+[{{\gamma}\over g}g_{\tau {\check u}}g_{\tau {\check v}}
\gamma^{{\check u}{\check r}}\gamma^{{\check v}{\check s}}](\tau ,\vec \sigma
),
\label{C3}\end{aligned}$$
so that $1=g^{\tau {\check C}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )g_{{\check C}\tau}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ is equivalent to
$${{g(\tau ,\vec \sigma )}\over {\gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )}}=g_{\tau\tau}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )-\gamma^{{\check r}{\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
g_{\tau {\check r}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )g_{\tau {\check s}}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ).
\label{C4}$$
We have
$$z^{\mu}_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=(\sqrt{ {g\over {\gamma}} }l^{\mu}+
g_{\tau {\check r}}\gamma^{{\check r}{\check s}}z^{\mu}_{\check s})(\tau ,
\vec \sigma ),
\label{C5}$$
and
$$\begin{aligned}
\eta^{\mu\nu}&=&z^{\mu}_{\check A}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )g^{{\check A}{\check B}}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )z^{\nu}_{\check B}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=\nonumber \\
&=&(l^{\mu}l^{\nu}+z^{\mu}_{\check r}\gamma^{{\check r}{\check s}}
z^{\nu}_{\check s})(\tau ,\vec \sigma ),
\label{C6}\end{aligned}$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
l^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )&=&({1\over {\sqrt{\gamma}}
}\epsilon^{\mu}{}_{\alpha
\beta\gamma}z^{\alpha}_{\check 1}z^{\beta}_{\check 2}z^{\gamma}_{\check 3})
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\nonumber \\
&&l^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=1,\quad\quad l_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )z^{\mu}
_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=0,
\label{C7}\end{aligned}$$
is the unit (future pointing) normal to $\Sigma (\tau )$ at $z^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$.
For the volume element in Minkowski spacetime we have
$$\begin{aligned}
d^4z&=&z^{\mu}_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )d\tau d^3\Sigma_{\mu}=d\tau (z^{\mu}
_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )l_{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma ))\sqrt{\gamma
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )}d^3\sigma=\nonumber \\
&=&\sqrt{g(\tau ,\vec \sigma )} d\tau d^3\sigma.
\label{C8}\end{aligned}$$
Let us remark that according to the geometrical approach of Ref.[@ku], by using Eq.(\[C5\]) in the form $z^{\mu}_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=N(\tau ,
\vec \sigma )l^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+N^{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
z^{\mu}_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ \[with $N=\sqrt{g/\gamma}$ and $N^{\check r}=g_{\tau \check s}\gamma^{\check s\check r}$ being the standard lapse and shift functions, so that $g_{\tau \tau}=N^2+g_{\check r\check s}
N^{\check r}N^{\check s}, g_{\tau \check r}=g_{\check r\check s}N^{\check s},
g^{\tau \tau}=N^{-2}, g^{\tau \check r}=-n^{\check r}/N^2, g^{\check r\check
s}=\gamma^{\check r\check s}+{{N^{\check r}N^{\check s}}\over {N^2}}$\], we should write
$$A_{\tau }(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=
N(\tau ,\vec \sigma )A_l(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+N^{\check r}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )A_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
\label{C9}$$
and use $A_l
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ as the genuine field configuration variable independent from the motion of the embedded hypersurface.
Then, by denoting $K_{\check r\check s}=K_{\check s\check r}=l_{\mu}\partial
_{\check r}\partial_{\check s}z^{\mu}$ and $\Gamma^{\check u}_{\check r\check
s}=z^{\check u}_{\mu}\partial_{\check r}\partial_{\check s}z^{\mu}={1\over 2}
\gamma^{\check u\check n}(\partial_{\check r}g_{\check s\check n}+\partial
_{\check s}g_{\check r\check n}-\partial_{\check n}g_{\check r\check s})$ the extrinsic curvature and the Christoffel symbols respectively of the spacelike hypersurface (with metric $g_{\check r\check s}$) embedded in the flat Minkowski spacetime, we get for the field strengths \[“;" and “$|$" are the total and ordinary covariant derivatives\]
$$\begin{aligned}
F_{\check r\check s}&=&A_{\check s;\check r}-A_{\check r;\check s}=
A_{\check s\, |\, \check r}-K_{\check s\check r}A_l-(A_{\check r\, |\,
\check s}-K_{\check r\check s}A_l)=\nonumber \\
&=&A_{\check s\, |\, \check r}-A_{\check r\, |\, \check s}=\partial_{\check r}
A_{\check s}-\Gamma^{\check n}_{\check r\check s}A_{\check n}-(\partial_{\check
s}A_{\check r}-\Gamma^{\check n}_{\check s\check r}A_{\check n})=
\partial_{\check r}A_{\check s}-\partial_{\check s}A_{\check r},\nonumber \\
F_{\tau \check r}&=&\partial_{\tau}A_{\check r}-\partial_{\check r}(NA_l+
N^{\check u}A_{\check u})=NF_{l\check r}+N^{\check s}F_{\check s\check r},
\nonumber \\
F_{l\check r}&=&A_{l;\check r}-A_{\check r;l}=\partial_{\check r}A_l+K_{\check
r\check u}\gamma^{\check u\check s}A_{\check s}-{1\over N}(\partial_{\tau}-
{\cal L}_{\vec N}A_{\check r}+NK_{\check r\check u}\gamma^{\check u\check s}
A_{\check s}-A_l\partial_{\check r}N)=\nonumber \\
&=&-{1\over N}[\partial_{\tau}A_{\check r}-{\cal L}_{\vec N}A_{\check r}-
\partial_{\check r}(NA_l)],
\label{C10}\end{aligned}$$
where ${\cal L}_{\vec N}A_{\check r}=N^{\check s}A_{\check r\, |\,
\check s}+A_{\check s}N^{\check s}{}_{|\, \check r}=N^{\check s}\partial
_{\check s}A_{\check r}+A_{\check s}\partial_{\check r}N^{\check s}$ is the Lie derivative along $\vec N$.
By using the second line of Eq.(\[C6\]) to evaluate $-{1\over 4}\sqrt{g}
\eta^{\mu\nu}\eta^{\rho\sigma}F_{\mu\rho}F_{\nu\sigma}=-{1\over 4}N
\sqrt{\gamma}(2\gamma^{\check r\check s}F_{l\check r}F_{l\check s}+\gamma
^{\check r\check s}\gamma^{\check u\check v}F_{\check r\check u}
F_{\check s\check v})$, the Lagrangian (\[114\]) becomes
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}&(&\tau ,\vec \sigma )={i\over 2}\sum_{i=1}^N\delta^3(\vec \sigma -
{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))[\theta^{*}_i(\tau ){\dot \theta}_i(\tau )-{\dot \theta}
^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )]-\nonumber \\
&-&\sum_{i=1}^N\delta^3(\vec \sigma -{\vec \eta}_i(\tau ))[\eta_im_i
\sqrt{N^2(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+g_{\check r\check s}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )
(N^{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+{\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau ))
(N^{\check s}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )+{\dot \eta}_i^{\check s}(\tau ))}+\nonumber
\\
&+&e_i\theta^{*}_i(\tau )\theta_i(\tau )(N(\tau ,\vec \sigma )A_l(\tau ,
\vec \sigma )+A_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )(N^{\check r}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma )+{\dot \eta}_i^{\check r}(\tau ))]-\nonumber \\
&-&\sqrt{\gamma (\tau ,\vec \sigma )}[{1\over {2N}}\gamma^{\check r\check s}
(\partial_{\tau}A_{\check r}-{\cal L}_{\vec N}A_{\check r}-\partial_{\check r}
(NA_l))(\partial_{\tau}A_{\check s}-{\cal L}_{\vec N}A_{\check s}-\partial
_{\check s}(NA_l))+\nonumber \\
&+&{N\over 4}\gamma^{\check r\check s}\gamma^{\check u\check v}F_{\check r
\check u}F_{\check s\check v}](\tau ,\vec \sigma ),
\label{C11}\end{aligned}$$
which is independent from both the extrinsic curvature and the Christoffel symbols \[this is true only in the case of the spin 1 vector field but not for general tensors fields\]. Now the configuration variables are $z^{\mu}(\tau ,\vec
\sigma ), A_l(\tau ,\vec \sigma ), A_{\check r}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$, and we perform the constraint analysis with the new associated momenta. However, since we have $\pi^l(\tau ,\vec \sigma )=N(\tau ,\vec \sigma )\pi^{\tau}(\tau ,
\vec \sigma )=0$ and the other electromagnetic momenta still given by Eqs.(\[115\]), in the case of (spin 1) vector fields both the formulation with $A_l(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ and that with $A_{\tau}
(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ give the same results as in Section VI, since both $A_{\tau}(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ and $A_l(\tau ,\vec \sigma )$ are gauge variables.
P.A.M.Dirac, “Lectures on Quantum Mechanics“, Belfer Graduate School of Science, Monographs Series, Yeshiva University, New York, N.Y., 1964. L.Lusanna, a) [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**B52**]{} (1979) 141; b) [*Phys.Rep.*]{} [**185**]{} (1990) 1; c) L.Lusanna, [*Riv. Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**14**]{} (1991) 1; d) [*J.Math.Phys.*]{} [**31**]{} (1990) 428 and 2126. M.Chaichian, D.Louis Martinez and L.Lusanna, [*Ann.Phys.*]{}(N.Y.) [**232**]{} (1994) 40. S.Shanmugadhasan, [*J.Math.Phys.*]{} [**14**]{} (1973) 677. L.Lusanna, [*Int.J.Mod.Phys.*]{} [**A8**]{} (1993) 4193. L.Lusanna, ”Classical Observables of Gauge Theories from the Multitemporal Approach“, talk given at the Conference ’Mathematical Aspects of Classical Field Theory’, Seattle 1991, in [*Contemporary Mathematics*]{} [**132**]{} (1992) 531. ”Dirac’s Observables: from Particles to Strings and Fields", talk given at the International Symposium on ’Extended Objects and Bound States’, Karuizawa 1992, (O.Hara, S.Ishida and S.Naka, Eds.), World Scientific, Singapore, 1993. “Hamiltonian Constraints and Dirac’s Observables: from Relativistic Particles towards Field Theory and General Relativity", talk at the Workshop “Geometry of Constrained Dynamical Systems", Newton Institute, Cambridge, 1994, (J.M.Charap, Ed.), Cambridge Univ.Press, Cambridge, 1995. P.A.M.Dirac, [*Can.J.Phys.*]{} [**33**]{} (1955) 650. L.Lusanna, Int.J.Mod.Phys [**A10**]{} (1995) 3531 and 3675. L.Lusanna and P.Valtancoli, in preparation. L.Lusanna and P.Valtancoli, in preparation. L.Lusanna, “Aspects of Galilean and Relativistic Particle Mechanics with Dirac’s Constraints", talk at the Conference “Theories of Fundamental Interactions", Maynooth (Ireland), 1995. K.Kuchar, J.Math.Phys. [**17**]{} (1976) 777, 792 and 801. P.A.M.Dirac, [*Rev.Mod.Phys.*]{} [**21**]{} (1949) 392. N.Nakanishi, “Relative Time and Abnormal Solutions in the Theory of the Bethe-Salpeter Equation" and H.Sazdjian, “Connection of Constraint Dynamics with the Bethe-Salpeter Equation", talks at the Int.Symposium “Extended Objects and Bound States", Karuizawa 1992, (O.Hara, S.Ishida and S.Naka, Eds.), World Scientific, Singapore, 1992. H.Sazdjian, [*J.Math.Phys.*]{} [**28**]{} (1987) 2618. D.G.Currie, T.F.Jordan and E.C.G.Sudarshan, [*Rev.Mod.Phys.*]{} [**35**]{} (1965) 350. H.Leutwyler, [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**37**]{} (1965) 556. L.Bel, [*Ann.Inst.H.Poincare’*]{} [**14**]{} (1971) 189. E.Kerner, [ *J.Math.Phys.*]{} [**6**]{} (1965) 1218. T.F.Jordan, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**166**]{} (1968) 1308. L.Bel, [*Ann.Inst.H.Poincare’*]{} [**14**]{} (1971) 189. S.Chelkowski, J.Nietendel and R.Suchanek, [*Acta Phys.Pol.*]{} [**B11**]{} (1980) 809. G.Longhi, L.Lusanna and J.M.Pons, [*J.Math.Phys.*]{} [**30**]{} (1989) 1893. J.Niederle, in Proc.Conference of Smolenice 1976, vol.3, Lanik-Noga, Bratislava, 1978. M.Lorente and P.Roman, [*J.Math. Phys.*]{} [**15**]{} (1974) 70. H.Sazdjian, [*Nucl.Phys.*]{} [**B161**]{} (1979) 469. M.Pauri and G.M.Prosperi, [*J.Math.Phys.*]{} [**16**]{} (1975) 1503. L.Lusanna, [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**64A**]{} (1981) 65. G.Longhi and L.Lusanna, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D34**]{} (1986) 3707. L.Lusanna, in “Gauge Field Theories", XVIII Karpacz School 1981, (W.Garczynski, Ed.), Harwood, Chur, 1986. G.Longhi, “On the Harmonic Interaction of Three Relativistic Point Particles", talk at the Workshop “Geometry of Constrained Dynamical Systems“, Newton Institute, Cambridge, 1994, (J.M.Charap, Ed.), Cambridge Univ.Press, Cambridge, 1995. M.Pauri and G.M.Prosperi, [*J.Math.Phys.*]{} [**7**]{} (1966) 366. M.H.L.Pryce, [*Proc.Roy.Soc.(London)*]{} [**195A**]{} (1948) 6. T.D.Newton and E.P. Wigner, [*Rev.Mod.Phys.*]{} [**21**]{} (1949) 400. M.Pauri, ”Invariant Localization and Mass-Spin Relations in the Hamiltonian Formulation of Classical Relativistic Dynamics“, Parma Univ. preprint IFPR-T-019, 1971 (unpublished); in ”Group Theoretical Methods in Physics“, (K.B.Wolf, Ed.), Lecture Notes Phys. n.135, Springer, Berlin, 1980. A.Lucenti, M.Pauri and L.Lusanna, in preparation. L.L.Foldy and S.A.Wouthuysen, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**78**]{} (1950) 29. A.D.Fokker, ”Relativiteitstheorie“, p.171, Noordhoff, Groningen, 1929. C.Möller, [*Ann.Inst.H.Poincaré*]{} [**11**]{} (1949) 251; ”The Theory of Relativity“, Oxford Univ.Press, Oxford, 1957. A.J.Hanson and T.Regge, Ann.Phys. (N.Y.) $\underline {87}$, 498 (1974). A.J.Hanson, T.Regge and C.Teitelboim, ”Constrained Hamiltonian Systems", in Contributi del Centro Linceo Interdisciplinare di Scienze Matematiche, Fisiche e loro Applicazioni, n.22, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Roma, 1975. A.Barducci, L.Lusanna and E.Sorace, Nuovo Cimento $\underline {46B}$ (1978) 287. E.Byckling and K.Kajantie, “Particle Kinematics", J.Wiley, London, 1973. A.Barducci, R.Casalbuoni and L.Lusanna, Lett.Nuovo Cim. [ **25**]{} (1979) 129. M.Moshinski and A.del Sol Mesa, “A Relativistic Cockroach Nest", preprint IFUNAM (México) 1993. J.M.Levy-Leblond, J.Math.Phys. [**4**]{} (1963) 776. M.Pauri and G.Prosperi, J.Math.Phys. [**9**]{} (1968) 1146. U.H.Niederer and L.O’Raifeartaigh, Fortschr.Phys. [**22**]{} (1974) 111. H.Feshbach and F.Villars, Rev.Mod.Phys. [**30**]{} (1958) 24. E.C.G.Stueckelberg, Helv.Phys.Acta [**14**]{} (1941) 588; [**15**]{} (1942) 23. C.Itzykson and J.C.Zuber, “Quantum Field Theory", McGraw-Hill, New York, 1985. L.Lusanna, [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**65B**]{} (1981) 135; “From Relativistic Mechanic’s toward Green’s Functions: Multitemporal Dynamics", Proc. VII Seminar on “Problems of High Energy Physics", Protvino 1984, vol I, p.123. I.T.Todorov, “Constraint Hamiltonian Approach to Relativistic Point Particle Dynamics", SISSA report, Trieste 1980 (unpublished); “Constraint Hamiltonian Dynamics of Directly Interacting Relativistic Point Particle" in “Quantum Theory, Groups, Fields and Particles", (A.O.Barut, Ed.), Reidel, Dordrecht, 1983. T.Takabayasi, Suppl.Progr.Theor.Phys. [**67**]{} (1979) 1. Ph.Droz Vincent, [*Lett.Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**1**]{} (1969) 839; [**7**]{} (1973) 206; [*Phys.Scripta*]{} [**2**]{} (1970) 129; [*Rep. Math.Phys.*]{} [**8**]{} (1975) 79; [*Ann.Inst.H.Poincaré*]{} [**27**]{} (1977) 407; [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D19**]{} (1979) 702. I.T.Todorov, Dubna preprint 1976, JINR E2-10125 (unpublished); (1978) 207. V.A.Rizov, H.Sazdjian and I.T.Todo-rov, [*Ann.Phys.*]{} (N.Y.) [**165**]{} (1985) 59. A.Komar, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D18**]{} (1978) 1881, 1887 and 3017; [**D19**]{} (1979) 2908. D.Dominici, J.Gomis and G.Longhi, Nuovo Cim. [**48B**]{} (1978) 152. F.Rörlich, Phys.Rev. [**D23**]{} (1981) 1305. H.Sazdjian, Lett.Math.Phys. [**5**]{} (1981) 319; Ann.Phys.(N.Y.) [**136**]{} (1981) 136. R.N.Hill and E.H.Kerner, [*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**17**]{} (1966) 1156. B.Bakamjian and L.H.Thomas, Phys.Rev. [**92**]{} (1953) 1300. M.Pauri and G.Prosperi, J.Math.Phys. [**17**]{} (1976) 1468. R.Casalbuoni, [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**33A**]{} (1976) 115 and 389. F.A.Berezin and M.S.Marinov, [*Ann.Phys.*]{} (N.Y.) [**104**]{} (1977) 336. A.Barducci, R.Casalbuoni and L.Lusanna, [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**35A**]{} (1976) 377; [*Nuovo Cim.Lett.*]{} [**19**]{} (1977) 581. A.Barducci, R.Casalbuoni and L.Lusanna, [*Nucl.Phys.*]{} [**B124**]{} (1977) 93; [*Nucl.Phys.*]{} [**B180 \[FS2\]**]{}, (1981) 141. J.A.Wheeler and R.P.Feynman, Rev.Mod.Phys. [**17**]{} (1945) 157; [**21**]{} (1949) 425. C.Teitelboim, D.Villaroel and Ch.G.van Weert, Riv.Nuovo Cim. [**3**]{} (1980) 1. W.T.Grandy jr, “Relativistic Quantum Mechanics of Leptons and Fields", Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1991. R.Giachetti and E.Sorace, Nuovo Cimento [**63B**]{} (1981) 666; E.Sorace and M.Tarlini, Nuovo Cimento [**71B**]{} (1982) 98. E.Corinaldesi and F.Strocchi, “Relativistic Wave Mechanics", North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1963. D.Lurié, “Particles and Fields", p.123, Interscience Publishers, New York, 1968. E.M.Henley and W.Thirring, “Elementary Quantum Field Theory", Chap.5, McGraw Hill, New York, 1962. R.Hakim, J.Math.Phys. [**8**]{} (1967) 1315 and 1379. F.Jüttner, Ann.Physik [**34**]{} (1911) 856; [**35**]{} (1911) 145; Z.Physik [**47**]{} (1928) 542. A.Lichnérowicz and R.Marrot, Compt.Rend. [**210**]{} (1940) 759. P.Bergmann, Phys.Rev. [**84**]{} 1026;“Handbuch der Physik", vol.IV (ed.S.Flügge) Springer, Berlin, 1960. L.Bel, [*Ann.Inst.H.Poincare’*]{} [**12**]{} (1970) 307 and [**14**]{} (1971) 189. “Mecanica Relativista Predictiva", courso impartido en el Departamento de Fisica Teorica de la Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, UAB FT-34 (1977). D.G.Currie, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**142**]{} (1966) 817. R.H.Hill, [*J.Math.Phys.*]{} [**8**]{} (1967) 201. J.L.Synge, “The Relativistic Gas", North Holland, Amsterdam, 1957. S.R.de Groot, C.G.van Weert, W.Th.Hermens and W.A.van Leeuwen, Physica [**40**]{} (1968) 257. S.R.de Groot, Physica [**88A**]{} (1977) 172, 183 and 425. S.R.de Groot et al., “Relativistic Kinetic Theory", North Holland, Amsterdam, 1980. D.Ter Haar and H.Wegerland, Phys.Reports [**1C**]{} (1971) 31. W.Israel, J.Math.Phys. [**4**]{} (1963) 1163; Ann.Phys. (N.Y.) [**100**]{} (1976) 310. W.Israel and J.M.Stewart, Ann.Phys. (N.Y.) [**118**]{} (1979) 341. J.M.Stewart, “Non-Equilibrium Relativistic Kinetic Theory", Lect.Notes in Phys. n.10, Springer, Berlin, 1971. M.Chaichian, R.Hagedorn and M.Hayashi, Nucl.Phys. [**B92**]{} (1975) 445. J.V.Lepore and R.N.Stuart, Phys.Rev. [**94**]{} (1954) 1724. V.B.Magalinskii and Ya.P.Terletskii,Sov.Phys.JEPT [**5**]{} (1957) 483. B.Touschek, Nuovo Cim. [**58B**]{} (1968) 295. A.Jabs, Nucl.Phys. [**B34**]{} (1971) 177. F.Karsch and D.E.Miller, Phys.Rev. [**D24**]{} (1981) 2564. R.P.Feynman, Phys.Rev. [**90**]{} (1953) 1116; [**91**]{} (1953) 1291. R.P.Feynman and A.R.Hibbs, “Quantum Mechanics and Path Integral", McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965. R.P.Feynman, “Statistical Mechanics", Benjamin, Reading Mass., 1972. L.Lusanna, “Ideal Bose-Einstein Quantum Gas from Relativistic Mechanics", Genève Univ. preprint UGVA-DPT 1983/07-403 (unpublished). R.Hakim and A,Mangeney, J.Math.Phys. [**9**]{} (1968) 116; Phys. Fluids, [**14**]{} (1971) 2751. R.Hakim, J.Math.Phys. [**9**]{} (1968) 1805; Riv.Nuovo Cim. [**1**]{} (1978) 1. R.Dominguez Tenreiro and R.Hakim, Phys.Rev. [**D15**]{} (1977) 1435. J.Diaz Alonso and R.Hakim, Phys.Rev. [**D29**]{} (1984) 2690; [**D38**]{} (1988) 1780; Class.Quantum Grav. [**10**]{} (1993) S223. A.Barducci, R.Casalbuoni and L.Lusanna, [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**35A**]{} (1976) 377; [*Nucl.Phys.*]{} [**B124**]{} (1977) 93 and 521; [**B180 (FS2)**]{} (1981) 141. H.W.Crater and P.Van Alstine, [*Ann. Phys.*]{}(N.Y.) [**148**]{} (1983) 57; [*J.Math.Phys.*]{} [**23**]{} (1982) 1697; [**31**]{} (1990) 1998; [*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**53**]{} (1984) 1577; [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D30**]{} (1984) 2585; [**D34**]{} (1986) 1932; [**D36**]{} (1987) 3007; [**D37**]{} (1988) 1982; [**D46**]{} (1992) 476. H.W.Crater, R.L.Becker, C.Y.Wong and P.Van Alstine, [*Phys.Rev*]{} [**D46**]{} (1992) 5117. H.Crater and P.Van Alstine, in “Constraint’s Theory and Relativistic Dynamics", Firenze 1986 (G.Longhi and L.Lusanna, Eds.) World Scientific, Singapore, 1987, and in “Constraint Theory and Quantization Methods", Montepulciano 1993, (F.Colomo, L.Lusanna and G.Marmo, Eds.) World Scientific, Singapore, 1994. F.M.Lev, Riv.Nuovo Cim. [**16**]{} n.2 (1992) 1; Ann.Phys.(N.Y.) [**237**]{} (1995) 355. B.D.Keister and W.N.Polyzou, Adv.Nucl.Phys. [**20**]{} (1991) 225. E.J.Kerner, [*J.Math.Phys.*]{} [**3**]{} (1962) 35. R.Marnelius, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D10**]{} (1974) 2535. L.Bel, in “Relativistic Action-at-a-Distance: Classical and Quantum Aspects", Barcelona 1981, (J.Llosa, Ed.) Lecture Notes Phys. n.162, Springer, Berlin, 1982. R.P.Gaida, Yu.B.Kluchkowski and V.I.Tretyak, in “Constraint’s Theory and Relativistic Dynamics", Firenze 1986, (G.Longhi and L.Lusanna, Eds.) World Scientific, Singapore, 1987. X.Jaén, J.Llosa and A.Molina, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D34**]{} (1986) 2302. X.Jaén, R.Jáuregui, J.Llosa and A.Molina, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D36**]{} (1987) 2385. H.Crater and D.Yang, [*J.Math. Phys.*]{} [**32**]{} (1991) 2374.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper investigates the symmetry reduction of the regularised n-body problem. The three body problem, regularised through quaternions, is examined in detail. We show that for a suitably chosen symmetry group action the space of quadratic invariants is closed and the Hamiltonian can be written in terms of the quadratic invariants. The corresponding Lie-Poisson structure is isomorphic to the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{u}(3,3)$. Finally, we generalise this result to the n-body problem for $n>3$.'
author:
- 'Suntharan Arunasalam and Holger R. Dullin and Diana M.H. Nguyen'
title: |
\
The Lie-Poisson Structure of the Symmetry Reduced Regularised n-Body Problem\
\
---
Introduction
============
The Galilean symmetry of the $n$-body problem leads to the classical 9 integrals of linear momentum, centre of mass, and angular momentum. Symplectic reduction of this symmetry gives a reduced system with $3n-5$ degrees of freedom, see, e.g. [@MeyerHall]. An alternative approach to reduction that avoids problems with singular reduction uses invariants of the symmetry group action. Singular reduction does occur in the $n$-body problem because the orbit of the symmetry group drops in dimension for collinear configurations. Using quadratic invariants leads to a Lie-Poisson structure isomorphic to ${\mathfrak{sp}}(2n-2)$, as was shown using different bases of invariants in [@Sadetov02] and [@Dullin13].
One motivation for this approach is the possibility to derive structure preserving geometric integrators for the symmetry reduced $3$-body problem, as done in [@Dullin13]. However, numerical integration of many body problems needs to be able to deal with binary near-collisions. The classical regularisation by squaring in the complex plane found by Levi-Civita [@Levi-Civita] has a beautiful spatial analogue that can be formulated using quaternions [@KS], also see [@Saha]. This regularisation has been used by Heggie to simultaneously regularise binary collision in the $n$-body problem [@Heggie]. Recently the symmetry reduction of the regularised 3-body problem has been revisited in [@mont], extending the classical work of Lemaitre [@Lemaitre]. In the present work we perform the symmetry reduction using quadratic invariants, thus repeating [@Dullin13] for the regularised problem. See [@LMS] for some background on singular reduction. Our main result is that the symmetry reduced regularised 3-body problem has the Lie-Poisson structure of the Lie-algebra ${\mathfrak{u}}(3,3)$.
The paper is organised as follows. In the next section we introduce our notation of quaternions and Heggie’s regularised Hamiltonian. We then treat the cases $n=2$ (Kepler), $n=3$ and $n\ge4$ in turns. For the Kepler problem we show how to extend the $SO(3)$ group action on ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ to an action of a subgroup of $SO(4)$ on quaternions. Treating 3 particles amounts to redoing this construction for 3 difference vectors, and we show that for a suitable chosen group action the space of quadratic invariants is closed and the Hamiltonian can be written in terms of the quadratic invariants. The corresponding Lie-Poisson structure is ${\mathfrak{u}}(3,3)$. In the final section we briefly comment on how this reduction is done for an arbitrary number of particles.
Simultaneous regularisation of binary collisions
================================================
Let the positions of the $n$ particles be denoted by $\bm{q}_{i}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{3}$, and the conjugate momenta by $\bm{p}_{i}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{3}$, $i=1,\dots,n$. The translational symmetry is reduced by forming difference vectors $\bm{q}_{ij}=\bm{q}_{i}-\bm{q}_{j}$ and $\bm{p}_{ij}=\bm{p}_{i}-\bm{p}_{j}$. We follow [@Waldvogel] in using quaternions for the regularisation. The analogue of Levi-Civita’s squaring map can then be written as $$\bm{q}=\bm{Q}*\bm{Q}^{\star},\label{eqn:qofQ}$$ where $\bm{Q}=Q_{0}+\bm{i}Q_{1}+\bm{j}Q_{2}+\bm{k}Q_{3}$ and the superscript $^{\star}$ flips the sign of the $\bm{k}$-component, $\bm{Q}^{\star}=Q_{0}+\bm{i}Q_{1}+\bm{j}Q_{2}-\bm{k}Q_{3}$, see [@Waldvogel]. By construction the quaternion $\bm{Q}*\bm{Q}^{\star}$ has vanishing $k$-component and can thus be identified with the 3-dimensional vector $\bm{q}$.
The mapping from 4-dimensional momenta $\bm{P}$ to 3-dimensional momenta $\bm{p}$ is given by $$\bm{p}=\frac{1}{2||\bm{Q}||^{2}}\bm{Q}*\bm{P}^{\star}=\frac{1}{2}\bm{P}^{\star}*\bar{\bm{Q}}^{-1}\label{eqn:pofQP}$$ where the overbar denotes quaternionic conjugation, i.e. flipping the sign of the $\bm i$, $\bm j$, and $\bm k$ component. Note that in general the $\bm{k}$-component of the right hand side is non-zero. One could think of the map to $\bm{p} \in {\mathbb{R}}^3$ to be a projection onto the first three components. However, it turns out to be better to impose that the last component vanishes. This condition can be written as $$\bm{Q}^{T}K\bm{P}=0\quad\text{where}\quad K=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 & 0 & -1\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\,.\label{eqn:bilin}$$ Here and in the following $\bm{Q}$ and $\bm{P}$ are interpreted as ordinary 4-dimensional vectors; multiplication of quaternions by contrast is denoted by $*$. Equation is the famous bi-linear relation [@KS]. Together and define a projection $\pi$ from $(\bm{Q},\bm{P})\in T^{*}{\mathbb{R}}^{4}$ to $(\bm{q},\bm{p})\in T^{*}{\mathbb{R}}^{3}$. Only when restricting to the subspace defined by the bi-linear relation does the map $\pi$ respect the symplectic structures so that $$\{f,g\}_{3}\circ\pi=\{f\circ\pi,g\circ\pi\}_{4}\,.$$ Here the two Poisson brackets $\{,\}_{3}$ and $\{,\}_{4}$ are corresponding to the two standard symplectic structures $d\bm{q}\wedge d\bm{p}$ and $d\bm{Q}\wedge d\bm{P}$, respectively, see, e.g. [@Kummer82; @Iwai81]. Using the transformation to $\bm Q, \bm P$ the Hamiltonian of the $n$-body problem written in terms of difference vectors and scaling time gives the regularised Hamiltonian [@Heggie] $$\begin{aligned}
H=\; & \frac{1}{8}\left(\frac{R_{12}R_{31}}{\mu_{23}}\bm{P}_{23}^{T}\bm{P}_{23}+\frac{R_{12}R_{23}}{\mu_{31}}\bm{P}_{31}^{T}\bm{P}_{31}+\frac{R_{23}R_{31}}{\mu_{12}}\bm{P}_{12}^{T}\bm{P}_{12}\right)\label{eq:Hamiltonian}\\
& -\frac{1}{4}\left(
\frac{R_{23}}{m_{1}}(\bm{Q}_{31}\ast\bm{P}_{31}^{\star})^{T}(\bm{Q}_{12}\ast\bm{P}_{12}^{\star})+
\frac{R_{31}}{m_{2}}(\bm{Q}_{12}\ast\bm{P}_{12}^{\star})^{T}(\bm{Q}_{23}\ast\bm{P}_{23}^{\star})+
\frac{R_{12}}{m_{3}}(\bm{Q}_{23}\ast\bm{P}_{23}^{\star})^{T}(\bm{Q}_{31}\ast\bm{P}_{31}^{\star})
\right)\nonumber \\
& -(m_{2}m_{3}R_{31}R_{12}+m_{3}m_{1}R_{12}R_{23}+m_{1}m_{2}R_{23}R_{31})-hR_{23}R_{31}R_{12}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
where $R_{ij}=\bm{Q}_{ij}^{T}\bm{Q}_{ij}={\left|\left|\bm{{q}}_{ij}\right|\right|}$ and $\mu_{ij}=\dfrac{m_{i}m_{j}}{m_{i}+m_{j}}$ is the reduced mass of particles $i$ and $j$.
The Kepler Problem $n=2$
========================
As mentioned in the introduction this case has been treated extensively in the literature [@KS; @Iwai81; @Kummer82], but we briefly treat it first to establish our notation and important Lemmas needed for the case with 3 or more masses. For $n=2$ there is only a single difference vector $\bm{q}_{12}=\bm{q}_{1}-\bm{q}_{2}$, similarly for $\bm{p}$. For ease of notation, in this section we are writing $\bm{q}$ for $\bm{q}_{12}$, similarly for $\bm{p}$, and the corresponding quaternions $\bm{Q}$ and $\bm{P}$.
For $n=2$ the time scaling reduces the problem to the harmonic oscillator since the more complicated cross-terms in the kinetic energy vanish, so that $$H = \frac{1}{8\mu} |\bm{P}|^2 - m_1 m_2 - h |\bm{Q}|^2 \,.$$
The $SO(3)$ symmetry acting on pairs of difference vectors in ${\mathbb{R}}^{3}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{3}$ is the diagonal action $\Phi_{R}:(\bm{q},\bm{p})\mapsto(R\bm{q},R\bm{p})$ for $R\in SO(3)$. This is a symplectic map whose momentum map is the cross product $\bm{q}\times\bm{p}$. Which linear symplectic action $\Psi_{S}$ of (a subgroup of) $SO(4)$ acting on ${\mathbb{R}}^{4}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{4}$ projects to $\Phi_{R}$ under $\pi$?
The diagonal action $\Psi_{S}:(\bm{Q},\bm{P})\mapsto(S\bm{Q},S\bm{P})$ for $S\in G$ a subgroup of $SO(4)$ with $G\cong SU(2)\times SO(2)$ projects to the action of $\Phi_{R}$ under $\pi$. In other words, the diagram $$\begin{CD}T^{*}{\mathbb{R}}^{3}@<\pi<<T^{*}{\mathbb{R}}^{4}\\
@V\Phi_{R}VV@V\Psi_{S}VV\\
T^{*}{\mathbb{R}}^{3}@<\pi<<T^{*}{\mathbb{R}}^{4}
\end{CD}$$ commutes.
Let the rotation $R\in SO(3)$ be given by $R=\exp{At}$ for some $A\in\operatorname{Skew}(3)$. We assume that we can write $S=\exp{Bt}$ for $B\in\operatorname{Skew}(4)$. The diagram states that $\Phi_{R}\circ\pi=\pi\circ\Psi_{S}$. Linearising at the identity, i.e. differentiating with respect to $t$ and setting $t=0$, and using that $\Phi_{S}$ leaves the norm of quaternions unchanged gives $$A(\bm{Q}*\bm{P}^{\star})=(B\bm{Q})*\bm{P}^{\star}+\bm{Q}*(B\bm{P})^{\star}$$ from the momenta , and the same equation with $\bm{P}$ replaced by $\bm{Q}$ from the positions . For given $A=\hat{\bm{L}}$ with arbitrary $\bm{L}=(L_{x},L_{y},L_{z})^{t}$ and the usual hat-map from ${\mathbb{R}}^{3}$ to $\operatorname{Skew}(3)$, the general solution can be written as $B=\frac{1}{2}(\operatorname{Isoc}(\hat{\bm{L}})+\tau K)$, where $\operatorname{Isoc}(\hat{\bm{L}})=\begin{pmatrix}\hat{\bm{L}} & -\bm{L}\\
\bm{L}^{t} & 0
\end{pmatrix}$ and parameter $\tau$. The subgroup $G$ contains the subgroup of isoclinic rotations $\exp(\operatorname{Isoc}(A))=\cos\omega\, I_{4}+\omega^{-1}\sin\omega\operatorname{Isoc}(A)$ where $\omega^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{Tr}AA^{t}$. They form a subgroup since the corresponding generators $\operatorname{Isoc}(A)$ form an algebra with $[\operatorname{Isoc}(\hat{\bm{a}}),\operatorname{Isoc}(\hat{\bm{b}})]=2\operatorname{Isoc}([\hat{\bm{a}},\hat{\bm{b}}])=2\operatorname{Isoc}(\widehat{\bm{a}\times \bm{b}})$ for any $\bm{a}, \bm{b} \in {\mathbb{R}}^3$. The corresponding group of left-isoclinic rotation matrices $\exp(\operatorname{Isoc}(\hat{\bm{a}}))$ has a composition law given by left-multiplication of unit quaternions with imaginary part proportional to $\bm{a}$. The whole group $G$ is obtained by multiplying the general left-isoclinic rotation $\exp(\operatorname{Isoc}(A))$ with the special right-isoclinic rotation $\exp(K\tau)$. These two commute, since $\operatorname{Isoc}(A)$ and $K$ commute. The group $\exp(K\tau)$ is isomorphic to $SO(2)$, so $G$ is isomorphic of $SO(3) \times SO(2)$.
For completeness we now briefly mention the momentum map of $\Psi_S$, which was found (in different disguise) by Kummer in [@Kummer82]. Here $\Im$ applied to a quaternion $ a+\bm{i}b+\bm{j}c +\bm{k}d $ produces the 3-dimensional vector $ (a,b,c)^t $.
The group action $\Psi_{S}$ has momenta $\bm{L}=\Im(\frac{1}{2}\bm{Q}*\bar{\bm{P}}*\bm{k})$ and $L_{\tau}=\bm{Q}^{T}K\bm{P}$ which are mapped into the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ of $G$ by $\frac{1}{2}(\operatorname{Isoc}(\hat{\bm{L}})+ K L_\tau)$. If in addition the bilinear relation is imposed, then $\pi\circ \bm{L}$ becomes the ordinary momentum $\bm{q}\times\bm{p}$.
The ODE whose flow is $\Psi_S$ with $S = \exp( B t)$ is $\dot {\bm{Q}} = B \bm{Q}$, $\dot{ \bm{P}} = B \bm{P}$, which comes from the Hamiltonian ${\bm Q}^T B \bm{P}$. Three components of the angular momentum are thus $L_{\alpha}=\frac{1}{2}\bm{Q}^{T}\operatorname{Isoc}(\hat{\bm{e}}_\alpha)\bm{P}$ where $\alpha\in\{x,y,z\}$ and $\bm{e}_\alpha$ is the unit vector in the direction of $\alpha$. These components indeed form the first three components of $\frac{1}{2}\bm{Q}*\bar{\bm{P}}*\bm{k}$, for example, $\bm{Q}^{T}\operatorname{Isoc}(\hat{\bm{e}}_y)\bm{P}=\frac{1}{2}(Q_{1}P_{3}-P_{1}Q_{3}+Q_{2}P_{4}-P_{2}Q_{4})$ is the $\bm{i}$-component of the quaternion $\frac{1}{2}\bm{Q}*\bar{\bm{P}}*\bm{k}$.
The second statement is shown through direct computation. See [@Kummer82] for more details.
In this section, the final simple but crucial observation is that $\Psi_S$ has four simple quadratic invariant polynomials, which will form the new coordinates in the singular reduction.
The basic polynomial invariants of the group action $\Psi_{S}$ of $G$ are $$X_{1}=\bm{Q}^{T}\bm{Q}/\sqrt{2},\quad X_{2}=\bm{P}^{T}\bm{P}/\sqrt{2},\quad X_{3}=\bm{Q}^{T}\bm{P},\quad X_{4}=\bm{P}^{T}K\bm{Q}\,.$$ The Poisson bracket of these invariants is closed and is the Lie-Poisson structure of $\mathfrak{u}(1,1)$.
Firstly, $SO(4)$, as the group of rotations preserves the inner product on ${\mathbb{R}}^{4}$. Thus, $G$ as subgroup of $SO(4)$ must also preserve the inner product. Hence, $X_1$, $X_2$, $X_3$ are clearly invariants.
Since $\psi_S$ acts in the same way on $\bm{Q}$ and $\bm{P}$, in order to find invariant quadratic forms it is enough to consider invariant forms $\bm{U}^T M \bm{V} = ( S \bm U)^T S M \bm V = \bm U^T S^t M S \bm V$ for arbitrary vectors $\bm U, \bm V$. If $M = S^t M S$ holds for some $M$ then there are three invariant quadratic forms given by $\bm Q^T M \bm Q$, $\bm Q^T M \bm P$, and $\bm P^T M \bm P$.
Now $S = \exp(B t)$, and differentiating at 0 implies that $BM = MB$. This has only two independent solutions, $M = I$ and $M = K$. The antisymmetric $M=K$ only produces one non-zero invariant $X_4 = \bm Q^T K \bm P$, and $M=I$ reproduces the three scalar product invariants already mentioned. Equivalently, one can show by direct computation that the only quadratic forms that simultaneously have vanishing Poisson bracket with $L_{\alpha}$ for all $\alpha\in\{x,y,z,\tau\}$ are in the span of $X_1, \dots, X_4$. Therefore, the set $X_1, \dots, X_4$ is a basis for the vector space of quadratic invariants. The only non-vanishing Poisson brackets are $$\{ X_1, X_2 \} = 2 X_3, \quad
\{ X_2, X_3 \} = - 2 X_2, \quad
\{ X_3, X_1 \} = - 2 X_1 \,.$$ Clearly the invariants $X_1, \dots, X_4$ are closed under the Poisson bracket.
Using $(X_{1},X_{2},X_{3},X_{4})$ as a basis for the space of quadratic invariants, the Poisson structure matrix is $$\left(\begin{array}{rrrr}
0 & 2X_{3} & 2X_{1} & 0\\
-2X_{3} & 0 & -2X_{2} & 0\\
-2X_{1} & 2X_{2} & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right)\,,$$ with Casimir $X_4$, the bi-linear relation.
The algebra $\mathfrak{u}(1,1; i J_2)$ is the set of complex matrices $M$ that satisfy $(H_1M)^\dagger + H_1M = 0$ for the hermitian matrix $H_1 = iJ_2$, where $J_2$ is the standard symplectic $2\times 2$ matrix, so that $H_1$ has eigenvalues $1, -1$, and hence signature $(1,1)$. If we chose $$b_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ -\sqrt{2} & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad
b_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \sqrt{2} \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad
b_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}, \quad
b_4 = -i I \\$$ as a basis for $\mathfrak{u}(1,1)$, then the algebra of commutators of $b_i$ is identical to the algebra of Poisson brackets of the $X_i$.
A relation of the regularised Kepler problem to $\mathfrak{u}(2,2)$ can be found in [@Kummer82], but this is not directly related to our $\mathfrak{u}(1,1)$, which is the algebra of the quadratic invariants. Note that $X_4$ is not only an invariant but also a generator. The other generators are the component of $L$, and are not invariant under $\Psi_S$. However, the sum of their squares is, and hence can be written in terms of the above invariants: $L_x^2 + L_y^2 + L_z^2 = \frac{1}{2}X_1X_2-\frac{1}{4}X_3^2$.
The normalisation of the basis and the invariants is chosen so that basis vectors are normalised with respect to the scalar product $\langle A, B \rangle = \operatorname{Tr}( A^\dagger B) /2$. This ensures that the Lax form of the equations $\dot L = [ P, L]$, which we are now going to derive, is particularly symmetric. The Hamiltonian in terms of the quadratic invariants is a linear function $$H = \frac{1}{8\mu} X_2 - m_1 m_2 - h X_1 \,.$$ and the equations of motion are linear as well and given by $$\label{eqn:KeplerX}
\begin{pmatrix} \dot X_1 \\ \dot X_2 \\ \dot X_3 \end{pmatrix}
=
\left(\begin{array}{rrrr}
0 & 2X_{3} & 2X_{1} \\
-2X_{3} & 0 & -2X_{2} \\
-2X_{1} & 2X_{2} & 0
\end{array}\right)
\begin{pmatrix}
H_1 \\ H_2 \\ H_3
\end{pmatrix} \,,$$ where $H_i = \partial H / \partial X_i$. Since $X_4$ commutes with all $X_i$ we can ignore it. On the level of the algebra we reduce by the centre, and get $\mathfrak{su}(1,1)$. To emphasise the $\mathfrak{su}(1,1; iJ_1) = \mathfrak{sl}(2, {\mathbb{R}})$ structure these equations can be written in Lax form by defining $$\label{eqn:Lax2}
L = J_2 \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{2} X_1 & X_3 \\ X_3 & \sqrt{2} X_2 \end{pmatrix}
\quad \text{and} \quad
P = \begin{pmatrix} \sqrt{2} H_1 & H_3 \\ H_3 & \sqrt{2} H_2 & \end{pmatrix} J_2$$ where $J_2$ is the standard symplectic $2\times 2$ matrix, so that the equations of motion are equivalent to $$\dot L = [ P, L ] \,.$$ This is yet another way to write the regularised equations of the Kepler problem. We recover the angular momentum as the Casimir $\det L = 2 X_1 X_2 - X_3^2$. In the case of 3 or more bodies the Lax form of the equation gives non-trivial additional information on the Casimirs, see below.
Notice that the symmetry reduction using invariants of the un-regularised Kepler problem leads to a Poisson structure of $\mathfrak{ sl}(2, {\mathbb{R}})$ as well, see, e.g. [@Dullin13], however, with a different (non-regularised) Hamiltonian.
The 3-body problem, $n=3$
=========================
The $G$-action $\Psi_{S}$ on pairs $(\bm{q},\bm{p})$ extends to an action (denoted by the same letter) on triples of pairs $(\bm{q}_{ij},\bm{p}_{ij})$. Since the action acts diagonally, to get the corresponding angular momenta the individual momenta are simply added together, $\mathcal{L}_{a}=\sum L_{a}^{i}$ for $a\in\{x,y,z\}$. In this way the action projects down by $\pi$ to the usual action of the angular momentum.
Choosing the correct symmetry group is crucial in order to obtain a good set of quadratic invariants. Since any flow generated by $L_\tau^i$ is annihilated by $\pi$ there is a choice in defining the symmetry group and its action. We could define an action of $SU(2) \times SO(2) \times SO(2) \times SO(2)$ where the action of each $SO(2)$ is the flow generated by $L_\tau^i$, $i= 1, 2, 3$ for the three particles. The set of quadratic invariants is then much smaller, since the group is larger. However, Heggie’s Hamiltonian cannot be written in terms of these 9 quadratic invariants, even though it is clearly invariant under it. Instead of working with higher degree invariants, we prefer to stick to quadratic invariants and instead consider a smaller group action. Hence we keep the same group $G = SU(2) \times SO(2)$ and let $SO(2)$ act diagonally on the three particles. The corresponding flow is generated by $\mathcal{L}_\tau = \sum L_\tau^i$. With this choice of extended $G$-action $\Psi_{S}$ gives the smallest set of closed quadratic invariants in terms of which the Hamiltonian can be expressed.
\[lem:Q\] A quadratic form $Q= \bm X^T M \bm X$ that is invariant under $\Psi_{S}$ has matrix $$M=[W]_\mathrm{{sym}}\otimes I_{4}+[W]_\mathrm{{skew}}\otimes K$$ where $W$ is an arbitrary $6\times6$ matrix, $\bm X=(\bm{Q}_{1}^{T},\bm{Q}_{2}^{T},\bm{Q}_{3}^{T},\bm{P}_{1}^{T},\bm{P}_{2}^{T},\bm{P}_{3}^{T})^T$ and $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product. The vector space of quadratic invariants of this form is closed under the Poisson bracket.
Since $\Psi_S$ acts diagonally, the arguments from Lemma 3.3 can be repeated. Hence the invariant quadratic forms are either of the form $\alpha_{ij} = \bm Q_i^T \bm Q_j g_{ij}$, $\beta_{ij} = \bm P_i^T \bm P_j g_{ij}$, $\gamma_{ij} = \bm Q_i^T \bm P_j$, where $g_{ij} = 1/\sqrt{2}$ for $i = j$ and $1$ otherwise, or they involve the matrix $K$ and are $a_{ij} = \bm Q_i^T K \bm Q_j$, $b_{ij} = \bm P_i^T K \bm P_j$, $c_{ij} = \bm Q_i^T K \bm P_j$. The first group has 21 elements, and the second group has 15 elements because the expressions are identically zero when $i=j$. Any quadratic form on phase space can be written as $\bm X^T M \bm X$. For the first group of 24 invariant quadratic forms we have $ M = S \otimes I_{4}$ where $S \in \mathrm{sym(6)}$. Similarly, for the second group of quadratic forms over $K$ we have $M = A \otimes K$ where $A \in \mathrm{skew(6)}$. As the sum of invariants is invariant, the matrix for any quadratic invariant can be written as $S\otimes I_{4}+A\otimes K$. Thus, the set of quadratic invariants is of the form $Q=\bm X^T M \bm X$ where $$\label{eqn:MWform}
2 M = [W]_\mathrm{{sym}}\otimes I_{4}+[W]_\mathrm{{skew}}\otimes K$$ where $W$ is an arbitrary $6\times6$ matrix and so the space of quadratic invariants is isomorphic to $Mat(6\times6,{\mathbb{R}})$ as a vector space. Let $\bm X^T M \bm X$, and $\bm X^T N\bm X$ be two arbitrary quadratic forms. Then the Poisson bracket induces an algebra on symmetric matrices given by $$\label{eqn:PBalg}
M * N = 2 [ M J N]_\mathrm{{sym}} = M J N - N J M \,.$$ It is well known that for general symmetric matrices this algebra is $\mathfrak{sp}(m)$ where $m = {\rm dim}( \bm X)$. In our case we have a sub-algebra of matrices of the form , say $2 M = \tilde{A}\otimes I_{4}+\check{A}\otimes K$, $2 N = \tilde{B}\otimes I_{4}+\check{B}\otimes K$, and using $J = J_6 \otimes I_4$, where where $ \tilde{(\cdot)} =[(\cdot)]_\text{sym} $ and $\check{(\cdot)} =[(\cdot)]_\text{skew} $ we find $$\begin{aligned}
2 M*N & =[(\tilde{A}\otimes I_{4}+\check{A}\otimes K)(J_6 \otimes I_{4})(\tilde{B}\otimes I_{4}+\check{B}\otimes K)]_\mathrm{{sym}}\\
& =[(\tilde{A}J_6 \tilde{B}-\check{A}J_6 \check{B})\otimes I_{4}+(\check{A}J_6\tilde{B}+\tilde{A}J_6\check{B})\otimes K]_\mathrm{{sym}}\\
& = [ \tilde A J_6 \tilde B - \check A J_6 \check B ]_\mathrm{{sym}} \otimes I_4 + [ \check A J_6 \tilde B + \tilde{A}J_6\check{B} ]_\mathrm{{skew}} \otimes K \label{eqn:Kron}
$$ so that this sub-algebra, and hence the Poisson bracket of quadratic invariants of the form , is closed. Note that the Kronecker product of two antisymmetric matrices is symmetric. As particular examples of the above general rule we have, e.g., that $\{\alpha_{1,1},\beta_{1,1}\}=2\gamma_{1,1}$, and $\{\alpha_{1,1},c_{3,1}\}=-\sqrt{2} a_{1,3}$ . By setting the antisymmetric parts $\tilde A$ and $\tilde B$ to zero, it is clear that the 21-dimensional subspace spanned by $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ is closed under the Poisson bracket and hence forms a sub-algebra within the sub-algebra of invariant quadratic forms.
Defining $f_{ij}=4(\gamma_{i,j}\gamma_{j,i}-\gamma_{i,i}\gamma_{j,j}+\beta_{i,j}\alpha_{i,j}-c_{i,j}c_{j,i}+b_{i,j}a_{i,j})$, the Hamiltonian in terms of the invariant quadratic forms reads $$\begin{aligned}
H & =\frac{1}{8}\left(\frac{\alpha_{2,2}\alpha_{3,3}}{\mu_{23}}\beta_{1,1}+\frac{\alpha_{3,3}\alpha_{1,1}}{\mu_{13}}\beta_{2,2}+\frac{\alpha_{1,1}\alpha_{2,2}}{\mu_{12}}\beta_{3,3}\right)\\
& -\frac{1}{16}\left(\frac{\alpha_{1,1}}{m_{1}}f_{23}+\frac{\alpha_{2,2}}{m_{2}}f_{13}+\frac{\alpha_{3,3}}{m_{3}}f_{12}\right)\\
& -m_{2}m_{3}\alpha_{2,2}\alpha_{3,3}-m_{1}m_{3}\alpha_{1,1}\alpha_{3,3}-m_{1}m_{2}\alpha_{1,1}\alpha_{2,2}-h\alpha_{1,1}\alpha_{2,2}\alpha_{3,3}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Using this Hamiltonian we can now write down the regularised symmetry reduced 3-body dynamics as $ \dot f = \{ f, H \}$, where $f$ is any function of the 36 invariants. It is rather unfortunate that the dimension of the space of invariants is bigger than the dimension of the original phase space, so from the point of view of efficiency of numerical integration nothing can be gained here.
In order to work out the isomorphism type of the Lie algebra of quadratic invariants, we first induce a Lie bracket $[\cdot ,\cdot]_m$ on $\mathrm{Mat}(6\times6,{\mathbb{R}})$ using the Poisson bracket. We then show that this bracket is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{u}(3,3)$ with the standard commutator bracket. The Lie-algebra of quadratic invariants (respectively of their symmetric matrices) defined in induces a Lie-algebra on $\mathrm{Mat}(6\times 6, {\mathbb{R}})$
simply by reading off the first factors of the Kronecker product in , thus we define $$\label{eqn:defnbram}
[\tilde A + \check A, \tilde B + \check B]_m =
2 [ \tilde A J_6 \tilde B - \check A J_6 \check B ]_\mathrm{{sym}} + 2 [ \check A J_6 \tilde B + \tilde{A}J_6\check{B} ]_\mathrm{{skew} } \,.$$
This leads us to the main theorem of this paper:
\[th:1\] The symmetry reduced regularised 3-body problem has a Lie-Poisson structure with algebra $\mathfrak{u}(3,3)$ and a corresponding Hilbert basis of 36 quadratic functions invariant under $\Psi_{S}$.
For $A\in \mathrm{Mat}(6\times6,{\mathbb{R}})$ the matrix $M=J(\tilde{A}+i\check{A})$ is in $\mathfrak{u}(3,3)$. Here the indefinite Hermitian algebra is defined with respect to the indefinite Hermitian matrix $H=iJ$ with eigenvalues $\pm1$ each with multiplicity 3 so that the signature is $(3,3)$. Now it is easy to check that $(HM)^{\dagger}+HM=0$, and that matrices of the form $J(\tilde{A}+i\check{A})$ are closed under the commutator, and hence are in $\mathfrak{u}(3,3)$.
Now we show that the vector space isomorphism $h:\mathrm{Mat}(6\times6,{\mathbb{R}})\to\mathfrak{u}(3,3)$ with $h(A)= J_6(\tilde{A}+i\check{A})$ is in fact an isomorphism of Lie algebras: $h( [A,B]_m) = [h(A), h(B)]$. First notice that the bracket $[,]_m$ from can be rewritten as $$[A,B]_m = [\tilde A + \check A, \tilde B + \check B]_m =
-J_6 ([J_6 \tilde{A},J_6 \tilde{B}]-[J_6\check{A},J_6\check{B}]+[J_6\tilde{A},J_6\check{B}]+[J_6\check{A},J_6\tilde{B}]) \,,$$ so that $\left[[A,B]_{m}\right]_{sym}=-J_6([J_6\tilde{A},J_6\tilde{B}]-[J_6\check{A},J_6\check{B}])$ and $\left[[A,B]_{m}\right]_{skew}=-J_6([J_6\tilde{A},J_6\check{B}]+[J_6\check{A},J_6\tilde{B}])$. Hence, on the one hand we have $$h( [A, B]_m) = J_6( -J_6([J_6\tilde{A},J_6\tilde{B}]-[J_6\check{A},J_6\check{B}]) + i ( -J_6([J_6\tilde{A},J_6\check{B}]+[J_6\check{A},J_6\tilde{B}]) ) ) \,.$$ On the other hand we have $$[ h(A), h(B) ] = [ J_6( \tilde A + i \check A), J_6 ( \tilde B + i \check B)]$$ and expanding the commutator and collecting real and imaginary parts shows that in deed this equals $h([A, B]_m)$. This proves that space of quadratic invariants and $\mathfrak{u}(3,3)$ are isomorphic as Lie algebras.
In the final step we use the isomorphism just established to write the equations of motion in Lax form $\dot L = [ P, L]$, using the Lie-Poisson bracket on $\mathfrak{u}(3,3)$. This brings out most clearly the Casimirs of the reduced system, which are the traces of powers of $L$, or, alternatively, the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial of $L$. Note that the Lax form gives only 6 invariants, but since there are 36 variables the system is by no means integrable.
The Poisson structure has 6 Casimirs of degree 1 through 6. The linear Casimir is the sum of the bilinear integrals $\mathcal{L}_{\tau}$, the quadratic Casimir is the sum of the three angular momenta squared $\mathcal{L}_{x}^{2}+\mathcal{L}_{x}^{2}+\mathcal{L}_{z}^{2}$.
The Poisson bracket of the Lie algebra, in this matrix representation, can be written as $$\{f,g\}(M)=\left\langle M,\left[\frac{df}{dM},\frac{dg}{dM}\right]\right\rangle$$ where, the inner product is given by $\langle M,N\rangle=\operatorname{Tr}(M^{\dagger}N)/2$ and $\frac{df}{dM}$ refers to the element in $\mathfrak{g}$ that satisfies $$\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0}[f(M+\varepsilon \, dM)-f(M)]=\left\langle dM,\frac{df}{dM}\right\rangle,$$ see, e.g., [@MarsdenAndRatiu] for more details. The reason for choosing a normalised basis is that with respect to a normalised basis this can be written in the simple form $\dot L = [ P, L]$, see below. Now the co-effiecients of the characteristic polynomial of $L$ are in fact the Casimirs of the Poisson bracket. The co-efficient of the fifth order term is just the sum of the bilinear integrals, $\mathcal{L}_{\tau}$. The coefficient of the quartic term is $$\mathcal{L}_{x}^{2}+\mathcal{L}_{y}^{2}+\mathcal{L}_{z}^{2}+f(\mathcal{L}_{\tau})$$ where $f(\mathcal{L}_{\tau})$ is a quadratic function of the bilinear integrals. Under the reduction by the centre, this Casimir simply becomes $\mathcal{L}_{x}^{2}+\mathcal{L}_{x}^{2}+\mathcal{L}_{z}^{2}$.
Define $$M= \begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt{2} \alpha_{1,1} & \alpha_{1,2} + i a_{1,2} & \alpha_{1,3} + i a_{1,3} & \gamma_{1,1} + i c_{1,1} & \gamma_{1,2} + i c_{1,2} & \gamma_{1,3} + i c_{1,3} \\
\alpha_{1,2} - i a_{1,2} & \sqrt{2} \alpha_{2,2} & \alpha_{2,3} + i a_{2,3} & \gamma_{2,1} + i c_{2,1} & \gamma_{2,2} + i c_{2,2} & \gamma_{2,3} + i c_{2,3} \\
\alpha_{1,3} - i a_{1,3} & \alpha_{2,3} - i a_{2,3} & \sqrt{2} \alpha_{3,3} & \gamma_{3,1} + i c_{3,1} & \gamma_{3,2} + i c_{3,2} & \gamma_{3,3} + i c_{3,3} \\
\gamma_{1,1} - i c_{1,1} & \gamma_{2,1} - i c_{2,1} & \gamma_{3,1} - i c_{3,1} & \sqrt{2} \beta_{1,1} & \beta_{1,2} + i b_{1,2} & \beta_{1,3} + i b_{1,3} \\
\gamma_{1,2} - i c_{1,2} & \gamma_{2,2} - i c_{2,2} & \gamma_{3,2} - i c_{3,2} & \beta_{1,2} - i b_{1,2} & \sqrt{2} \beta_{2,2} & \beta_{2,3} + i b_{2,3} \\
\gamma_{1,3} - i c_{1,3} & \gamma_{2,3} - i c_{2,3} & \gamma_{3,3} - i c_{3,3} & \beta_{1,3} - i b_{1,3} & \beta_{2,3} - i b_{2,3} & \sqrt{2} \beta_{3,3}
\end{pmatrix}$$ and $$L = J_6 M, \quad
P = dM J_6,$$ so that the equations of motion of the symmetry reduced regularised spatial 3-body problem can be written in Lax form $$\dot L = [ P, L] \,.$$ Because we have chosen a self-dual basis the matrix $dM$ is simply given by replacing each entry in $M$ by the derivative of the Hamiltonian $H$ with respect to the variables of that entry, compare . Reduction by the centre of the algebra which is generated by the Linear Casimir $\mathcal{L}_{\tau}$ gives ${\mathfrak{su}}(3,3)$. This can be achieved by subtracting $\operatorname{Tr}L = - 2 i \sum c_{i,i}$ in the diagonal of $L$, but the equations are more symmetric if we stay in $\mathfrak{u}(3,3)$.
The fact that the three difference vectors $\bm{q}_{ij}$ add to zero induces three additional quadratic integrals $T_{1},T_{2},T_{3}$. The flow of these integrals is non-compact, and we were not able to use it for symmetry reduction. The three momenta $\mathcal L_x$, $\mathcal L_y$, $\mathcal L_z$, and the integrals $T_{i}$ form the Algebra $\mathfrak{se}(3)$.
The $n$-body problem
====================
The symmetry reduced regularised $n$-body problem has a Lie-Poisson structure with algebra $\mathfrak{u}(m,m)$ where $m=n(n-1)/2$.
As shown in Lemma \[lem:Q\], the nature of the invariants under $\Psi_{S}$ are independent of the number of particles. They are realised as in the aforementioned lemma in phase space by the use of symmetric and antisymmetric matrices of size $2m\times2m$ where $m$ denotes the number of difference vectors in the system. This establishes the vector space isomorphism to the space of $2m\times2m$ matrices. Furthermore, by Theorem \[th:1\], it is apparent that the Lie algebra of invariants is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{u}(m,m)$. As $m$ is equal to $\binom{n}{2}=n(n-1)/{2}$, the algebra of invariants for the symmetry reduced regularised $n$-body problem has a Lie-Poisson structure with algebra $\mathfrak{u}(n(n-1)/2,n(n-1)/2)$.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we have shown that the quadratic invariants invariants of the regularised n-body problem are either inner products or quadratic forms over the antisymmetric matrix $K$. These invariants form a Lie-Poisson algebra that is isomorphic to the lie algebra $\mathfrak{u}(m,m)$ where $m=n(n-1)/2$ which is the algebra corresponding to the group that preserves hermitian forms of signature $(m,m)$. The dimension of this Lie Algebra is of order $n^{4}$. Thus the use of such an algebra to obtain numerical solutions is improbable for large values of n. Despite this, the isomorphism to $\mathfrak{u}(m,m)$ yields a large amount of information about the rich structure of these invariants and provides insight into the n-body problem.
Acknowledgment
==============
Diana Nguyen and Suntharan Arunasalam acknowledge support through a 2013/14 Vacation Research Scholarship from the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute AMSI, during which this paper was started.
[10]{}
Dullin, H. R. (2013). *The Lie-Poisson structure of the reduced n-body problem* . Nonlinearity, 26(6), 1565-1579.
Heggie, D. C. (1974). *A Global Regularisation of the Gravitational N-Body Problem*. Celestial Mechanics , 10, 217-241.
Iwai, T. (1981). *On a “conformal” Kepler problem and its reduction*. J. Math. Phys. 22, 1633 - 1639.
Kummer, M. (1982). *On the Regularization of the Kepler Problem*. Commun. Math. Phys., 84, 133-152.
Kustaanheimo, P. E. and Stiefel, E. (1965). *Perturbation theory of Kepler motion based on spinor regularization* J. Reine Angew. Math., 218, 204-219.
Lemaitre, G. (1955). *Regularization of the Three-Body Problem*. Vistas in Astronomy, 1, 207 - 214
Lerman, E., Montgomery, R., Sjamaar, R. *Examples of singular reduction* in *Symplectic Geometry.* London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. 192, 127-155
Levi-Civita, T. (1920). *On the regulation of the problem of three bodies*. Acta Mathematica, 42(1), 99-144.
Marsden, J. E., Ratiu, T. S. (1998). *Mechanics and symmetry*. Springer New York.
Meyer, K. R., Hall, G. R. (1992). *Introduction to Hamiltonian Dynamical Systems and the N-Body Problem.* Springer New York.
Moeckel, R., Montgomery, R. (2013). *Symmetric regularization, reduction and blow-up of the planar three-body problem.* Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 262(1), 129-189.
Sadetov, S. T. (2002). *On regular reduction of the n-dimensional problem of N+1 bodies to Euler-Poincaré equations on the Lie algebra sp(2N)*. Regul. Chaotic. Dyn., 7, 337-350.
Saha, P. (2009). *Interpreting the Kustaanheimo-Stiefel transform in gravitational dynamics.* Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 400(1), 228 - 231.
Waldvogel, J. (2008). *Quaternions for regularizing Celestial Mechanics: the right way*. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astr., 102, 149 - 162.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In view of the recently seen dramatic effect of quenched random bonds on tricritical systems, we have conducted a renormalization-group study on the effect of quenched random fields on the tricritical phase diagram of the spin-1 Ising model in $d=3$. We find that random fields convert first-order phase transitions into second-order, in fact more effectively than random bonds. The coexistence region is extremely flat, attesting to an unusually small tricritical exponent $\beta _u$; moreover, an extreme asymmetry of the phase diagram is very striking. To accomodate this asymmetry, the second-order boundary exhibits reentrance.'
address: |
$^1$Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology\
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, U.S.A.\
$^2$Feza Gürsey Research Center for Basic Sciences\
Çengelköy, Istanbul 81220, TURKEY\
$^3$Department of Physics, Istanbul Technical University\
Maslak, Istanbul 80626, TURKEY
author:
- 'Alkan Kabakçioğlu$^{1,2}$and A. Nihat Berker$^{1,2,3}$'
title: 'Strongly Asymmetric Tricriticality of Quenched Random-Field Systems '
---
Tricritical phase diagrams of three-dimensional $(d=3)$ systems are strongly affected by quenched bond randomness: The first-order phase transitions are replaced, gradually as randomness is increased, by second-order phase transitions. The intervening random-bond tricritical point moves towards, and eventually reaches, zero-temperature, as the amount of randomness is increased. This behavior is an illustration of the general prediction that first-order phase transitions are converted to second-order by bond randomness [@Wehr; @Hui; @ANBApplied; @ANBPhysica; @FBTurk; @Chen92; @Chen95], in a thresholded manner in $d=3$. The randomness threshold increases from zero at the non-random tricritical point. The random-bond tricritical point maps, under renormalization-group transformations, onto a doubly unstable fixed distribution at strong coupling. Random-bond tricritical points exhibit a remarkably small value for the tricritical exponent $\beta _u=0.02$, reflected in the near-flat top of the coexistence region. In the conversion of the first-order phase transition to second-order, traced by the random-bond tricritical point, a strong violation of the empirical universality principle occurs, via a renormalization-group fixed-point mechanism. Thus, detailed information now exists on the effect of quenched [*bond*]{} randomness on tricritical points, revealing several qualitatively distinctive features.[@FBTurk; @FB]
No such information has existed on the effect of quenched [*field*]{} randomness on tricritical points. This topic is of interest also because renormalization-group studies have shown that quenched field randomness induces, under scale change, quenched bond randomness, as the presence of quenched field randomness [@McB] Accordingly, we have conducted a global renormalization-group study of a tricritical system in $d=3$ under quenched random fields. The results, presented below, show that these systems have their own distinctive behavior which is qualitatively different from that of non-random or random-bond tricritical systems. The latter distinction yields a microscopic physical intuition on the different effects of the two types of quenched randomness.
We have studied the Blume-Emery-Griffiths (i.e., spin-1 Ising) model under quenched field randomness. The Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
-\beta {\cal H}=
&&\sum_{<ij>}
\left[ \rule{0in}{.15in}
Js_is_j+Ks_i^2s_j^2-\Delta
\left(
s_i^2+s_j^2
\right)
\right. \nonumber \\
& + & \left. H_{ij} \left( s_i+s_j \right) + H_{ij}^{\dagger}\left(
s_i-s_j \right)
\right] \,\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $s_i=\pm 1,0$ at each site $i$ of a simple cubic $(d=3)$ lattice and $<ij>$ indicates summation over all nearest-neighbor pairs of sites. The quenched random fields $H_{ij},H_{ij}^\dagger$ are taken from a distribution $$\begin{aligned}
P(H,H^\dagger) & = & \frac{1}{4}
\left[ \rule{0in}{.15in}
\delta \left( H + \sigma _H \right) \delta \left( H^\dagger + \sigma _{H}
\right)
\right. \nonumber \\
& + & \left. \delta (H+\sigma _H)\delta \left( H^\dagger-\sigma _{H}
\right) \right.
+ \delta (H-\sigma
_H)\delta \left( H^\dagger+\sigma _{H} \right)
+ \left. \delta \left( H-\sigma _H \right) \delta \left
(H^\dagger-\sigma_{H} \right)
\rule{0in}{.15in} \right]
\,\,\, .\end{aligned}$$ All other interactions in the initial Hamiltonian (1) are non-random. Under renormalization-group transformations, the Hamiltonian (1) maps onto a random-field random-bond Hamiltonian,
$$\begin{aligned}
-\beta {\cal H} & = & \sum_{<ij>}
\left[
J_{ij}s_is_j + K_{ij}s_i^2s_j^2-\Delta _{ij} ( s_i^2+s_j^2 )
-\Delta_{ij}^\dagger ( s_i^2-s_j^2 )
\right. \nonumber \\
& + & \left.
L_{ij} \left( s_i^2s_j+s_is_j^2 \right) + L_{ij}^{\dagger}
\left( s_i^2s_j-s_is_j^2 \right) + H_{ij} \left( s_i+s_j \right) +
H_{ij}^{\dagger}(s_i-s_j)
%\rule{0in}{.15in}
\right]
\,\,\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where all interactions are quenched random, with a distribution function $
P\left( J_{ij},K_{ij},\Delta _{ij},\Delta _{ij}^{\dagger},L_{ij},L_{ij}
^{\dagger},H_{ij},H_{ij}^{\dagger} \right)
$ determined by the renormalization-group transformation. Specifically, the first four arguments here reflect the rescaling-induced bond randomness of the random-field system.
The renormalization-group transformation is contained in the mapping between the quenched probability distributions of the starting and rescaled systems, $$P^{\prime } \left( \overrightarrow{K}_{i^{\prime }j^{\prime }}^{\prime} \right)
= \int
\left[ \prod^{<i^\prime j^\prime >}_{<ij>}
d
\overrightarrow{K}_{ij}P \left( \overrightarrow{K}_{ij} \right) \right]
\delta \left(
\overrightarrow{K}_{i^{\prime }j^{\prime }}^{\prime }-\overrightarrow{R} \left(
\left\{
\overrightarrow{K}_{ij} \right\} \right) \right) \,\,\, ,$$ where $\overrightarrow{K}_{ij}\equiv (J_{ij},K_{ij},\Delta _{ij},\Delta
_{ij}^{\dagger },L_{ij},L_{ij}^{\dagger },H_{ij},H_{ij}^{\dagger }) $ are the interactions at locality $<ij>$, the primes refer to the renormalized system, the product is over all unrenormalized localities $<ij>$ whose interactions $
\{ \overrightarrow{K}_{ij} \}
$ influence the renormalized interaction $\overrightarrow{K}_{i^{\prime }j^{\prime }}^{\prime }
$, and $
\overrightarrow{R} ( \{ \overrightarrow{K}_{ij} \} )
$ is a local recursion relation that embodies the latter dependence. Simply said, Eq.(4) sums over the joint probabilities of the values of neighboring unrenormalized interactions that conspire to yield a given value of the renormalized interaction. The phenomena characteristic to quenched randomness should derive from the probability convolution shown in Eq.(4), rather than the precise form of the recursion $\overrightarrow{R}$ that should be a smooth local function. In this work, we use the Migdal-Kadanoff recursion relation, given for this system in [@LB]. The convolution is effected by representing $P ( \overrightarrow{K}_{ij} ) $ in terms of bins, the degree of detail (i.e., the number of bins) reflecting the level of approximation. In this work, we have used 531,441 bins, corresponding to renormalization-group flows in a 4,782,969-dimensional space. The application of Eq.(4) via the binning procedure has been described elsewhere [@FB; @FBM].
Our main result, the striking difference between the three types of $d=3$ Ising tricriticality, is evident in Fig.1, where the calculated random-field, random-bond, and non-random phase diagrams are superimposed. The same amount of quenched randomnes \[$\sigma _H=0.2=\sigma _\Delta $, as in Eq.(2)\] is used, for relevance of comparison. It is seen that both bond randomness and field randomness convert first-order phase transitions to second-order in a thresholded manner, but that field randomness is more effective than bond randomness in this conversion. Both types of random tricritical points occur at remarkably near-flat tops of coexistence regions, reflecting the unusually small values of the exponent $
\beta _u,$ but the random-field phase diagram is most strikingly asymmetrical. The tricritical point occurs at the high density $<s_i^2>\, =
0.835
$ (as opposed to $0.613$ and $0.665$ in the random-bond and non-random systems, respectively), essentially all of the near-flat portion of the coexistence top occurring on the dilute branch of the coexistence boundary. To accomodate this asymmetry, the randomness-extended line of second-order phase transitions has to curve over and exhibit reentrant behavior [@Cladis] as a function of temperature. This difference in behavior comes from the fact that random bonds destroy order-disorder coexistence without destroying order itself [@ANBApplied; @ANBPhysica], whereas random fields destroy both order-disorder coexistence, through the rescale-generated bond randomness, and order per se. The latter is more effective near the tricritical point, where considerable vacancy fluctuations occur within the ordered phase.
Random-field and random-bond tricritical points renormalize onto obviously different doubly unstable fixed distributions (the field variables $L$ and $H$ remain at zero in the latter case).
It is seen in Fig.1 that the coexistence boundary of either type of random system follows that of the non-random system, until the temperature-lowered tricritical region sets in relatively abruptly. This is similar to the magnetization of random-field systems following the non-random curve until the critical region sets in quite abruptly.[@Machta; @FBM]
On the high-temperature side of the tricritical point, it has been known [@FB] that the break in slope of the critical line, in the random-bond system, is connected to the strong violation of the empirical universality principle, segments on each side of this point having their own critical exponents, respectively of the strong-coupling and non-strong-coupling type. No such universality violation occurs along the second-order line of the random-field system, the entire line having random-field critical exponents that are governed by a strong-coupling fixed distribution, implying a modified hyperscaling relation [@BM; @BMc].
The global phase diagrams of the random-field and random-bond systems are given in Figs.2(a,b). It is seen that all first-order phase transitions are completely converted to second-order, at a zero-temperature tricritical point, for $\sigma _H\simeq 0.5$ and $\sigma _\Delta \simeq 0.7$, respectively. Furthermore, the ordered phase is eliminated at $\sigma_H \simeq 0.9$ in the random-field case, but persists for all for $\sigma
_\Delta $ in the random-bond case.
This research was supported the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-92ER45473 and by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK). We gratefully acknowledge the hospitality of the Feza Gürsey Research Center for Basic Sciences and of the Istanbul Technical University.
[99]{}
J. Wehr and M. Aizenman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 2503 (1989).
K. Hui and A.N. Berker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 2507 (1989); [**63**]{}, 2433(E) (1989).
A.N. Berker, J. Appl. Phys. [**70**]{}, 5941 (1991).
A.N. Berker, Physica A [**194**]{}, 72 (1993).
A.N. Berker and A. Falicov, Turk. J. Phys. [**18**]{}, 347 (1994).
S. Chen, A.M. Ferrenberg, and D.P. Landau, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 1213 (1992).
S. Chen, A.M. Ferrenberg, and D.P. Landau, Phys. Rev. E [**52**]{}, 1377 (1995).
A. Falicov and A.N. Berker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 4380 (1996).
S.R. McKay and A.N.Berker, J. Appl. Phys. [**64**]{}, 5785 (1988).
A. Lopatnikova and A.N. Berker, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 11865 (1997).
A. Falicov, A.N. Berker, and S.R. McKay, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{} , 8266 (1995).
P. Cladis, Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. [**165**]{}, 85 (1988).
M.S. Cao and J. Machta, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 3177 (1993).
A.J. Bray and M.A. Moore, J. Phys. C [**18**]{}, L927 (1985).
A.N. Berker and S.R. McKay, Phys. Rev. B [**33**]{}, 4712 (1986).
[**Figure Captions**]{}
[**Fig. 1**]{}: Calculated tricritical phase diagrams for non-random (dotted), random-bond (full), and random-field (dashed) $d = 3$ systems for $K = 0$. In each phase diagram, a line of second-order phase transitions extending to high temperatures meets, at a tricritical point, a coexistence region extending to low temperatures. Note the near-flat top of the coexistence regions in both quenched random systems, and the extreme asymmetry of the random-field system. Thus, field randomness is more effecive than bond randomness in converting first-order transitions into second-order (i.e., the tricritical point is at lower temperature).
[**Figs 2**]{}: Calculated $d = 3$ global phase diagrams for $K = 0$: (a) Random-bond systems exhibit two universality classes of second-order phase transitions (thin and thick full lines) and first-order phase transitions (circles). (b) Random-field systems exhibit second-order (full lines) and first-order (circles) phase transitions. In both types of quenched randomness, the first-order transitions cede under increased randomness. The line of tricritical points (dashed) reaches zero temperature, as all transitions become second-order. In the random-field case, the ordered phase disappears under further randomness, whereas in the random-bond case, the ordered phase (and the strong violation of universality) persists for all randomness.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the influence of intermixing on heteroepitaxial growth dynamics, using a two-dimensional point island model, expected to be a good approximation in the early stages of epitaxy. In this model, which we explore both analytically and numerically, every deposited B atom diffuses on the surface with diffusion constant $D_{\rm B}$, and can exchange with any A atom of the substrate at constant rate. There is no exchange back, and emerging atoms diffuse on the surface with diffusion constant $D_{\rm A}$. When any two diffusing atoms meet, they nucleate a point island. The islands neither diffuse nor break, and grow by capturing other diffusing atoms. The model leads to an island density governed by the diffusion of one of the species at low temperature, and by the diffusion of the other at high temperature. We show that these limit behaviors, as well as intermediate ones, all belong to the same universality class, described by a scaling law. We also show that the island-size distribution is self-similarly described by a dynamic scaling law in the limits where only one diffusion constant is relevant to the dynamics, and that this law is affected when both $D_{\rm A}$ and $D_{\rm B}$ play a role.'
address:
- |
Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata,\
Av. J. B. Justo 4302, 7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina
- |
Instituto de Investigaciones Físicas de Mar del Plata (IFIMAR) and\
Departamento de Física FCEyN, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata,\
Deán Funes 3350, 7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina
author:
- 'K. I. Mazzitello, L. M. Delgado'
- 'J. L. Iguain'
title: 'Low-coverage heteroepitaxial growth with interfacial mixing'
---
Heteroepitaxy (Theory), Kinetic growth processes (Theory)
Introduction {#intro}
============
Much of recent research on heteroepitaxial growth is focused to developing nanometer-scale devices with novel properties. Quality, performance and lifetime of these devices are determined by the purity, structural perfection and homogeneity of the epitaxial layers. Surface flatness and interface abruptness obtained through epitaxial crystal growth depend on the relative values of the interfacial energy and the surface free energy of the substrate and the film, under equilibrium conditions. However, in most cases thin films are grown far away from thermodynamic equilibrium, leading to kinetically controlled processes. Surface structures, thus depend in a very complicated way on several variables, which in simplest models include the deposition flux, the mobility the deposited particles, nucleation and detachment rates, and the interfacial energy between substrate and epitaxial film [@mich04; @evans_review]. Besides these processes, an additional mechanism, shown to be important in many cases of heteroepitaxial growths, is that of exchange, in which a deposited atom becomes embedded into the substrate and a substrate atom is removed. Exchange leads to growth of islands of mixed composition. Intermixing is specially undesired in case of magnetic materials, as it produces a decrease in the interface magnetization with respect to expected. It has been reported that V [@cite1Kang04], Fe [@cite2Kang04], Co [@cite3Kang04], Ni [@cite4Kang04], Cr [@Kang04], Ir [@Niehus99] intermix with Cu atoms at their interfaces forming alloy layers, and for instance, the average magnetic moment of 4 mono-layer Ni film on Cu(001) is half of that in the bulk Ni, as detected by X-ray magnetic circular dichroism measurements [@cite6Kang04].
It is not at all surprising that exchange occurs for two elements that are completely miscible like, for instance, Au and Ag [@Chambliss95]. Deposition of Au on Ag(110) forms alloy-like structures that are not energetically costly and the comparatively open atomic geometry of an fcc(110) surface makes place exchange possible with fairly small bond distortions. However, intermixing of the constituents may also well occur for bulk immiscible systems. The phase diagram of the Ir-Cu system shows a massive miscibility gap. At temperatures up to around 1000 K only 3 at. % Ir appears soluble in Cu and in the reverse case only 1 at. % Cu in Ir [@7Niehus99]. No intermixing would be expected for these elements, at least at low temperatures. As the surface free energy of Ir is considerably higher than of Cu (3 $J/m^2$ and 1.83 $J/m^2$, respectively [@8Niehus99]), when Ir is deposited on Cu one should observe 3D growing clusters composed only of Ir atoms. However, experimental results for Ir on Cu(100) unequivocally show intermixing, even at room temperature [@Niehus99]. Thus, structures resulting from heteroepitaxy are often complex and difficult to predict from bulk material parameters.
A common fact of heteroepitaxial systems with intermixing is that the surface free energy of the deposited atoms is higher than the substrate one [@15Niehus99; @16Niehus99; @17Niehus99; @18Niehus99; @19Niehus99; @20Niehus99]. At high enough coverage, this results in step roughening; which might then be considered as an indicator of intermixing. However, well before 3D islands arise on the substrate, the question remains about what are the effects of intermixing at the early stages of heteroepitaxy. The case where deposited monomers can react with the substrate was studied in [@Chambliss94; @Zang95]. After an irrevesible exchange, these atoms become immobile and act as centers of nucleation, which form inclusions in the substrate. The emerging atoms become mobile but are assumed to adhere to a step elsewhere, and play no role in the dynamics. The effects of intermixing on the structures formed on the substrate where analyzed in [@Bier04]. In this work, islands nucleate by the encounter of any pair of diffusing atoms, and the authors studied the properties of the concentration and the spatial correlation of substrate atoms which become part of the islands. However, in order to keep the analysis simple, they assume that both species diffuse equally fast on the surface.
In this paper, we address the problem of growth dynamics with intermixing according to a model of point islands ( which occupy a single site[@6PRE; @7PRE]), expected to be a valid approximation at low enough coverages. The exchange rate is entered as a parameter, and both constants of diffusion are taken into account Our approach is two-fold: theoretical analysis and numerical Monte Carlo (MC) simulations.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \[model\] we define the model. We consider two species of atoms, and the dynamics depend on the intermixing and deposition rates as well as on the diffusion constants of both species. The main results are presented in section \[discussion\]. In \[Island density\], we analyze the behavior of the density of islands. The composition of interface at low coverage is studied in \[Surface composition\], and the results of simulations are compared with experiments. In \[Mean-field\], we state and solve mean-field evolution equations for island an monomer densities. These equations lead to a scaling form for the island density, described in \[Scaling\]. A reduced form of the dynamic scaling of the island-size distribution is presented in \[Dynamic Scaling\]. Finally, in section \[Conclusions\], we state our conclusions.
The model {#model}
=========
A substrate, which consists of A atoms, is represented by a square lattice of $L\times L$ sites, with periodic boundary conditions to avoid edge effects. On this lattice, we deposit B atoms, which perform random walks and undergo place exchange with substrate atoms by a phenomenological constant rate $r$. When any two diffusing atoms meet, they form a point island. Theses islands do not diffuse nor break, and grow irreversibly by aggregation of other atoms. Every island occupies only one lattice site, in spite of the number of atoms that compose it. Detachment and evaporation are not considered. Structures result of mixed composition because two kind of atoms are involved. During time evolution, we take into account the following processes (shown schematically in figure \[fig0\]):
\(a) Deposition: starting from an initially flat substrate consisting of A atoms, each empty site of the lattice is occupied by an B atom with probability per unit time $F$. Every simulation runs until the number of atoms deposited per site reaches a desired value $\Theta$.
\(b) Intermixing: when a diffusing B atom (not bounded to an island) lays on a A atom of the substrate, the former exchanges with the latter with rate $r$. After an exchange, the B atom remains irreversibly incorporated to the substrate (no exchange back) and the A atom starts diffusing.
\(c) Diffusion: any unbounded A (B) atom on the surface diffuses with diffusion constant $D_{\rm A}$ ($D_{\rm B}$), by hopping among nearest-neighbors lattice sites.
\(d) Nucleation: when any two diffusing atoms (either A or B) meet, they form a stable non-moving island. Each island acts as a nucleation center and occupies only one site on the lattice.
\(d) Aggregation: when an diffusing atom, regardless of its type, hops to a site occupied by an island, the former aggregates to the latter, which increases its number of particles by one. Detachment events are not allowed, i. e. islands grow irreversibly.
We are interested in island formation at low enough densities, at which the lattice mismatch and most of the interactions among diffusing atoms can be neglected. We expect that, in early stages of growth, this point island model is useful to describe different properties of the system, such as island density and interface composition. We perform simulations with $\Theta$ always below $0.2$ mono layer (ML).
According to the above described processes, the model dynamics depend on four parameters: the deposition flux $F$, exchange rate $r$, and the diffusion constants $D_{\rm B}$ and $D_{\rm A}$. However, at a given coverage $\Theta$ (or time $t=\Theta/F$), the surface structure is determined by only three non-dimensional numbers, which are the ratios $ \epsilon=a^4F /D_{\rm B}$, $\kappa =D_{\rm A}/D_{\rm B}$ and $\pi=a^2r/D_{\rm B}$, where $a$ is the lattice constant (in the following we set $a=1$). In this work, we will show results for $\kappa \le 1$ , though it is easy to extend them to other values of $\kappa$. Note that this model reduces to the standard point islands one, when all atoms diffuse with the same constant, i., e., for $\kappa=1$ [@6PRE]. In the following, we study the density and composition of the islands as a function of $ \epsilon$, for different values of the non-dimensional intermixing and diffusion ratios $\pi$ and $\kappa$, respectively .
Results {#discussion}
=======
Island density {#Island density}
--------------
In this part, we analyze the island density $N$ as a function of model parameters. Surface composition will be addressed in section \[Surface composition\]. At a given temperature $T$, which determines the diffusion constants of atoms, the number of islands depends on $ \epsilon$, a measure of the relationship between deposition and diffusion of B atoms. As $ \epsilon$ increases each diffusing atom performs a lower number of hops in the mean time between incoming particles. This leads to a higher density of monomers, and to a greater nucleation probability. Thus, the island density increases with $ \epsilon$. It is known that, at a fixed coverage, the average number of island per lattice site $N$ behaves as $N \sim \epsilon^{\chi}$, for $ \epsilon$ small enough. The exponent $\chi$ depends on the effective dimensionality of diffusion. For the two-dimensional case, $\chi=\frac{1}{3}$ [@6PRE; @7PRE; @8PRE; @9PRE]. Examples of the behavior the island density, obtained numerically, as a function of the non-dimensional incoming flux are shown in figure \[fig1\] for $\kappa=0.01$, $\Theta=0.1$ML, and $\pi=\infty, 5\times 10^{-4}, 1\times 10^{-4},
1\times 10^{-5}$, and $0$. The two-dimensional exponent $\chi=\frac{1}{3}$ is in agreement with these results for $ \epsilon$ small enough.
![The island density against the non-dimensional incoming flux in log-log scales, for fixed diffusion rate $\kappa$ and coverage $\Theta$, and different values of the non-dimensional intermixing $\pi$. When $\pi=0$, diffusing atoms are B (crosses), while for $\pi = \infty$, most of the B atoms are incorporated to the substrate, and exchanged A atoms move with a diffusion constant $D_{\rm A} = k D_{\rm B}$. A data collapse of the solid squares and crosses can be obtained through the scaling $ \epsilon \to \kappa \epsilon$. Note that, given $\kappa<1$ and $\pi$, we observe an A-like behavior when $ \epsilon$ is low enough, and a B-like behavior when $ \epsilon$ is large enough.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig2.pdf){width=".75\linewidth"}
To go beyond the slow deposition regime, in what follows we discuss the dependence of $N$ on $\pi$, for intermediate values of $ \epsilon$. A simple situation corresponds to $\pi=0$, when no intermixing takes place and the model reduces to the standard point islands model. Note that, with respect to island density, this condition is equivalent to $\kappa=1$ (and any $\pi$), which means that all particles diffuse in the same manner, with diffusion constant $D_{\rm B}$ (B-like behavior). Other simple situation occurs when $\pi=\infty$. In this case, each entering B atom exchanges instantaneously with the first A atom it lays on. Thus, diffusing atoms all come from the substrate, and island dynamics are governed by the diffusion constant $D_{\rm A}$ (A-like behavior). These limit behaviors are summarized in Table \[table\]. Let us remark that the function $N( \epsilon )$ for $\pi=\infty$ can be obtained from that for $\pi=0$ by rescaling $ \epsilon \to \kappa \epsilon$. We return to this point in section \[Mean-field\].
[@lccc]{} $\kappa\hspace*{1cm}$ &$\pi$& $ \epsilon$ & Dynamics governed by\
& $0$ & any &\
& & & $D_{\rm B}$\
& any &large enough &\
$\neq 1$ & &\
&$\infty$ &any &\
& & &$D_{\rm A}$\
&any &small enough &\
$1$ &any & any &$D_{\rm A}=D_{\rm B}$\
\[table\]
It is interesting to note that the A-like and B-like regimes can also be observed for other values of $\pi$, by tuning the parameter $ \epsilon$. For instance, as $ \epsilon$ increases, both the nucleation and aggregation mean times ($t_{\rm n}$ and $t_{\rm a}$, respectively) decrease. For large enough $ \epsilon$, they become much shorter than the intermixing mean time $r^{-1}$, and island dynamics are governed by diffusing B atoms, which have a little exchange probability. In contrast, for low enough $ \epsilon$, $t_{\rm n}$ and $t_{\rm a}$ are much longer than $r^{-1}$ and most of the moving atoms are of kind A. The presence of atoms from the substrate forming part of islands has been observed in experiments carried out at high temperatures, which corresponds to the second situation. For instance, the growth of Nb on Fe(110) and Fe on Nb(110) form surface alloy at temperatures above $800$ K and a sufficient epitaxial quality of layer by layer can be obtained without intermixing of Nb and Fe, at room temperature [@Wolf06], the growth of Au on Fe(001) exhibits alloy at temperatures higher than $370$ K [@Kempen01]. Estimations of the characteristic times $t_{\rm n}$ and $t_{\rm a}$ are given in section \[Scaling\], where a scaling form of island density is obtained using mean-field approximations.
Surface composition {#Surface composition}
-------------------
The amount of B atoms incorporated to islands per site $\Theta_{\rm B}$ should decrease with the increasing of the intermixing rate. This is clearly observed in figure \[3\](a), where we show the behavior of $\Theta_{\rm B}$ as a function of $\Theta$ for $ \epsilon=10^{-11}$, $\kappa=0.01$, and $\pi=\infty,\;1\times 10^{-2},\;1\times 10^{-3},\;
5\times 10^{-4}$ and $1\times 10^{-4}$. Every set of data points fits with a curve concave upward, i., e., its derivative is monotonically increasing, which originates in the fact that, as the island density is a growing function of $\Theta$, the larger the coverage, the higher the aggregation probability for diffusing B atoms before they intermix with A atoms. Note that, at a given coverage, the concavity increases with $\pi$, due to the increasing of the intermixing/aggregation ratio. In figure \[3\](b) we show the same plots in log-log scale, and the measured effective exponents (greater than 1) for the each value of $\pi$.
The upward concavity of $\Theta_{\rm B}$ as a function of $\Theta$, has been observed in experiments at low coverages. This is, for example, the case of epitaxial growth of Ir on Cu and Cr on Fe [@Niehus99; @Celotta96]. For Ir (Cr) atoms, it seems energetically more favorable to be embedded via place exchange in the Cu (Fe) substrate rather than staying atop, which redounds in intermixing. Experimental data of the amount of Ir (Cr) atoms that stays on the surface as a function of coverage (extracted from [@Niehus99; @Celotta96]) are shown in figure \[exp\](a). At low enough coverage, the experimental data fit to curves conclaves upward. Thus, effective exponents greater than one are measured for $\Theta_{\rm{Ir (Cr)}}$ versus $\Theta$, at low coverage (see figure \[exp\](b)). Similar behaviors were observed for Fe on GaAs [@Ionescu05] and Cu on Ir [@Niehus00].
The change of concavity detected in experiments at intermediate values of $\Theta$ ($\simeq 0.2-0.3 \mbox{ML}$ in figure \[exp\]) can be explained by the onset of 3D island growth or by an intermixing rate growing with $\Theta$ [@Niehus00; @Winter96; @Winter97]. According to the model studied in this work, this effect cannot be attributed to intermixing, if its rate does not depend on the coverage; even for large values of $\pi$. As discussed above, and shown in figure \[3\](b) ($\Theta_{\rm B}\sim\Theta^\beta$ with $\beta >1$ for $\pi\neq 0$), the derivative of $\Theta_{\rm B}$ always increases with $\Theta$. In the way to minimize the free energy, the atomic structures can reduce their surface by assembling 3D islands, and the deposited B atoms can intermix with substrate A atoms. At low enough coverages, the latter is the most relevant process. As coverage increases, the configuration that minimizes the surface free energy most likely involves 3D islands. The crossover between both behaviors will depend on the particular reactants. Although interesting, the study of this crossover is beyond the scope of our model.
Mean-field evolution {#Mean-field}
--------------------
From the rules described in section \[model\], the rate evolution equations for the total monomer and island densities, at low enough coverages, and using mean-field arguments are $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\rmd\left( n_{\rm A}+n_{\rm B}\right)}{\rmd t} =& F -
\left[ k_{\rm A} n_{\rm A}^2 + k_{\rm B} n_{\rm B}^2 + \left(k_{\rm A} +
k_{\rm B}\right)n_{\rm A}n_{\rm B} \right] \nonumber\\
&-\left( k_{\rm A} n_{\rm A} + k_{\rm B} n_{\rm B} \right)N
\label{rate1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\rmd N}{\rm d t}& = F\left( n_{\rm A} + n_{\rm B} \right) +
\left[ k_{\rm A} n_{\rm A}^2 + k_{\rm B} n_{\rm B}^2 + \left(k_{\rm A}
+ k_{\rm B}\right)n_{\rm A}n_{\rm B} \right]\;{,}
\label{rate2}\end{aligned}$$
where $n_{\rm A}$ ($n_{\rm B}$) is the A (B) monomer density and $k_{\rm A}$ ($k_{\rm B}$) governs the A (B) monomer attachment rate (it is known that $k_{\rm A}\sim D_{\rm A}$ and $k_{\rm B}\sim D_{\rm B}$, for point islands [@9PRE]).
The first term in the right-hand side of (\[rate1\]) corresponds to the increase of monomers due to the deposition of B atoms. The second and the last, to its decrease, due to nucleation and aggregation to islands, respectively. Note that the parameter $r$ does not appear in (\[rate1\]). This equation refers to total monomer density variation, which is no affected by the intermixing. In the right-hand side of (\[rate2\]), both terms stand for nucleation. The first, that which occurs when a B atom is deposited on a diffusing monomer, the second corresponds to nucleation by diffusion. As islands cannot break, they always increase in number with time.
We can rewrite the rate equations in terms of the coverage $\Theta=F t$ (rather than time $t$) as
$$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\rmd\left( n_{\rm A}+n_{\rm B}\right)}{\rmd\Theta}& =
1 - \frac{\left[ \kappa n_{\rm A}^2 + n_{\rm B}^2 + \left(\kappa + 1\right)
n_{\rm A}n_{\rm B} \right] }{ \epsilon }- \frac{\left( \kappa n_{\rm A} + n_{\rm B} \right) N}{ \epsilon }\label{rate3}\\
&\frac{\rmd N}{\rmd\Theta}& = \left( n_{\rm A} + n_{\rm B} \right) +
\frac{\left[ \kappa n_{\rm A}^2 + n_{\rm B}^2 + \left(\kappa + 1\right)
n_{\rm A}n_{\rm B} \right] }{ \epsilon }\;{.}
\label{rate4}\end{aligned}$$
For small enough $ \epsilon$, a quasi-stationary regime exists, in which $\left(n_{\rm B} + n_{\rm A}\right)\ll N \ll 1$, and ${\rm d}\left( n_{\rm A} + n_{\rm B}\right)/\rm d\Theta \cong 0$. In addition, in this regime $n_{\rm B}\ll n_{\rm A}$, provided that $\pi \neq 0$. Thus, by retaining only the leading terms in (\[rate3\]) and (\[rate4\]), we get $n_{\rm A} \sim \epsilon/\kappa N$ and $dN/d\Theta \sim \kappa n_{\rm A}^2/ \epsilon$, which lead to $$N\sim \left( \frac{\Theta \epsilon }{\kappa } \right)^{1/3} \mbox{\;\;.}
\label{chi}$$ This expression holds, for $\kappa\neq 0$ and $\pi \neq 0$, at small enough $ \epsilon$, as confirmed by the results of simulations in figure \[fig1\].
Regarding the quantity $\Theta_{\rm B}$ as a function of $\Theta$, it is easy to obtain the exponents related to its power-law behavior in the limits $ \pi \to \infty $ and $\pi \to 0$. In the first case, for $ \epsilon$ small enough, B atoms stay atop only if they are deposited directly on islands, and then $\rmd \Theta_{\rm B}/\rmd t \cong F N$, which, using (\[chi\]), gives $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_{\rm B} \sim \Theta^{4/3} \left( \epsilon /\kappa \right)^{1/3}
\mbox{\;\;.}
\label{coverage}\end{aligned}$$ In contrast, when $\pi=0$, all diffusing atoms are B and $\Theta_{\rm B} = \Theta$. These limit behaviors are confirmed by simulations, as shown in figure \[3\]. We can observe in the same figure (part (b)) that, for intermediate values of $ \pi$, and $\Theta$ in the range $[0.01\mbox{ML}-0.2\mbox{ML}]$, $\Theta_{\rm B} \sim \Theta^\beta$; with an effective exponent $\beta$ that decreases from $\frac{4}{3}$ to $1$, when $\pi$ moves from $\infty$ to $0$.
Scaling of the island density {#Scaling}
-----------------------------
As discussed in section \[Island density\], for low coverage, and fixed $\pi$ ($\neq 0$ or $\infty$) and $\kappa$ ($\neq 0$), island dynamics are governed by the diffusion of A (B) atoms for small (large) enough $ \epsilon$ (see Table I). The extensions of the A-like and B-like regimes in the parameter space depends on the involved characteristic times $t_{\rm n}$ and $t_{\rm a}$. The nucleation time of an island composed of a pair of B atoms can be estimated by considering that, in an average time $t_{\rm n}$, a B atom is deposited in one of the mean number of distinct sites visited by a diffusing B atom $S(t_{\rm n})$, i., e., $F S(t_{\rm n}) t_{\rm n} \sim 1$. As, for two-dimensional diffusion, $S(t_{\rm n}) \sim D_{\rm B} t_{\rm n}$ [@Stanley92], we arrive to the expression $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tn}
t_{\rm n} \sim \frac{1}{D_{\rm B} \epsilon ^{1/2}} \;{.} \end{aligned}$$ To estimate the aggregation time of a diffusing B atom, we assume that the mean number of distinct sites visited by a B atom in this time $S(t_{\rm a})$ is proportional to the average number of empty sites per island, i., e., $S(t_{\rm a}) \sim 1/N$. Then, taking into account (\[chi\]), and the above mentioned behavior of $S(t_{\rm a})$, the estimates results $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ta}
t_{\rm a} \sim \frac{1}{D_{\rm B}}\left( \frac{\kappa }{\Theta \epsilon}\right) ^{1/3}\;{.} \end{aligned}$$ Note that $t_{\rm a} < t_{\rm n}$, for $ \epsilon$ small enough.
When both $t_{\rm a}$ and $t_{\rm n}$ are much longer than the intermixing time, i., e., , most of the deposited B atoms intermix with the substrate, and the diffusing atoms are predominantly A. According to (\[tn\]), the A-like behavior occurs for $ \epsilon\ll \epsilon_{\rm A}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A-regime}
\epsilon_{\rm A} \sim \frac{\kappa \pi^3}{\Theta}\;\mbox{.}\end{aligned}$$
\
In contrast, most of diffusing atoms are B when $t_{\rm a} < t_{\rm n} \ll r^{-1}$. Thus, from (\[tn\]), the B-like regime occurs when $ \epsilon_{\rm B}\ll \epsilon$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B-regime}
\epsilon_{\rm B} \sim \pi^2\;\mbox{.}\end{aligned}$$
The crossover scales given by (\[A-regime\]) and (\[B-regime\]) allow to collapse the curves corresponding to $N$ as a function of $ \epsilon$, for different values of $\kappa$ and $\pi$, provided that $\pi$ is small enough. In figure \[colapso\](a) we have plotted this function using the results of numerical simulations for $\Theta=0.1$ML, $\kappa=10^{-2}$ and $10^{-4}$, and $\pi=10^{-4},\;10^{-5}$ and $10^{-6}$. [ Note that the behavior of $N(\epsilon)$ (for fixed $\theta, \kappa$, and $\pi$) can be expressed as $N(\epsilon)=C \epsilon^\chi G(\epsilon)$. In this equation, $C \epsilon^\chi$ stands for the B-like behavior, while the function $G(\epsilon)$ takes a constant value $\sim-\log(\kappa) $ for $\epsilon\ll\epsilon_A$, and $1$ for $\epsilon_B\ll\epsilon$; decreasing monotonically between $\epsilon_A$ and $\epsilon_B$. ]{} Since two different crossover exist, at a given $\Theta$ the data collapse is achieved in two steps. First, every curve [ corresponding to $G(\epsilon)$ in figure \[colapso\](a) is rigidly translated to move the second crossover point to the origin, by plotting $(N/C\epsilon^\chi)$ as a function of $\epsilon/\epsilon_{\rm B}$. Then, the $y$ axis is rescaled by $\alpha=(-\log(\kappa))^{-1}$ and the $x$ axis by $\beta=(\log( \epsilon_{\rm B}/ \epsilon_{\rm A}))^{-1}$. A last transformation (a backwards rotation $y \rightarrow y\; Cx^\chi$) is included in order to recover the overall behavior of $N$. ]{} The finally resulting plot, for the data in figure \[colapso\](a), is shown in the part (b) of the same figure. The very good collapse on a single curve is apparent, and gives support to the idea of universality, according to which, at low coverages, the island density satisfies [ $${\log\left(\displaystyle\frac{N(\epsilon)}{C\epsilon^\chi}\right)}=
-\log(\kappa)
{\cal G}\left[
{\displaystyle\log\left(\frac{ \epsilon}{ \epsilon_{\rm B}}\right)\over
\displaystyle\log\left(\frac{ \epsilon_{\rm B}}{ \epsilon_{\rm A}}\right)
}
\right]\;\mbox{,}$$ ]{} where ${\cal G}(x)$ is a universal scaling function.
Dynamic scaling of the island-size distribution {#Dynamic Scaling}
-----------------------------------------------
An important quantity in the description of island growth, is the size distribution function $n_{\rm s}(\Theta)$, which gives the number per site of islands of size $s$ (composed of $s$ atoms), at a coverage $\Theta$. It is well established [@6PRE; @Family:1984; @Amar; @Family:1988; @Feldman] that,
in the case of the standard irreversible aggregation model, where all particles diffuse with same constant of diffusion $D$, for low enough values of the ratio $F/D$, the low-coverage dynamics are self-similar and the island size distribution is described by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{scaling}
n_{\rm s} (\Theta ) = \frac{\Theta}{\left < s \right >^2} f \left( \frac{s}{\left < s \right >}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where the form of the scaling function $f(x)$ is universal, in the sense that it does not depend upon the details of the model, such as the lattice type and the coordination number, but rather depends on more global variables.
![Island size distributions. (a) Numerical results corresponding to the asymptotic regimes B-like ($\Theta_{\rm B}/\Theta > 0.99$, solid symbols) and A-like ($\Theta_{\rm B}/\Theta < 0.016$, open symbols). (b) Rescaled distributions for the same data in panel (a). (c) Results of simulations for intermediate values of $\epsilon$; $\Theta_{\rm B}/\Theta=0.85$ (down triangles), $0.62$ (squares), and $0.50$ (up triangles). (d) Rescaled distributions corresponding to the functions in panel (c) (solid symbols), and the scaling function from panel (b) (open symbols).[]{data-label="scale"}](Extremos3.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![Island size distributions. (a) Numerical results corresponding to the asymptotic regimes B-like ($\Theta_{\rm B}/\Theta > 0.99$, solid symbols) and A-like ($\Theta_{\rm B}/\Theta < 0.016$, open symbols). (b) Rescaled distributions for the same data in panel (a). (c) Results of simulations for intermediate values of $\epsilon$; $\Theta_{\rm B}/\Theta=0.85$ (down triangles), $0.62$ (squares), and $0.50$ (up triangles). (d) Rescaled distributions corresponding to the functions in panel (c) (solid symbols), and the scaling function from panel (b) (open symbols).[]{data-label="scale"}](Extremos3_esc.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
\
![Island size distributions. (a) Numerical results corresponding to the asymptotic regimes B-like ($\Theta_{\rm B}/\Theta > 0.99$, solid symbols) and A-like ($\Theta_{\rm B}/\Theta < 0.016$, open symbols). (b) Rescaled distributions for the same data in panel (a). (c) Results of simulations for intermediate values of $\epsilon$; $\Theta_{\rm B}/\Theta=0.85$ (down triangles), $0.62$ (squares), and $0.50$ (up triangles). (d) Rescaled distributions corresponding to the functions in panel (c) (solid symbols), and the scaling function from panel (b) (open symbols).[]{data-label="scale"}](figc.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![Island size distributions. (a) Numerical results corresponding to the asymptotic regimes B-like ($\Theta_{\rm B}/\Theta > 0.99$, solid symbols) and A-like ($\Theta_{\rm B}/\Theta < 0.016$, open symbols). (b) Rescaled distributions for the same data in panel (a). (c) Results of simulations for intermediate values of $\epsilon$; $\Theta_{\rm B}/\Theta=0.85$ (down triangles), $0.62$ (squares), and $0.50$ (up triangles). (d) Rescaled distributions corresponding to the functions in panel (c) (solid symbols), and the scaling function from panel (b) (open symbols).[]{data-label="scale"}](figd.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
As our model becomes the standard irreversible aggregation model when $\epsilon\ll\epsilon_A$ or $\epsilon_B\ll\epsilon$, the island size distribution should satisfy the scaling hypothesis (\[scaling\]) in these asymptotic regimes. To check this, we have performed Monte Carlo simulations, for the B-like case, with $\kappa=10^{-2}$, $\epsilon=10^{-9}$, and $\pi=10^{-6}$, which leads to $\Theta_{\rm B}/\Theta<0.016$. For the A-like case, we have chosen $\kappa=10^{-2}$, $\epsilon=10^{-12}$, and $\pi=10^{-2}$, which results in $\Theta_{\rm B}/\Theta>0.99$. In figure \[scale\](a), we have plotted with solid symbols the numerical island size distributions which correspond to the first group, and with open symbols those which correspond to second; at the coverages indicated in the figure key. The plots of $n_{\rm s} \left < s \right >^2/\Theta$, as a function of $s/\left < s \right >$, for the same data, are shown in figure \[scale\](b). The good collapse of the data points on a single curve is apparent, and gives support to the scaling law (\[scaling\]) when only one diffusion constant is relevant to the dynamics.
For intermediate values of $\epsilon$, it is expected that the presence of a new rate, introduced with a second constant of diffusion, invalidates the scaling form (\[scaling\]); in analogy to the case of detachment, when $f$ is affected because of the rate related to this process [@Vvedensky2000]. In figure \[scale\](c) we shown three numerical island size distributions for $\epsilon$ between $\epsilon_A$ and $\epsilon_B$, for which $\Theta_{\rm B}/\Theta=0.85, 0.62, 0.50$. The corresponding scaled functions are plotted in figure \[scale\](d); we have also included the scaling function from panel (b), for comparison. Clear differences among all these functions are easily observed, which indicates that the scaling behavior of the island size distribution is indeed affected by the presence of two species of atoms moving on the substrate according to different diffusion constants.
Conclusions {#Conclusions}
===========
Despite the complexity and variety in reached morphologies of heteroepitaxial growths with intermixing, certain aspects of island growth appear to be common to many different systems. In the interest of archiving a complete and predictive model for the earliest stages of thin-film morphology that exhibit exchange between deposited and substrate atoms, it is clearly desirable to have an approach that is as free as possible from arbitrary parameters or assumptions. In this work, with an aim toward this ideal approach, we have presented a simple model to study the influence of intermixing and the different diffusion constants of the species moving on the surface, in island formation at low coverage. The model, only controlled by three parameters: the ratio between diffusion constants of the species, the non-dimensional incoming flux of particles and the non-dimensional intermixed probability of these particles with of substrate, can explain the behavior of density island and the variation of surface composition with time, for different values of these parameters. We found that the island dynamics are governed by the diffusion of the deposited atoms, at low temperature and by the diffusion of emerging particles from the substrate at high temperature regardless their diffusion constants.
We show that intermixing phenomenon is the predominant mechanism that can explain the island composition profile at low coverage. Then, other mechanisms interfere in this kind of thin film growths at higher coverage, such as the interactions between diffusing atoms. Our model allows to study the effect of intermixing separated of the interactions between atoms tending to form 3D islands when the exposed surface of islands increases [@15Niehus99; @16Niehus99; @17Niehus99; @18Niehus99; @19Niehus99; @20Niehus99].
Mean-field evolution equations for island and monomer density have been written and resolved in simple situations, such as strong intermixing and high working temperatures and/or low deposition rates of atoms on the substrate. We found through these equations, a collapse of the island density for different values of the parameters of the model.
Finally, we study the island-size distribution. The scaling behavior of this quantity is observed to be the same that for the standard irreversible aggregation model, in the asymptotic regimes where $\epsilon\ll\epsilon_A$ or $\epsilon_B\ll\epsilon$. In contrast, this scaling law fails at intermediate values of $\epsilon$, because of the two species of atoms moving with different diffusion constants.
This research was partially supported by a grant from the CONICET (PIP 0431), Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata and ANPCyT (PICT), Argentina.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{}
T. Michely and J. Krug.
J. W. Evans, P. A. Thiel, M. C. Bartelt. , 61:1 (2006).
B.-S. Kang, S.-K. Oh, J.-S. Chung, and K.-S. Sohn. , 304:67, 2001.
J. H. Kim, K. H. Lee, G. Yang, A. R. Koymen, and A. H. Weiss. , 173:203, 2001.
F. Nouvertné, U. May, M. Bamming, A. Rampe, U. Korte, G. Guntherodt, and Scheffler M. Pentcheva, R. , 60:14382, 1999.
B.-S. Kang, J.-S. Chung, S.-K. Oh, H.-J. Kang, and J. Magn. , 241:415, 2002.
B.-S. Kang and S.-K. Oh. , 349:260, 2004.
G. Gilarowski and H. Niehus. , 436:107, 1999.
P. Srivastava, F. Wilhelm, A. Ney, M. Farle, H. Wende, N. Haack, G. Ceballos, and K. Baberschke. , 58(9):5701, 1998.
D. D. Chambliss, R. J. Wilson, and S. Chiang. , 39(6):639, 1995.
T. B. Massalski, editor. . ASM International, Ohio, 1990.
H. L. Skriver and N. M. Roseengard. , 46:7157, 1992.
J. de la Figuera, J. E. Prieto, and R. Miranda. , 307-309:538, 1994.
A. Rabe, N. Memmel, A. Steltenpohl, and Th. Fauster. , 73:2728, 1994.
A. Brodde and H. Neddermeyer. , 287-288:988, 1993.
Th. Detzel, N. Memmel, and Th. Fauster. , 293:227, 1993.
S. L. Chang, J. M. Wen, P. A. Thiel, S. Gunther, J. A. Meyer, and R. J. Behm. , 53:13747, 1996.
P. J. Schmitz, W. Y. Leung, G. W. Graham, and P. A. Thiel. , 40:11477, 1989.
D. D. Chambliss, K. E. Johnson. , 50:5012 (1994).
A. Zangwill, E. Kaxiras. , 326:L483 (1995).
B. Bierwald, M. von den Driesch, Z. Farkas, S. B. Lee, D. E. Wolf. , 70:021604 (2004).
M. C. Bartelt and J. W. Evans. , 46:12675, 1992.
M. C. Bartelt and J. W. Evans. , 21:99, 1993.
J. G. Amar, F. Family, and P.-M. Lam. , 50:8781, 1994.
F. Family and J. G. Amar. , B 30:149, 1995.
C. Wolf and U. Khler. , 500:347, 2006.
M. M. J. Bischoff, T. Yamada, A. J. Quinn, R. G. P. van der Kraan, and H. van Kempen. , 87(24):246102, 2001.
A. Davies, J. A. Stroscio, D. T. Pierce, and R. J. Celotta. , 76(22):4175, 1996.
A. Ionescu, M. Tselepi, D. M. Gillingham, G. Wastbauer, S. J. Steinmiller, H. E. Beere, D. A. Ritchie, and J. A. C. Bland. , 72:125404, 2005.
G. Gilarowski, J. Méndez, and H. Niehus. , 448:290, 2000.
R. Pfandzelter, T. Igel, and H. Winter. , 54(7):4496, 1996.
R. Pfandzelter, T. Igel, and H. Winter. , 377-379:963, 1997.
H. Larralde, P. Trunfio, S. Havlin, H. E. Stanley, and G. H. Weiss. , 45(10):7128, 1992.
T. Vicsek and F. Family. , 52(19):1669, 1984.
J. G. Amar, F. Family, and P. M. Lam. , 50(12):8781, 1994.
F. Family and P. Meakin. , 61(4):428, 1988.
M. Zinke-Allmang, L. C. Feldman, and M. H. Grabow. , 16(8):377, 1992.
D. D. Vvedensky. , 62:15435, 2000
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Licia Verde,'
- 'Emilio Bellini,'
- 'Cassio Pigozzo,'
- 'Alan F. Heavens,'
- Raul Jimenez
title: Early Cosmology Constrained
---
Introduction
============
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is one of the most important cosmological probes and is the key observable in establishing the standard ($\Lambda$CDM) cosmological model. Lower redshift observations such as clustering of large-scale structure or probes of the expansion history (supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, cosmic chronometers), have been essential to confirm this picture and to constrain the properties of dark energy and other energy components of the Universe.
When fitting the CMB power spectrum (temperature and polarization) one usually has to make simultaneous assumptions about the early and late cosmology, with the implication that the physics of both epochs are entwined in the resulting constraints. Models of the late stages of the cosmological evolution rely on less solid physical grounds than the early stages: the physics at decoupling is well understood (atomic physics, general relativity and linearly perturbed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric) but the late time cosmic acceleration is not, relying, as it does, on a new ingredient such as dark energy.
Most constraints on cosmological parameters are formally model-dependent, with $\Lambda$CDM or extensions being routinely assumed. It is therefore natural to ask: “how much do we know about early cosmology?", “how much of what we know about the early time depends on assumptions about the late cosmology?" And conversely: “how much of what we know about late cosmology depends on assumptions about early cosmology?" These questions are key in the epoch of precision cosmology: once the cosmological parameters of a model are known at the $\sim 1$% level, going beyond parameter fitting becomes of interest and it is important to directly test the model itself. One way to achieve this is to perform model-independent analyses as much as possible.
Ref. [@Vonlanthen:2010cd] proposed that it is possible to analyse the CMB in a manner which is independent of the details of late-time cosmology. Essentially, varying the late-time physics introduces simple changes to the amplitude and angular scaling of the microwave background fluctuations, in the high angular wavenumber range where the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect is unimportant. This approach, further developed by [@Audren:2012wb; @Audren:2013nwa], can be readily exploited, and Refs. [@Audren:2012wb; @Audren:2013nwa] propose that it avoids making assumptions about the most relevant late-cosmology effects, yielding “pure" or “disentangled" information on early cosmology alone. Early-time observables are not the only window into early cosmology. In fact Ref. [@Heavens:2014rja] (see also [@Sutherland:2012ys]) provides a measurement of the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) scale – the sound horizon at radiation drag, a quantity fixed by early cosmology – from late-time observations. The measurement itself is independent of assumptions of late-time physics, beyond the applicability of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric, and makes no assumptions about early-time physics either.
Here we demonstrate how much we can know about early cosmology in a way that is independent on assumptions about the late-time physics. We use state-of-the-art CMB observations to constrain the composition of the early Universe and the properties of the major energy components. Then we explore how constraints on the sound horizon at radiation drag depend on early time physics assumptions. We finally combine these results with constraints on the same sound horizon obtained in a model-independent way from the latest probe of the Universe expansion history.
This paper is organized as follows. After presenting the methodology and the data sets in §\[sec:method-data\] we study, analyzing CMB data in the traditional way, an early-dark energy model in §\[sec:EDE\] to report the latest constraints on the model and to explicitly show the limitations of a model-dependent approach. Pure information about early cosmology is obtained in §\[sec:earlycosmo\]. Finally we present our results and conclusions in §\[sec:concl\].
Data and Methods {#sec:method-data}
================
We use the newest Planck Collaboration data release from 2015 [@Adam:2015rua; @Aghanim:2015xee; @Ade:2015xua] which we refer to as “Planck 2015". We consider low $\ell$ ($2 \leq \ell \leq 29$), temperature and polarization data (referred to as lowTEB) and high $\ell$ ($\ge 30$) temperature (TT) and polarization (TEEE) data. In the analysis for section 3, we also include the effects on parameter constraints of Planck lensing power spectrum reconstruction (lensing).
Unless otherwise stated, we use the parameter inference code Monte Python [@Audren:2012wb] interfaced with the Boltzmann code CLASS [@2011arXiv1104.2932L; @Blas:2011rf] to generate samples from the posterior via Monte Carlo Markov Chains (MCMC).
We also use the model-independent measurement of the sound horizon at the end of radiation drag pioneered by Ref. [@Heavens:2014rja] and updated to the latest data by [@Heavens16]. The sound horizon at the redshift of radiation drag $z_{\rm d}$ is a standard ruler defined by early Universe physics:
$$r_{\rm s}(z_{\rm d}) = \int_{z_{\rm d}}^{\infty}\frac{c_{\rm s}(z)}{H(z)}dz,$$
where $c_{\rm s}$ is the sound speed and $H$ the Hubble parameter. When estimated from CMB observations, $r_{\rm s}(z_{\rm d})$ is a so-called derived quantity: $c_{\rm s}(z)$ and $H(z)$ are given in terms of other cosmological parameters within a specified cosmological model. Here, for simplicity, we adopt the notation $r_{\rm d} \equiv r_{\rm s}(z_{\rm d})$. Ref. [@Heavens:2014rja; @Sutherland:2012ys] showed that the sound horizon, although a property set in the early Universe, could be measured directly from late-time data.
As discussed in [@Cuesta:2015mqa], $r_{\rm d}$ can be used as an anchor for the cosmic distance ladder (where the different rungs are supernovae type Ia, BAO etc.), the anchor being set by early-Universe observations. Its determination is indirect and therefore dependent on the adopted assumptions about early Universe physics. On the other hand, the cosmic distance ladder can be anchored at $z=0$ using the local determination of $H_0$. This “direct" ladder, when including BAO and $H_0$ measurements yields an estimate of $r_{\rm d}$ which does not depend on assumptions about early Universe physics (but relies on the observation of standard candles and a standard ruler).
The results of Ref. [@Heavens:2014rja] have been updated by [@Heavens16], obtaining $r_{d,SBH}=141.1\pm 5.5$ Mpc (using JLA type IA SNe data [@Betoule:2014frx], BAO $D_V/r_{\rm s}$ measurements [@Kazin:2014qga; @Beutler:2011hx; @Cuesta:2015mqa] and the Hubble constant $H_0$ determination of Ref.[@Riess:2016jrr]) and $r_{d,CSB}=150.0\pm 4.7$ Mpc when including, instead of $H_0$, cosmic chronometer measurements from passive elliptical galaxy ages [@Moresco:2016mzx], yielding $H(z)$. These measurements are used to importance sample the Planck 2015 chains and obtain combined constraints.
When performing parameter inference from CMB data in the standard way, simultaneous assumptions about early- and late-time physics must be made. As a consequence, in the resulting constraints, early and late-time physics, which should be independent, are inextricably entwined. In §\[sec:EDE\], we demonstrate this point using a popular model for early dark energy. This motivates us to analyze CMB data in a way that is independent of –or at least robust to detailed assumptions about– late-time cosmology.
A practical example: Early Dark Energy {#sec:EDE}
======================================
![The evolution of the dark energy density parameter $\Omega_{\rm d}(z)$ \[\[EDE\]\] (solid lines, left axis) and of the behaviour of the global equation of state parameter $w(z)$ from \[\[eos\]\] (dashed lines, right axis). All curves were obtained for $\Omega_{\rm m,0}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\rm d,0}\approx 0.7$, $\Omega_{\rm d,e}=0.001$ and $z_{\rm eq}=3570$. Varying the values of $\Omega_{\rm d,0}$ and $\Omega_{\rm d,e}$ would only change the upper and lower limits of $\Omega_{\rm d}(z)$ (dotted grey lines). Three examples are showed for different values of $w_0$: $-1.2$ (black curves), $-1$ (red curves) and $-0.8$ (blue curves). $w(z)$ goes from a positive value during the radiation era, evolving smoothly to $w_0$, and different values of $w_0$ make the transition from $\Omega_{\rm d,e}$ to $\Omega_{\rm d,0}$ sharper or longer.[]{data-label="DoranPlot"}](Doran.pdf){height="3.7" width="0.7\columnwidth"}
![Temperature (upper panel) and lensing (lower panel) power spectra for different values of the equation of state parameter $w_0$, keeping fixed all the other cosmological parameters to a fiducial EDE model. For comparison, we show the results obtained by “CLASS” (background only) and “CAMB” (with perturbations). The discontinuity observed in the $C_{\ell}^{\phi\phi}$ (bottom panel) at $\ell=10$ is due to the shift between the implementation of the Limber approximation at high $\ell$ and the full calculation at low $\ell$ in the Boltzmann code. The presence of this sharp feature does not affect the likelihood calculation in any significant way.[]{data-label="class_vs_camb"}](class_vs_camb_TT.pdf "fig:"){height="3.6" width="0.7\columnwidth"} ![Temperature (upper panel) and lensing (lower panel) power spectra for different values of the equation of state parameter $w_0$, keeping fixed all the other cosmological parameters to a fiducial EDE model. For comparison, we show the results obtained by “CLASS” (background only) and “CAMB” (with perturbations). The discontinuity observed in the $C_{\ell}^{\phi\phi}$ (bottom panel) at $\ell=10$ is due to the shift between the implementation of the Limber approximation at high $\ell$ and the full calculation at low $\ell$ in the Boltzmann code. The presence of this sharp feature does not affect the likelihood calculation in any significant way.[]{data-label="class_vs_camb"}](class_vs_camb_pp.pdf "fig:"){height="3.6" width="0.7\columnwidth"}
We begin with a model-dependent analysis for Early Dark Energy (EDE), which we make model-independent in §\[sec:earlycosmo\]. While in standard $\Lambda$CDM the contribution of dark energy at early times is fully negligible, dynamical dark energy models might yield a non-negligible contribution at high redshifts. In particular such models may be similar to $\Lambda$CDM at late times (thus being compatible with late-time geometric probes such as SNe) but have significant dark energy density early on and as such they go under the name of early dark energy (EDE) models [@Wetterich:2004pv]. EDE slows the growth of structures at early times and changes the heights and positions of the acoustic peaks in the CMB power spectrum. A widely used model is the one proposed by [@Doran:2006kp], which assumes a constant fraction of early dark energy $\Omega_{\rm d,e}$ until a transition at recent times. This model has the advantage of requiring only two extra parameters compared to $\Lambda$CDM. It has been used extensively and in particular it was explored in the official analysis of the Planck 2013 [@Ade:2013sjv] and Planck 2015 data [@Ade:2015rim].
Instead of parameterising the dark energy equation of state, $w(a)$, the authors of [@Doran:2006kp] proposed a parametrization of the dark energy density as a function of scale factor $\Omega_{\rm d}(a)$. Thus the Friedmann equation for a flat universe can be rewritten as
$$\frac{H^2(a)}{H_0^2} = \frac{\Omega_{\rm m,0}a^{-3}+\Omega_{\rm rel,0}a^{-4}}{1-\Omega_{\rm d}(a)},$$
where $\Omega_{\rm rel,0}$ is the density parameter of relativistic species (i.e., neutrinos and photons) extrapolated to the present day, and $\Omega_{\rm m,0}$ is the present-day matter density parameter (baryonic plus dark matter).
The parametrization is given in terms of the present-day value of the dark energy parameter $\Omega_{\rm d,0}$, the dark energy content in the early Universe $\Omega_{\rm d,e}$ and the present-time dark energy equation of state parameter $w_0$,
$$\label{EDE}
\Omega_{\rm d}(a)=\frac{\Omega_{\rm d,0}-\Omega_{\rm d,e}(1-a^{-3w_0})}{\Omega_{\rm d,0}+\Omega_{\rm m,0}a^{3w_0}}+\Omega_{\rm d,e}(1-a^{-3w_0}).$$
The time evolution of the equation of state can be derived from the conservation equation of the dark energy fluid [@Wetterich:2004pv] $$\left[ 3 w-\frac{a_{\rm eq}}{a+a_{\rm eq}} \right]\Omega_{\rm d} (1-\Omega_{\rm d})=-\frac{d\Omega_{\rm d}}{d \ln{a}},
\label{eos}$$ were $a_{\rm eq}= \Omega_{\rm rel,0}/\Omega_{\rm m,0}$ is the scale factor at the equality between radiation and matter. The evolution of both $\Omega_{\rm d}(z)$ and $w(z)$ are represented in Figure \[DoranPlot\] for selected sets of parameters. It should be noted that, even if this model is classified as EDE, it has a tracking behaviour. Indeed, during radiation domination the equation of state approaches $1/3$; during matter domination it approaches $0$ and only at late times it behaves as a cosmological constant if $w_0=-1$. It is possible to verify that the dark energy density described by (\[EDE\]) varies smoothly from $\Omega_{d,e}$ to $\Omega_{d,0}$, and the redshift of transition is determined by the model’s parameters $\Omega_{d,e}$, $\Omega_{d,0}$ and $w_0$.
According to [@Doran:2006kp] this parameterization gives a monotonic function for $\Omega_{\rm d}(z)$, as long as $$\Omega_{\rm d,e} \lesssim \frac{\Omega_{\rm d,0}}{2-\Omega_{\rm d,0}}.$$
Contrary to the standard $\Lambda$CDM, this model has an evolving dark energy density. This means that it has to be interpreted as a parametrization for a dynamical degree of freedom (e.g. a scalar field) whose scope is to modify the expansion history of the Universe. However, any scalar field has fluctuations, and their contribution in principle should be considered when evolving the perturbations. This has been done in e.g. [@Ade:2015rim] using the Boltzmann code CAMB [@Lewis:1999bs] and considering a parametrized quintessence fluid at the perturbative level, i.e. a fluid with sound speed $c_{\rm s}^2=1$ and no anisotropic stress. Then it is clear that the differences between this model and a cosmological constant can come from two different sectors, i.e. [*i)*]{} a different expansion history and [*ii)*]{} a pure perturbative effect characterized by the additional degree of freedom. The choice of a quintessence field is arbitrary, but a relativistic sound speed ensures that DE perturbations are suppressed on sub-horizon scales and the only effect that potentially modifies the evolution of the perturbations is a different expansion history.
The presence of dark energy perturbations couples early-time and late-time constraints: perturbations in the dark energy component are most relevant at late-time but their effect is seen in the CMB. To illustrate this point we also consider another approach where we take into account only the contribution given by the different expansion history and not by the perturbed quintessence field using a modification of the public code “CLASS". The effect can be appreciated in Fig. \[class\_vs\_camb\], where we show the temperature and lensing power spectra for different values of $w_0$. “CAMB” lines are obtained considering perturbations of a quintessence field, while for the “CLASS” lines we modified just the background evolution. Since the effects of a quintessence field could be relevant on very large scales (close to the cosmological horizon), it is not surprising to see that the temperature power spectrum is affected mostly at low $\ell$, while the inclusion of perturbations modifies the gravitational potential power spectrum $C_{\ell}^{\phi\phi}$ uniformly.
The main motivation to consider just a modified expansion history is that the standard equations for the evolution of a minimally coupled scalar field (as quintessence) are singular when the equation of state approaches $w=-1$ (and thus a hard prior in $w> -1$ has to be imposed). This is a well known property of simple single scalar field models (e.g. [@Ballesteros:2010ks]), but it is not true for more complicated theories. Then, the “background only" approach (hereafter, CLASS implementation) ensures that we can cross the phantom divide and explore models with $w<-1$.
So while the Planck Collaboration, when dealing with Eq. \[EDE\], could only obtain upper limits for the relevant parameters, adopting hard priors $\Omega_{\rm d,e}\geq 0$ and $w_0> -1$ [@Ade:2015rim], we explore, for the first time, the region where $w_0<-1$ and $\Omega_{\rm d,e}<0$.[^1]
In Figs. \[fig:EDE1nopertplanckonly\] and \[fig:EDE1pertplanckonly\] we compare the cosmological constraints obtained with the two approaches.
![Marginalized distributions of selected cosmological parameters for the early dark energy model of Sec. 2 accounting only for contributions to the background (“CLASS implementation"). Only Planck 2015 data are considered for different combinations of likelihoods: high-$\ell$ temperature plus lensing; high-$\ell$ temperature and polarization; and high-$\ell$ temperature and polarization plus lensing.[]{data-label="fig:EDE1nopertplanckonly"}](Planckonly_1.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Marginalized distributions of selected cosmological parameters for the early dark energy models of Sec. 2 accounting also for the effect of perturbations (“CAMB implementation"). Only Planck 2015 data are considered for different combinations of likelihoods: high-$\ell$ temperature plus lensing; high-$\ell$ temperature and polarization; and high-$\ell$ temperature and polarization plus lensing. The apparent sharp “cliff" in the $H_0$-$r_{\rm s}$ plane is due to the prior $w_0>-1$.[]{data-label="fig:EDE1pertplanckonly"}](CAMB4_1.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:EDE1nopertplanckonly\] we show the marginalized posterior constraints for this early dark energy model accounting only for contributions to the background (CLASS implementation). Different combinations of Planck likelihoods (with or without high-$\ell$ polarization and with or without lensing) are considered. In Fig. \[fig:EDE1pertplanckonly\] the results of the analysis including the effects of perturbations (CAMB implementation) is shown. This can be compared directly with the analysis performed by the Planck team.
We note that there are differences in the constraints on this model between the CLASS (background only) implementation and the CAMB (with perturbations) implementation. Besides the fact that the CLASS implementation crosses the phantom divide and constrains values of $w_0<-1$, $\Omega_{\rm d,e}<0$, note that, even in the common region ($w_0>-1$, $\Omega_{\rm d,e}>0$) there are differences. In particular in Fig. \[fig:EDE1pertplanckonly\] (with perturbations) there is a correlation and degeneracy between $r_{\rm d}$ and $\Omega_{\rm DE}$ which is not present in Fig. \[fig:EDE1nopertplanckonly\] (background-only implementation). Larger values of early dark energy are allowed when perturbations are included.
Given the fact that so little is known about the nature of dark energy, each of the two approaches should be considered as a phenomenological description of dark energy, each of them capturing different physics. For example, in the non-perturbative case, the effect of dark energy on the background is captured but it is assumed that perturbations in the new degree of freedom have no observable effects. In the perturbative case a very particular perfect fluid, with sound speed equal to 1, is considered.
As shown in Fig. \[class\_vs\_camb\], besides the effect on the gravitational potential power spectrum – which affects the CMB lensing signal – differences between the two implementations are evident at low $\ell$, and arise through the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect. The ISW effect is a late-time effect, which depends on physics at redshifts much below the last scattering surface, yet it is affected by an early-time quantity: the amount of early dark energy. The same can be said about the CMB lensing signal, which arises from late-time physical effects (see [@KMJ]). The constraints on early dark energy so obtained are therefore highly model-dependent: they depend on assumptions of physics in the late-time Universe.
[|c | c | c | c | c | l|]{} Parameter & TT & TT\_lens & TTTEEE & TTTEEE\_lens & Code\
& $ < 9.240$ &$<9.80$ &$< 5.53$ & $<6.25$& CAMB\
& – & $0.9 _{-5.1} ^{ +5.4}$ & $ 0.2_{-4.2 } ^{+4.4 }$ &$0.4 _{-4.3 } ^{+4.4 }$ & CLASS\
& $< -0.69$ & $<-0.68$& $<-0.72$& $<-0.68$& CAMB\
& – & $ -0.82_{-0.36} ^{ +0.36}$ & $ -0.85_{-0.37} ^{+ 0.34}$ & $-0.82 _{ -0.36} ^{+0.36 }$ & CLASS\
& $0.786^{+0.057}_{-0.065}$& $0.778^{+0.046}_{-0.055}$& $0.795^{+0.051}_{-0.060}$& $0.778^{+0.046}_{-0.055}$& CAMB\
& – & $ 0.790_{-0.063 } ^{ +0.067}$ & $ 0.805_{-0.067 } ^{+0.069 }$ & $ 0.788_{-0.060} ^{+ 0.065}$ & CLASS\
& $ 146.9^{+1.2}_{-1.0}$& $147.0^{+1.2}_{-1.3}$& $146.96^{+0.73}_{-0.84}$& $147.01^{+0.80}_{-0.88}$& CAMB\
& – & $ 147.55_{-0.92 } ^{ +0.93}$ & $147.26 _{-0.64 } ^{+0.63 }$ & $147.36 _{-0.59 } ^{+0.60 }$ & CLASS\
& $63.5 _{-6.1 }^{+4.9 }$ & $63.6 _{-6.2 }^{+5.0 }$ & $63.7 _{-5.6 }^{+4.3 }$ & $63.4 _{-6.0 }^{+4.8 }$ & CAMB\
& – & $62.8 _{-10.8 }^{+11.1 }$ & $63.1 _{-10.3 }^{+10.6 }$ & $62.3 _{-10.4 }^{+10.7 }$ & CLASS\
\[tabruler\]
Separating Early Cosmology from Late Cosmology {#sec:earlycosmo}
==============================================
In the previous section we provided constraints by fitting an EDE model against recent CMB observations. Clearly, the results we presented are model dependent. But, assuming that the model we choose is sufficiently generic, one could naïvely expect that our results can be legitimately interpreted as “early times constraints". This is not correct, since our EDE model fixes the entire evolution of the universe and the physics of the CMB as we observe it depends on both early and late time cosmology. In other words, the model we chose gives predictions also for the late time expansion history, and the CMB contains this information. It is then clear that, in order to decouple early from late time physics, two steps are needed. The first one is to assume a model to describe cosmology at early times that has to be as general as possible (this point will be described in greater detail in the next section). The second step is to decouple early from late time physics in the CMB spectra.
![CMB spectra (TT, EE and $\phi\phi$) for different models with the same early time evolution but different late time evolution relative to a reference model (a fiducial standard $\Lambda$CDM with Planck’s best fit parameters). Plots are generated with the public code `hi_class` [@Zumalacarregui:2016pph]. Models are obtained from the fiducial $\Lambda$CDM varying just one parameter, i.e. the braiding (see [@Bellini:2014fua] for details). The upper top panel shows the temperature power spectrum without the ISW effect compared to the total temperature power spectrum of our fiducial model, while the lower top panel shows just the ISW contribution to the total temperature PS. The bottom upper/lower panels show the EE/$\phi\phi$ relative power spectrum for the same models.[]{data-label="cl_TT_EETE"}](cl_TT.pdf "fig:"){height="3.6" width="0.8\columnwidth"} ![CMB spectra (TT, EE and $\phi\phi$) for different models with the same early time evolution but different late time evolution relative to a reference model (a fiducial standard $\Lambda$CDM with Planck’s best fit parameters). Plots are generated with the public code `hi_class` [@Zumalacarregui:2016pph]. Models are obtained from the fiducial $\Lambda$CDM varying just one parameter, i.e. the braiding (see [@Bellini:2014fua] for details). The upper top panel shows the temperature power spectrum without the ISW effect compared to the total temperature power spectrum of our fiducial model, while the lower top panel shows just the ISW contribution to the total temperature PS. The bottom upper/lower panels show the EE/$\phi\phi$ relative power spectrum for the same models.[]{data-label="cl_TT_EETE"}](cl_EEpp.pdf "fig:"){height="3.6" width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![Effects on the TT angular power spectrum due to variations of the optical depth $\tau_{reio}$ (top panels) and the Hubble parameter $h$ (bottom panels). It is possible to note that at $\ell > 30$, variations of $\tau_{reio}$ produce a rescaling $C_\ell^{TT}\rightarrow \alpha C_\ell^{TT}$, while variations of $h$ produce a shift of the $\ell$’s, i.e. $C_\ell^{TT}\rightarrow C_{\beta\ell}^{TT}$. Lower panels show the rescaled $C_{\ell}$ after adjusting the rescaling/shift with appropriate values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$.[]{data-label="cl_rescale_shift"}](cl_rescale.pdf "fig:"){height="3.75" width="0.8\columnwidth"} ![Effects on the TT angular power spectrum due to variations of the optical depth $\tau_{reio}$ (top panels) and the Hubble parameter $h$ (bottom panels). It is possible to note that at $\ell > 30$, variations of $\tau_{reio}$ produce a rescaling $C_\ell^{TT}\rightarrow \alpha C_\ell^{TT}$, while variations of $h$ produce a shift of the $\ell$’s, i.e. $C_\ell^{TT}\rightarrow C_{\beta\ell}^{TT}$. Lower panels show the rescaled $C_{\ell}$ after adjusting the rescaling/shift with appropriate values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$.[]{data-label="cl_rescale_shift"}](cl_shift.pdf "fig:"){height="3.75" width="0.8\columnwidth"}
The key to progress is that late-time physics affects the CMB power spectrum in simple ways at high $\ell$. [@Vonlanthen:2010cd; @Audren:2012wb] show that the effects are limited to: (i) projection effects from real space to harmonic space, controlled by the angular diameter distance at the recombination epoch, i.e. $d_A\left(\tau_{rec}\right)$; (ii) the late ISW effect, affecting only small $\ell$; (iii) reionization, suppressing equally all multipoles at $\ell \gtrsim 30$. It is possible to show [@Vonlanthen:2010cd; @Audren:2012wb] that all these effects produce just a rescaled amplitude ($C_\ell\rightarrow \alpha C_\ell$) and position ($C_\ell\rightarrow C_{\beta\ell}$) in the CMB high-$\ell$ multipoles. Then, to remove the dependence on the late-time cosmology we must not only ignore low $\ell$ multipoles and take into account (and marginalize over) the degeneracy between a direct rescaling of the amplitude and position of the CMB multipoles and late time cosmology. In addition, one has to remove the effects of late times appearing in the lensing signal. It has been argued [@Vonlanthen:2010cd; @Audren:2012wb] that this can be done by marginalizing over an overall amplitude and tilt of the Newtonian potential. The resulting approach that we follow is:
- we neglect low multipoles for temperature and polarization spectra. We will then consider only “high-$\ell$" Planck data, i.e. $\ell \geq 30$; this effect is illustrated in the top panel of Fig. \[cl\_TT\_EETE\], where it is shown how removing these low-$\ell$ multiples suppresses drastically the influence of late-time effects;
- we fix the optical depth $\tau$ to a typical value, i.e. $\tau = 0.01$, since any value of $\tau$ can be compensated by changing $A_{\rm s}$;
- we do not interpret the parameters $A_{\rm s}$ and $h$ as the scalar amplitude of fluctuations and the present-day Hubble parameter. Here $h$ effectively sets the last-scattering distance and is only connected with the current expansion rate if we assume a model connecting early to late times. For $A_{\rm s}$ we interpret only the combination $e^{-2\tau}\, A_{\rm s}$, and for $h$ interpret only $d_A\left(\tau_{rec}\right)$, which represent vertical and horizontal scale factors of the CMB spectra. In Fig. \[cl\_rescale\_shift\] we show that it is possible to compensate the effects of a variation of $\tau$ and $h$ with suitable rescaling and shift of the temperature $C_\ell$;
- we marginalize over lensing by rescaling the Newtonian potential as $$\phi\left(k,z\right) \longrightarrow A_{lp} {\left(\frac{k}{k_{lp}}\right)}^{n_{lp}} \phi\left(k,z\right)\,,$$ where ($A_{lp}$, $n_{lp}$) are two new free parameters and we fixed $k_{lp}=0.1\,h$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
In Fig. \[cl\_TT\_EETE\] we show how the CMB power spectra are modified by choosing different dark energy/modified gravity models with the same early-time evolution but with different late-time physics. We employ the `hi_class` [@Zumalacarregui:2016pph] code, which implements Horndeski’s theory for dark energy/modified gravity models; Horndeski is the most general scalar-tensor theory described by second-order equations of motion, and contains many well-known dark energy/modified gravity models as special cases (see [@BelliniSawicki] for more details). It can be seen (upper panels) that the temperature power spectrum is affected mostly by a change in the ISW effect. In the bottom panels we show the polarization power spectrum (EE) and the behaviour of the lensing potential ($\phi\phi$). As expected, the polarization power spectrum is affected mostly at low multipoles, while the lensing changes at all $\ell$ (even if the effect is larger at low-$\ell$). As it will be clear below, in the simple implementation described in [@Vonlanthen:2010cd; @Audren:2012wb] and adopted here, this approach removes the late-time information for models whose late-time evolution is not too far away from a vanilla $\Lambda$CDM model. It is not a problem for models with small or vanishing dark energy. However, for models with very large values of the dark energy density parameter (roughly equivalent to $\Omega_\Lambda > 0.8$ at $z\sim 0$), the adopted priors matter and the procedure is not guaranteed to remove all the late-time signal. In fact, as we discuss below, in these cases we find residual late-time effects in the form of ISW effects up to $\ell \sim {\cal O}(100)$. For such models, little can be said about dark energy in a model-independent way. Constraints on other quantities that are sub-dominant at late time are indeed model-independent.
Finally, as explained in [@Sutherland:2012ys; @Heavens:2014rja] low redshift observations can be analyzed so that they yield a cosmology-independent estimate of $r_{\rm d}$, an early-time quantity. Below we will use this constraint in combination with the above analyses to help constrain early-time physics.
Testing Early Cosmology
-----------------------
Here we concentrate on developing a set of models generic enough to test the components of the early Universe and their properties. The idea is to give as much freedom as possible to the early-time evolution of the Universe with simple and well-motivated extensions of the standard cosmological model. Then, the models under consideration are
- “LCDM": here we use the standard 6-parameter cosmological model with a cosmological constant. Even if this model cannot be considered very general, it is instructive because here $\Lambda$ cannot be interpreted as the usual cosmological constant that causes the accelerated expansion of the Universe at late times. In principle it should be considered as an early cosmological constant decoupled from the late one;
- Dark energy fluid ,“DE fld": in this case we replace $\Lambda$ with a standard perfect fluid. We fix the sound speed of the scalar field to 1 and we impose a hard bound on the equation of state parameter, i.e. $w<0$ in order to avoid degeneracy with matter. The freedom here is represented by the fact that the additional scalar field is not constrained to have $w=-1$. While $w$ is a free parameter (hereafter $w^0_{\rm DE}$) it is considered constant in time;
- “k": here we add to the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ an arbitrary spatial curvature with density parameter $\Omega_{\rm k}$. The idea of having a spatial curvature is often used in the literature, and it is very much constrained to be close to 0 by late-time observations (e.g. [@Ade:2015xua]. However, here we focus just on the early-time evolution and thus expect poor constraints on this parameter. It is useful to introduce it since the additional freedom given by a parameter that scales differently from a cosmological constant is able to modify substantially the early-time expansion history of the Universe;
- “nu": This is effectively a standard $\Lambda$CDM model but with the addition of non-standard neutrinos. The idea [@Hu:1998tk] is to modify the properties of neutrinos by varying two parameters, an effective sound speed $c_{\rm eff}^2$ and a viscosity parameter $c_{\rm vis}^2$. This case is reduced to the standard one by fixing both values to 1/3. In this model we fix one massive neutrino with mass $m=0.06eV$ but we let vary the number of massless neutrinos, i.e. $N_{\rm ur}\simeq 2$ for the standard case. The massive and massless neutrinos share the same phenomenological properties, i.e. $c_{\rm eff}^2$ and $c_{\rm vis}^2$ are in common. It is possible to show that non-standard neutrinos behave as a standard scalar field that scales as radiation at the background level by setting $(c_{\rm eff}^2,c_{\rm vis}^2)=(1,0)$. Then, in this model the contribution of an additional scalar field at the perturbation level can come directly from the neutrino sector at the price of renouncing the standard neutrino behaviour;
- “matteriation": This is similar to the “DE fld” model, but with an equation of state parameter that can take values intermediate between that of pressure-less non-relativistic matter $w=0$ and that of radiation $w=1/3$. For simplicity here we assume that this fluid contributes to a modification of the expansion history only, while the perturbations are the standard matter/metric perturbations. This case complements the “nu" case above.
![Posterior distribution for the “LCDM" model.\[lambda\_posterior\]](ede_lambda_triangle.pdf){width=".7\textwidth"}
![Posterior distribution for the “DE fld" model. \[fld\_posterior\]](ede_fld_triangle.pdf){width=".8\textwidth"}
![Posterior distribution for the “k" model.[]{data-label="k_posterior"}](ede_k_triangle.pdf){width=".8\textwidth"}
![Posterior distribution for the “nu" model. Blue contours show the constraints without measurements of $r_{\rm s}(z_{\rm d})$. Red contours represent the constraints using the SBH dataset , i.e. $r_{\rm s}(z_{\rm d})=141.0\pm 5.5$. Green contours represent the constraints using the CSB dataset , i.e. $r_{\rm s}(z_{\rm d})=150.0\pm 4.7$.\[nu\_posterior\]](ede_nu-vs-ede_nu_rsd1-vs-ede_nu_rsd2_triangle.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Posterior distribution for the “matteriation" model.\[matteriation\_posterior\]](ede_fld_back_triangle.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Figures \[lambda\_posterior\], \[fld\_posterior\], \[k\_posterior\], \[nu\_posterior\] and \[matteriation\_posterior\] show the 68% and 95% joint posterior credibility regions for the relevant parameters for the “LCDM”, “DE fld”, “k”,“nu” and “matteriation” cases respectively using Planck 2015 data (TT and TEEE). Since we wish to obtain constraints on early-time cosmology only, the density parameters in the plots are reported at recombination ($z_{rec}\simeq 1090$). In all cases the densities of non-standard species are constrained to be very small compared to the matter density ($\Omega_{\rm m}\simeq 1$). Special care must be made when interpreting the constraints on $\Omega_\Lambda$ especially for the curvature case. $\Omega_\Lambda$ and $\Omega_{\rm k}$ are degenerate but the degeneracy is not perfect. Positive values of $\Omega_{\rm k}$ are bounded from above due to the prior that $\Omega_{\rm m}$ (as well as all other densities) must be positive and a minimal amount of $\Omega_{\rm m}$ is needed to produce the acoustic peaks. However the degeneracy does not appear to extend to positive values beyond $\Omega_{\rm k}^{\rm rec} = 1.4\times 10^{-4}$ and $\Omega^{\rm rec}_\Lambda$ does not extend beyond $3\times 10^{-9}$, which essentially restricts the present-day dark energy density parameter to be no more than $\sim 0.8$. Larger values may introduce ISW fluctuations on scales where our analysis assumes there are none, so we caution against over-interpreting this limit. Constraints on this parameter are expected to be of the order of or below $\sim 1\%$ of the matter density at recombination [@Karwal:2016vyq]. The unphysical constraint on $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ is due to residual late-time constraints. We note that in the non-flat case the constraint on $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ is much weaker ($\sim 100\%$) than in the other cases. This does not invalidate the derived constraints on the other parameters, as $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ and $\Omega_{\rm DE}$ are in any case sub-dominant at recombination. Our findings confirm that the Universe at early times is well described by the standard cosmological model, and there is no much room for additional components that may be relevant at early times.
What the observations constrain remarkably well about the early cosmology is the expansion rate $H$ at recombination (especially for standard radiation and neutrinos contributions). This can be appreciated in Tab. \[tab:models\] (third line, $H_{\rm rec}$ entry). As described in [@ZZ] the faster the Universe is expanding at recombination, the more difficult it is for the hydrogen to recombine, increasing the ionization fraction. Larger ionization fraction yields a broader visibility function. This in turn has two effects on observable quantities. On the CMB temperature it leads to a larger (Silk) damping of small scales anisotropies: the first acoustic peak is unaffected but higher peaks are damped. On the polarization, because of the increased photon mean path, large-scale polarization anisotropies ($\ell \lesssim 800$) are enhanced. Planck was forecasted to constrain $H_{\rm rec}$ at the 0.9% level [@ZZ] and Tab. \[tab:models\] confirms it. Adjustments in the composition of the Universe around recombination time cannot therefore drive $H_{\rm rec}$ changes larger than that.
In summary, the expansion rate $H(z)$ from matter-radiation equality through recombination and especially at recombination is very well constrained. This tight constraint on $H(z)$ leads in turn to constraints, at the same level, on the physical densities. Moreover, the amount of radiation, neutrinos and (physical) cold dark matter densities are constrained also by the perturbations. As a result, our analysis shows the residual (small) freedom in the early Universe composition.
The results for the “LCDM” case are reported in more detail in Appendix A. These results may be of interest beyond the scope of this paper. In fact, because they are robust to detailed assumptions about dark energy properties they can be used as a dark-energy “hardened" CMB prior for dark energy analyses.
As discussed above, one caveat in interpreting these results is that we have excluded multipoles $\ell<30$ to remove the late-time ISW effect. In principle, for non-standard models, there could still be some late-time contribution at $\ell>30$ which, in this approach, could then mistakenly be interpreted as early cosmology signal. This affects the constraints on dark energy but not on the other parameters.
In Fig. \[fig:late\] we show how late-time effects that become important when $\Omega_{\rm DE}$ at $z = 0$ is $> 0.8$ cannot be fully removed by the approach of [@Vonlanthen:2010cd; @Audren:2012wb]. For example, the late ISW effect extends up to $l \sim 200$, modifying the shape of the first peak and making the $\ell$ rescaling imperfect, when $30<\ell <200$ are included. Excluding all $\ell<200$ would yield greatly degraded constraints.
![Temperature power spectra for different non-flat models illustrating the remaining late-time physics for current large absolute values of the curvature (and hence values of $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ away from the $\Lambda$CDM fiducial value). In particular, for large values of $\Omega_{\rm k}$ some ISW signal remains up to $\ell \gg 30$ thus modifying the shape of the first peak and rendering the $\ell$ re-scaling imperfect. The lower panels show the power spectrum of late-time ISW only. The remaining wiggles at high $\ell$ are an artefact of the imperfect $\ell$ rescaling.[]{data-label="fig:late"}](cl_TT_isw.pdf){width=".65\textwidth"}
In all the plots we show also the posterior distribution of the sound-horizon at radiation drag. This is an early-time quantity which with this approach is now measured in a way that is independent of assumptions about late-time physics. The sound horizon at radiation drag, $r_{\rm s}(z_{\rm d})$, remains well constrained for all the models under consideration, with a remarkable exception. The only one that allows for a large variation of $r_{\rm s}(z_{\rm d})$ is the “nu” model. A possible explanation is given by the fact that this is the only model that modifies directly the properties of species (and thus the expansion rate) that are “naturally" important at early times (neutrinos). In the other examples, we added species that have a density that scales more rapidly than radiation in the past, and thus become progressively unimportant at early times (e.g., $z>z_{\rm d}$).
The precision in this measurement is better than 0.5%, which is just a factor two larger than for the standard analysis [@Ade:2015xua] being the central value fully consistent. It is interesting to note that the model-independent measurement of the “local standard ruler" [@Heavens16] is in good agreement with the value of $r_{\rm d}$ found from the early-time only analysis and has error-bars comparable to those on $r_{\rm d}$ found in the “nu" model. As shown in Fig. \[nu\_posterior\], including this additional constraint slightly alters the bounds on this model, in particular it slightly reduces the error bars on $N_{\rm eff}$ bringing the 95% credible interval to $2.4<N_{\rm eff}<3.2$. Forecasted improvements on Baryon Acoustic Oscillation data and on measurements of $H_0$ are expected to further reduce the error on the ruler (see e.g., [@Heavens16] for a discussion), promising therefore more stringent tests on the physics in the early Universe.
LCDM DE fld k nu matteriation
---------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
$10\Omega_b^{\rm rec}$ $1.187^{+0.034}_{-0.034}$ $1.186^{+0.034}_{-0.034}$ $1.188^{+0.036}_{-0.034}$ $1.205^{+0.047}_{-0.047}$ $1.185^{+0.035}_{-0.033}$
$10\Omega_{\rm cdm}^{rec}$ $6.378^{+0.071}_{-0.070}$ $6.379^{+0.071}_{-0.070}$ $6.376^{+0.071}_{-0.075}$ $6.378^{+0.071}_{-0.072}$ $6.351^{+0.082}_{-0.085}$
$H_{\rm rec}$ \[Mpc$^{-1}$\] $5.197^{+0.045}_{-0.045}$ $5.198^{+0.046}_{-0.045}$ $5.196^{+0.046}_{-0.047}$ $5.12^{+0.14}_{-0.14}$ $5.193^{+0.046}_{-0.048}$
$n_{\rm s}$ $0.964^{+0.010}_{-0.010}$ $0.964^{+0.010}_{-0.010}$ $0.964^{+0.011}_{-0.011}$ $0.956^{+0.023}_{-0.023}$ $0.966^{+0.011}_{-0.011}$
$e^{-2\tau} A_{\rm s}$ $1.879^{+0.024}_{-0.025}$ $1.879^{+0.026}_{-0.026}$ $1.876^{+0.025}_{-0.026}$ $1.871^{+0.072}_{-0.070}$ $1.875^{+0.026}_{-0.026}$
$10^4\Omega_{\rm k}^{\rm rec}$ - - $0.27^{+1.17}_{-1.24}$ - -
$10^3\Omega_{\rm fld}^{\rm rec}$ - $0.039^{+0.197}_{-0.039}$ - - $2.50^{+3.40}_{-2.50}$
$w^0_{\rm fld}$ - $-1.15^{+0.44}_{-0.73}$ - - $0.05^{+0.10}_{-0.05}$
$N_{\rm eff}$ - - - $2.77^{+0.47}_{-0.46}$ -
$c_{\rm eff}^2$ - - - $0.33^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ -
$c_{\rm vis}^2$ - - - $0.34^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ -
$z_{\rm rec }$ $1089.0^{+0.5}_{-0.5}$ $1089.0^{+0.5}_{-0.5}$ $1089.0^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$ $1088.7^{+0.6}_{-0.6}$ $1089.0^{+0.5}_{-0.5}$
$r^s_{d }$ $147.35^{+0.66}_{-0.66}$ $147.34^{+0.66}_{-0.66}$ $147.37^{+0.68}_{-0.69}$ $150.0^{+4.8}_{-4.7}$ $147.47^{+0.69}_{-0.71}$
$\chi^2_{min}$ $2456$ $2454$ $2456$ $2454$ $2455$
: Constraints on the cosmological parameters for the models considered using the TT TEEE and lensing likelihoods. The entries $w^0_{\rm fld}$ and $\Omega_{\rm fld}$ correspond to $w^0_{\rm DE}$, $\Omega_{\rm DE}$ for the “DE fld" model and $w^0_{\rm MR}$,$\Omega_{\rm MR}$ for the matteriation model. Quoted limits are 95% credible intervals.[]{data-label="tab:models"}
Conclusions {#sec:concl}
===========
We have explored in a model-independent way, how well the early universe conditions (i.e. universe components and their properties) are constrained by current CMB observations. To do so, we have used a method that attempts to decouple the late-universe from the early-universe. We have compared the results with model-independent determinations of the standard ruler corresponding to the sound horizon at radiation drag from the literature, finding good agreement.
In our method, we allow for the possibility that energy-density components different from those in the $\Lambda$CDM model are present in the early Universe. In particular, we allowed for extra dark energy (“DE fld", with equation of state $w<0$), extra fluid matter (“MR", $0 < w < 1/3$), extra radiation or other relativistic species ($w=1/3$, parameterized by $N_{\rm eff}$) and extra curvature (“k”), covering many possibilities for the expansion history of the universe at early times. Our methodology, as presented and implemented here works very well for models that at late time are not too drastically different from the standard $\Lambda$CDM model. In particular, there are residual late time effects when $\Omega_{\rm DE} > 0.8$ at $z \sim 0$. For dark energy constraints, the methodology as currently implemented, should be interpreted as “robust" to detailed assumptions about dark energy rather than fully model-independent.
State-of-the-art CMB observations including temperature and polarization information, effectively constrain the expansion rate at recombination with $\sim 1\%$ precision. The expansion rate governs the ionization fraction and the width of the visibility function, which in turn affects the Silk damping and the amplitude of the polarization signal [@ZZ]. Adjustments in the composition of the Universe around recombination time are constrained by this effect. Moreover, components that cluster are constrained also through their effects on the perturbations.
We found that current observations constrain surprisingly tightly these extra components: $\Omega_{\rm MR} < 0.006$ and $2.3 < N_{\rm eff} < 3.2$ when imposing spatial flatness. These energy densities are all reported as 95% credible intervals, at $z_{\rm rec}$. For the latter case of extra radiation, when we use the local measurement of the standard ruler to further limit the amount of dark radiation, we obtain that $ 2.5 < N_{\rm eff} < 3.3 $ using SNe, BAOs and a Hubble prior (SBH), and $2.4 < N_{\rm eff} < 3.2$ replacing the Hubble prior with cosmic chronometers (CSB).
Our conclusion is that current CMB (temperature and polarization) observations, alone or in conjunction with low-redshift, model-independent measurements of the standard ruler, tell us that the early-universe (up to recombination) is very well known: the data require the presence of baryons, radiation, a fluid that behaves like neutrinos and dark matter; dark energy and curvature are negligible. There is no evidence –and not much room– for exotic matter-energy components besides those in the $\Lambda$CDM; the standard $\Lambda$CDM model describes extremely well the early cosmology.
We envision that model-independent approaches like the one presented here will be of value as cosmology moves beyond parameter fitting and towards model testing.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Funding for this work was partially provided by the Spanish MINECO under projects AYA2014-58747-P and MDM-2014- 0369 of ICCUB (Unidad de Excelencia Maria de Maeztu), Royal Society grant IE140357 and by CNPq (Brazil). We acknowledge the support of Imperial College through the CosmoCLASSIC collaboration.
Appendix A {#appendix-a .unnumbered}
==========
Large-scale structure, supernovae or other low redshift observations analyses on dark energy properties are often slowed down significantly by the fact that, to include CMB information, a Boltzmann code must be suitably modified and ran for each specific model. Not including CMB information simplifies the analysis greatly, but also reduces dramatically the constraints.
One approach adopted so far has been to use the so-called CMB distance priors ([@Wang:2007mza; @Li:2008cj] and [@Huang:2015vpa] and references therein).
Here we propose a slightly more sophisticated approach of using the results provided by the (late-time model independent) “LCDM" model analysis and reported in Tab. \[tab:models\]. These results are by construction independent of late-time assumptions about perturbations and are “robust" to detailed assumptions about the expansion history and in particular about the detailed dark energy properties, yet they fully capture the CMB information assuming standard early-time physics. The values for the density parameters are reported at the redshift of recombination. They can then be easily extrapolated to lower redshifts for any given model for the Universe expansion history. The recombination redshift is well constrained and does not show significant degeneracy with any of the parameters, so for this purpose it can be assumed to be fixed at $z_{\rm rec}=1089$.
[10]{}
Marc Vonlanthen, Syksy Rasanen, and Ruth Durrer, , , 1008:023, 2010.
Benjamin Audren, Julien Lesgourgues, Karim Benabed, and Simon Prunet, , , 1302:001, 2013.
Benjamin Audren. , , 444(1):827–832, 2014,
Alan Heavens, Raul Jimenez, and Licia Verde, , , 113(24):241302, 2014.
Will Sutherland, , , 426:1280, 2012.
R. Adam [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], Planck 2015 results. I. Overview of products and scientific results, Astron. Astrophys. [**594**]{} (2016) A1 doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527101 \[arXiv:1502.01582 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. N. Aghanim [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], Planck 2015 results. XI. CMB power spectra, likelihoods, and robustness of parameters, Astron. Astrophys. [**594**]{} (2016) A11 doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526926 \[arXiv:1507.02704 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. [**594**]{} (2016) A13 doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 \[arXiv:1502.01589 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
J. Lesgourgues, “The Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System (CLASS) I: Overview,” arXiv:1104.2932 \[astro-ph.IM\]. Diego Blas, Julien Lesgourgues, and Thomas Tram, , , 1107:034, 2011.
L. Verde, J. L. Bernal, A. F. Heavens and R. Jimenez, , . Antonio J. Cuesta et al, , , 457:1770, 2016.
M. Betoule et al, , , 568:A22, 2014.
Eyal A. Kazin et al, , , 441(4):3524–3542, 2014.
Florian Beutler, Chris Blake, Matthew Colless, D. Heath Jones, Lister Staveley-Smith, Lachlan Campbell, Quentin Parker, Will Saunders, and Fred Watson. . , 416:3017–3032, 2011.
A. G. Riess [*et al.*]{}, A 2.4% Determination of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant, Astrophys. J. [**826**]{} (2016) no.1, 56 doi:10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/56 \[arXiv:1604.01424 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. Michele Moresco, Lucia Pozzetti, Andrea Cimatti, Raul Jimenez, Claudia Maraston, Licia Verde, Daniel Thomas, Annalisa Citro, Rita Tojeiro, and David Wilkinson, , 2016.
Christof Wetterich, , , B594:17–22, 2004.
Michael Doran and Georg Robbers, , , 0606:026, 2006.
P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], Planck 2013 results. I. Overview of products and scientific results, Astron. Astrophys. [**571**]{} (2014) A1 doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321529 \[arXiv:1303.5062 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], Planck 2015 results. XIV. Dark energy and modified gravity, Astron. Astrophys. [**594**]{} (2016) A14 doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525814 \[arXiv:1502.01590 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
Antony Lewis, Anthony Challinor, and Anthony Lasenby, , , 538:473–476, 2000.
Guillermo Ballesteros and Julien Lesgourgues. , , 1010:014, 2010.
A. Kosowsky, M. Milosavljevic and R. Jimenez, Efficient cosmological parameter estimation from microwave background anisotropies, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{} (2002) 063007 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.063007 \[astro-ph/0206014\].
M. Zumalacrregui, E. Bellini, I. Sawicki and J. Lesgourgues, hiclass: Horndeski in the Cosmic Linear Anisotropy Solving System, arXiv:1605.06102 \[astro-ph.CO\].
Emilio Bellini and Ignacy Sawicki, , , 1407:050, 2014.
E. [Bellini]{} and I. [Sawicki]{}, , , 7:050, July 2014.
Wayne Hu, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Max Tegmark, and Martin J. White, , , D59:023512, 1999.
T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, Early dark energy, the Hubble-parameter tension, and the string axiverse, arXiv:1608.01309 \[astro-ph.CO\]. O. [Zahn]{} and M. [Zaldarriaga]{}, , , 67(6):063002, 2003.
Yun Wang and Pia Mukherjee, , , D76:103533, 2007.
Hong Li, Jun-Qing Xia, Gong-Bo Zhao, Zu-Hui Fan, and Xinmin Zhang, , , 683:L1–L4, 2008.
Qing-Guo Huang, Ke Wang, and Sai Wang, , , 1512(12):022, 2015.
[^1]: Of course for models where the density parameter goes negative this component cannot be interpreted as a fluid.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We formulate a series of non-trivial equalities which are satisfied by all no-signaling correlations, meaning that no faster-than-light communication is allowed with the resource of these correlations. All quantum and classical correlations satisfy these equalities since they are no-signaling. By applying these equalities, we provide a general framework for solving the multipartite “guess your neighbor’s input” (GYNI) game, which is naturally no-signaling but shows conversely that general no-signaling correlations are actually more non-local than those allowed by quantum mechanics. We confirm the validity of our method for number of players from 3 up to 19, thus providing convincing evidence that it works for the general case. In addition, we solve analytically the tripartite GYNI and obtain a computable measure of supra-quantum correlations. This result simplifies the defined optimization procedure to an analytic formula, thus characterizing explicitly the boundary between quantum and supra-quantum correlations. In addition, we show that the gap between quantum and no-signaling boundaries containing supra-quantum correlations can be closed by local orthogonality conditions in the tripartite case. Our results provide a computable classification of no-signaling correlations.'
author:
- 'He-Ming Wang'
- 'Heng-Yun Zhou'
- 'Liang-Zhu Mu'
- Heng Fan
title: 'Classification of no-signaling correlations and the guess your neighbor’s input game'
---
Introduction
============
Quantum mechanics allows non-local correlations such as the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) pairs [@EPR]. Entanglement like EPR pairs can be used as a valuable resource for quantum information processing such as the well-known quantum teleportation [@teleportation; @teleportation-experiment; @teleportation-experiment1]. However, quantum teleportation relies on classical communication for state transmission and thus will not violate the no-signaling condition, meaning that signals cannot be sent faster-than-light. In fact, no-signaling is a general principle of quantum mechanics and it is thus satisfied by all non-local quantum correlations. It is also closely related but different from quantum causality [@BancalNP; @Causality; @brukner]. A broad class of theories exist which can characterize the nonlocality of quantum physics, such as the Bell inequalities [@Bell; @Bellnonlocality] and the temporal analogue Leggett-Garg inequality [@leggett-garg], see also results in Ref.[@tsirelson]. In particular, due to the recent advent of quantum information, the extremely intense study of quantum correlations such as entanglement and discord has made nonlocality widely appreciated as a fundamental property of various quantum systems, see [@eof; @hv01; @oz02; @Modirmp; @horodeckirmp; @Amico-RMP; @Cui-Gu; @LPSW; @NavascuesPRL; @BarnumPRL10; @Unified10] and the references therein for related topics.
On the other hand, it is known that conversely there exist no-signaling correlations more nonlocal than those allowed in quantum mechanics [@PRbox], see a recent review paper by Popescu and the references therein [@popescu]. Recently, a nonlocal multipartite scheme GYNI, “guess your neighbor’s input”, has been presented and investigated in Refs. [@GYNI; @winternature; @GYNIbook; @Fritz; @GallegoPRL; @YangTHNJP; @PironioJPA; @AugusiakPRA; @UPB-PRL11]. It demonstrates that the no-signaling correlations provide a clear advantage over both classical and quantum correlations, while these two correlations have a common ground in this scheme. This scheme leads to a facet Bell inequality which is true for quantum correlations and is not implied by any other Bell inequalities. Yet its violation is consistent with no-signalling, see a views paper [@winternature] for the implications and importance of the GYNI scheme. Despite the significant role of GYNI in clarifying the concepts of quantum correlations and fundamentals of quantum mechanics, the scheme itself is largely unsolved, even for the simplest tripartite scenario. The optimal advantage of no-signaling in GYNI has been demonstrated analytically for $N=3$, numerically for $N=5,7$ cases, under the assumption of a given probability distribution. For years, with much progress and understandings related to this game, the solution of the GYNI game still seems challenging. By studying the GYNI scheme, we can distinguish quantum correlations from other supra-quantum no-signaling correlations and find the borderline between them. We can also explore the upper boundary of all no-signaling correlations. The parallel situation is the Bell inequality which can distinguish quantum correlations from classical correlations and can also be used to explore the upper bound of quantum correlations. Besides, the GYNI scheme may have important implications in understanding quantum physics and information theory.
In this paper, we propose and formulate a series of non-trivial equalities. These equalities capture the common properties of no-signaling correlations in a precise way. Based on these equalities, a general framework to solve the GYNI problem is provided. We confirm the validity of our solution for a number of players from $N=3$ up to $N=19$. This provides convincing evidence that the framework works. We show that the advantage of no-signaling correlations over quantum or classical cases scales to the proven bound 2 [@GYNI; @GYNIbook] and the correlations achieving the optimal bound are given. Additionally, we solve analytically the tripartite case completely. A concise form of the winning probability ratio between no-signaling and classical or quantum correlations is obtained, which is computable analytically and thus avoids the optimization procedure. This identifies clearly the boundary between quantum correlations and no-signaling supra-quantum correlations. We also notice that with the local orthogonality condition [@Fritz], the gap harboring the existence of supra-quantum correlations can be closed in the case of the tripartite system. This fact confirms the necessity of local orthogonality in the GYNI game for quantum mechanics.
GYNI and the no-signaling equalities
====================================
Let us begin with the game of GYNI [@GYNI] shown in FIG.1. A number $N$ of players are in a round-table meeting and each receives a poker of ‘heart’ or ‘spade’ representing input bit $x_i\in \{0,1\}$. The aim is that each player provides an output bit $a_i\in \{0,1\}$ representing the guess about his/her right-hand neighbor’s input. No communication is allowed after the inputs are distributed and thus no-signaling is ensured. The input strings ${\bf x}=x_1,...,x_N$ are chosen according to some prior fixed probability distributions $q({\bf x})$ known to all players, where $P(a_1a_2...a_N|x_1x_2...x_N)$ is the probability of obtaining the output $a_1a_2...a_N$ when the input $x_1x_2...x_N$ is given. The probabilities satisfy the identity $P(x,...,x|0,...,0)=1$, meaning the probability summation over all possible outputs for a given input is 1, where ‘x’ is assumed to be a summation of all possible outputs at each position. The correct output probability is denoted as $P({\bf a_i}={\bf x}_{i+1}|{\bf x})$. The average winning probability is thus quantified as $\omega =\sum _{\bf x}q({\bf x})P({\bf a_i}={\bf x}_{i+1}|{\bf x})$. The winning probabilities by classical strategies and general no-signaling ones are denoted as $\omega _c,\omega _{ns}$, respectively. No quantum advantage over the classical case is available in this game [@GYNI], meaning that $\omega _c$ is applicable for the quantum case. This is due to the condition that no communication is allowed in this scheme. We remark that the $N=2$ case is trivial.
![(color online) The game of “guess your neighbor’s input” [@GYNI]. The aim is that each player provides an output bit $a_i\in \{0,1\}$ representing the guess about his/her right-hand neighbor’s input. Here $\{0,1\}$ are represented by ‘spade’ and ‘heart’ of the pokers. No communication is allowed after the inputs are distributed in this game.[]{data-label="roundtable"}](Figure1.eps){width="8cm"}
We study the GYNI game first by considering the odd $N$ case and the specified input distribution, $q({\bf x})=1/2^{N-1}$ when $x_1\oplus x_2\oplus ...\oplus x_N=0$ and $q({\bf x})=0$ otherwise, which we stick to in this work unless stressed explicitly. We know that $\omega_c=1/2^{N-1}$ for both classical and quantum resources [@GYNI]. Now we show that for no-signaling resources, $$\label{oddspecial}
\max \omega_{ns}=\frac{2}{1+C_{N-1}^{\frac{N-1}{2}}/2^{N-1}}\omega_c.$$ We can directly verify that $\max \omega _{ns}/\omega _c$ is larger than 1 and scales to 2 for large $N$, thus saturating the upper bound [@GYNI], see FIG.2. Hereafter, we generally explore the upper bound of $\omega _{ns}$ and the notation ‘$\max $’ will be dropped with no confusion.
Our proof of Eq.(\[oddspecial\]) is based on a series of no-signaling equalities presented below. These equalities belong to facet Bell inequalities, meaning that they are not violable by quantum mechanics and are not implied by other Bell inequalities. On the other hand, they are equalities instead of inequalities and we may name them as [*Bell equalities*]{}, see FIG.3 for explanations about their role in classifying no-signaling correlation. Our proposed no-signaling Bell equalities for the concerned probabilities in the GYNI game take the form: $$\label{equality}
\sum_{\sum x_i<\frac{N}{2}}(P(x_2...x_Nx_1|x_1x_2...x_N)+P(x_2'...x_N'x_1'|x_1x_2...x_N))=1,$$ where the summation is under the condition that the sum of $x_i$ is less than $N/2$. The first half terms $P(x_2...x_Nx_1|x_1x_2...x_N)$ are of GYNI interest, and the second half of the terms $P(x_2'...x_N'x_1'|x_1x_2...x_N)$ are the pairing terms corresponding to the first half. The one-to-one correspondence of $x_1'x_2'...x_N'$ and $x_1x_2...x_N$ is given by $$x_i'=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0&\mathrm{if\ }x_i=0\mathrm{\ and\ }\exists j,\ \sum_{k=1}^j(2x_{i+k}-1)>0\\
1&\mathrm{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Intuitively, this construction starts from the terms with the most 1’s and changes one of the $x_i$’s from 1 to 0; it then cascades down until all probability terms have $x_1x_2...x_N=\mathbf{0}$ so that normalization conditions can be used. The proof of the Bell equality is due to the no-signaling principle $P(0x|01)=P(0x|00)$ and the identity $P(x,...,x|0,...,0)=1$. Detailed discussion of the proof and the correspondence can be found in Appendix A.
Now we turn to the upper bound for no-signaling GYNI winning probabilities which are in the first part of Eq.(\[equality\]).
With $N=5$ as a simple example, the 11 terms with zero or two 1’s appear in the equality (\[equality\]) just proven, so that the sum of these terms is less than or equal to 1. By relabeling inputs and outputs using the 0,1 symmetry and maintaining an even number of 1’s to match the terms of GYNI interest, we can find a total of 16 similar inequalities, with each term in the expression of $\omega_{ns}$ appearing 11 times due to relabeling symmetry. This then gives the upper bound $\omega_{ns}|_{N=5}\leq \frac{1}{16}\times 16/11=\frac{1}{11}$.
Similar to above, combinatorial considerations let us collect the terms containing $0,2,4...2m$ 1s in the case of $N=4m+1$, or $4m+2,4m,4m-2...2m+2$ 1s in the case of $N=4m+3$, where $m$ is a positive integer. The number of these terms, as a function of odd $N$, can be expressed as $\sum_{i=0}^m C_{4m+1}^{2i}$ or $\sum_{i=0}^m C_{4m+3}^{2m+2+2i}$, which can both be reduced to $2^{N-2}+C_{N-1}^{(N-1)/2}/2$ using the combinatorial relation $C_{m+1}^{n+1}=C_m^n+C_m^{n+1}$. This shows the upper bound of the no-signaling winning probability, $$\label{upperbound}
\omega_{ns}\leq\frac{2}{2^{N-1}+C_{N-1}^{\frac{N-1}{2}}}.$$
The tight upper bound and the constituents of no-signaling correlations
=======================================================================
Now we demonstrate that no-signaling correlations saturating the inequality (\[upperbound\]) can be found. Thus the inequality turns out to be an equality in the optimal case. Generally the number of inequalities is less than the degrees of freedom of the correlations, and such correlations are not unique. However, under the restrictions of basic symmetry (invariance under relabeling inputs, outputs and states), only one solution can be found for $N=3$, 5 and 7. For $N=9$, the solutions have two degrees of freedom, and when $N$ becomes larger the degrees of freedom increase exponentially.
The only no-signaling symmetric correlation for $N=3$ can be expressed as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{extremeNS3}
P(abc|xyz)&=&\frac{1}{6}(x\oplus y\oplus z\oplus xy\oplus yz\oplus zx\oplus ab\oplus bc\oplus ca
\nonumber \\
&&\oplus zb\oplus ya\oplus xc)+\frac{1}{3}\bar{a}\bar{b}\bar{c}\bar{x}\bar{y}\bar{z}+\frac{1}{3}a\bar{b}cxy\bar{z}
\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{1}{3}\bar{a}bcx\bar{y}z+\frac{1}{3}ab\bar{c}\bar{x}yz.\end{aligned}$$
In these correlations the GYNI probability terms, $P(x_2...x_Nx_1|x_1x_2...x_N)$ with $x_1\oplus x_2\oplus ...\oplus x_N=0$, are all equal to $2/(2^{N-1}+C_{N-1}^{(N-1)/2})$, while the Bell equality (\[equality\]) can be satisfied. This means that the winning probabilities achieve the upper bound. The advantage of no-signaling over quantum and classical correlations takes the form (\[oddspecial\]). We remark that this result is confirmed for a number of players up to 19 by a computer workstation (16-core, 384G-memory). The calculations involve the proof of the Bell equality (\[equality\]) and the saturating of the bound (\[upperbound\]) both for $N$ up to 19.
FIG. 2 shows the asymptotical behavior of the winning ratio of no-signaling correlations over quantum or classical correlations (Eq. (\[oddspecial\])).
![(color online) Winning probability ratio for no-signaling correlations over classical or quantum correlations. We assume $N$ is odd. The star symbols represent our result of Eq.(\[oddspecial\]), which will approach 2 asymptotically when $N$ is large. []{data-label="compare"}](Figure2.eps){width="5cm"}
![(color online) Schematic representation of various correlations. Those correlations include classical, quantum and no-signaling correlations. The Bell equality and the GYNI game can identify different boundaries between those correlations. The well-known Bell inequality is also marked. []{data-label="relation"}](Figure3.eps){width="8cm"}
FIG. 3 shows the above proposed Bell equality and GYNI game in describing various correlations. The largest volume in the figure represents no-signaling correlations. The no-signaling correlations contain quantum correlations as a subset, while the quantum correlations contain classical correlations as a subset. They all share a partly common boundary which is the bottom of the classical volume in this figure. It is described by our proposed Bell equality and thus is marked as ‘Bell equality’. The Bell equality can be checked for general tripartite qubit state which is proven to take a simple form in Ref. [@triquantumbit]. The violation of the Bell equality means that no-signaling correlations cannot accommodate this phenomenon. Quantum correlations and classical correlations may share a common part of boundary distinguishing them from supra-quantum correlations which satisfy the no-signaling condition but are beyond quantum mechanics. This boundary can be identified by $\omega _{ns}/\omega _c=1$ which is marked as ‘GYNI=1’ in this figure. For the tripartite case, we can identify this boundary analytically by using Eq.(\[triboundary\]) presented later when it equals to 1. This is the first computable measure of supra-quantum correlations. The $\omega _{ns}/\omega _c>1$ part belongs solely to no-signaling supra-quantum correlation with the boundary identified by Eq.(\[oddspecial\]). The well-known Bell inequality distinguishes quantum correlations and classical correlations which are also marked in this figure.
Analytic formula, no-signaling inequalities and local orthogonality
===================================================================
We next consider arbitrary given inputs and assume $N\geq3$ being both odd and even numbers. The necessary probability inequalities in the tripartite case come from various Bell equalities and have a clear geometric representation.
FIG. 4 shows those inequalities for the tripartite case. A total of 14 restrictions on the probability terms can be found using the hypercube-hyperplane representation of inequalities, which can be divided into two classes. Left panel (a) represents the first class of 6 inequalities that can be represented by $P(000|000)+P(010|001)+P(001|100)+P(011|101)\leq 1$ which corresponds to the normal vector $(0,1,0)$. Right panel (b) represents the second class of 8 inequalities that can be represented by $P(000|000)+P(010|001)+P(100|010)+P(001|100)\leq 1$, which corresponds to the normal vector $(1,1,1)$. In general, we can construct a hypercube of dimension $N$ in a Cartesian space and all the vertices of the hypercube have a coordinate $(x_1,x_2,...x_N)$ corresponding to GYNI interest probability $P(x_2...x_Nx_1|x_1x_2...x_N)$. We propose that, for every hyperplane passing through the center of the $N$-dimensional hypercube while not passing through any vertex, there exists a pair of corresponding inequalities that limit the sums of the probability terms on the two sides of the hyperplane. Explicitly, given a real vector ${s_1,s_2,...s_N}$, if the equations $\sum_ix_is_i-N/2=0$ and $x_i\in\{0,1\}$ have no solutions then we should have $\sum_{\sum_i x_ia_i<\frac{N}{2}}P(x_2...x_Nx_1|x_1x_2...x_N)\leq 1.$ This has been proven to be true for $N=3,4$ and $5$ by direct verification. Instead of the original no-signaling principles, these inequalities can be used to estimate the upper bound of $\omega_{ns}$. However, we remark that they are not complete for general $N$. Using these inequalities, we can find that, for a given input distribution $q(\mathrm{\textbf{x}})$, the maximum ratio of winning probability is $$\begin{aligned}
&&\max \frac{\omega_{ns}}{\omega_c}=\max (1,\frac{q(000)+q(110)+q(101)+q(011)}{3\omega_c},
\nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\frac{q(100)+q(010)+q(001)+q(111)}{3\omega_c}),
\label{triboundary}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_c=\max (q(\mathrm{\textbf{x}})+q(\mathrm{\bar{\textbf{x}}}))$ is the classical winning probability (see Appendix B for a detailed proof). This is the first analytic measure of supra-quantum correlations without optimization.
![(color online) Geometric representation of no-signaling inequalities for the tripartite case. Cases for larger $N$ can also be represented in a similar way. Two classes of inequalities corresponding respectively to left and right panels are presented. []{data-label="cube"}](Figure4.eps){width="8cm"}
Furthermore, the ratio derived here for arbitrary input distributions can always be reached. Consider two no-signaling resources: the first one is given by $P(abc|xyz)=(a\oplus y\oplus x\oplus x')(b\oplus z\oplus y\oplus y')(c\oplus x\oplus y\oplus y')$, the classical strategy described in [@GYNI], where $\mathrm{\textbf{x}}=x'y'z'$ maximizes $(q(\mathrm{\textbf{x}})+q(\mathrm{\bar{\textbf{x}}}))$, and the second one is the extreme no-signaling correlation (\[extremeNS3\]). It can be easily checked that after suitable relabeling, the first one gives $\omega_{ns}=\omega_c$, and the second one gives $3\omega_{ns}=\max(q(000)+q(110)+q(101)+q(011),q(100)+q(010)+q(001)+q(111))$.
We can also look at the no-signaling GYNI game with four parties for arbitrary input distributions. We first show that no input distributions can achieve a higher probability ratio than the distributions satisfying $q(\textbf{x})\in\{0,1/2^{N-1}\}$ and $q(\textbf{x})+q(\bar{\textbf{x}})=1/2^{N-1}$. From [@GYNI], we know that $\omega_c=\max_{\textbf{x}} q(\textbf{x})
+q(\bar{\textbf{x}})$. If for some ${\bf x}$, $q(\textbf{x})+q(\bar{\textbf{x}})<\omega_c$, then we can increase $q(\textbf{x})$ so that $q(\textbf{x})+q(\bar{\textbf{x}})=\omega_c$ and renormalize $q(\textbf{x})$. In this process $\omega_{ns}$ does not decrease and $\omega_c$ does not change, so the ratio does not decrease. When $q(\textbf{x})+q(\bar{\textbf{x}})=\omega_c$ for all $\textbf{x}$, we must have $\omega_c=1/2^{N-1}$. Since $\omega_{ns}$ is linear in $q(\textbf{x})$ for a fixed no-signaling correlation, the maximum can only be achieved when either $q(\textbf{x})=0,\ q(\bar{\textbf{x}})=1/2^{N-1}$ or $q(\bar{\textbf{x}})=0,\ q(\textbf{x})=1/2^{N-1}$.
By the above reasoning, we only need to check a small number of input distributions. This then becomes some linear programming problems with several target functions. There are three inequivalent normal vectors, $(1,0,0,0)$, $(5,2,2,2)$, and $(1,1,1,0)$ in the hypercube-hyperplane (geometric) representation, corresponding to a total of 104 inequalities. Under these restrictions, we tested all 256 input distributions in the form $q(\textbf{x})\in\{0,1/8\}$ and $q(\textbf{x})+q(\bar{\textbf{x}})=1/8$. Calculations show that $\max \omega_{ns}/\omega_c|_{N=4}=4/3$. The result shows that no matter how the input distribution is given, adding a party into the game cannot help no-signaling resources doing better.
Remarkably, it has been recently proposed that local orthogonality may play a critical role for the characterization of quantum mechanics, in particular for distinguishing supra-quantum correlations [@Fritz]. Explicitly, local orthogonality offers new inequalities satisfied by the correlations. By some calculations (presented in Appendix B), we find that the gap between boundaries of no-signaling and quantum in GYNI which harbors supra-quantum correlation will be completely closed by local orthogonality conditions. This fact confirms that local orthogonality is necessary in distinguishing supra-quantum correlation.
Conclusions
===========
In summary, we provide a valid framework for solving the general GYNI game by introducing a series of non-trivial equalities which might be named as Bell equalities. All no-signaling correlations satisfy these equalities and the violation of them means the violation of no-signaling. We also obtain a concise form for measure of supra-quantum correlations without relying on an optimization procedure which is generally a hard task. We remark that the supra-quantum correlations will be removed by local orthogonality conditions. Our results offer a classification of no-signaling correlations. A lot of new questions arise related to the results in this article. For example, the proof of general Bell equalities and their applications, measures of supra-quantum correlation for more general cases, the explicit relationship between Bell equality and Bell inequality. These are still open problems which are worth studying further.
This work was supported by the ‘973’ Program (2010CB922904), NSFC (11175248), NFFTBS (J1030310, J1103205) and grants from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Proof and the correspondence of the no-signaling equality
=========================================================
We first present the proof for $N=5$. We write the equality explicitly and get: $$\begin{aligned}
&&P(00000|00000)+\sum_c( P(10000|01000)
\nonumber \\
&&+P(11000|01100)+P(10100|01010)
\nonumber \\
&&+P(10110|01010)+P(11100|01100)
\nonumber \\
&&+P(11110|01000))+P(11111|00000)=1,\end{aligned}$$ where the subscript ‘c’ means cyclic summation of the input and output.
To prove this equality, note that $$\begin{aligned}
&&P(10000|01000)+P(11000|01100)\nonumber \\
&&+P(10100|01010)+P(10110|01010)\nonumber \\
&&+P(11100|01100)+P(01111|01000)\nonumber \\
&=&P(10000|01000)+P(11x00|01000)\nonumber \\
&&+P(101x0|01000)+P(11110|01000)\nonumber \\
&=&P(1xx00|00000)+P(1x110|00000),\end{aligned}$$ where an ‘x’ in the output stands for summation of all possible states at that position, and the no-signalling principle has been used several times. Substitute this into the left hand side and the equation can be transformed into: $$\begin{aligned}
&&P(00000|00000)+\sum_c(P(1xx00|00000)\nonumber \\
&&+P(1x110|00000))+P(11111|00000)\nonumber \\
&=&P(xxxxx|00000)=1,\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof of this equality for $N=5$. Proofs for larger $N$s can be constructed similarly with the aid of a computer.
The correspondence between the pair $x_1'x_2'...x_N'$ and $x_1x_2...x_N$ was described as an existence criterion. Now we give a different way of constructing the correspondence. Consider the following procedures:
1. Copy the input string onto a piece of cyclic paper (which ensures that $x_{N+1}$ is equivalent to $x_1$).
2. For each ‘1’ on the paper, cross it out, then find the nearest ‘0’ not crossed out on the left of this ‘1’ and cross this ‘0’ out.
3. For the numbers not crossed-out (which must be ‘0’), change them to ‘1’.
4. Now the paper contains a new string, which is the desired $x_1'x_2'...x_N'$.
We have to clarify some points of this procedure. First, it should be obvious that step 2 of this procedure is well-defined; that is, the result is the same regardless of the sequence we cross out 1s. Second, it is always possible to finish step 2, since for $x_i$ we have the restriction $\sum x_i<\frac{N}{2}$, and there are more zeros than ones in the input string. Each one ‘cancels’ a zero, and there should be an equal number of crossed-out zeros and ones.
We now show that the procedure is equivalent to the existence criteria we have given. The statement ‘for some j $\sum_{k=1}^j(2x_{i+k}-1)>0$’ is equivalent to saying that ‘for some j there are more ones than zeros in $x_{i+1}..x_{i+j}$’. By step 2 of the procedure we described, the zero at this position will be ‘canceled’ by a one from its right and remain as a zero in its pair string. If this is not the case, then either $x_i=1$, or $x_i=0$ which is not crossed out and $x_i'=1$.
Using this procedural description, we can also show that this correspondence is one-to-one. Given $x_1'x_2'...x_N'$, we can go through a similar procedure in the reverse way to recover the original string $x_1x_2...x_N$. For all ‘0’s in the string, cross it out, and find the nearest ‘1’s not crossed out on the right of this ‘0’ and cross them out. Then the remaining ‘1’s should be changed to ‘0’s.
We notice that the pairing process always introduce new terms satisfying $\sum_{i=1}^N(x_i+x_i')=N$. We believe that this pairing process should have physical implications, but by now we have not found a clear explanation of this.
Derivation of the maximum ratio
===============================
Here we prove the maximum ratio of winning probability for $N=3$, expressed as a maximizing function of the input distribution.
For simplicity, we introduce some short-form notations: $P(000|000)$ will be shortened to $P_0$, $P(010|001)$ to $P_1$, $q(010)$ to $q_2$, and so on. Then the maximum ratio becomes:
$$\max \frac{\omega_{ns}}{\omega_c}=\max (1,\frac{q_0+q_3+q_5+q_6}{3\omega_c},\frac{q_1+q_2+q_4+q_7}{3\omega_c}),$$
where $\omega_c=\max (q_0+q_7,q_1+q_6,q_2+q_5,q_3+q_4)$ is the classical winning probability.
The proof is divided into two parts. The first part assumes $q_0+q_3+q_5+q_6\geq3\omega_c$. We start by choosing 4 inequalities out of 14, namely $$\begin{aligned}
P_0+P_1+P_3+P_5\leq1 \nonumber \\
P_0+P_2+P_3+P_6\leq1 \nonumber \\
P_0+P_4+P_5+P_6\leq1 \nonumber \\
P_3+P_5+P_6+P_7\leq1\end{aligned}$$
We multiply these 4 inequalities by $q_0+q_3+q_5-2q_6$, $q_0+q_3+q_6-2q_5$, $q_0+q_5+q_6-2q_3$ and $q_3+q_5+q_6-2q_0$ respectively. Since $q_0+q_3+q_5+q_6\geq3\omega_c\geq3q_1+3q_6$, $q_0+q_3+q_5-2q_6\geq3q_1\geq0$ and by symmetry all the coefficients here are nonnegative. Adding these together and we get
$$\begin{aligned}
3(q_0P_0+q_3P_3+q_5P_5+q_6P_6) \nonumber \\
+(q_0+q_3+q_5-2q_6)P_1+(q_0+q_3+q_6-2q_5)P_2 \nonumber \\
+(q_0+q_5+q_6-2q_3)P_4+(q_3+q_5+q_6-2q_0)P_7 \nonumber \\
\leq q_0+q_3+q_5+q_6.\end{aligned}$$
Since $q_0+q_3+q_5-2q_6\geq3q_1$, we have $(q_0+q_3+q_5-2q_6)P_1\geq3q_1P_1$, thus changing the left hand side gives $$\begin{aligned}
3(q_0P_0+q_3P_3+q_5P_5+q_6P_6+q_1P_1+q_2P_2 \nonumber \\
+q_4P_4+q_7P_7)\leq q_0+q_3+q_5+q_6.\end{aligned}$$
Noticing that $\omega_{ns}=\sum_{i=0}^{7}q_iP_i$, we have $$\omega_{ns}\leq \frac{q_0+q_3+q_5+q_6}{3}$$
The proof for $q_1+q_2+q_4+q_7\geq3\omega_c$ is similar and we have $\omega_{ns}\leq (q_1+q_2+q_4+q_7)/3$.
The second part assumes $q_0+q_3+q_5+q_6<3\omega_c$ and $q_1+q_2+q_4+q_7<3\omega_c$. We prove that $\omega_{ns}/\omega_c\leq1$ by constructing a new input distributions so that $\omega'_{ns}/\omega'_c\geq\omega_{ns}/\omega_c$ and then show that $\omega'_{ns}\leq\omega'_c$.
$q'$ is constructed from $q$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
Q'_i=q_i+(\omega_c-q_i-q_{7-i})s_i/(s_i+s_{7-i}) \nonumber \\
q'_i=Q'_i/\sum_{j=0}^7Q'_j,\end{aligned}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
s_0=s_3=s_5=s_6=3\omega_c-q_0-q_3-q_5-q_6 \nonumber \\
s_1=s_2=s_4=s_7=3\omega_c-q_1-q_2-q_4-q_7\end{aligned}$$
The construction increases each $q_i$ to $Q'_i$ so that $Q'_i+Q'_{7-i}$ are equal for all $i$, while keeping $Q'_0+Q'_3+Q'_5+Q'_6\leq3\omega_c$ and $Q'_1+Q'_2+Q'_4+Q'_7\leq3\omega_c$. After this adjusting $Q'_i$ is normalized to give $q'_i$. It’s easy to see that $q'_i+q'_{7-i}=\omega'_c$ for all $i$ and
$$\omega'_{ns}/\omega'_c=\sum_{i=0}^{7}Q'_iP_i/\omega_c\geq\omega_{ns}/\omega_c.$$
Now without loss of generality, we assume that $\min q'_i=q'_7$. Because $Q'_0+Q'_3+Q'_5+Q'_6\leq3\omega_c$, $q'_0+q'_3+q'_5+q'_6\leq3\omega'_c$ and $q'_0\leq q'_1+q'_2+q'_4$.
If $(q'_1+q'_2+q'_4-q'_0)/2\leq\min (q'_1,q'_2,q'_4)$, we use the following inequalities:
$$\begin{aligned}
(q'_1+q'_2+q'_4-q'_0)/2 \times (P_0+P_1+P_2+P_4\leq1) \nonumber \\
(q'_1+q'_0-q'_2-q'_4)/2 \times (P_0+P_1+P_3+P_5\leq1) \nonumber \\
(q'_2+q'_0-q'_1-q'_4)/2 \times (P_0+P_2+P_3+P_6\leq1) \nonumber \\
(q'_4+q'_0-q'_1-q'_2)/2 \times (P_0+P_4+P_5+P_6\leq1) \nonumber \\
(q'_7) \times (P_3+P_5+P_6+P_7\leq1) \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$
It can be easily verified that all coefficients are non-negative. Adding all of these together and we get $$\begin{aligned}
q'_0P_0+q'_1P_1+q'_2P_2+q'_4P_4+(q'_0+q'_7-q'_4)P_3 \nonumber \\
+(q'_0+q'_7-q'_2)P_5+(q'_0+q'_7-q'_1)P_6+q'_7P_7 \nonumber \\
\leq q'_0+q'_7.\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, if $(q'_1+q'_2+q'_4-q'_0)/2\geq\min (q'_1,q'_2,q'_4)$, without the loss of generality we set $\min (q'_1,q'_2,q'_4)=q'_1$, then we use the following inequalities:
$$\begin{aligned}
q'_1 \times (P_0+P_1+P_2+P_4\leq1) \nonumber \\
(q'_2+q'_4-q'_1-q'_0) \times (P_0+P_2+P_4+P_6\leq1) \nonumber \\
(q'_0-q'_4) \times (P_0+P_2+P_3+P_6\leq1) \nonumber \\
(q'_0-q'_2) \times (P_0+P_4+P_5+P_6\leq1) \nonumber \\
(q'_7) \times (P_3+P_5+P_6+P_7\leq1) \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$
Adding all of these together and we get $$\begin{aligned}
q'_0P_0+q'_1P_1+q'_2P_2+q'_4P_4+(q'_0+q'_7-q'_4)P_3 \nonumber \\
+(q'_0+q'_7-q'_2)P_5+(q'_0+q'_7-q'_1)P_6+q'_7P_7 \nonumber \\
\leq q'_0+q'_7,\end{aligned}$$ the same as the previous one.
By using $q'_i+q'_{7-i}=\omega'_c$ we get $$\omega'_{ns}\leq\omega'_c.$$
Putting everything together, we have
$$\max \frac{\omega_{ns}}{\omega_c}=\max (1,\frac{q_0+q_3+q_5+q_6}{3\omega_c},\frac{q_1+q_2+q_4+q_7}{3\omega_c}),$$
which completes the proof.
By studying the no-signaling equalities, we will find multipartite no-signaling correlations that violate the quantum bound. On the one hand, we may wonder whether no-signaling theories other than quantum mechanics are necessary and this will motivate us to explore how much quantum mechanics can be violated by no-signaling correlations, as we have already done. On the other hand, it is also an interesting question what additional principles we need to constrain no-signaling theories down to quantum mechanics.
Here, we show explicitly that if we use the Local Orthogonality (LO) restrictions [@Fritz], we will recover the common boundary of classical and quantum mechanics:
$$\max \frac{\omega_{LO}}{\omega_c}=1,$$
which means that LO inequalities are complete for this input-undetermined GYNI problem. The proof is straightforward: LO adds two new inequalities, $P_0+P_3+P_5+P_6\leq1$ and $P_1+P_2+P_4+P_7\leq1$ to the list of inequalities. By the previous proof we only need to consider the case $q_0+q_3+q_5+q_6\geq3\omega_c$. Now we set $\min (q_0,q_3,q_5,q_6)=q_0$ without the loss of generality. Then we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{LO}=\sum_{i=0}^{7}q_iP_i\leq q_0+(q_1P_1+q_2P_2+(q_3-q_0)P_3 \nonumber \\
+q_4P_4+(q_5-q_0)P_5+(q_6-q_0)P_6+q_7P_7).\end{aligned}$$
Take $(0,q_1,q_2,q_3-q_0,q_4,q_5-q_0,q_6-q_0,q_7)$ as a new input distribution, with classical winning probability $\omega_c-q_0$ and the relationship $q_3+q_5+q_6-3q_0\leq3\omega_c-3q_0=3(\omega_c-q_0)$. Using the same reasoning of the second part of the previous proof, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
q_1P_1+q_2P_2+(q_3-q_0)P_3+q_4P_4 \nonumber \\
+(q_5-q_0)P_5+(q_6-q_0)P_6+q_7P_7\leq\omega_c-q_0,\end{aligned}$$
which means that $\omega_{LO}\leq\omega_c$.
As we already know that $\omega_c$ is reachable, we conclude that LO will close completely the gap between no-signaling and quantum. This fact is proven for tripartite state with arbitrary probability distributions, extending the results of fixed input distributions found in Ref [@Fritz].
[99]{}
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. [**47**]{}, 777 (1935).
M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2000).
A. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 661 (1991).
C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Josza, A. Peres, and W. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1895 (1993).
D. Bouwmeester, J. W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Nature [**390**]{}, 6660 (1997).
A. Furusawa, J. L. Sorensen, S. L. Braunstein, C. A. Fuchs, H. J. Kimble, and E. S. Polzik, Science [**282**]{}, 5389 (1998).
J. D. Bancal, S. Pironio, A. Acín, Y. C. Liang, V. Scarani, and N. Gisin, Nature Phys. [**8**]{}, 867 (2012).
M. Pawlowski, T. Paterek, D. Kaszlikowski, V. Scarani, A. Winter, and M. Zukowski, Nature [**461**]{}, 1101 (2009).
C. Brukner, Nature Physics [**10**]{}, 259 (2014).
J. S. Bell, Physics [**1**]{}, 195 (1964).
N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, arXiv:1303.2849 (2013).
A. J. Leggett and A. Garg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{}, 857 (1985).
B. S. Tsirelson, Lett. Math. Phys. 4, 93¨C100 (1980).
W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 2245 (1998).
L. Henderson and V. Vedral, J. Phys. A-Math. Gen. [**34**]{}, 6899 (2001).
H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 017901 (2001).
K. Modi, A. Brodutch, H. Cable, T. Paterek, and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**84**]{}, 1655 (2012).
R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**81**]{}, 865 (2009).
L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**80**]{}, 517 (2008).
J. Cui, M. Gu, L. C. Kwek, M. F. Santos, H. Fan, and V. Vedral, Nature Commun. [**3**]{}, 812 (2012).
N. Linden, S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 180502 (2007).
M. Navascués, S. Pironio, A. Acín, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 010401 (2007).
H. Barnum, S. Beigi, S. Boixo, M. B. Elliott, and S. Wehner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 140401 (2010).
A. Acín, R. Augusiak, D. Cavalcanti, C. Hadley, J. K. Korbicz, M. Lewenstein, Ll. Masanes, and M. Piani, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 140404 (2010).
S. Popescu and R. Rohrlich, Found. Phys. [**24**]{}, 379 (1994).
S. Popescu, Nature Physics [**10**]{}, 264 (2014).
M. L. Almeida, J. D. Bancal, N. Brunner, A. Acín, N. Gisin, and S. Pironio, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 230404 (2010).
A. Winter, Nature [**466**]{}, 1053 (2010).
A. Acín, M. L. Almeida, R. Augusiak, and N. Brunner, arXiv:1205.3076 (2012).
T. Fritz, A. B. Sainz, R. Augusiak, J. B. Brask, R. Chaves, A. Leverrier, and A. Acín, Nature Commun. [**4**]{}, 2263 (2013).
R. Gallego, L. E. Würflinger, A. Acín, and M. Navascués, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 210403 (2011).
T. H. Yang, D. Cavalcanti, M. L. Almeida, C. Teo, and V. Scarani, New J. Phys. [**14**]{}, 013061 (2012).
S. Pironio, J. D. Bancal, and V. Scarani, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**44**]{}, 065303 (2011).
R. Augusiak, T. Fritz, Ma. Kotowski, Mi. Kotowski, M. Pawlowski, M. Lewenstein, and A. Acín, Phys. Rev. A [**85**]{}, 042113 (2012).
R. Augusiak, J. Stasińska, C. Hadley, J. K. Korbicz, M. Lewenstein, and A. Acín, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 070401 (2011).
A. Acín, A. Andrianov, L. Costa, E. Jané, J. I. Latorre, and R. Tarrach, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 1560 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The class of antiperovskite compounds $A_3B$O ($A$ = Ca, Sr, Ba; $B$ = Sn, Pb) has attracted interest as a candidate 3D Dirac system with topological surface states protected by crystal symmetry. A key factor underlying the rich electronic structure of $A_3B$O is the unusual valence state of $B$, i.e., a formal oxidation state of $-4$. Practically, it is not obvious whether anionic $B$ can be stabilized in thin films, due to its unusual chemistry, as well as the polar surface of $A_3B$O, which may render the growth-front surface unstable. We report X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) measurements of single-crystalline films of Sr$_3$SnO and Sr$_3$PbO grown by molecular beam epitaxy (MBE). We observe shifts in the core-level binding energies that originate from anionic Sn and Pb, consistent with density functional theory (DFT) calculations. Near the surface, we observe additional signatures of neutral or cationic Sn and Pb, which may point to an electronic or atomic reconstruction with possible impact on putative topological surface states.'
author:
- 'D. Huang'
- 'H. Nakamura'
- 'K. Küster'
- 'A. Yaresko'
- 'D. Samal'
- 'N. B. M. Schröter'
- 'V. N. Strocov'
- 'U. Starke'
- 'H. Takagi'
title: 'Unusual Valence State in the Antiperovskites Sr$_3$SnO and Sr$_3$PbO Revealed by X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy'
---
Introduction
============
Complex oxides have long provided a rich platform to explore exotic electronic phases that emerge from the interplay of charge, spin and orbital degrees of freedom [@Imada_RMP_1998]. In recent years, efforts to engineer Dirac, Weyl and other topological semimetallic phases in these compounds have intensified [@Uchida_JPD_2018]. The effects of strong electronic correlations [@Fujioka_NatCommun_2019], magnetism [@Wan_PRB_2011] and interface reconstructions [@Hwang_NatMat_2012] in complex oxides are expected to enrich the topological phases that can be realized. Such investigations are facilitated by the ability to synthesize these compounds in thin-film heterostructures.
A pertinent example is the class of antiperovskites (or inverse perovskites) with chemical formula $A_3B$O, where $A$ is an alkaline earth metal (Ca, Sr or Ba) and $B$ is Sn or Pb. These compounds crystallize into the archetypal perovskite structure, but with the usual positions of the cations and anions exchanged \[Fig. \[Fig1\](a)\]. These antiperovskites have been predicted to host a unique set of electronic properties. According to rigorous classification, several members of this family are topological crystalline insulators [@Hsieh_PRB_2014] with type-I and type-II Dirac surface states [@Chiu_PRB_2017]. However, the actual band gap, which lies along the $\Gamma$-$X$ line at six equivalent points in the Brillouin zone (BZ), is only a few tens of millielectronvolts, such that in the vicinity of these points, there is a quasilinear 3D Dirac dispersion [@Kariyado_JPSJ_2011; @Kariyado_JPSJ_2012; @Kariyado_PRM_2017]. Experimentally, angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy [@Obata_PRB_2017], magnetotransport [@Suetsugu_PRB_2018; @Obata_PRB_2019] and nuclear magnetic resonance [@Kitagawa_PRB_2018] measurements have probed the possible 3D Dirac nature of the electrons in these compounds. Experiments have also revealed signatures of ferromagnetism arising from oxygen vacancies [@Lee_APL_2013; @Lee_MRS_2014], high thermoelectric performance [@Okamoto_JAP_2016], superconductivity arising from Sr vacancies [@Oudah_NatComm_2016; @Oudah_SciRep_2019] and weak antilocalization due to spin-orbital entanglement [@Nakamura_arXiv_2018].
![(a) Crystal structure of the antiperovskite Sr$_3$(Sn, Pb)O. The horizontal bars (red and blue) illustrate polar (001) planes. (b), (c) Band structure plots of Sr$_3$SnO and Sr$_3$PbO. The thickness of the orange (green/purple) line denotes the weight of the projection of the given state onto the Sr 4$d$ (Sn 5$p$/Pb 6$p$) orbitals.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](FIG1.pdf)
The rich electronic properties of the antiperovskites take as their fundamental origin the unusual valence state of $B$ (= Sn, Pb). In the ionic limit, the constituent elements of $A_3B$O would exist in the following oxidation states: $A^{2+}$, $B^{4-}$ and O$^{2-}$. We note that Bader analysis reveals that the effective charge of $B$ lies closer to $-$2 (see Section \[secDFT\]). Nevertheless, such a highly anionic state of $B$ implies that a large fraction of its outermost $p$-orbitals are occupied. This configuration produces an unusual situation in $A_3B$O, wherein the valence bands near the Fermi energy are dominated by $B$ $p$-orbitals and the conduction bands near the Fermi energy are dominated by $A$ $d$-orbitals (Figs. \[Fig1\](b), (c); refer to Section \[SecMet\] for details of the band structure calculations). Around $\Gamma$, there is a moderate inversion between the $B$ $p$-bands and $A$ $d$-bands. When interorbital hybridization and spin-orbit coupling are taken into account, the six equivalent band crossings at the Fermi energy are only slightly gapped, resulting in the approximate 3D Dirac semimetallic phase [@Kariyado_JPSJ_2011; @Kariyado_JPSJ_2012; @Kariyado_PRM_2017], as well as the topological crystalline insulating phase in some cases [@Hsieh_PRB_2014].
It is natural to ask whether anionic Sn or Pb can be actually stabilized in a thin film. Not only do these anionic states represent unusual chemistry, resulting in extreme air sensitivity, but the antiperovskites may also be prone to surface reconstruction. As illustrated in Fig. \[Fig1\](a), the (001) planes alternate between an overall oxidation state of $+2$ and $-2$, leading to a polar catastrophe at a surface [@Ohtomo_Nature_2004]. To alleviate a divergence in the electrostatic potential, it is possible that Sr vacancies form at the surface (analogous to O vacancies in oxide perovskites), and/or Sn and Pb shift to a more stable valence state (neutral or cationic) via electronic reconstruction. If so, this has profound implications on surface states [@Chiu_PRB_2017], similar to the case of the Kondo insulator SmB$_6$, whose polar surface has complicated the elucidation of its topological properties [@Zhu_PRL_2013].
Previous measurements of bulk Sr$_{3-x}$SnO crystals uncovered signatures of anionic Sn [@Oudah_SciRep_2019]. Using $^{119}$Sn Mössbauer spectroscopy, Oudah *et al.* observed an isomer shift of the main peak by $+$1.88 mm/s, matching that of Mg$_2$Sn, another compound in which Sn is formally $-$4. The situation in thin films, however, is less clear. Minohara *et al.* performed X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) measurements of Ca$_3$SnO films under ultra high vacuum (UHV) [@Minohara_JCG_2018]. The reported Sn 3$d_{5/2}$ spectrum showed a surface component corresponding to Sn$^{4+}$ or Sn$^{2+}$, as well as a bulk component, which they attributed to the antiperovskite phase. However, the bulk component had a binding energy of 484.8 eV, lying within the range expected for neutral Sn: 484.3-485.2 eV [@NIST]. Further investigation is needed to clarify the anionic state of Sn in thin films.
Here, we performed XPS measurements of Sr$_3$SnO and Sr$_3$PbO films grown by molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) and kept in UHV conditions. In the bulk, we observe peaks in the Sn 3$d$ and Pb 4$f$ core levels that lie at lower binding energies than those of cationic or neutral Sn and Pb. DFT calculations confirm that these shifts match predictions for anionic Sn (Pb) in Sr$_3$SnO (Sr$_3$PbO). At the surface, we find signatures of cationic and neutral Sn and Pb, consistent with the scenario of an atomic or electronic reconstruction at the surface.
Methods {#SecMet}
=======
Films of Sr$_3$SnO and Sr$_3$PbO with thickness $\sim$100 nm were grown in an Eiko MBE chamber with base pressure in the low $10^{-9}$ mbar range. The films were deposited on (001)-cut substrates of yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ), which were pre-coated at two opposite edges with Au or Nb for electrical grounding in XPS measurements. Elemental sources of Sr (99.9% purity from vendor, further refined in house by sublimation), Sn (99.999% purity) and Pb (99.999%) were thermally sublimated from effusion cells. A mixture of 2% O$_2$ in Ar gas was supplied through a leak valve (pressure range: $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-5}$ mbar). Since the samples reported in this work were grown at different times spanning a two-year period, different growth parameters were used in the course of optimizing film quality (example parameters can be found in Refs. [@Samal_APLM_2016; @Nakamura_arXiv_2018]). We will not focus on these systematic differences, but instead on the ubiquitous observation of an antiperovskite phase via XPS.
Following growth, the films were examined *in situ* using reflection high-energy electron diffraction (RHEED), then transferred in vacuum suitcases (Ferrovac GmbH; pressure range: low $10^{-10}$ mbar) for XPS measurements. We note that other films grown with identical conditions to these ones were capped with Au or Apiezon-N grease in an Ar glove box then characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD) and/or transport [@Samal_APLM_2016; @Nakamura_arXiv_2018].
XPS data were acquired at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research (MPI-FKF) in a system equipped with a commercial Kratos AXIS Ultra spectrometer and a monochromatized Al K$_{\alpha}$ source (photon energy: 1486.6 eV). The base pressure was in the low $10^{-10}$ mbar range. An analyzer pass energy of 20 eV was used to collected detailed spectra. In addition to the antiperovskite films, we measured reference spectra from a Sn film (grown using MBE, transported in a vacuum suitcase) and a Pb foil (cleaned *in situ* using Ar sputtering). The Sn film \[Fig. \[Fig3\](b)\] showed charging due to poor electrical grounding; in this instance, we used the Fermi edge to recalibrate the binding energy. We also performed low-energy electron diffraction (LEED) on our films in an adjoining chamber equipped with a commercial SPECS ErLEED 150 system.
XPS spectra were analyzed using the CasaXPS software. To fit the various peaks, we used multiple Gaussian-Lorentzian mixture functions on top of a Shirley background. To constrain our fitting parameters, we fixed the doublet spacing energy of Sn 3$d$, Sr 3$d$ and Pb 4$f$ to their literature values of 8.41 eV, 1.79 eV and 4.86 eV, respectively [@Moulder_1992]. We also constrained the area ratio of the doublets to 2:3 for $d$-core levels and 3:4 for $f$-core levels.
We also collected XPS data at grazing emission, which are more sensitive to the surface elemental composition. This allowed us to disentangle surface and bulk contributions in the XPS spectra. Similarly, for films measured at the ADRESS beamline of the Swiss Light Source (SLS) [@Strocov_JSR_2010; @Strocov_JSR_2014], we were able to control the surface sensitivity by tuning the photon energy (see Supplemental Material).
We performed DFT calculations using the Vienna *ab-initio* simulation package (`VASP`) [@Kresse_CMS_1996; @Kresse_PRB_1996], which implements the projector augmented-wave (PAW) method [@Bloch_PRB_1994; @Kresse_PRB_1999]. The following electrons were treated as valence: $3s3p4s$ in Ca, $4s4p5s$ in Sr, $5s5p6s$ in Ba, $5s4d5p$ in Sn, $6s5d6p$ in Pb and $2s2p$ in O. We used the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) as parameterized by Perdew, Burke and Ernzerhof (PBE) [@Perdew_PRL_1996]. An energy cutoff of 750 eV was used, along with a BZ sampling as dense as $28 \times 28 \times 28$ for the self-consistent calculation of the charge density. For the band structure calculations shown in Figs. \[Fig1\](b) and (c), spin-orbit coupling was included in an additional non-self-consistent cycle. We also performed Bader charge analysis. Estimates of core-level shifts, which we performed using both `VASP` and `PY LMTO`, will be discussed in Section \[secDFT\]. Atomic structures were visualized using `VESTA` [@Momma_JAC_2011].
Results and Discussion
======================
RHEED and LEED
--------------
Figures \[Fig2\](a), (b) show RHEED images acquired along the \[100\] direction of Sr$_3$SnO and Sr$_3$PbO, respectively. We note that the underlying YSZ substrate and a thin SrO buffer layer deposited prior to the antiperovskite are also cubic with similar lattice constants. However, they are forbidden by their crystal structure from exhibiting (0$l$) streaks with odd integer $l$. Hence, the appearance of the (01) streak establishes the existence of the target antiperovskite phase.
Figures \[Fig2\](c)-(e) and (f)-(h) show LEED images acquired at different energies for Sr$_3$SnO and Sr$_3$PbO, respectively. The square array of the diffraction spots is consistent with the antiperovskite crystal structure. In addition, the complex evolution of the structure factor as a function of electron energy is observed [@vanHove_1986]. In general, LEED images of Sr$_3$PbO exhibit brighter patterns than those of Sr$_3$SnO, and this is also reflected in the RHEED streaks. As discussed in the following two subsections, XPS measurements show that both the Sr$_3$SnO and Sr$_3$PbO films have a thin surface layer covering the bulk antiperovskite phase. The brighter RHEED/LEED images in Sr$_3$PbO may point to a thinner surface layer covering Sr$_3$PbO, or to the stronger scattering strength of Pb compared to Sn.
![(a), (b) RHEED images of Sr$_3$SnO (sample SS91) and Sr$_3$PbO (sample AP389) taken along the \[100\] direction. Electron energy: 15 keV. (c)-(e) LEED images of Sr$_3$SnO (sample SS60), acquired at 55 eV, 84 eV and 144 eV. (f)-(h) LEED images of Sr$_3$PbO (sample AP149), acquired at the same energies.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](FIG2.pdf)
Sr$_3$SnO XPS
-------------
Figure \[Fig3\](a) presents the Sn $3d$ spectrum of a Sr$_3$SnO film (SS91). As clearly seen, each of the spin-split levels ($3d_{3/2}$ and $3d_{5/2}$) exhibits two pronounced peaks, indicative of multiple Sn valence states. Using the fitting procedure described in Section \[SecMet\], we find that actually, a minimum of three Gaussian-Lorentzian mixture functions are required to fit each level. For the Sn 3$d_{5/2}$ level, the three peaks are centered at 483.87 eV, 484.79 eV and 486.03 eV \[Table \[T\_SS\]\]. We label these peaks as Sn$^A$, Sn$^B$ and Sn$^C$, respectively \[Fig. \[Fig3\](a)\].
![(a) XPS spectrum of the Sn 3$d_{3/2}$ and $3d_{5/2}$ doublet of Sr$_3$SnO (sample SS91), acquired at MPI-FKF with photon energy 1486.6 eV. The gray circles are the measured data, the black line is the overall fit and the green shaded areas are the individual peaks that constitute the fit. (b) A reference spectrum for a thin film of metallic Sn is shown for comparison with (a).[]{data-label="Fig3"}](FIG3.pdf)
[c|ccc]{} & Sn$^A$ \[eV\] & Sn$^B$ \[eV\] & Sn$^C$ \[eV\]\
SS60 \[Fig. \[Fig4\](b)\] & 483.82 & 484.72 & 486.02\
SS91 \[Fig. \[Fig3\](a)\] & 483.87 & 484.79 & 486.03\
\
& Sn$^0$ \[eV\] & &\
Sn film \[Fig. \[Fig3\](b)\] & 484.92\
\[T\_SS\]
To understand the origin of these peaks, we performed XPS measurements on a control sample, a thin film of Sn deposited on YSZ \[Fig. \[Fig3\](b)\]. The Sn 3$d_{5/2}$ level shows a sharp peak centered at 484.92 eV, closely matching the literature value for metallic Sn, 485.0 eV [@Moulder_1992]; we thus label this peak Sn$^0$. Comparing with the spectrum from Sr$_3$SnO \[Fig. \[Fig3\](a)\], we note that Sn$^0$ overlaps with Sn$^B$. Sn$^C$, with higher binding energy, matches literature values for SnO [@Moulder_1992]. Sn$^A$, with lower binding energy, could be assigned to the antiperovskite phase. Intuititively, Sn states with higher binding energy than Sn$^0$ (red line in Fig. \[Fig3\]) are cationic (positively charged), such that core electrons are less readily removed, whereas Sn states with lower binding energy than Sn$^0$ are anionic (negatively charged), such that core electrons are more readily removed. Indeed, XPS measurements of Ni$_3$Sn$_4$ electrodes for Li-ion batteries showed that when Sn was lithiated and therefore negatively charged, the 3$d_{5/2}$ peak corresponding to Sn$^0$ shifted to lower binding energies [@Ehinon_ChemMater_2008].
The dependence of the Sn $3d$ spectra on the emission angle of the electrons is shown in Fig. \[Fig4\] for another Sr$_3$SnO film (SS60). The spectrum obtained at grazing emission is more surface sensitive than that at normal emission. We observe that near the surface, Sn$^B$ and Sn$^C$ occupy a greater fraction of the total intensity than Sn$^A$ \[Fig. \[Fig4\](a)\]. Deeper into the bulk, however, Sn$^A$ is enhanced relative to Sn$^B$ and Sn$^C$ \[Fig. \[Fig4\](b)\]. Thus, the bulk phase of our film is characterized by Sn$^A$, consistent with anionic Sn in Sr$_3$SnO. Nevertheless, there is a surface layer in which Sn reverts to its neutral (Sn$^B$ $\sim$ Sn$^0$) and cationic (Sn$^C$ $\sim$ SnO) states, likely originating from the unstable polar (001) surface of Sr$_3$SnO. Since an electron with kinetic energy on the order of 1 keV has an inelastic mean free path on the order of 1 nm [@Powell_JVSTA_1999], we deduce the surface layer to have thickness less than 1 nm.
![Angle dependence: Sn $3d$ spectra of sample SS60, taken at (a) grazing (60$^{\circ}$ off normal) and (b) normal emission. Data were acquired at MPI-FKF with photon energy $h\nu$ = 1486.6 eV. []{data-label="Fig4"}](FIG4.pdf)
Sr$_3$PbO XPS
-------------
In essence, the XPS results of Sr$_3$PbO are similar to the Sr$_3$SnO results. Figure \[Fig5\](a) presents the overlapping Sr $3d$ and Pb $4f$ spectra of a Sr$_3$PbO film (AP337). Two Gaussian-Lorentzian mixture functions were required to fit the Pb 4$f$ levels, with peaks Pb$^A$ = 136.10 eV and Pb$^B$ = 137.32 eV \[Table \[T\_AP\]\]. To identify these peaks, we again performed XPS measurements on a control sample, a Pb foil cleaned *in situ* by Ar sputtering \[Fig. \[Fig5\](b)\]. The Pb 4$f_{7/2}$ level shows a pronounced peak centered at 136.86 eV, close to the literature value for metallic Pb, 136.9 eV [@Moulder_1992]; we thus label this peak Pb$^0$. There is also a residual peak at higher binding energies, 137.43 eV, which agrees with literature values for PbO$_2$ [@Moulder_1992]. Comparing with the data from Sr$_3$PbO \[Fig. \[Fig5\](a)\], we observe that Pb$^B$ overlaps with PbO$_2$, whereas Pb$^A$ is exclusive to the antiperovskite film. Its lower binding energy relative to Pb$^0$ indicates that it is anionic.
![(a) XPS spectrum of the Sr 3$d_{3/2}$ and 3$d_{5/2}$ doublet and the Pb 4$f_{5/2}$ and 4$f_{7/2}$ doublet of Sr$_3$PbO (sample AP337), acquired at MPI-FKF with photon energy 1486.6 eV. The gray circles are the measured data, the black line is the overall fit and the orange (purple) shaded areas are the individual Sr (Pb) peaks that constitute the fit. (b) A reference spectrum for a metallic Pb foil is shown for comparison with (a).[]{data-label="Fig5"}](FIG5.pdf)
[c|cc]{} & Pb$^A$ \[eV\] & Pb$^B$ \[eV\]\
AP149 \[Fig. \[Fig6\](b)\] & 136.10 & 137.42\
AP337 \[Fig. \[Fig5\](a)\] & 136.10 & 137.32\
\
& Pb$^0$ \[eV\] & PbO$_2$ \[eV\]\
Pb foil \[Fig. \[Fig5\](b)\] & 136.86 & 137.43\
\[T\_AP\]
Figure \[Fig6\] presents the angle dependence of the overlapping Sr 3$d$ and Pb 4$f$ spectra, along with fits, for sample AP149. At grazing emission, Pb$^B$ dominates the spectrum, but at normal emission, the intensity of Pb$^A$ is enhanced relative to Pb$^B$. Again, we conclude that the bulk phase of our film is characterized by Pb$^A$, which we assign to anionic Pb in Sr$_3$PbO, but in a thin surface layer, Pb reverts to its cationic state (Pb$^B$ $\sim$ PbO$_2$).
![Angle dependence: Sr 3$d$ and Pb 4$f$ spectra of sample AP149, taken at (a) grazing (60$^{\circ}$ off normal) and (b) normal emission. Data were acquired at MPI-FKF with photon energy $h\nu$ = 1486.6 eV.[]{data-label="Fig6"}](FIG6.pdf)
Density functional theory {#secDFT}
=========================
In this section, we use DFT to demonstrate that in the antiperovskite compounds $A_3B$O, $B$ (= Sn, Pb) does indeed carry a negative effective charge, consistent with the heuristic concept of formal oxidation states. Then we show that the XPS binding energy of the Sn$^A$ (Pb$^A$) peak in Sr$_3$SnO (Sr$_3$PbO) relative to the Sn$^0$ (Pb$^0$) peak in metallic Sn (Pb) matches predictions by DFT calculcations. This further confirms our assignment of the Sn$^A$ and Pb$^A$ peaks to the bulk antiperovskite phase at a quantitative level.
Effective charges
-----------------
While formal oxidation states are a useful construct when examining chemical bonding or electronic structure, they are not identical to the actual effective charges surrounding each atom. Generally, bonds in a crystal exhibit a greater degree of covalency than is expected in a pure ionic picture. To compute the effective charges, we used Bader’s method of partitioning the charge density via zero-flux surfaces [@Tang_JPCM_2009]. Table \[T\_Bader\] presents effective charges computed for various antiperovskites. The effective charge of $B$ (= Sn, Pb) averages around $-2$ across the compounds considered. Thus, while the effective charge is clearly lower than the value of $-4$ expected from formal oxidation states, it is still clear that $B$ is unusally anionic. We note a trend that as the size of $A$ increases from Ca to Sr to Ba, the effective charge of $B$ becomes less negative [@Kariyado_PRM_2017].
$A$ = Ca/Sr/Ba $B$ = Sn/Pb O
----------- ---------------- ------------- ---------
Ca$_3$SnO $+1.30$ $-2.38$ $-1.51$
Ca$_3$PbO $+1.29$ $-2.35$ $-1.52$
Sr$_3$SnO $+1.26$ $-2.30$ $-1.48$
Sr$_3$PbO $+1.25$ $-2.26$ $-1.48$
Ba$_3$SnO $+1.14$ $-1.98$ $-1.44$
Ba$_3$PbO $+1.12$ $-1.93$ $-1.44$
: Effective charges computed by Bader analysis for various antiperovskites $A_3B$O.
\[T\_Bader\]
Core-level shifts
-----------------
Experimentally, what XPS measures is neither the formal oxidation state nor the effective charge, but shifts in the core-level binding energies. We therefore used DFT to quantitatively confirm the shift towards lower binding energies for anionic $B$ relative to metallic $B$. To calculate the core-level binding energies ($E_c$), we worked within the initial state approximation, wherein a selected core electron is removed, but the remaining electrons are kept frozen [@Kohler_PRB_2004]. Then $E_c$ is simply given by the Kohn-Sham (KS) eigenvalue of the core electron ($\epsilon_c$), relative to the Fermi energy ($\epsilon_F$): $$E_c = -(\epsilon_c - \epsilon_F).$$ While final state effects, primarily the screening of the core hole, are neglected, the initial state approximation captures the chemical state of the atom as reflected in its valence charge configuration [@Bellafont_PCCP_2015].
In the PAW formalism of `VASP`, $\epsilon_c$ is computed in two steps [@Kohler_PRB_2004]: First, the core electrons are frozen and the valence charge density is computed via the normal, self-consistent electronic relaxation. Second, the KS eigenvalues for the core electrons are solved inside the PAW spheres while keeping the valence charge density fixed. As a check, we also performed all-electron PBE GGA calculations using the relativistic linear muffin-tin orbital (LMTO) method as implemented in the `PY LMTO` computer code. Here, spin-orbit coupling was included by solving the Dirac equations inside the atomic spheres. Some details of the implementation can be found in Ref. [@Antonov_2004].
The absolute values of $E_c$ as determined from the KS eigenvalues of DFT are typically 20-30 eV lower than the experimental values reported by XPS, due to a breakdown of Koopman’s theorem [@vanSetten_JCTC_2018]. However, DFT does provide meaningful values of $\Delta E_c$, the shift of the core-level binding energy between two systems. In a study, van Setten *et al.* demonstrated that for a set of molecules containing C, O, N or F, the mean absolute difference between $\Delta E_c$, as calculated from the KS eigenvalues, and the actual core-level shifts, as measured by XPS, was only 0.74 eV [@vanSetten_JCTC_2018].
To make a meaningful comparison with our data, we took metallic Sn ($\alpha$ allotrope, diamond structure) and metallic Pb (face-centered cubic) as our references. We calculated $\Delta E_{\textrm{Sn }3d}$ between Sr$_3$SnO and $\alpha$-Sn, and $\Delta E_{\textrm{Pb }4f}$ between Sr$_3$PbO and Pb. Dense BZ sampling and a high energy cutoff, as stated previously, were needed to converge the core-level binding energies within 1 meV. The results are shown in Table \[T\_CLS\], computed using the following experimental lattice constants: 5.139 Å for Sr$_3$SnO, 6.489 Å for $\alpha$-Sn, 5.151 Å for Sr$_3$PbO and 4.950 Å for Pb [@Nuss_ACSB_2015; @Thewlis_Nature_1954; @Bouad_JSSC_2003]. We note that in the case of $\Delta E_{\textrm{Sn }3d}$, there is a shift by $+0.12$ eV when the DFT-optimized lattice parameter is used, due to a discrepancy of 2.5% between the experimental and DFT-optimized lattice constants of $\alpha$-Sn. We also note that differences in $\Delta E_c$ arising from the use of the local density approximation (LDA) instead of GGA are within 0.1 eV.
DFT: $\Delta E_{\textrm{Sn }3d}$ \[eV\] DFT: $\Delta E_{\textrm{Pb }4f}$ \[eV\]
----------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
`VASP`: $-0.95$ `VASP`: $-0.79$
`PY LMTO`: $-1.14$ `PY LMTO`: $-0.98$
XPS: Sn$^A$ $-$ Sn$^0$ \[eV\] XPS: Pb$^A$ $-$ Pb$^0$ \[eV\]
SS60: $-1.10$ AP149: $-0.76$
SS91: $-1.05$ AP337: $-0.76$
: Comparison between DFT and XPS. The core-level shifts, as predicted by DFT, are given by $\Delta E_{\textrm{Sn }3d} = E_{\textrm{Sn }3d}(\textrm{Sr}_3\textrm{SnO}) - E_{\textrm{Sn }3d}(\alpha\textrm{-Sn})$ and $\Delta E_{\textrm{Pb }4f} = E_{\textrm{Pb }4f}(\textrm{Sr}_3\textrm{PbO}) - E_{\textrm{Pb }4f}(\textrm{Pb})$. Results from two different codes (`VASP` and `PY LMTO`) are shown. The core-level shifts, as measured by XPS, are given by the difference between the Sn$^A$ peak in Sr$_3$SnO and the Sn$^0$ peak in metallic Sn, or between the Pb$^A$ peak in Sr$_3$PbO and the Pb$^0$ peak in metallic Pb.
\[T\_CLS\]
Shown in Table \[T\_CLS\] are also the core-level shifts as measured by XPS. For the Sr$_3$SnO films, we took the difference between the Sn$^A$ peak, which we ascribed to the bulk antiperovskite phase, and the Sn$^0$ peak in the reference Sn metal. Similarly, the difference between Pb$^A$ in Sr$_3$PbO and Pb$^0$ in Pb metal was used to derive the shift for Sr$_3$PbO. The DFT and XPS results for the core-level shifts show a very good agreement. Furthermore, in both theory and experiment, the magnitude of the shift is larger in Sn 3$d$ compared to Pb 4$f$. Hence, we conclude again with additional confirmation that the Sn$^A$ (Pb$^A$) peak corresponds to anionic Sn (Pb) in Sr$_3$SnO (Sr$_3$PbO).
Summary
=======
In this work, we have investigated the antiperovskites Sr$_3$SnO and Sr$_3$PbO, whose predicted topological crystalline insulating phase and approximate 3D Dirac semimetallic phase hinge upon the stabilization of Sn and Pb in an unusual anionic state ($\sim$$-2$ according to Bader charge analysis). Our XPS measurements, along with DFT calculations, confirm that anionic Sn and Pb do indeed exist in thin films of Sr$_3$SnO and Sr$_3$PbO. Interestingly though, we observed signatures of cationic or neutral Sn and Pb distributed at the surface of the films. This suggests that the polar (001) surface of these antiperovskites is susceptible to a reconstruction wherein the valence states of Sn and Pb are altered. Such a modification is likely to have drastic impact on the surface electronic structure. We suggest using scanning tunneling microscopy to elucidate the nature of potential surface reconstruction (electronic or atomic) and its effects on putatitve topological surface states.
We thank U. Wedig for helpful discussions. We also thank M. Konuma, C. Mühle, K. Pflaum, S. Prill-Diemer and S. Schmid for technical assistance at MPI-FKF. We acknowledge the Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland for provision of synchrotron radiation beamtime at the ADRESS beamline of the SLS. D. H. acknowledges support from a Humboldt Research Fellowship for Postdoctoral Researchers. N. B. M. S acknowledges partial financial support from Microsoft.
[45]{}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 [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1039) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aaaf00) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08149-y) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.205101) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3223) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.081112) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.035151) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.80.083704) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.81.064701) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.1.061201) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.155109) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.115203) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.99.115133) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.100503) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4820770) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1557/mrc.2014.4) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4952393) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13617) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38403-8) @noop [ ]{} [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02308) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.216402) [****, ()](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022024818303877) @noop () [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4955213) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1107/S0909049510019862) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600577513019085) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1016/0927-0256(96)00008-0) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.54.11169) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.50.17953) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1758) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889811038970) @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1021/cm8006099) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1116/1.581784) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/21/8/084204) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.70.165405) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1039/C4CP05434B) [**](https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-1906-8) () [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.7b01192) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1107/S2052520615006150) [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/1741011a0) [****, ()](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022459603000173)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the “one and one-half" dimensional Vlasov-Maxwell-Fokker-Planck system and obtain the first results concerning well-posedness of solutions. Specifically, we prove the global-in-time existence and uniqueness in the large of classical solutions to the Cauchy problem and a gain in regularity of the distribution function in its momentum argument.'
author:
- 'Stephen Pankavich [^1]'
- 'Jack Schaeffer[^2]'
title: 'GLOBAL CLASSICAL SOLUTIONS OF THE “ONE AND ONE-HALF" DIMENSIONAL VLASOV-MAXWELL-FOKKER-PLANCK SYSTEM[^3]'
---
\
Introduction
============
From a mathematical perspective, the fundamental non-relativistic equations which describe the time evolution of a collisionless plasma are given by the Vlasov-Maxwell system:
(VM) $\left\{ \begin{array}{c} \partial_t f + v\cdot \nabla_x f + (E+v\times B) \cdot \nabla_v f = 0\\
\rho(t,x) = \dint\, f(t,x,v)\, dv,\ \ j(t,x) = \dint vf(t,x,v)\, dv\\
\partial_t E = \nabla \times B-j,\ \ \ \nabla \cdot E = \rho\\
\partial_t B= - \nabla \times E,\ \ \ \ \nabla \cdot B = 0.
\end{array} \right.$
Here, $f$ represents the distribution of (positively-charged) ions in the plasma, while $\rho$ and $j$ are the charge and current density, and $E$ and $B$ represent electric and magnetic fields generated by the charge and current. The independent variables, $t \geq 0$ and $x,v \in \mathbb{R}^3$ represent time, position, and momentum, respectively, and physical constants, such as the charge and mass of particles, as well as the speed of light, have been normalized to one.
In order to include collisions of particles with a background medium in the physical formulation, a diffusive term is added to the Vlasov equation in (VM). With this, the referred to as the Vlasov-Maxwell-Fokker-Planck . Since basic questions of well-posedness remain unknown even in lower dimensions, we study a dimensionally-reduced version of this model for which $x \in \mathbb{R}$ and $v \in \mathbb{R}^2$, the so-called “one and one-half dimensional" analogue, given by
(VMFP) $\left\{ \begin{array}{c} \partial_tf+v_1\partial_xf + K\cdot \nabla_v f = \Delta_v f\\
K_1 = E_1 + v_2B,\ \ \ K_2 = E_2 - v_1B\\
\rho(t,x) = \dint \, f(t,x,v)\,dv - \phi(x), \ \ \ j(t,x) = \dint \, vf(t,x,v)\,dv\\
\partial_tE_2 = -\partial_x B-j_2,\ \ \partial_t B = - \partial_xE_2,\ \ \partial_x E_1 = \rho,\ \ \partial_tE_1 = -j_1.\end{array}\right.$
This system is the lowest-dimensional analogue that one may study and include electromagnetic effects, as imposing $v \in \mathbb{R}$ changes the model into the one-dimensional Vlasov-Poisson system. In (VMFP) we assume a single species of particles described by $f(t,x,v)$ in the presence of a given, fixed background $\phi \in C^1(\mathbb{R}) \cap H^1(\mathbb{R}) \cap L^1(\mathbb{R})$ that is neutralizing in the sense that
$$\dint\phi (x)\, dx = \diint f(0,x,v) \, dv\,dx.$$
The electric and magnetic fields are given by $E(t,x)=\langle E_1(t,x), E_2(t,x)\rangle$ and $B(t,x)$, respectively. For initial data we take a nonnegative particle density $f^0$ with bounded moments $v^b_0\partial^k_x f^0 \in L^2 (\mathbb{R}^3)$, along with fields $E^0_2,B^0\in H^1(\mathbb{R})$. Additionally, we specify data for $E_1$, namely
($E_1DAT$) $ E_1 (0,x) = \dint^x_{-\infty} \left(\dint f^0 (y,w)\, dw - \phi(y)\right)\, dy.$
In fact, this particular choice of data for $E_1$ is the only one which leads to a solution possessing finite energy (see [@5] and [@12]). The inclusion of the neutralizing density $\phi$ is also necessary in order to arrive at finite energy solutions for (VMFP) with a single species of ion.
The analysis of (VM) has seen some progress in recent decades. For instance, the global existence of weak solutions, which also holds for the relativistic system (RVM), was shown in [@3]. Unlike its relativistic analogue, however, no results currently exist that ensure global existence of classical solutions. Hence, the current work is focused in this direction. Alternatively, a wide array of results have been obtained for the electrostatic simplification of (VM) – the Vlasov-Poisson system, obtained by taking $B \equiv 0$ within the model. The Vlasov-Poisson system does not include magnetic effects, and the electric field is given by an elliptic equation rather than a system of hyperbolic PDEs. This simplification has led to a great deal of progress concerning the electrostatic system, including theorems regarding the well-posedness of solutions [@10; @11; @14; @15]. The book [@6] can provide a general reference to information concerning kinetic equations of plasma dynamics, including (VM) and (VMFP).
Independent of these advances, many of the most basic existence and regularity questions remain unsolved for (VMFP). For much of the existence theory for collisionless models, one is mainly focused on bounding the velocity support of the distribution function $f$, assuming that $f^0$ possess compact momentum support, as this condition has been shown to imply global existence [@7]. Hence, one of the main difficulties which arises for (VMFP) is the introduction of particles that are propagated with arbitrarily large momenta, stemming from the inclusion of the diffusive Fokker-Planck operator. Thus, the momentum support is necessarily unbounded and many known tools are unavailable. Though the $v$-support of the distribution function is not bounded, we are able to overcome this issue by controlling large enough moments of the distribution to guarantee sufficient decay of $f$ in its momentum argument. This also allows us to control nonlinear terms that arise within derivative estimates. As an additional difference arising from the Fokker-Planck operator, we note that when studying collisionless systems, in which $\Delta_v f$ is omitted, $L^{\infty}$ is typically the proper space in which to estimate both the particle distribution and the fields. With the addition of the diffusion operator, though, the natural space in which to estimate $f$ is now $L^2$. Thus, to take advantage of the gain in regularity that should result from the Fokker-Planck term, we iterate in a weighted $L^2$ setting. Other crucial features which appear include conservation of mass, and the symmetry of the diffusive operator. The main advantage of the diffusion operator is that it allows one to estimate spatial derivatives of the density in $L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ independent of the momentum derivatives. This is not true for the Vlasov-Maxwell system, which is conservative rather than dissipative. Additionally, the Laplacian allows the particle distribution to gain regularity in its momentum argument in comparison to its initial data. Finally, we note that our methods utilize an extra conservation law arising from the structure of the one-and-one-half dimensional system in order to bound the electric and magnetic fields. Hence, they do not immediately apply to higher-dimensional analogues of (VMFP), though many of the other ideas presented below will likely be useful in the two, two-and-one-half, and three dimensional settings.
Though this is the first investigation of the well-posedness of (VMFP) in the large, others have studied Vlasov-Maxwell models incorporating a Fokker-Planck term for small initial data. Both Yu and Yang [@17] and Chae [@1] constructed global classical solutions to the three-dimensional Vlasov-Maxwell-Fokker-Planck system for initial data sufficiently close to Maxwellian using Kawashima estimates and the well-known energy method. Additionally, Lai [@8; @9] arrived at a similar result for a one and one-half dimensional “relativistic" Vlasov-Maxwell-Fokker-Planck system using classical estimates. The system in this work features a relativistic transport term, but still utilizes the Laplacian $\Delta_v$ as the Fokker-Planck term. We note that the relativistic transport operator yields an extremely beneficial result, known as the cone estimate , whereas the non-relativistic transport within (VMFP) does not. Thus, one essential component of the current paper is to overcome the lack of bounds on energy inside the light cone. Finally, we mention [@12], which arrived at similar results to our own but studied the relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell system with a Lorentz-invariant diffusion operator. While we utilize some of the tools introduced within [@12], and related articles [@4; @13], we also introduce a number of new methods to overcome the loss of the cone estimate, finite speed of propagation, and [*a priori*]{} field bounds in order to arrive at the first large data global classical solutions to (VMFP) set in any dimension, see Theorem 1.2 below. First we state a local existence theorem:
Let $a > 8$ and $\varepsilon > 0$ and denote
$$v_0 = \sqrt{1+|v|^2}.$$
Assume that $\phi \in C^1(\mathbb{R}) \cap H^1(\mathbb{R}) \cap L^1(\mathbb{R})$. Assume that $f^0$ is continuous, nonnegative, and bounded and possesses a partial derivative with respect to $x$ such that
$$\diint v^{a+2+\varepsilon}_0 (f^0)^2 \,dv\,dx + \diint v^{a-2+\varepsilon}_0 (\partial_xf^0)^2 \, dv\,dx$$
is finite. Assume that $E^0_2, B^0 \in C^1(\mathbb{R}) \cap H^1(\mathbb{R})$. Then there is $T > 0$ depending only on
$$\diint \left[v^{a+2+\varepsilon}_0 (f^0)^2 + v^{a-2 + \varepsilon}_0 (\partial_x f^0)^2\right] \, dv\,dx + \| E^0_2\|^2_{H^1} + \|B^0\|^2_{H_1},$$
$f \in C([0,T] \times \mathbb{R}^3) \cap C^1((0,T] \times \mathbb{R}^3)$ with second order partial derivatives with respect to $v_1,v_2$ that are continuous on $(0,T] \times \mathbb{R}^3$, and $(E,B) \in C^1([0,T] \times \mathbb{R})$ for which (VMFP) holds, $(E_1DAT)$ holds, and
$$\left.(f,E_2,B)\right|_{t=0} = (f^0,E^0_2, B^0).$$
Moreover, $f$ is nonnegative and bounded, and
$$\diint \left[ v^{a+2 + \varepsilon}_0 f^2+v^{a-2+\varepsilon}_0 (\partial_x f)^2 \right] \, dv\,dx + \|E(t)\|_{H^1} + \|B(t)\|_{H^1}$$
is bounded on $[0,T]$. Lastly, the above solution is unique.
Note that $f^0$ is not assumed to be smooth in $v$. Now we may state the main result:
In addition to the hypotheses of Theorem 1.1, assume that $E_2^0, B^0\in L^1(\mathbb{R})$ and $v^{\delta}_0 f^0 \in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^3)$ for some $\delta > a + 2 + \varepsilon$, and $v^2_0f^0 \in L^1 (\mathbb{R}^3)$. Then, the local solution of Theorem 1.1 may be extended to $[0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}^3$.
We note that Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 can be altered to accommodate a friction term. In the model with friction, the Vlasov equation is changed to
$$\partial_t f + v_1\partial_x + k \cdot \nabla_v f = \nabla_v \cdot (\nabla_vf + vf).$$
The new term is lower order and does not change the result.
As additional evidence of the gain in regularity in $v$ we also state:
Assume the hypotheses of Theorem 1.2 hold. Then for all $t > 0$
$$\diint \left( f^2 + t \left| \nabla_v f \right|^2 + \dfrac{1}{2} t^2 \left|\nabla^2_v f\right|^2 \right) \, dv\,dx \leq C_t.$$
This paper proceeds as follows. The proof of Theorem 1.1 is postponed to Section 4 and Sections 2 and 3 assume the result of this theorem. In Section 2 we state six lemmas and show how Theorem 1.2 follows from them. The proofs of these lemmas and Proposition 1.3 are Section 3.
Throughout the paper $C$ denotes a positive generic constant that may change from line to line. When necessary, we will specifically identify the quantities upon which $C$ may depend. Regarding norms, we will abuse notation and allow the reader to differentiate certain norms via context. For instance $\|f(t)\|_{\infty} = \underset{x\in \mathbb{R},v\in \mathbb{R}^2}{\sup} \left| f(t,x,v)\right|$ whereas $\|B(t)\|_{\infty} = \underset{x \in \mathbb{R}}{\sup} \left| B(t,x)\right|$, with analogous statements for $\| \cdot \|_2$ and $< \cdot,\cdot>$ which denote the $L^2$ norm and inner product, respectively.
Global Existence
================
Throughout this section we assume the hypotheses of Theorem 1.1 hold. Let $T$ be the maximal time of existence and, in order to prove Theorem 1.2 by contradiction, assume $T$ is finite.
To begin, we will first prove a result that will allow us to estimate the particle density and its moments. When studying collisionless kinetic equations, one often wishes to integrate along the Vlasov characteristics in order to derive estimates. However, the appearance of the Fokker-Planck term changes the structure of the operator in (VMFP), and the values of the distribution function are not conserved along such curves. Hence, the following lemma (similar to that of [@2]) will be utilized to estimate the particle distribution in such situations.
Let $g \in L^1((0,T),L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^3))$ and $h_0 \in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^3) \cap L^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ be given. Let $F(t,x,v)=\mathcal{F}(t,x,v)+\mathcal{B}(t,x)\langle v_2,-v_1\rangle$ be given with $\mathcal{F} \in W^{1,\infty} ((0,T) \times \mathbb{R}^3;\mathbb{R}^2)$ and $\mathcal{B} \in W^{1,\infty} ((0,T) \times \mathbb{R};\mathbb{R})$. Assume $h(t,x,v)$ is a weak solution of
{
[rcc]{}[L]{}h & =&\_th +v\_1 \_xh + F(t,x,v) \_v h - \_v h = g(t,x,v)\
\
&& h(0,x,v) = h\_0 (x,v)
. \[E2.1\]
so that $h \in L^2((0,T) \times \mathbb{R}; H^1(\mathbb{R}^2))$ satisfies
$$\begin{gathered} \int_0^T \iint \biggl [ h \left ( -\partial_t \phi - v_1 \partial_x \phi \right ) + \nabla_v h \cdot \left ( F \phi + \nabla_v \phi \right ) - g\phi \biggr ] dv dx dt\\ - \iint h_0(x,v) \phi(0,x,v) dv dx = 0
\end{gathered}$$
for every $\phi \in \mathcal{D}([0,T) \times \mathbb{R}^3)$. Then, for every $t \in [0,T]$
$$\|h(t)\|_{\infty} \leq \|h_0 \|_{\infty} + \dint^t_0 \|g(s)\|_{\infty} \, ds.$$
Another useful tool will be the conservation of mass and energy growth identities, which we establish in the next result.
[(Conservation Laws).]{} Assume $v^2_0 f^0 \in L^1 (\mathbb{R}^3)$. Then, for every $t\in [0,T)$,
$$\|f(t)\|_1 = \|f^0\|_1$$
and
$$\diint |v|^2 f(t,x,v) \, dv\,dx + \dint(|E|^2 + B^2) dx \leq C(1+t).$$
Next, we state a lemma that will allow us to control $v_2$ moments of the particle distribution.
[(Propagation of $v_2$-moments).]{} Let $p \in [0,\infty)$ be given and assume the hypotheses of Lemma 2.2 with $E_2^0, B^0 \in L^1(\mathbb{R}).$ Let $R(s) = \sqrt{1+s^2}$. If $\|R(v_2)^p f^0\|_{\infty} < \infty$, then for any $t \in [0,T)$
$$\| R(v_2)^p f(t)\|_{\infty} < C_T.$$
With control of velocities in the $v_2$ direction, we are able to control the induced electric and magnetic fields. Bounds on moments of the particle density then follow from this result.
[(Control of fields and moments).]{} Assume there is $\delta > 4$ such that $v^{\delta}_0 f^0 \in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^3), v^2_0 f^0 \in L^1(\mathbb{R}^3)$, and $B^0 \in L^1 (\mathbb{R})$. Then, for any $t \in [0,T)$
v\^\_0 f(t)\_ C\_T, \[e2.2\]
E(t)\_ + B(t)\_ C\_T, \[E2.3\]
and
v\^[- 2]{}\_0 f(t) dv \_ C\_T \[E2.4\]
for any $\beta \in [0,\delta)$.
Thus, once control of the fields is obtained, any higher moment of the particle distribution function can be controlled as well, assuming that the initial distribution possesses the same property. Next, we utilize energy estimates to bound the density and its derivatives in $L^2 (\mathbb{R}^3)$.
Assume the hypotheses of Lemma 2.4 hold, then for every $t \in (0,T]$
$$\dfrac{d}{dt} \|f(t)\|^2_2 = -2 \|\nabla_v f(t)\|^2_2$$
and thus
$$\|f(t)\|_2 \leq \|f^0\|_2.$$
If additionally, $v^{\gamma}_0 f^0 \in L^2 (\mathbb{R}^3)$ for some $\gamma > 0$, then
$$\dfrac{d}{dt} \|v^{\gamma}_0 f(t)\|^2_2 \leq C_T \|v^{\gamma}_0 f(t)\|^2_2 - 2 \| v^{\gamma}_0 \nabla_vf(t)\|^2_2$$
and thus
$$\|v^{\gamma}_0 f(t) \|_2 \leq C_T$$
for every $t \in [0,T)$.
Assume the hypotheses of Lemma 2.4 hold with $\delta > 8$. Then for every $\gamma \in \left( 2, \dfrac{\delta - 4}{2} \right) \cap \left( 2, \dfrac{a - 2 + \varepsilon}{2} \right]$ and $ t \in [0,T)$ we have
$$\|v^{\gamma}_0 \partial_x f(t) \|_{L^2} + \| \partial_x E(t)\|_{L^2} + \| \partial_x B(t)\|_{L^2} \leq C_T.$$
Now we may prove Theorem 1.2. Applying Lemma 2.5 with $\gamma = \dfrac{a+2+\varepsilon}{2}$ yields
$$\diint v^{a+2+\varepsilon}_0 f^2\, dv\,dx \leq C_T.$$
Applying Lemma 2.6 with $\gamma = \dfrac{a-2+\varepsilon}{2} $ yields
$$\diint v^{a-2+\varepsilon}_0 (\partial_x f)^2\, dv\,dx + \dint (|\partial_x E|^2 + (\partial_x B)^2)\, dx \leq C_T.$$
Also by Lemma 2.2
$$\dint(|E|^2 +B^2)\,dx \leq C_T.$$
Taking $(f(t),E_2(t), B(t))$ as an initial condition and applying Theorem 1.1 we find the solution may be extended to $[0,t+\change{\tau} ]$ with $\change{\tau} > C_T$. This contradicts the maximality of $T$ and completes the proof.
Proofs of Lemmas and Estimates
==============================
The first result (Lemma 2.1) is very close to a previous lemma [@12], in which this property was shown for the relativistic Fokker-Planck operator. One alteration necessary in the proof of \[12, Lemma 1\] is to change the relativistic velocity $\hat{v}_1$ to $v_1$, which does not affect the conclusion. Also, here $F$ is not in $L^{\infty}$, but $\nabla_v\cdot F=\nabla_v\cdot\mathcal{F}$ and the proof of \[12, Lemma 1\] still applies. Hence, we omit any additional details.
[\[Lemma 2.2\]]{} We begin with conservation of mass. Integrating the Vlasov equation over all $(x,v)$ we find
$$\dfrac{d}{dt} \diint f(t,x,v)\, dv\,dx = 0.$$
Thus, using the decay of $f^0$ we find for every $t \in [0,T)$
f(t,x,v) dv dx = f\^0 (x,v) dv dx < . \[E3.1\]
To arrive at the estimate of the total energy, we multiply the Vlasov equation by $|v|^2$ and integrate in $v$. The Fokker-Planck term becomes
$$\dint |v|^2 \Delta_v f\, dv = - \dint 2v \cdot \nabla_v f \, dv = 4 \dint f \, dv$$
after two integrations by parts. Hence, using the divergence structure of the Vlasov equation, we arrive at the local energy identity
\_t e + \_x m = 4f(t,x,v) dv \[E3.2\]
where
$$e(t,x) = \dint |v|^2 f(t,x,v) \, dv + (|E(t,x)|^2 + |B(t,x)|^2)$$
and
$$m(t,x) = \dint v_1 |v|^2 f(t,x,v) dv + 2 E_2 (t,x) B(t,x).$$
We integrate (\[E3.2\]) over all space to deduce the global energy identity
$$\dfrac{d}{dt} \dint e(t,x) dx = 4 \diint f^0 (x,v) \, dx\, dv$$
whence we find
$$\dint e(t,x)\, dx \leq C(1+t)$$
for all $t \in [0,T)$.
Now we utilize the conservation laws to prove Lemma 2.3.
[\[Lemma 2.3\]]{} We begin by bounding the potential associated to the electric and magnetic fields. By Lemma 2.2 we have
$$\int \vert j_2(t,x) \vert \, dx \leq C(1+t)$$
and hence
$$\left \vert \int \int_0^t j_2(\tau, y\pm (t-\tau)) \, d \tau dy \right \vert \leq \int_0^t \int \vert j_2(\tau, y \pm (t - \tau)) \vert \, dy d\tau \leq C(1+t)^2.$$
Since $B^0, E_2^0 \in L^1(\mathbb{R})$, it follows that
$$\int \vert B(t,x) \vert \ dx \leq C(1+t)^2$$
and we may define
$$A(t,x) = \dint^x_{-\infty} B(t,y) \, dy.$$
Note that $\partial_x A = B$ and $\partial_t A = -E_2$. Moreover, using Maxwell’s equations, we find
$$(\partial^2_t - \partial^2_x) A = j_2$$
and thus
A(t,x) = (A(0,x-t) + A(0, x+t)) + \^t\_0 \^[x+t-s]{}\_[x-t+s]{} v\_2 f(s,y,v) dv dy ds. \[E3.3\]
The $(x,v)$-integral can be bounded using Cauchy-Schwarz and Lemma 2.2 as
$$\begin{array}{rcl} \dint^{x+t-s}_{x-t+s} \dint v_2 f(s,y,v) \, dv dy & \leq & \left( \diint f(x,y,v)\, dv dy\right)^{1/2} \left( \diint v^2_2 f(x,y,v) \, dv dy\right)^{1/2}\\
\\
& \leq & \|f^0 \|^{1/2}_1 \left( \diint |v|^2 f(s,y,v) \, dv dy \right)^{1/2}\\
\\
& \leq & C(1+s)^{1/2}.
\end{array}$$
Hence, using the assumptions on initial data and integrating, we find
$$\|A(t)\|_{\infty} \leq C (1+t)^{3/2} \leq C_T.$$
Next, we utilize the identity
$$\partial_t A + v_1 \partial_x A = -E_2 + v_1B = -K_2$$
within the Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation. In particular, let $\psi \in C^2(\mathbb{R})$ be given and multiply this equation by $\psi (v_2 + A(t,x))$. Denoting the VFP operator by
$${\cal V}h:= \partial_th + v_1 \partial_xh + K \cdot \nabla_vh - \Delta_v h,$$
we find
((v\_2 +A)f) = - 2 ’ (v\_2 + A) \_[v\_2]{} f - ” (v\_2+A)f. \[E3.4\]
Next, define the function $R(x) = \sqrt{1+x^2}$. To prove the first assertion, we use $\psi (x) = R^p(x)$ within (\[E3.4\]) and derive the equation
$${\cal V}(R^p(v_2 + A)f) = -2 p(v_2 + A) R^{p-2} (v_2 + A) \partial_{v_2} f-p R^{p-4} (v_2+A)[1+(p-1)|v_2 + A|^2 ]f.$$
Using the identity
$$\partial_{v_2} f = R^{-p} (v_2 + A) \partial_{v_2} (R^p (v_2 + A) f) - p(v_2 +A)R^{-2} (v_2 + A)f$$
the right side becomes
$$-2p(v_2+A)R^{-2}(v_2+A)\partial_{v_2} (R^p(v_2 +A)f) + p R^{p-4} (v_2 + A) [ -1 + (p+1)|v_2 +A|^2]f.$$
Hence, if this first term is included within the VFP operator by defining
$$\overline{K} = K + \left\langle 0,2p \dfrac{v_2+A}{1+|v_2+A|^2} \right\rangle$$
to form the new operator $\overline{\cal V}$, we find
$$\overline{\cal V} (R^p(v_2+A)f) = pR^{p-4}(v_2+A) [-1 + (p+1)|v_2 + A|^2]f.$$
We note that the term on the right side satisfies
$$|pR^{p-4} (v_2 + A) [ -1 +(p+1) |v_2 + A|^2] f|\leq CR^{p-2} (v_2+A)f \leq CR^p(v_2+A) f.$$
We invoke Lemma 2.1 with $h = R^p (v_2+A)f$ and ${\cal L} = \overline{\cal V}$ so that
$$\|R^p(v_2+A(t))f (t) \|_{\infty} \leq \|R^p(v_2+A(0)) f^0 \|_{\infty} + C \dint^t_0 \| CR^p (v_2 + A(s))f(s)\|_{\infty}\, ds.$$
By Gronwall’s inequality we find
$$\|R^p (v_2 + A(t))f (t) \|_{\infty} \leq C_T$$
for $t \in [0,T)$. Finally, the previously established control of $\|A(t)\|_{\infty}$ yields the first result as for $p \geq 0$
$$\begin{array}{rcl} R^p(v_2)f(t,x,v) & = & (1+|v_2 + A(t,x) - A(t,x)|^2)^{p/2} f(t,x,v)\\
\\
& \leq & C (R^p(v_2+A(t,x)) + |A(t,x)|^p)f(t,x,v)\\
\\
& \leq & C\|R^p (v_2+A(t))f(t)\|_{\infty} + \| A(t)\|^p_{\infty} \|f(t)\|_{\infty}\\
\\
& \leq & C_T.
\end{array}$$
Hence, taking supremums we find
$$\|R^p(v_2)f(t)\|_{\infty} \leq C_T.$$
Using this result, we may bound the fields and moments of the distribution function.
[\[Lemma 2.4\]]{} We first bound $E_1$ using conservation of mass so that
$$\|E_1(t)\|_{\infty} = \underset{x \in \mathbb{R}}{\sup} \left| \dint^x_{-\infty} \left( \dint f(t,x,v)\, dv - \phi (x) \right) \, dx \right| \leq \diint f(t,x,v) \, dvdx + \|\phi\|_1 \leq C$$
Next, we estimate the other field components. Using the transported field equations, we find
(E\_2 B)(t,x) = (E\_2 B)(0,xt) - \^t\_0 v\_2 f(s,x (t-s),v) dvds. \[E3.5\]
Note that $E^0_2,B^0 \in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ by the Sobolev theorem. Thus, for any $\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2 > 0 $ we have
$$\begin{array}{rcl} |(E_2 \pm B)(t,x)| & \leq & C\left(1 + \dint^t_0 \dint R^{-(1+\varepsilon_1)} (v_1) \left[ R^{1+\varepsilon_1}(v_1) f^{\frac{1+\varepsilon_1}{\gamma}} (s,x \mp (t-s), v)\right]\right.\\
\\
& & \left. |v_2| R^{-(2+\varepsilon_2)} (v_2) \left[ R^{2+\varepsilon_2} (v_2) f^{1-\frac{1+\varepsilon_1}{\gamma}} (s,x \mp (t-s),v)\right]\, dvds \right)\\
\\
& \leq & C \left( 1+ \dint^t_0 \|R^{\gamma} (v_1) f(s)\|^{\frac{1+\varepsilon_1}{\gamma}}_{\infty} \| R^q (v_2) f(s) \|^{\frac{\gamma -(1+\varepsilon_1)}{\gamma}}_{\infty} \, ds \right)
\end{array}$$
where $q = \dfrac{(2+\varepsilon_2)\gamma}{\gamma - (1+\varepsilon_1)}$. We choose $\gamma > 1 + \varepsilon_1$ and note that $\delta > 4$ ensures that we may also choose $q \leq \gamma \leq \delta$. Define the function
$$F(t) := \underset{s \in[0,t]}{\sup} \|v^{\gamma}_0 f(s)\|_{\infty}.$$
Invoking Lemma 2.3 with $p = q$ we find
[rcl]{} (E\_2 B)(t)\_& & C\_T ( 1 + \^ )\
\
& & C\_T (1+F(t)\^).
\[E3.6\]
Using the identity
$$E_2(t,x) = \dfrac{1}{2} ([E_2(t,x) + B(t,x)] + [E_2(t,x)-B(t,x)])$$
we see that the same bound holds for $\|E_2(t)\|_{\infty}.$
Next, we multiply VFP by $v^{\gamma}_0$ and use the same method as in the proof of Lemma 2.3 to derive the equation
(v\^\_0 f) = v\^[- 2]{}\_0 (v E) f-2v\^[-2]{}\_0 v \_v (v\^\_0 f) + (|v|\^2 -2)v\^[-4]{}\_0 f. \[E3.7\]
If the second term on the right side is included within the VFP operator by defining
$$\overline{K} = K + 2 \gamma \dfrac{v}{1+|v|^2}$$
to form the new operator $\overline{\cal V}$, we find
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\overline{\cal V} (v^{\gamma}_0 f)& = & \gamma v^{\gamma -2}_0 (v \cdot E) f + \gamma(\gamma|v|^2-2) v^{\gamma -4}_0 f\\
\\
& =: & I + II. \end{array}$$
Clearly,
$$II \leq C \| v^{\gamma - 2}_0 f(t)\|_{\infty} \leq C \|v^{\gamma}_0 f(t) \|_{\infty} \leq CF(t).$$
Estimating $I$ requires the field estimates, which yield
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
I & \leq & C v^{\gamma -2}_0 (|v_1| + |v_2| \cdot \|E_2(t)\|_{\infty})f\\
\\
& \leq & C \left( \|v^{\gamma -1}_0 f(t) \|_{\infty} + C_T \||v_2|^{\frac{\gamma}{2}} f(t)\|^{\frac{2}{\gamma}}_{\infty}
\|v^{\gamma}_0 f(t) \|^{1-\frac{2}{\gamma}}_{\infty} \left(1 + F(t)^{\frac{1+\varepsilon_1}{\gamma}} \right) \right) \\
\\
& \leq & C_T \left( F(t) + F(t)^{\frac{\gamma - 2}{\gamma}} + F(t)^{\frac{\gamma -1 + \varepsilon_1}{\gamma}}\right)
\end{array}$$
since $ \gamma/2 \leq \delta$. We combine these estimates and invoke Lemma 2.1 with $h = v^{\gamma}_0 f$ and ${\cal L} = \overline{\cal V}$ so that
$$\|v^{\gamma}_0 f(t) \|_{\infty} \leq \|v^{\gamma}_0f^0\|_{\infty} + C_T \dint^t_0 \left( F(t) + F(t)^{\frac{\gamma-2}{\gamma}} + F(s)^{\frac{\gamma-1+\varepsilon_1}{\gamma}} \, ds \right).$$
Taking the supremum in $t$ and choosing $\varepsilon_1 \leq 1$
$$F(t) \leq F(0) + C_T \dint^t_0 \left( F(s) + F(s)^{\frac{\gamma - 2}{\gamma}} + F(s)^{\frac{\gamma -1+\varepsilon_1}{\gamma}}\right) \, ds \leq F(0) + C_T \dint^t_0 (1+F(s))\, ds.$$
Gronwall’s inequality then yields the bound $F(t) \leq C_T$ for any $t \in [0,T)$ and $1 \leq \gamma \leq \delta$. The bound on moments of the distribution function follows immediately and the field bound
$$\|E_2(t) \|_{\infty} + \|B(t)\|_{\infty} \leq C_T$$
then follows from (\[E3.6\]). Finally, using the bound on moments of the density, control of the $v$-integral follows since we have
$$\dint v^{\gamma -2}_0 f(t,x,v)\, dv \leq \| v^{\delta}_0 f(t) \|_{\infty} \cdot \dint v^{-2-(\delta - \gamma)}_0 \, dv \leq C_T$$
for $\gamma < \delta$ and taking the supremum in $x$ yields (\[E2.4\]).
[\[Lemma 2.5\]]{} We proceed by using dissipative estimates. First, we compute:
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\dfrac{1}{2} \dfrac{d}{dt} \|f(t)\|^2_2 & = & \langle -v_1 \partial_x f - K \cdot \nabla_v f + \Delta_v f,f\rangle\\
\\
& = & - \langle v_1 \partial_x f,f \rangle - \langle K \cdot \nabla_v f,f \rangle + \langle \Delta_v f,f\rangle.
\end{array}$$
Notice that the first two terms are pure derivatives in $x$ and $v$, respectively. Thus,
$$\langle v_1 \partial_x f,f \rangle = \dfrac{1}{2} \diint \partial_x (v_1 f^2) \, dvdx = 0$$
and
$$\langle K \cdot \nabla_v f,f\rangle = \dfrac{1}{2} \diint \nabla_v \cdot (Kf^2) \, dv dx = 0.$$
Finally $\langle \Delta_v f,f\rangle = - \|\nabla_v f(t) \|^2_2$. Hence
$$\dfrac{d}{dt} \|f(t)\|^2_2 = - 2 \|\nabla_v f(t)\|^2_2 \leq 0$$
and the first conclusion follows.
Similarly, we may multiply by $v^{2\gamma}_0$ and proceed in the same manner. Within this estimate we will use $v_0 \geq 1$ in order to increase moments of the estimates where necessary so as to match the results of the lemma. Computing the time derivative
$$\begin{array}{rcl} \dfrac{1}{2} \dfrac{d}{dt} \| v^{\gamma}_0 f(t) \|^2_2 & = & \diint v^{2\gamma}_0 f[-v_1 \partial_x f - K \cdot \nabla_v f + \Delta_v f ] \, dvdx\\
\\
& = & I + II + III.
\end{array}$$
The first term vanishes as it is a pure $x$-derivative. For $II$, we integrate by parts and use the field bounds of Lemma 2.4 so that
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
II & = & -\dfrac{1}{2} \diint v^{2\gamma}_0 \nabla_v \cdot (Kf^2) \, dvdx\\
\\
& = & \gamma \diint v^{2\gamma-2}_0 v \cdot Ef^2\, dvdx\\
\\
& \leq & C_T \|v^{\gamma}_0 f(t)\|^2_2.
\end{array}$$
To estimate $III$, we integrate by parts twice in the first term and once in the second term to find
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
III & = & -\diint \nabla_v (v^{2\gamma}_0 f) \cdot \nabla_v f\, dvdx\\
\\
& = & - \diint (2\gamma v^{2\gamma-2 }_0 v f + v^{2 \gamma}_0 \nabla_v f ) \cdot \nabla_v f\, dvdx\\
\\
& \leq & C \|v^{\gamma}_0 f(t) \|^2_2 - \|v^{\gamma}_0 \nabla_v f(t) \|^2_2.
\end{array}$$
Combining the estimates, we find
$$\dfrac{d}{dt} \|v^{\gamma}_0 f(t) \|^2_2 \leq C_T \|v^{\gamma}_0f(t)\|^2_2 - 2\|v^{\gamma}_0 \nabla_v f(t)\|^2_2$$
as in the statement of the lemma. Additionally, because the second term on the right side of the inequality is nonpositive, we invoke Gronwall’s inequality and find
$$\| v^{\gamma}_0 f(t) \|^2_2 \leq C_T\|v^{\gamma}_0 f^0\|^2_2 \leq C_T$$
for every $\gamma \geq 0$ for which the norm of the initial data $\|v^{\gamma}_0 f^0\|_2 $ is finite.
[\[Lemma 2.6\]]{} If $f$ were $C^3$ we could compute
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\dfrac{d}{dt} \diint v^{2\gamma}_0 (\partial_x f)^2 \, dvdx & = & \diint 2v^{2\gamma}_0 \partial_x f(\Delta_v \partial_x f-v_1\partial^2_x f\\
\\
& & - K \cdot \nabla_v \partial_x f - \partial_x K \cdot \nabla_v f)\, dvdx\\
\\
& = & - 2 \diint v^{2\gamma}_0 |\nabla_v\partial_x f|^2 \, dvdx + \diint (\partial_x f)^2 (\Delta_v v^{2\gamma}_0 + K \cdot \nabla_v v^{2\gamma}_0 ) \, dvdx\\
\\
&& + 2 \diint f\partial_x K \cdot (v^{2\gamma}_0 \nabla_v \partial_x f+ \partial_x f \nabla_v v^{2\gamma}_0 )\, dv dx\\
\\
& \leq & -2 \diint v^{2\gamma}_0 |\nabla_v\partial_x f|^2 \, dvdx + C \diint (\partial_x f)^2 v^{2\gamma}_0 (1 + |E|) \, dvdx \\
\\
& & + C \sqrt{\diint f^2 |\partial_x K|^2 v^{2\gamma}_0 \, dv dx} \left( \sqrt{\diint v^{2\gamma}_0 |\nabla_v \partial_x f |^2 \, dvdx}\right.\\
\\
&&\left. + \sqrt{\diint v^{2\gamma}_0 (\partial_x f)^2 \, dvdx }\right).
\end{array}$$
Using the inequalities $-x^2 + A x \leq \dfrac{1}{4}A^2$ and $2xy \leq x^2 + y^2$ yields
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\dfrac{d}{dt} \diint v^{2\gamma}_0 (\partial_x f)^2 \, dvdx & \leq & C\diint (\partial_x f)^2 v^{2\gamma}_0 (1+|E|) \, dvdx \\
\\
& & + C\diint f^2 |\partial_x K|^2 v^{2\gamma}_0 \, dvdx
\end{array}$$
and hence
[rcl]{} v\^[2]{}\_0 (\_x f)\^2 dvdx & &C + C \^t\_0 v\^[2]{}\_0 (\_x f)\^2 ( 1+|E|) dv dx d\
\
& & + C \^t\_0 v\^[2]{}\_0 f\^2 |\_x K|\^2 dv dx d.
\[E3.8\]
By a regularization argument it follows that (\[E3.8\]) holds for the solution $(f,E,B)$ with the regularity stated in Theorem 1.1. Applying (\[E2.3\]) and (\[E2.4\]) with $\beta = 2 \gamma + 4$ yields
[rcl]{} v\^[2]{}\_0 (\_xf)\^2 dvdx & & C + C\_T \^t\_0 v\^[2]{}\_0 (\_x f)\^2 dv dx d\
\
& & + C \^t\_0 (|\_x E|\^2 + (\_x B)\^2) f(t)\_[L\^]{} f v\^[2+ 2]{}\_0 dv dx d\
\
& & C + C\_T \^t\_0 v\^[2 ]{}\_0 (\_x f)\^2 dv dx d\
\
& & + C\_T \^t\_0 (|\_x E|\^2 + (\_x B)\^2) dx d.
\[E3.9\]
if $E$ and $B$ were $C^2$ we could compute
$$\begin{array}{rcl} \dfrac{d}{dt} \dint [ | \partial_x E|^2 + (\partial_x B)^2] \, dx & = & -2 \dint \partial_x E \cdot \partial_x j \, dx\\
\\
& \leq & 2 \sqrt{\dint |\partial_x E|^2 \, dx}\ \sqrt{\dint |\partial_x j|^2 \, dx} \end{array}$$
so
[rcl]{} dx & & C+ 2 \^t\_0 d\
\
& & C+\^t\_0 (|\_x E|\^2 + |\_x j |\^2 ) dx d .
\[E3.10\]
By a regularization argument it follows that (\[E3.10\]) holds for $E$ and $B \in C^1$. Since $\gamma > 2$ we have
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
|\partial_x j|^2 & \leq & \left( \dint |\partial_x f|v_0 dv\right)^2\\
\\
& \leq & \dint |\partial_x f|^2 v^{2\gamma}_0 dv \dint v^{2-2\gamma}_0 dv \leq C \dint |\partial_x f|^2 v^{2 \gamma}_0\, dv
\end{array}$$
so adding (\[E3.9\]) and (\[E3.10\]) yields
$$\begin{array}{rl} & \diint v^{2\gamma}_0 (\partial_xf)^2 \, dvdx + \dint (|\partial_x E|^2 + (\partial_x B)^2 ) \, dx\\
\\
\leq & C + C_T \dint^t_0 \left( \dint |\partial_x E|^2 \, dx d\tau + \diint v^{2\gamma}_0 (\partial _x f)^2 \, dv dx \right)\, d\tau.
\end{array}$$
An application of Gronwall’s inequality completes the proof.
[\[Proposition 1.3\]]{} If $f$ were $C^4$ we could compute the following:
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\dfrac{d}{dt} \diint f^2\, dvdx & = & -2 \diint |\nabla_v f|^2\, dvdx,\\
\\
\dfrac{d}{dt} \diint |\nabla_v f|^2 \, dvdx & = & - 2 \diint (|\nabla^2_v f|^2 + \partial_{v_1} f \partial_x f)\, dv dx,\\
\\
\dfrac{d}{dt} \diint | \nabla^2_v f|^2 \, dvdx & = & - 2 \diint |\nabla^3_v f|^2 \, dvdx - 4 \diint \nabla_v \partial_{v_1} f \cdot \nabla_v \partial_xf\, dvdx\\
\\
& = & -2 \diint |\nabla^3_v f|^2 \, dvdx + 4 \diint \partial_x f \Delta_v \partial_{v_1} f\, dvdx,
\end{array}$$
so
$$\begin{array}{rl}
& \dfrac{d}{dt} \diint (f^2 + t |\nabla_v f|^2 + \dfrac{1}{2} t^2 |\nabla^2_v f|^2) \, dv dx \\
\\
= & - \diint |\nabla_v f|^2 \, dv dx - t \diint |\nabla^2_v f|^2 \, dv dx - 2 t \diint \partial_{v_1} f \partial_x f \, dv dx \\
\\
& + \dfrac{1}{2} t^2 \diint (-2|\nabla^3_v f|^2 + 4\partial_x f \Delta_v \partial_{v_1} f) \, dv dx\\
\\
\leq & - \diint |\nabla_v f|^2 \, dv dx + 2 t \sqrt{\diint (\partial_x f)^2 \, dvdx} \ \sqrt{ \diint (\partial_{v_1} f)^2\, dv dx}\\
\\
& + t^2 \left( - \diint |\nabla^3_v f|^2 \, dvdx + 2 \sqrt{\diint (\partial_xf)^2 \, dv dx}\ \sqrt{\diint (\Delta_v \partial_{v_1} f)^2 \, dvdx}\right).
\end{array}$$
Using the inequality $-x^2 + A x \leq \dfrac{1}{4} A^2$ twice yields
$$\begin{array}{rl} & \dfrac{d}{dt} \diint (f^2 + t |\nabla_v f|^2 + \dfrac{1}{2} t^2 |\nabla^2_v f|^2 ) \, dvdx \\
\\
\leq & Ct^2 \diint (\partial_x f)^2 \, dv dx
\end{array}$$
and
[rl]{} & (f\^2 + t |\_v f|\^2 + t\^2 |\^2\_v f|\^2) dv dx\
\
& (f\^0)\^2 dvdx + C \^t\_0 \^2 (\_x f)\^2 dv dx d.
\[E3.11\]
regularization argument it follows that (\[E3.11\]) holds for the solution constructed in Theorem 1.1. By Lemma 2.6
$$\diint (\partial_x f)^2 \, dvdx \leq C_t$$
so the proposition follows from (\[E3.11\]).
Local Existence
===============
Define $b = a-4$,
$${\cal F} = \left\{ f: \mathbb{R}^3 \ra [0, \infty) \biggr \vert \ v^{\frac{a}{2}}_0 f, \ v^{\frac{b}{2}}
\partial_x f \in L^2 (\mathbb{R}^3)\right\}$$
and
$$\| f\|_{\cal F} = \| v^{\frac{a}{2}}_0 f\|_{L^2} + \| v^{\frac{b}{2}}_0 \partial_x f \|_{L^2}.$$
For the time being we consider smooth initial data $(f^0, E^0_2, B^0)$.
Let $T\in (0,1), R> 1, \psi: \mathbb{R} \ra [0,1]$ be smooth with $s \leq -1 \Ra \psi(s) = 1$ and $s \geq 0 \Ra \psi(s) =0$. Define $\psi^R (v) = \psi (|v|-R)$. For $(E,B) \in C([0,T];\ H^1(\mathbb{R}))$ smooth define
$${\cal L}^R (E,B) = ( \tilde{f}, \tilde{E}, \tilde{B})$$
by
K = E + \^R(v) B(v\_2, -v\_1), \[E4.1\]
\_t + v\_1 \_x + K \_v = \_v , (0, , ) = f\^0, \[E4.2\]
= dv - , = v dv, \[E4.3\]
\_1 = \^x\_[-]{} dy, \[E4.4\]
\_t \_2 + \_x = - \_2, \_t + \_x \_2 = 0, \[E4.5\]
(\_2, ) (0, ) = (E\^0\_2, B\^0).\[E4.6\]
Note that $K$ is bounded and hence by Proposition A.1 of [@2], (\[E4.2\]) has a solution $\tilde{f} \in L^2([0,T] \times \mathbb{R}; H^1(\mathbb{R}^2))$. Reference [@16] may be used for this also.
Let $\alpha = a + 2 + \varepsilon,\ \beta = b + 2 + \varepsilon$, and
$$C_0 > \|E^0_2\|_{H^1} + \|B^0\|_{H^1} + \|v^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}_0 f^0 \|_{L^2} + \| v^{\frac{\beta}{2}}_0 \partial_x f^0 \|_{L^2}.$$
We assume that
(E,B)(t)\_[H\^1]{}10C\_0 \[E4.7\]
on $[0,T]$. constants may depend on $\alpha, T$ and $C_0$ but not on $R$ or $\nabla_v f^0$.
First, using (\[E4.7\]) and the Sobolev theorem,
[rcl]{} v\^\_0 \^2 dvdx & = & -2 v\^\_0 | \_v |\^2 dv dx\
\
& & + \^2 (\_v v\^\_0 + E \_v v\^\_0 ) dv dx\
\
& & C \^2 v\^\_0 dv dx.
\[E4.8\]
Hence, by Gronwall’s inequality
v\^\_0 \^2 dv dx C.\[E4.9\]
Similarly, and using the Cauchy Schwartz inequality
[rcl]{} v\^\_0 (\_x )\^2 dv dx & = &-2 v\^\_0 | \_v \_x |\^2 dvdx\
\
& & + (\_x)\^2 (\_v v\^\_0 + E \_v v\^\_0) dvdx\
\
& & + 2 \_x K ( v\^\_0 \_v \_x + \_x \_v v\^\_0 ) dvdx\
\
& & - 2 v\^\_0 |\_v \_x |\^2 dv dx + C(\_x )\^2 v\^\_0 dv dx\
\
& & + C (|\_x E| + | \_x B|) ( v\^[+ 1]{}\_0 |\_v \_x | + | \_x | v\^\_0 ) dv dx\
\
& & - 2 v\^\_0 |\_v \_x |\^2 dvdx + C (\_x )\^2 v\^\_0 dv dx\
\
& & + C .
\[E4.10\]
Using $-x^2 + A x \leq \dfrac{1}{4} A^2$ and $2xy \leq x^2 + y^2$ yields
[rcl]{} v\^\_0 (\_x )\^2 dvdx & & Cv\^\_0 (\_x )\^2 dv dx\
\
&& + C \^2 v\^[+2]{}\_0 dv (|\_x E|\^2 + (\_x B)\^2) dx.
\[E4.11\]
Also by (\[E4.9\])
[rcl]{} \^2 v\^[+2]{}\_0 dv & = & \^2 v\^\_0 dv = \^x\_[-]{} 2 \_x v\^\_0 dvdy\
\
& & 2 (t) v\^\_0 \_[L\^2]{} \_x (t) v\^ \_[L\^2]{}\
\
& & C + v\^\_0 (\_x )\^2 dvdx
\[E4.12\]
so using (\[E4.7\]), (\[E4.11\]) yields
$$\dfrac{d}{dt} \diint v^{\beta}_0 (\partial_x \tilde{f})^2\, dvdx \leq C + C\diint v^{\beta}_0 (\partial_x \tilde{f})^2\, dvdx.$$
Hence
v\^\_0 (\_x )\^2 dvdx C. \[E4.13\]
Next consider $({\cal E},{\cal B}) \in C([0,T]; H^1(\mathbb{R}))$ smooth for which (\[E4.7\]) holds and define $(\tilde{F}, \tilde{\cal E}, \tilde{\cal B}) = {\cal L}^{\cal R} ({\cal E}, {\cal B})$ where $R \leq {\cal R}$ and ${\cal K}, \tilde{F}, \tilde{P}, \tilde{J}, \tilde{\cal E},$ and $\tilde{\cal B}$ are defined as in equations (\[E4.1\]) through (\[E4.6\]).
Let $G = (E,B) - ({\cal E},{\cal B})$ and note that
[rcl]{} |K - [K]{}| & & v\_0 |G| + v\_0 |[B]{}| |\^R(v) - \^[R]{} (v)|\
\
& & v\_0 |G| + v\^[1+]{} |[B]{}| R\^[-]{}
\[E4.14\]
and similarly
|\_x K - \_x [K]{}| v\_0 | \_x G| + v\^[1+]{}\_0 | \_x [B]{} | R\^[-]{}. \[E4.15\]
Let $\tilde{g} = \tilde{f} - \tilde{F}$. Proceeding as before in (\[E4.10\]) and (\[E4.11\]) we have
[rcl]{} v\^[a]{}\_0 \^2 dvdx & = & -2 v\^a\_0 |\_v |\^2 dvdx\
\
&& + \^2 (\_v v\^a\_0 + E \_v v\^a\_0) dvdx\
\
&& + 2 (K-[K]{}) (v\^a\_0 \_v + \_v v\^a\_0 ) dvdx\
\
& & C \^2 v\^a\_0 dvdx + C \^2 |K-[K]{}|\^2 v\^a\_0 dvdx.
\[E4.16\]
By (\[E4.14\]), the Sobolev theorem, and (\[E4.9\]) we have
$$\begin{array}{rl} & \diint \tilde{F}^2|K-{\cal K}|^2 v^a_0 \, dvdx \leq \diint \tilde{F}^2 (G^2+{\cal B}^2
R^{-\varepsilon})v^{\alpha}_0 \, dvdx\\
\\
\leq & C(\|G(t)\|^2_{L^{\infty}} + \| {\cal B}(t) \|^2_{L^{\infty}}R^{-\varepsilon} ) \leq C (\|G(t)\|^2_{H^1} + R^{-\varepsilon}).
\end{array}$$
Substitution into (\[E4.16\]) and using Gronwall’s inequality yields
v\^a\_0 \^2 dvdx C \^t\_0 G()\^2\_[H\^1]{} d+ CR\^[-]{} t. \[E4.17\]
Again proceeding as in (\[E4.10\]) and (\[E4.11\]) we have
[rl]{} & v\^b\_0 (\_x )\^2 dvdx = -2 v\^b\_0 | \_v \_x | dvdx\
\
& + (\_x )\^2 ( \_v v\^b\_0 + K \_v v\^b\_0) dvdx\
\
& + 2 (\_x (K - [K]{}) + \_x K + \_x (K - [K]{})) (v\^b\_0 \_v \_x + \_x \_v v\^b\_0) dvdx\
\
& C v\^b\_0 ( \_x )\^2 dvdx + C (\_x )\^2 |K-[K]{}|\^2 v\^b\_0 dvdx\
\
& + C \^2 |\_x K|\^2 v\^b\_0 dvdx + C \^2 | \_x (K-[K]{}) | \^2 v\^b\_0 dvdx.
\[E4.18\]
By (\[E4.14\]), (\[E4.13\]) and Sobolev we have
[rl]{} & (\_x )\^2 |K- [K]{}|\^2 v\^b\_0 dvdx\
\
& C (\_x )\^2 (|G|\^2 + |[B]{}|\^2 R\^[-]{} ) v\^\_0 dvdx\
\
& C ( G(t)\^2\_[H\^1]{} + (t)\^2\_[H\^1]{} R\^[-]{}) C(G(t)\^2\_[H\^1]{} + R\^[-]{}).
\[E4.19\]
Note that (using (\[E4.17\]))
[rcl]{} \^2 v\^[b+2]{}\_0 dv & & 2 |||\_x | v\^\_0 dvdx\
\
& & 2 (\^2 v\^a\_0 dvdx )\^ ((\_x )\^2 v\^b\_0 dvdx )\^\
\
& & C \^t\_0 G()\^2\_[H\^1]{} d + CR\^[-]{} t + (\_x )\^2 v\^b\_0 dvdx
\[E4.20\]
so by (\[E4.20\]), (\[E4.7\]), and Sobolev
[rl]{} & \^2 |\_x K|\^2 v\^b\_0 dvdx \^2 (|\_x E|\^2 + (\_x B)\^2)v\^[b+2]{}\_0 dvdx\
\
& C \^t\_0 G()\^2\_[H\^1]{} d+ CR\^[-]{} t + C (\_x )\^2 v\^b\_0 dvdx.
\[E4.21\]
Using (\[E4.15\]), (\[E4.12\]), (\[E4.13\]), and (\[E4.7\]) we have
[rl]{} & \^2 |\_x (K - [K]{})|\^2 v\^b\_0 dvdx\
\
& \^2 (|\_x G|\^2 + (\_x [B]{})\^2 R\^[-]{}) v\^\_0 dvdx\
\
& C (|\_x G|\^2 + (\_x [B]{})\^2 R\^[-]{}) dx\
\
& C G(t)\^2\_[H\^1]{} + CR\^[-]{}.
\[E4.22\]
Substitution of (\[E4.19\]), (\[E4.21\]), and (\[E4.22\]) into (\[E4.18\]) yields
$$\begin{array}{l}
\dfrac{d}{dt} \diint v^b_0 (\partial_x \tilde{g})^2 \, dvdx \leq C \diint v^b_0 (\partial_x \tilde{g})^2\, dvdx\\
\\
\hspace*{.5in} + C \|G(t)\|^2_{H^1} + CR^{-\varepsilon} + C \dint^t_0 \|G(\tau)\|^2_{H^1}\, d\tau.
\end{array}$$
By Gronwall’s inequality we have
v\^b\_0 (\_x )\^2 dvdx C \^t\_0 G()\^2\_[H\^1]{} d+ CR\^[-]{} t. \[E4.23\]
Next we consider the fields. We have
$$\dfrac{d}{dt} \dint (|\tilde{E}|^2 + \tilde{B}^2 ) dx = - 2 \dint \tilde{E} \cdot \tilde{j} dx.$$
By (\[E4.9\])
$$\dint |\tilde{j}|^2 dx \leq \dint \left( \dint \tilde{f} v^{\alpha}_0\, dv \right) \left(\dint v^{-\alpha}_0 |v|^2\, dv \right) dx \leq C$$
so
$$\dfrac{d}{dt} \dint \left( |\tilde{E}|^2 + \tilde{B}^2 \right)\, dx \leq C \left(\dint|\tilde{E}|^2dx \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
and
(||\^2 + \^2 ) dx C\_0 + Ct \[E4.24\]
follows. Similarly by (\[E4.13\])
$$\dint |\partial_x \tilde{j}|^2 \, dx \leq \dint \left( \dint (\partial_x \tilde{f} )^2 v^{\beta}_0 dv \right) \left( \dint v^{2-\beta}_0 dv \right) \, dx \leq C$$
so
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\dfrac{d}{dt} \dint \left( |\partial_x \tilde{E}|^2 + \left(\partial_x \tilde{B}\right)^2 \right)\, dx
& \leq & 2 \| \partial_x \tilde{E} (t)\|_{L^2} \| \partial_x \tilde{j}(t) \|_{L^2}\\
\\
& \leq & C \| \partial_x \tilde{E} (t) \|_{L^2}
\end{array}$$
and
( |\_x |\^2 + (\_x )\^2 ) dx C\_0 + Ct \[E4.25\]
follows. (\[E4.17\]) yields
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\dint |\tilde{j} - \tilde{J}|^2 dx & \leq & \dint \left( \dint \tilde{g}^2 v^a_0\, dv \right) \left( \dint v^{-a}_0 |v|^2\, dv \right)\, dx \\
\\
& \leq & C \dint^t_0 \|G(\tau)\|^2_{H^1} d\tau + CR^{-\varepsilon} t
\end{array}$$
and, letting $\tilde{G} = (\tilde{E}, \tilde{B}) - (\tilde{\cal E}, \tilde{\cal B})$,
$$\dint |\tilde{G}|^2 dx \leq C \dint^t_0 \|G(\tau)\|^2_{H^1} + CR^{-\varepsilon}t$$
follows. Lastly (\[E4.23\]) yields
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\dint | \partial_x (\tilde{j}-\tilde{J}) |^2 \, dx & \leq & C \dint \left( \dint (\partial_x \tilde{g})^2 v^b_0\, dv \right) \left( \dint v^{2-b}_0 dv\right) \, dx \\
\\
& \leq & C \dint^t_0 \|G(\tau)\|^2_{H^1}\, d \tau + CR^{-\varepsilon}t
\end{array}$$
and
$$\dint |\partial_x \tilde{G} |^2 \, dx \leq C \dint^t_0 \|G(\tau)\|^2_{H^1} d\tau + CR^{-\varepsilon}t$$
follows.
From (\[E4.24\]) and (\[E4.25\]) we have
$$\| (\tilde{E}, \tilde{B}) (t) \|^2_{H^1} \leq 2 C_0 + CT \leq 10C_0$$
for $T$ suitably restricted. Also,
[rl]{} & ( - ) (t) \^2\_[F]{} + (,)(t) - (, ) (t)\^2\_[H\^1]{}\
\
& C \^t\_0 (E,B)() - ([E]{}, [B]{})()\^2\_[H\^1]{} d+ CR\^[-]{} t.
\[E4.26\]
Define $(f^{n+1}, E^{n+1}, B^{n+1}) = {\cal L}^{2^n} (E^n,B^n)$ for $n \geq 0$ where $f^0,E^0,B^0$ are determined by the initial conditions. By (\[E4.26\]) we have
[rl]{} & (f\^[n+1]{} - f\^n ) (t)\^2\_[F]{} + (E\^[n+1]{},B\^[n+1]{}) (t) - (E\^n , B\^n) (t) \^2\_[H\^1]{}\
\
& C \^t\_0 (E\^n,B\^n) () - (E\^[n-1]{}, B\^[n-1]{}) ()\^2\_[H\^1]{} d+ C 2\^[-n]{}t.
\[E4.27\]
Suppose $A > 1$ and
$$0 \leq x^{n+1} (t) \leq C \left( \dint^t_0 x^n(\tau) d\tau + A^{-n}t \right)$$
for $n \geq 0$. Then by induction
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
x^n(t) & \leq & \left( \|x^0\|_{L^{\infty}}+1 \right) \dfrac{(Ct)^n}{n!} + A^{-n} \overset{n-1}{\underset{\ell =1}{\sum}} \dfrac{(CAt)^{\ell}}{\ell !}\\
\\
& \leq & \left(\| x^0\|_{L^{\infty}} + 1 \right) \dfrac{(CT)^n}{n!} + A^{-n} e^{CAT}.
\end{array}$$
Since this bound is summable, it follows from (\[E4.27\]) that $(E^n,B^n)$ is Cauchy in $C([0,T]; H^1)$ and $f^n$ is Cauchy in $C([0,T]; {\cal F})$. Let $(f, E,B) = \change{\lim_{n \to \infty}} (f^n, E^n, B^n)$.
We will now use the explicitly known fundamental solution for the linear equation
$$\partial_t f + v_1 \partial_x f = \Delta_v f,$$
namely, for $0 \leq \tau < t,\ x,y \in \mathbb{R},v, w \in \mathbb{R}^2$
$$\begin{array}{rl}
& {\cal G}(t,x,v,\tau ,y,w)\\
\\
= & [ 4\pi(t-\tau)]^{-1}e^{\frac{-|v-w|^2}{4(t-\tau)}} \left[ \dfrac{\pi}{3} (t-\tau)^3\right]^{-\frac{1}{2}} \exp \left(-3 \dfrac{(x-y - \frac{1}{2} (t-\tau)(v_1+w_1))^2}{(t-\tau)^3}\right).
\end{array}$$
This may be derived from line (2.5) of [@16] by letting $\beta \ra 0^+$ (with $N=2$) and then integrating in $y_2$. It may also be derived directly by Fourier transform. Since
$$\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \partial_t f^{n+1} + v_1 \partial_x f^{n+1} = \Delta_v f^{n+1} - K^n \cdot \nabla_v f^{n+1}\\
\\
f^{n+1} (0, \cdot, \cdot) = f^0
\end{array} \right.$$
it follows by Theorems II.2 and II.3 of [@16] that
$$\left. f^{n+1} = H + \dint^t_0 \diint {\cal G}(t,x,v,\tau ,y,w)(-K^n \cdot \nabla_w f^{n+1})\right|_{(\tau , y,w)} \, dw dy d\tau$$
where
$$H(t,x,v) = \diint {\cal G} (t,x,v,0,y,w) f^0 (y,w) \, dw dy.$$
It is easy to check that
$$\diint \left| \nabla_w {\cal G}(t,x,v,\tau , y, w) \right|\, dwdy \leq C(t-\tau)^{-\frac{1}{2}}$$
and it follows that
$$\left. f^{n+1} = H + \dint^t_0 \diint \nabla_w {\cal G} (t,x,v,\tau , y, w) \cdot (K^n f^{n+1}) \right|_{(\tau , y,w)} \, dw dy d\tau.$$
Now by (\[E4.14\]) and Sobolev
$$\begin{array}{rl}
& \diint |Kf-K^n f^{n+1}|^2 \, dvdx \leq C\diint \left(|K-K^n|^2f^2 + |K^n|^2 |f-f^{n+1}|^2\right) \, dv dx\\
\\
\leq & C \dint \left( |(E,B) - (E^0,B^n)|^2 + B^2 (2^n)^{-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}\right) \dint f^2 v^{2+\varepsilon}_0 \, dv dx \\
\\
& + C \dint |(E^n, B^n)|^2 \dint |f-f^{n+1}|^2 v^2_0 \, dv dx \\
\\
\leq & C\left( \|(E,B)(t) - (E^n,B^n)(t)\|^2_{H^1}+ 2^{-\frac{n \varepsilon}{2}} \right) \diint f^2 v^{2+\varepsilon}_0 \, dv dx \\
\\
& + C \diint ( f-f^{n+1})^2 v^2_0 \, dv dx \ra 0\ {\rm as}\ n \ra \infty.
\end{array}$$
Also,
$$\left( \diint | \nabla_w {\cal G}(t,x,v, \tau , y,w)|^2\, dw dy \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \leq C(t-\tau)^{-\frac{1}{2}}$$
so it follows that
f = .H + \^t\_0 \_w [G]{} (t,x,v, , y,w) (Kf)|\_[(,y,w)]{} dw dy d. \[E4.28\]
By Lemma 2.1
$$0 \leq f^n \leq \sup f^0$$
so
0 f f\^0 \[E4.29\]
follows.
Thus far we have assumed $(f^0, E^0_2, B^0)$ to be smooth. Now consider $ (f^0, E^0_2, B^0)$ as in Theorem 1.1. Consider a sequence $(f^{0k}, E^{0k}_2, B^{0k})$ of smooth initial conditions with
$$\| v^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}_0 (f^{0k} - f^0 ) \|_{L^2} + \| v^{\frac{\beta}{2}}_0 \partial_x (f^{0k} - f^0) \|_{L^2} + \| (E^{0k}_0,B^{0k} ) - (E^0_2, B^0) \|_{H^1} \ra 0.$$
By a limiting procedure like the above we conclude that (\[E4.28\]) and (\[E4.29\]) hold for $(f^0, E^0_2, B^0)$ as in Theorem 1.1.
By Theorem II.3 of [@16] $H \in C([0, \infty) \times \mathbb{R}^3) \cap C^1 ((0,\infty) \times \mathbb{R}^3)$ with $\partial_{v_i} \partial_{v_j} H$ continuous on $t > 0$ and
$$\left\{ \begin{array}{rcl} \partial_t H + v_1 \partial_x H & = & \Delta_v H\\
\\
H(0,\cdot, \cdot) & = & f^0.\end{array} \right. .$$
We claim that $f$ is differentiable in $v$. First we show that $f$ is Hölder continuous in $v$. For example, if $ \overline{v}_1 < \overline{\overline{v}}_1$ then
$$\begin{array}{rl}
& \left| \nabla_w {\cal G}(t,x,\overline{\overline{v}}_1, v_2, \tau , y,w) - \nabla_w {\cal G}(t,x, \overline{v}_1, v_2, \tau , y,w) \right|^2 \\
\\
= & \left| \dint^{\overline{\overline{v}}_1}_{\overline{v}_1} \nabla_w \partial_{v_1} {\cal G} (t,x,v,\tau , y,w) \, dv_1 \right|^2 \\
\\
\leq & \left| \overline{\overline{v}}_1 - \overline{v}_1 \right| \dint^{\overline{\overline{v}}_1}_{\overline{v}_1} \left| \nabla_w \partial_{v_1} {\cal G} \right|^2 \, dv_1
\end{array}$$
and
$$\begin{array}{rl} & \diint \left|\nabla_w {\cal G}(t,x,\overline{\overline{v}}_1, v_2, \tau , y, w) - \nabla_w {\cal G}(t,x,\overline{v}_1, v_2, \tau , y,w)\right|^2 \, dw dy\\
\\
\leq & \left| \overline{\overline{v}}_1 - \overline{v}_1\right| \dint^{\overline{\overline{v}}_1}_{\overline{v}_1}\diint \left| \nabla_w \partial_{v_1} {\cal G} \right|^2\, dw dy dv_1\\
\\
\leq & C\left( \overline{\overline{v}}_1 - \overline{v}_1 \right)^2 (t - \tau)^{-2}
\end{array}$$
so
$$\begin{array}{rl}
&\left. \diint \left| \left( \left. \nabla_w {\cal G}\right|^{\overline{\overline{v}}_1}_{\overline{v}_1} \right)(fK)
\right|_{(\tau , y,w)} \right| \, dwdy\\
\\
\leq & \sqrt{C(\overline{\overline{v}}_1 - \overline{v}_1)^2 (t-\tau )^{-2}} \sqrt{\diint |fK|^2 \, dw dy} \leq C\left| \overline{\overline{v}}_1 - \overline{v}_1\right| (t - \tau)^{-1}.
\end{array}$$
But we also have
$$\begin{array}{rl} & \diint \left| \nabla_w {\cal G} (t,x,v, \tau , y,w) \cdot (fK) (\tau, y, w) \right| \, dw dy\\
\\
\leq & \sqrt{\diint \left| \nabla_w {\cal G}\right|^2 \, dw dy}\ \sqrt{\diint |fK|^2\, dw dy} \leq C(t - \tau)^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\end{array}$$
so by (\[E4.28\])
$$\left| \left.(f-H)\right|^{\overline{\overline{v}}_1}_{\overline{v}_1} \right| \leq C \dint^t_0 \min \left( \left| \overline{\overline{v}}_1 - \overline{v}_1 \right| (t - \tau)^{-1}, (t - \tau)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \right) d \tau.$$
It follows that $f$ is Hölder continuous in $v_1$ with exponent $\theta$ for all $\theta \in (0,1)$. The Hölder continuity in $v_2$ may be shown similarly. By (\[E4.28\]) we may write
$$f = H + \dint^t_0 \diint \nabla_w {\cal G} (t,x,v, \tau , y,w) \cdot \left(fK \left|_{(\tau,y,w)} - fK \right|_{(\tau ,x,v)} \right) \, dw dy d\tau.$$
Now it follows that $f$ is differentiable in $v$ and
$$\partial_{v_i} f = \partial_{v_i} H + \dint^t_0 \diint \nabla_w \partial_{v_i} {\cal G} \cdot \left( fK \left|_{(\tau,y,w)} - fK \right|_{(\tau,x,v)} \right) \, dw dy d\tau.$$
We now may integrate by parts in (\[E4.28\]) and obtain
$$f = H - \dint^t_0 \diint {\cal G}(t,x,v,\tau,y,w) (K \cdot \nabla_w f) (\tau, y, w) \, dw dy d\tau.$$
Note that by (\[E4.12\]) and (\[E4.13\]) and by Sobolev
$$\begin{array}{rl}
& \diint |\partial_x (fK)|^2\, dv dx \leq C \diint \left( f^2 | \partial_x K|^2 + |K|^2 (\partial_x f)^2 \right) \, dv dx \\
\\
\leq & C \dint \left( |\partial_x E|^2 + (\partial_x B)^2 \right) \dint f^2 v^2_0 \, dv dx \\
\\
& + C \dint (|E|^2 + |B|^2) \dint (\partial_x f)^2 v^2_0 \, dv dx \\
\\
\leq & C \dint \left( | \partial_x E|^2 + (\partial_x B)^2 \right) dx + C \diint (\partial_x f)^2 v^2_0 \, dv dx \leq C.
\end{array}$$
Now it follows from (\[E4.28\]) that
$$\left.\partial_x f = \partial_x H + \dint^t_0 \diint \nabla_w {\cal G}(t,x,v,\tau,y,w) \cdot \partial_y (fK)\right|_{(\tau,y,x)} \, dwdyd\tau.$$
In particular, $f$ is Hölder continuous in $x$ with exponent $\theta$ for each $\theta \in (0,1)$. Hence, Theorem II.1 of [@16] applies and shows that $f$ has the regularity stated in Theorem 1.1. The regularity of $E$ and $B$ follows from this.
Finally, suppose that $(F, {\cal E}, {\cal B} )$ is another solution with the same initial value as $(f, E,B)$. Then, by (\[E4.12\]), (\[E4.13\]), and (\[E4.16\])
[rl]{} & v\^b\_0 (f-F)\^2 dv dx C v\^b\_0 (f-F)\^2 dv dx\
\
& + C ( |E-[E]{}|\^2 + (B-[B]{})\^2) F\^2 v\^[b+2]{}\_0 dv dx\
\
& C v\^b\_0 (f - F)\^2 dv dx + C (|E-[E]{}|\^2+(B-[B]{})\^2 ) dx.
\[E4.30\]
Also
$$\dfrac{d}{dt} \dint \left( |E-{\cal E}|^2 + (B - {\cal B})^2 \right) dx = -2 \dint (E-{\cal E}) \cdot \dint (f-F) \, v\, dvdx.$$
Since
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\left( \dint |f-F|v_0\, dv\right)^2 & \leq & \dint(f-F)^2 v^b_0 dv \dint v^{2-b}_0 dv \\
\\
& \leq & C \dint (f-F)^2 v^b_0 dv
\end{array}$$
we have
[rcl]{} ( | E-[E]{}|\^2 - |B-[B]{}|\^2 ) dx & & C \
\
& & C |E-[E]{}|\^2 dx + C (f-F)\^2 v\^b\_0 dv dx.
\[E4.31\]
Uniqueness follows from (\[E4.30\]) and (\[E4.31\]) and the proof is complete.
[99]{} Chae, M., [*The global classical solution of the Vlasov-Maxwell-Fokker-Planck system near Maxwellian*]{}, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 21, 5, 1007-1025, 2011.
Degond, P., [*Global existence of smooth solutions for the Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation in 1 and 2 space dimensions*]{}, Ann. Sci. Êcole Norm. Sup. 4, 19, 4, 519-542, 1986.
DiPerna, R. J., and Lions, P.-L., [*Global weak solutions of Vlasov-Maxwell systems*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 42, 6, 729-757, 1989.
Felix, J., Calogero, S., and Pankavich, S., [*Spatially homogeneous solutions of the Vlasov-Nordstrom-Fokker-Planck System*]{}, J. Differential Equations (to appear), 2014.
Glassey, R., and Schaeffer, J., [*On the “one and on-half dimensional" relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell system*]{}, Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 13,2, 169-179, 1990.
Glassey, R. T., [*The Cauchy problem in kinetic theory*]{}, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 1996.
Glassey, R. T., and Strauss, W. A., [*Singularity formation in a collisionless plasma could occur only at high velocities*]{}, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 92, 1, 59-90, 1986.
Lai, R., [*On the one- and one-half dimensional relativistic Vlasov-Fokker-Planck-Maxwell system*]{}, Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 18, 13, 1013-1040, 1995.
Lai, R., [*One the one-and-one-half-dimensional relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell-Fokker-Planck syste with non-vanishing viscosity*]{}, Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 21, 14, 1287-1296, 1998.
Lions, P.-L., and Perthame, B., [*Propagation of moments and regularity for the 3-dimensional Vlasov-Pisson system*]{}, Invent. Math. 105, 2, 415-430, 1991.
Pankavich, S., [*Global existence for the Vlasov-Poisson system with steady spatial asymptotics*]{}, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 31, 1-3, 349-370, 2006.
Pankavich, S., and Michalowski, N., [*Global classical solutions of the one and one-half dimensional relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell-Fokker-Planck system*]{}, (submitted), 2013.
Pankavich S., and Michalowski, N., [*A short proof of increased parabolic regularity*]{}, (submitted), 2014.
Pfaffelmoser, K., [*Global classical solutions of the Vlasov-Poisson system in three dimensions for general initial data*]{}, J. Differential Equations 95, 2, 281-303, 1992.
Schaeffer, J., [*Global existence of smooth solutions to the Vlasov-Poisson system in three dimensions*]{}, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 16, 8-9, 1313-1335, 1991.
Victory, H. D., and O’Dwyer, B. P., [*On Classical Solutions of Vlasov-Poisson-Fokker-Planck Systems*]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 39, 1, 105-155, 1990.
Yang, T., and Yu, H., [*Global classical solutions for the Vlasov-Maxwell-Fokker-Planck system*]{}, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 42, 1, 459-488, 2010.
[^1]: Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado 80401, ([email protected])
[^2]: Department of Mathematics Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, ([email protected])
[^3]: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under the award DMS-1211667.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We experimentally implement a fault-tolerant quantum key distribution protocol with two photons in a decoherence-free subspace (DFS). It is demonstrated that our protocol can yield good key rate even with large bit-flip error rate caused by collective rotation, while the usual realization of BB84 protocol cannot produce any secure final key given the same channel. Since the experiment is performed in polarization space and does not need the calibration of reference frame, important applications in free-space quantum communication are expected. Moreover, our method can also be used to robustly transmit an arbitrary two-level quantum state in a type of DFS.'
author:
- Qiang Zhang
- Juan Yin
- 'Teng-Yun Chen'
- Shan Lu
- Jun Zhang
- 'Xiao-Qiang Li'
- Tao Yang
- 'Xiang-Bin Wang'
- 'Jian-Wei Pan'
title: 'Experimental Fault-Tolerant Quantum Cryptography in a Decoherence-Free Subspace'
---
Quantum key distribution (QKD) can help two remote parties to accomplish unconditionally secure communications which is an impossible task by any classical method [@gisin]. The security of QKD is guaranteed by known principles of quantum mechanics [@wooters; @ekert; @shor] rather than the assumed computational complexity in classical secure communication. Since the first QKD protocol proposed by Bennett and Brassard in 1984 (BB84 protocol) [@benneett], much work has been done in the field. In recent years, numerous modified protocols have been proposed and experimentally realized, e.g. the single-photon realizations in either phase-coding or polarizations, the realizations with entangled photon pairs and so on [@gisin].
While each protocols or the physical realizations may have its own advantage, there are still some limitations for QKD in practice. In certain cases, we have no way to use the optical fibers and the task has to be done in free space, for example, if we want to carry out secure communications between a fixed station on the earth and a moving object such as an airplane or satellite in the space [@free-space]. Photon polarization is a natural candidate for the QKD in free space, but the communicating parties must share a common reference frame for spatial orientation [@bartlett; @rudolph] so that they can prepare and measure the photon polarization in the same reference frame. Sometimes, it could well be the case that the two parties have a relative instantaneous rotation, for example during the quantum key distribution between a swinging airplane and the earth. Moreover, in some other cases the channel may also rotate the photon polarization. Consequently, the two parties will no more share the same reference frame from a passive perspective. These practical disadvantages could bring significant error rate to the protocol if one uses the single-photon polarization as information carrier, in some extreme cases no secure final key can be distilled.
One possible solution to the above problem is to utilize multi-qubit entangled states in a decoherence-free subspace (DFS) where all the states are immune to some kind rotation of reference frame. According to the informatics, the rotation of the reference system can be seen as a collective noise, that is, the random unitary transformation to each qubit is identical. The idea of DFS [@palma; @kwiat; @kempe] was proven to be very important in quantum computation and quantum communication.
Very recently, several quantum communication protocols based on DFS have been put forward. Bartlett et.al [@bartlett] and Boileau et.al [@boileau1] utilize four photons as a logic qubit to perform quantum key distribution. Yet, the four photon entanglement source based on nowadays technology is too poor to be used in long distance communication. Recently, some other protocols [@walton; @boileau2] have been also put forward where only two photons are used. Two photon entanglement source can be achieved by spontaneous parameter down conversion (SPDC) and it can be bright enough for the mission of quantum key distribution. However, these protocols demand collective measurement of the two photons after the trip through the channel and this kind of measurement demand that the photons interfere with each other.
Another two-photon protocol suggested by one of us [@wang] has the following properties: While two photons are requested and the scheme only needs local individual measurement. Although the protocol has the drawback that it only applies to the collective random rotation noise, such a situation can be found in many realistic applications such as in free space quantum communication and communication with swinging object. In this letter, we report an experimental realization of such a protocol. It is demonstrated that our experimental method can yield good key rate even with large bit-flip error rate caused by collective rotation, while the usual realization of BB84 protocol cannot produce any secure final key given the same channel.
Our experiment exploits the following 4 encoded BB84 states [@wang]: $$\begin{aligned}
|\overline
H\rangle&=&|\phi^+\rangle_{12}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|H\rangle_1|H\rangle_2+|V\rangle_1|V\rangle_2)\nonumber
\\
|\overline
V\rangle&=&|\psi^-\rangle_{12}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|H\rangle_1|V\rangle_2-|V\rangle_1|H\rangle_2)
\\
|+'\rangle&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\overline H\rangle+|\overline
V\rangle)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|H\rangle_1|+\rangle_2-|V\rangle_1|-\rangle_2)\nonumber
\\
|-'\rangle&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\overline H\rangle-|\overline
V\rangle)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|H\rangle_1|-\rangle_2+|V\rangle_1|+\rangle_2)\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
Here $|H\rangle, |V\rangle, |+\rangle, |-\rangle$ are the same meaning as in BB84 protocol, represent for horizontal, vertical, and diagonal and anti-diagonal polarization states respectively. It is easy to verify, the states $|\psi^-\rangle_{12}$ and $|\phi^+\rangle_{12}$ are invariant under the following collective rotation
$$\begin{aligned}
|H\rangle&\Rightarrow&\cos\theta|H\rangle-\sin\theta|V\rangle\nonumber\\
|V\rangle&\Rightarrow&\sin\theta|H\rangle+\cos\theta|V\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
Here, $\theta$ is the collective rotation noise parameter, which is depending on the environment and will fluctuate with time. This invariance implies that all the linear superposition of the two states constitute a subspace that is decoherence free to the collective rotation noise.
The experimental setup of the protocol is sketched in Fig. \[fig:figure1\]. Type II parametric down-conversion in $\beta$-barium borate (BBO), pumped by a mode-locked femtosecond laser working at wavelength of $394$nm and a power of $600$mW, produces about 4000 polarization entangled photon pairs per second at $788$nm whose state is $|\psi^-\rangle_{12}$ , i.e. the state $|\overline V\rangle$ in our protocol. The other three states can be obtained by performing a corresponding local unitary transformation on the state $|\overline V\rangle$.
![ \[fig:figure1\]Experimental setup for two photon fault-tolerant quantum key distribution protocol. The $394$ nm UV pulses are produced by frequency doubling the $788$ nm pulses of the mode-locked laser using a nonlinear LBO crystal $(LiB_3O_5)$. The UV pulses pass through 2mm BBO ($\beta$-barium borate ) crystal and polarization entangled photon pairs in the state, $|\psi^-\rangle_{12}$, are created. In order to compensate the birefringence of the BBO crystal, we place a half wave plate (HWP) and a compensating BBO crystal of 1 mm thickness on each path of the two photons as a compensating system (labelled C.S.). Three electro-optic modulators controlled by a random number generator are utilized to produce the other three two-photon states requested by the protocol. They are labelled by M1-M3 respectively. Channel noise of random rotation is realized by four half wave plates, two in each path ($H_C$ and $H_N$). We use an electro-optic modulator M4 controlled by another random number generator to choose the measurement bases. After the modulator, we place polarized beam splitters (PBS) and the raw key is obtained by observing the clicking of detectors behind the PBS. A interference filters (IF) with $FWHM = 2.8$nm is placed before each single photon detector (D1 - D4) to improve the visibility of the entangled pair. Each user has a computer to control the random number generator and record the detector’s events.](fig_1){width="3in"}
We use electro-optic modulators controlled by random number generators to realize Alice’s encryption. After the bias voltage and half-wave voltage being carefully calibrated and adjusted, the modulators can translate the photon’s state properly. When the modulators are turned off, they do nothing to the polarization of the photons to be sent. Once switched on, the modulators will change the polarization of the photons like half wave plates. Modulator 1 is set to be $0$ degree to its axis, Modulator $2$ and 3 are set to be $45$ degree and $22.5$ degree, respectively. It is easy to show that when modulator $1,2$ are turned on together, the state will be changed from $|\overline V\rangle$ to $|\overline
H\rangle$. When modulator $1,3$ are turned on, the state is $|+'\rangle$ and when modulator $2,3$ are turned on, $|-'\rangle$ is produced. Obviously when all the modulators are switched off, the output state is $|\overline V\rangle$.
Similar to the realization of BB84 protocol, Alice has two random number $X$, $Y$. $X$ is used to choose base and $Y$ is Alice’s bit value. Alice utilizes the two random number to control the modulators to randomly prepare one of the four encoded states in the DFS. If $X=0$, Alice will choose the base $\{|\overline
H\rangle, |\overline V\rangle\}$. When X=1, she will choose the base $\{|+'\rangle, |-'\rangle\}$. If Y=1, Alice will prepare $|\overline H\rangle$ or $|+'\rangle$. Otherwise, she will prepare $|\overline V\rangle$ or $|-'\rangle$ . Table \[tab:table1\] describes the process in detail.
$X$ $Y$ Modulator 1 Modulator 2 Modulator3 State
----- ----- ------------- ------------- ------------ -----------------------
0 0 0 0 0 $|\overline V\rangle$
0 1 1 1 0 $|\overline H\rangle$
1 0 0 1 1 $|-'\rangle$
1 1 1 0 1 $|+'\rangle$
: \[tab:table1\]Summary of the process of encoding. $X$ denotes the base and $Y$ is the bit value. They are prepared by the random number generator. The two number determine which modulators will be turn on and which state is prepared.
The two random numbers are achieved by quantum process of splitting a beam of single photons similar as Jennewein et al. did in their experiment [@jennewein]. At first, The two random numbers are stored in a FIFO memory. Then they will be readout and encoded according to table \[tab:table1\] triggered by a $100$kHz clock. In our experiment, the encoding frequency of $100$kHz is so high that the probability of more than $1$ pair appearing in the same encoding period is small enough to guarantee the security of quantum key distribution.
We use two half-wave plates (HWPs) to simulate the collective random rotation of the noise channel. Here, the unitary transformation introduced by the HWPs is slightly different from the noise of collective random rotations as assumed in the original protocol. Instead of the unitary transformation of Eq.(2), if we set the HWP at the angle $\frac{\theta}{2}$ to its optical axis, the function is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
|H\rangle&\Rightarrow&\cos\theta|H\rangle-\sin\theta|V\rangle\nonumber\\
|V\rangle&\Rightarrow&-(\sin\theta|H\rangle+\cos\theta|V\rangle).\end{aligned}$$ In order to realize the rotation noise as in Eq. (2), we further insert an additional HWP ($H_C$), which is set at $0$ degree, in front of the $H_N$ to correct the minus phase shift in each path.
Since the four encoded states as shown in Eq. (1) are invariant under the collective rotation described above, Bob only needs to use an electro-optic modulator to choose his measurement bases and then let each photon respectively pass through a PBS to perform a polarization measurement (see Fig. \[fig:figure1\]). In this way, our protocol avoids the collective measurement which needs the two-photon interference [@walton; @boileau2]. The entangled photon pairs are detected by fiber-coupled single photon detectors. Bob uses another random number generator $Z$ to control the electro-optic modulator that is set at $22.5$ degree. If $Z=0$, he measures photon 1 in the $\{|H\rangle, |V\rangle\}$ basis. Otherwise he chooses the $\{|+\rangle, |-\rangle\}$ basis. For photon 2, as there is no modulator, it is measured in $\{|H\rangle, |V\rangle\}$ basis.
The photons are detected by silicon avalanche photon diodes. When Bob find that photon 1(D1 or D2) and photon 2(D3 or D4) are simultaneously detected in a coincidence window of $5$ns, he will record it as a successful detection event. If D1 and D4 or D2 and D3 fire simultaneously, he will record the bit as “$0$”. Otherwise he will record as “$1$”.
The encoding clock can also give a timing signal in a measurement turn. The computer on Bob’s side registers all detection events as time stamps together with measure base information and the detection result. After the key distribution, Bob will declare at what time he get a detection event and his measurement base. And Alice will tell Bob to discard those bits in wrong bases to produce the raw key. Then, they can do error test and final key distillation. As it has been shown in Ref [@wang], the protocol here can actually be regarded as BB84 protocol with encoding and decoding. Therefore, we only need to check its quantum bit error rate (QBER) after decoding for the security issue, i.e., if the QBER after decoding is less than $11\%$, then we conclude that we can distill some unconditionally secure final key [@mayers; @shor].
![\[fig:figure2\] (a)Experimentally result of the quantum bit error rates of all the states in our protocol and BB84 protocol in the rotation noise. (b) Experimental result of the total quantum bit error rate of our protocol and BB84 protocol. It can be seen at any angle that our protocol is below the line of $11\%$, which is the security bound of the BB84 type protocol. The error rates of our protocol are due to the imperfection of the entanglement resource, the detectors and the electro-optic modulators. The error rates of BB84 protocol are sinusoidal and are the same to our protocol at $0$ degree angle rotation noise, which are in agreement with theoretical prediction.](fig_2)
Fig. \[fig:figure2\] provides QBERs of each state with the same collective random rotation channel and the total error rates. In our two-photon encoding experiment, the rate of the raw keys is about 2000/s. Under different random rotation noise the QBERs are all observed to be less than $11\%$, which is sufficient to guarantee the absolute security of the protocol. For each experimental point, we spend $50$ seconds to collect the raw keys to measure the QBERs, which leads to an error bar of the QBERs of $0.1\%$. Therefore our protocol indeed always works given whatever unknown collective random rotation noise.
In our experiment, we want to see whether the protocol has advantage to standard realization of BB84 therefore we only need to compare the QBERs of two protocols with the same collective random noise channel. Experimentally, we project photon 2 into the state $|+\rangle$ as a trigger. Then photon 1 can be treated as a single photon source to be in the state $|-\rangle$. We use Modulator 1 and 2 to prepare the four encoded single-photon state in the standard $BB84$ protocol. Modulator 4 and the PBS behind are used to perform the necessary polarization measurement on photon 1. The obtained QBERs under different rotation noise is also shown in Fig. \[fig:figure2\]. The figure shows that as long as $|\theta|\geq\pi/18$, the QBERs of the standard realization of BB84 are larger than $11\%$, which consequently leads to the failure of quantum key distribution [@mayers; @shor].
It is important to note that, given perfect source of entangled photon source, modulator and detector, the QBERs of our protocol should approach to 0 at any random collective rotation noise. However, in our two-photon quantum key distribution experiment a significant average QBER of $6\%$ is observed. This is mainly due to the imperfection of our entangle photon source from type II parameter down conversion. As shown in Fig. \[fig:figure3\], the visibility of our entangled photon source has a limited visibility of about $88\%$, which is in good agreement with our observed QBER of $6\%$
![\[fig:figure3\] Coincidence fringes for the entangled photon source in our experiment whose state is $|\psi^-\rangle_{12}$. When varying the polarizer angle $\theta_1$, The two complimentary sine curve with a visibility of $88\%$, which will bring $6\%$ error rate to the QKD protocol which is the main reason of the QBER of our experiment.](fig_3){width="2.5in"}
In summary, we have experimentally realized a fault tolerant quantum key distribution protocol in a DFS. As far as we have known, this is the first result of two photon quantum cryptography experiment that conquers the rotation noise with a decoherence free subspace[^1] We have verified the advantage of quantum key distribution in DFS over a random collective rotation noise.
The experiment also has an extensive application background in practice. Free space quantum communication is thought as a good choice to realize global quantum communication [@free-space]. In free space, the main noise is rotational type and the dispersion noise can be neglected. Our protocol can be useful in this situation. Also, in the cases when QKD between earth and swinging objects is needed, our protocol has unique advantage. The bit rate of our protocol is $2000$ per second and it can be significantly improved by raising the laser power and improving the detection efficiency. We believe it is potentially rather useful for practical QKD in free space in the future.
Moreover, the experiment is completed in a DFS that plays an important role in quantum computation and quantum communication. As is known that there are two methods for robust quantum communication, the quantum error correction codes(QECC) and the decoherence free subspace. So far, QECC codes have not been demonstrated by real qubits because they need at least 5 qubits. Here we for the first time demonstrate robust quantum communication of an arbitrary two-level quantum state in a type of decoherence free subspace and we can transmit quantum information robustly [@kempe].
We thank Yu-Ao Chen for his useful help in picture. This work was supported by the NNSF of China, the CAS, the PCSIRT and the National Fundamental Research Program. This work was also supported by the Marie Curie Excellent Grant of the EU, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
[99999999]{} N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Rev. Mod. Phys. **74** 145(2002). W. K. Wooters and W. H. Zurek, Nature London **299**, 802(1982). A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. **67**, 661(1991). P. W. Shor and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 441(2000). C. H. Benneett and G. Brassard, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computes, Systems and Signal Processing, p. 175(1984). M. Aspelmeyer, *et al.*, Science. **301**, 621(2003); C. Z. Peng, *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 150501(2005). S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 027901(2003). T. Rudolph, and L. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 217905(2003). G. M. Palma, K. A. Suominen, and A. K. Ekert, Proc. R. Soc. London A **452**, 567(1996). P. G. Kwiat, A. J. Berglund, J. B. Altepeter, and A. G. White, Science **290**, 498(2000); J. B. Altepeter, P. G. Hadley, S. M. Wendelken, A. J. Berglund, and P. G. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 147901(2004). J. Kempe, D. Bacon, D. A. Lidar, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. A **63**, 042307(2001). J. -C. Boileau, D. Gottesman, R. Laflamme, D. Poulin, and R. W. Spekkens, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 017901(2004). Z. D. Walton, A. F. Abouraddy, A. V. Sergienko, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 087901(2004). J. -C. Boileau, R. Laflamme, M. Laforest, and C. R. Myers, Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 220501(2004). X. B. Wang, *Fault tolerant quantum key distribution protocol with collective random unitary noise*, quant-ph/0406100. T. Jennewein, C. Simon, G. Weihs, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 4729(2000). D. Mayers and J. Assoc, Comput. Mach. **48**, 351(2001). Y. -K. Jiang, X. -B. Wang, B. -S. Shi, A. Tomita, Proceedings of the 12th Quantum Information Technology Symposium (QIT 12), May 12-13, pp 68-73
[^1]: Recently, we become aware that a different protocol for fault tolerant QKD has been realized by Jiang et al [@jiang].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give an review the HBT puzzle, and argue that its resolution requires the introduction of new physics close to the phase transition scale. We argue that a candidate for this new physics is bulk viscosity, recently postulated to peak, and even diverge, close to the phase transition temperature. We show that such a viscosity peak can force the system created in heavy ion collisions to become unstable, and filament into fragments whose size is weakly dependent on the global size of the system, thereby triggering freeze-out.'
author:
- |
Giorgio Torrieri$^{1,2}$,Igor Mishustin$^{2,3}$,Boris Tomášik$^{4,5}$\
$^1$Institut für Theoretische Physik, J.W. Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt, Germany\
$^2$FIAS, J.W. Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt, Germany\
$^3$Kurchatov Institute, Russian Research Center, Moscow 123182, Russia.\
$^4$Univerzita Mateja Bela, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia\
$^5$Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
title: ' Bulk viscosity-driven freeze-out in heavy ion collision '
---
The HBT puzzle\[Int\]
=====================
One of the most unexpected, and as yet unexplained, experimental results found at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) concerns the description of particle interferometry observables [@hbtreview]. It was originally expected that the deconfined matter would be a highly viscous, weakly interacting quark gluon plasma [@danielgyul]. Thus, ideal hydrodynamics would not provide a good description of flow observables sensitive to the early stages of the collision, such as azimuthal anisotropy. The signature of choice of a phase transition from hydrodynamics models, one less sensitive to viscosity, was to be an increase of the “out” to “side” emission radius ratio ($R_o$ and $R_s$, see Fig. \[hbtstinks\] center panel) due to longer lifetime of the system, caused by the softening of the equation of state in the transition/crossover region [@predictions].
The data, however, exhibited an opposite behaviour. Hydrodynamic simulations provided a good description of transverse momentum spectra and their azimuthal anisotropy. The same simulations, however, failed to describe HBT data [@hydroheinz]. Perhaps the most surpising aspect of the problem is the [*way*]{} in which the data does not fit: Measured parameters $R_{o}$ and $R_{s}$ are nearly identical. (Fig. \[hbtstinks\] left and right panel) Their (positive) difference $R_{o}^2 - R_{s}^2$ is thought to depend on the duration of particle emission. Hence, it looks like the fireball emits particles almost instantaneously and does not show any sign of phase transition or crossover. Hydrodynamics, with “reasonable” freeze-out condition (such as a freeze-out temperature of 100 MeV or so) can not describe this even qualitatively. This behaviour, when compared to lower energy data, exhibits remarkably good scaling with multiplicity (Fig. \[hbtstinks\] left panel). The scaling’s [*existance*]{}, however, is by itself surprising since the QCD equation of state, with it’s critical density for a phase transition, should break it.
There could be three possible approaches to the HBT puzzle. It could be that the system is simply too complicated, and that once we include all possible improvements (full 3D calculation, viscosity, hadronic kinetic afterburner, in-medium hadron modifications,pre-existing flow etc.), everything will fit. It could also be that we are drastically misunderstanding the data, and the HBT puzzle is a symptom of inapplicability of hydrodynamics to heavy ion collisions. Finally, it could be that the hydrodynamic approach is basically correct, but just one element of relevant physics is omitted [@ourbulk].
The second possibility is unlikely because, in some ways, hydrodynamic prescription [*does*]{} fit HBT data. Scaling of HBT radii with the multiplicity rapidity density $(dN/dy)^{1/3}$, over a large range of energies [@hbtreview] is typical for an isentropically expanding fluid that suddenly breaks apart. In addition, the good description, within parameters compatible with what is needed to describe flow, of the [*azimuthal*]{} dependence of HBT radii [@hydroheinz], also suggests that the hydrodynamic framework is a good ansatz for describing the matter produced in heavy ion collisions [*up to freeze-out*]{}.
The first possibility also appears problematic: successful models and/or parametrisations of the freeze-out which describe HBT radii are found in the literature [@models], and they could provide a way to gain insights into what is missing. However, we feel that successful description involves a dynamical description from initial conditions [*plus a freeze-out criterion*]{}, rather than a fit to data with assumptions put in “by hand”. Such a description is so far lacking. Furthermore, the most plausible refinements to hydrodynamics, namely implementation of fully three-dimensional models and the addition of a kinetic theory afterburner [@hirano] do not do anything to solve the HBT discrepancy, suggesting that the problem is not refinements but rather one large missed physical effect
Bulk viscosity close to $T_c$
=============================
The bulk viscosity of high temperature strongly interacting matter has recently been calculated using perturbative QCD [@amybulk], and found to be negligible, both in comparison to shear viscosity and w.r.t. its effect on any reasonable collective evolution of the system. This is not surprising: The QCD Lagrangian, as long as no “heavy” quarks are present, is nearly conformally invariant [@amybulk]. Since, within a fluid, the violation of conformal symmetry is linearly proportional to a bulk viscosity term, the near conformal invariance of the QCD Lagrangian should guarantee that bulk viscosity is nearly zero, *in the perturbative regime*. In the hadron gas phase, the numerous scales associated with hadrons render conformal invariance a bad symmetry, and hence it is natural that bulk viscosity not be negligible.
This is, again, rooted in a fundamental feature of QCD: the non-perturbative *conformal anomaly*, that manifests itself in the scale (usually called $\Lambda_{QCD}$) at which the QCD coupling constant stops being small enough for the perturbative expansion to make sense. This scale coincides with the scale at which confining forces hold hadrons together. This violation of conformal invariance is not seen perturbatively, but should dominate over the perturbatively calculated bulk viscosity as temperature drops close enough to the QCD phase transition. What happens to *bulk* viscosity in this regime, where hadrons are not yet formed, presumably the matter is still deconfined, but conformal symmetry is badly broken? There is a quenched lattice calculation, and compelling physical arguments [@bulkvisc] that bulk viscosity rises sharply, or even diverges, close to the phase transition temperature.
Lattice simulations find that $T^{\mu}_{\mu}$ (=0 for a conformally invariant system), increases rapidly close to $T_c$. Remembering that the shear ($\eta$) and bulk ($\zeta$) viscosities roughly scale as [@weinberg] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bulkgeneral}
\eta \sim \tau_{\rm elastic} T^4 \phantom{AAAA}
\zeta \sim \left( \frac{1}{3} - v_s^2 \right)^2 \tau_{\rm inelastic} T^4\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_{\rm (ine)elastic}$ refers to the equilibration timescale of (ine)elastic collisions. Finite temperature sum rules in conjunction with lattice data [@bulkvisc] give a sharp rise in bulk viscosity.
The rise is, in fact, likely to be considerably sharper than [@bulkvisc] suggests. The dependence of $\tau_{\rm inelastic}$ on temperature can be guessed from the fact that, at $T_c$, the quark condensate ${\left\langle q \overline{q} \right\rangle}$ acquires a finite value, and the gluon condensate ${\left\langle G_{\mu \nu} G^{\mu \nu} \right\rangle}$ sharply increases at the phase transition. “Kinetically”, therefore, timescales of processes that create extra $q \overline{q}$ and $G G$ pairs should diverge close to the phase transition temperature, by analogy with the divergence of the spin correlation length in the Ising model close to the phase transition. The sharp rise of bulk viscosity can also be understood within string kinetics: confinement, microscopically, can be thought of as a “string tension” appearing in the potential. Even in a regime where the momentum exchange of the average collision is more than enough to break the string, and the relevant degrees of freedom are still quarks, not mesons, string tension introduces a huge change in kinetics: what were elastic collision without string tension, become inelastic onece string tension appears. Even if the energy needed to break the string is low, over many collisions, the heat energy would be converted into creating more slightly colder, less pressing particles. That’s exactly the kind of processes that contribute most to bulk viscosity [@jeonvisc].
These arguments give evidence to the conjecture that, close (from above) to $T_c$, bulk viscosity goes rapidly from a negligible value to a value capable of *dominating* the collective evolution of the system. For our analysis, we assume the bulk viscosity to be of the form $\zeta = s \left( z_{pQCD} + \frac{z_0}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma} \exp(- \frac{t^2}{2 \sigma^2})\right)$ where $t=T-T_c$ and $\sigma=0.01 T_c$ and $z_{pQCD} \sim 10^{-3}$ [@amybulk]. At $T>T_c$, this ansatz provides a reasonable fit to the results of [@bulkvisc], considering the peak height and width of the distribution are still unknown.
Bulk viscosity-triggered fragmenting
====================================
To study the effect of our conjectured behaviour of bulk viscosity on solutions to hydrodynamics, we perform a stability analysis [@stability] of a boost-invariant solution to the Navier-Stokes equations (both the 1D and 3D cases). The Navier-Stokes equations with boost-invariant symmetry [@danielgyul; @stability; @bjorken] can be rewritten in terms of the Reynolds number $R$, the entropy $s$ the co-moving time $\tau$, the total number ($N$) of dimensions, and the dimensionality of the homogeneous expansion ($M$) $$\tau^{-M} \frac{ d (\tau^M s)}{d\tau} = \frac{M s}{R\tau}$$ $M=1$ $N=3$ corresponds to Bjorken hydrodynamics [@bjorken], $M=N=3$ to a homogeneus 3D expansion. The Reynolds number is a function of temperature $T$, bulk and shear viscosity $\zeta$ and $\eta$ and entropy density $s$: $R^{-1}= (2(1-M/N)\eta+M\zeta)/(T s \tau)$. With given expressions for $s(T),\, \eta(T),\, \zeta(T)$, this set of equations becomes closed and solvable. For the equation of state, we use a parameterization of lattice data (We have checked that our results do not vary qualitatively if the ideal EoS is used).
We follow the stability analysis performed in [@stability]. The amplitude of a generic perturbation to the 1D Boost-invariant system is a vector $\vec{x}$ in the two dimensional space of entropy perturbations and flow (rapidity $y$) perturbations, and its frequency in rapidity can be decomposed into Fourier components $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{x}(y) = \sum_k \vec{x}(k) e^{ i k y}\phantom{AA},\phantom{AA} x_1=\frac{\delta s}{s} \phantom{AA},\phantom{AA} x_2 = y-y_{spacetime}\end{aligned}$$ The equation of motion for $\vec{x}$ will then be given by $$\label{perturbeq}
\tau \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} \left( \begin{array}{c} x_1 \\i x_2 \end{array} \right)
= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
A_{11} & A_{12}\\
A_{21} & A_{22}
\end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{c} x_1 \\i x_2 \end{array} \right)$$ where ${ \vec{\vec{ A }}_{i j}}$ is a real matrix function of $s,R$ and $k$. We refer the reader to Eq. 4.23-4.26 of [@stability] for the full form of ${ \vec{\vec{ A }}_{i j}}$. The system’s stability can be understood via the behavior of the modulus of $\vec{x}$, $X = \vec{x}^T \vec{x}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tau \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} X = \vec{x}^T { \vec{\vec{ M }}_{i j}} \vec{x}\phantom{AA},\phantom{AA} { \vec{\vec{M }}_{i j}}={ \vec{\vec{A }}_{i j}}+{ \vec{\vec{A }}_{i j}}^T \end{aligned}$$ Since ${ \vec{\vec{ M }}_{i j}}$ is real and symmetric, it will always have two real eigenvalues, $\lambda_{max}$ and $\lambda_{min}$ (corresponding eigenvectors $\vec{x}_{max,min}$), as well as orthogonal matrices ${ \vec{\vec{B }}_{i j}} $ diagonalizing it. Defining $\vec{y}_i = { \vec{\vec{B }}_{i j}}^{-1} \vec{x}_j$we see that $\lambda_{min} y_{min}^2 <\tau \frac{\partial X}{\partial \tau} < \lambda_{max} y_{max}^2$ Thus, if $\lambda_{min}>0$, the system is unstable, since perturbation in any direction will produce a positive growth rate. An instability will grow as a power-law with $\tau/\tau_{ini}$, where $\tau_{ini}$ is the starting time of the perturbation $\vec{x}(\tau) \sim ( {\tau}/{\tau_{ini}} )^{\lambda} \vec{x}(\tau_{ini})$. If $\lambda_{max}<0$, on the other hand, the system will be stable against perturbations, an instability will be suppressed as $\sim ( {\tau}/{\tau_{ini}} )^{\lambda(<0)}$.
If $\lambda_{min}<0$ and $\lambda_{max}>0$ some modes will be stable and some will be unstable. In the latter case, the time dependence of ${ \vec{\vec{A }}_{i j}}$ will in general continuously rotate $\vec{x}_{min}$ and $\vec{x}_{max}$ in time, stopping the growth of the instability: Since ${ \vec{\vec{A }}_{i j}}$ is time-dependant, $\vec{x}_{max}(\tau_{ini})$ might be in the direction of $\vec{x}_{min}(\tau>\tau_{ini})$ a short time later. Solving Eq. \[perturbeq\] will take this effect into account.
In what follows, we use $z_0=0,0.1,1$ $T_c$ and evolve the system from an initial temperature $T=0.3$ GeV and comoving time 0.6 $fm$. Note that the qualitative features of our study are independent of the details of the evolution before $T_c$, such as the initial temperature and timescale.
Figure \[allplots\] (upper panel) shows the temperature, entropy density and total entropy in the central rapidity unit as a function of time. As soon as $z_0$ becomes non-negligible (i.e. viscous forces dominate around $T_c$), the kinematic evolution of the system “freezes”. The system then stays at nearly constant temperature, through it keeps producing more and more entropy at the expense of advective energy. At first sight, large values of $z_0$ are excluded by HBT data and multiplicity measurements. However, we will show that this long phase is unstable against small perturbations. Thus, its further evolution will not be given by the background solution, but by a rapid formation of local inhomogeneities.
Figure \[allplots\] (second panel) shows the $\lambda_{min}$ and $\lambda_{max}$ Eigenvalues corresponding to representative $k=2,8$ (other values of $k$ were checked not to vary significantly wrt those presented here). As can be seen, the peak in bulk viscosity forces the growing/damping rates to increase rapidly. Thus, any initial perturbation in the unstable direction will rapidly grow to a value comparable with the background, unless the system’s evolution will stop the growth by rotating the direction of the unstable modes.
Figure \[allplots\] (third panel) examines whether this occurs for larger values of $z_0$. If the peak of viscosity is negligible, the unstable eigenvector keeps rotating throughout the evolution of the system. Thus, even an unstable mode’s growth will very quickly stop growing since the dynamics will turn it into a damped mode. When $z_0$ dominates, however, when $T$ approaches $T_c$, the direction of the unstable modes experiences an abrupt rotation. Then it stays constant throughout the time the system travels through the viscosity peak (this time increases strongly as $z_0$ increases), and gets rotated again as the peak is passed. The reason for this behavior is clear from the “freeze” of the background evolution in the top panel. Thus, at large $z_0$ unstable modes have all the required time to grow.
Finally, Fig. \[allplots\] (bottom panel) shows the explicit solution of Eq. \[perturbeq\]. At each time-step, a perturbation is born in the unstable eigenvector mode, and then evolved until the end of the evolution of the system. The plot shows $Z=X(\tau)/X(\tau_{ini})$, the ratio of strength of the perturbation to the initial strength as a function of time (Note that the starting value is always unity). A large $Z$ does not mean the evolution equation is invalid: For any point in the graph, there will be a small enough perturbation amplitude that survives as a perturbation in the subsequent evolution. The probability of a [*larger*]{} perturbation forming and significantly modifying the background, however, should grow strongly with $z_0$. It is clear that any microscopic mechanism seeding instabilities at the scale $Z \sim 10^{-1}$,uniformly distributed in $\vec{x}$ and at a rate of $\sim fm^{-4}$ is likely to generate power-law growing instabilities a few $fm$ after $T \sim T_c$. These instabilities should reach $Z \ge 1$, and hence play an important role in the subsequent evolution of the system, a few $fm$ after that.
The resulting scenario is phenomenologically similar to the fragmenting induced by supercooling in a first order transition [@firstorder], but originating from hydrodynamic rather than thermodyamic instabilities.
We do not expect second order hydrodynamics [@israelstewart] to play a big role in [*starting*]{} the instabilities: As argued in [@ourbulk], as long as the system’s expansion rate as the system approaches $T_c$ is smaller than the relaxation time $\tau_{\Pi}$, $\tau_\Pi \frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{dT}{d\tau} < 1$ second order terms will not prevent viscous corrections to the pressure of the order of $\zeta/\tau$, but merely localize their propagation. The (admittedly unreliable) estimates from strongly coupled CFT [@janik] suggest that this criterion is amply satisfied, especially considering that the increase in viscosity causes the background solution to slow down over a timescale much bigger than $\tau_\Pi$. Second order hydrodynamics might however play a dominant role in stopping the instabilities once they grow to a value comparable to the background. Recent numerical simulations, with Israel-Stewart hydrodynamics, provide evidence that this description is true, as cluster-like instabilities seem to be present (Fig. 11 of [@denicol])
Fragmenting and the HBT puzzle \[hbt\_fragments\]
=================================================
HBT radii are directly related to the system’s spacetime correlation tensor [@hydroheinz; @hbtreview][^1] $$\begin{aligned}
R_o^2(K) &=& {\left\langle (\Delta x_o)^2 \right\rangle} - 2 \frac{k_T}{k_0} {\left\langle \Delta x_o
\Delta t \right\rangle} + \left( \frac{k_T}{k_0} \right)^2 {\left\langle (\Delta t)^2 \right\rangle} \label{rout}\end{aligned}$$ while $R_s^2(K)$ is simply given by $ {\left\langle (\Delta x_s)^2 \right\rangle}$. Here the $K$ is the sum of the two four-momenta of the pion pair. As remarked in [@hydroheinz], the $R_o
\sim R_s$ result is not easy to reconcile with naive hydrodynamics plus a straight-forward (critical temperature) emission for several reasons;
Firstly, the higher the energy, the longer the emission time, the larger is the expected discrepancy between $R_o$ and $R_s$. If the system starts close to the mixed phase, the timescale of freezing out should be longer still due to the softest point in the equation of state. Hence, a generic prediction from Eq. (\[rout\]) is that $R_o/R_s>1$, largely increases with energy, and exhibits a peak when the energy density is such that the system starts within, or slightly above the mixed phase. This is in direct contrast with experimental data, where $R_o/R_s \simeq 1$ is a feature at all reaction energies.
Secondly, generally ${\left\langle \Delta x \Delta t \right\rangle}<0$, since particles on the outer layer freeze-out first. This increases $R_o/R_s$ further (cf. eq \[rout\]). Time dilation due to transverse flow does reverse this dependence [@hydroheinz].
Fragmentation of the bulk could help solving these problems. Firstly, fragment size, density and decay timescale, is approximately independent of either reaction energy or centrality. Hence, the near energy independence of the (comparatively short) emission timescale, and hence of $R_{o}/R_{s}$, should be recovered. Secondly, if the decay products do not interact (or do not interact much) after fragment decay, it can also be seen that ${\left\langle \Delta x \Delta t \right\rangle}$ can indeed be positive: outward fragments are moving faster, resulting in time dilation. This effect can be offset by time dilation of fragment decay by increasing the temperature at which fragments form, or by increasing fragment size. Recovering the linear scaling of the radii with $(dN/dy)^{1/3} (\sim
N_{\rm fragments})$ [@hbtreview], while maintaining the correct $R_{o}/R_{s}$ is also possible if the fragments decay when their distance w.r.t. each other is still comparable to their intrinsic size. The bulk-viscosity-driven freeze-out adds another parameter to ab initio HBT calculations: in addition to critical temperature/energy density, we now have the fragment size. To see whether this helps solving the HBT problem, output from hydrodynamics with a high ($T \sim T_c$) freeze-out temperature should be fragmented into piecess with a certain distribution in size, which then produce hadrons according to the prescription in the Appendix of [@ourbulk].
In conclusion, we have introduced the HBT puzzle, and explained how bulk viscosity could help solve it by triggering the fragmenting of the system close to the critical temperature. We hope that, in the near future, this scenario will be developed to the point of experimental falsification.
GT would like to thank the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the LOEWE foundation for the support provided, and to Mike Lisa, Sangyong Jeon, Guy Moore and Johann Rafelski for fruitful discussions. BT acknowledges support from VEGA 1/4012/07 (Slovakia) as well as MSM 6840770039 and LC 07048 (Czech Republic). IM acknowledges support provided by the DFG grant 436RUS 113/711/0-2 (Germany) and grants RFFR-05-02-04013 and NS-8756.2006.2 (Russia). GT is grateful to the Erice school and its organizers for the fellowship that allowed him to attend the school.
[10]{}
bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
M. A. Lisa, S. Pratt, R. Soltz and U. Wiedemann, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**55**]{}, 357 (2005)
P. Danielewicz and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D [**31**]{} (1985) 53.\
H. Heiselberg and A. M. Levy, Phys. Rev. C [**59**]{}, 2716 (1999)
D. H. Rischke and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. A [**608**]{}, 479 (1996) P. F. Kolb and U. W. Heinz, arXiv:nucl-th/0305084. G. Torrieri, B. Tomášik and I. Mishustin, Phys. Rev. C [**77**]{}, 034903 (2008)\
G. Torrieri and I. Mishustin, Phys. Rev. C **78**, 021901 (2008). A. Baran, W. Broniowski and W. Florkowski, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**35**]{}, 779 (2004)\
S. V. Akkelin and Yu. M. Sinyukov, Nucl. Phys. A [**774**]{}, 647 (2006)\
M. Csanád, T. Csörgő, B. Lörstad and A. Ster, Nucl. Phys. A [**774**]{}, 535 (2006),\
J. G. Cramer, G. A. Miller, J. M. S. Wu and J. H. S. Yoon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 102302 (2005),\
S. Pratt and J. Vredevoogd, arXiv:0809.0516 \[nucl-th\].
T. Hirano and K. Tsuda, Nucl. Phys. A [**715**]{}, 821 (2003)\
D. Teaney, J. Lauret and E. V. Shuryak, arXiv:nucl-th/0110037.
P. Arnold, C. Dogan and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 085021 (2006) K. Paech and S. Pratt, Phys. Rev. C [**74**]{}, 014901 (2006)\
F. Karsch, D. Kharzeev, K. Tuchin, arXiv:0711.0914 \[hep-ph\].\
H. B. Meyer, arXiv:0710.3717 \[hep-lat\].
S. Weinberg, Astrophys. J. [**168**]{} (1971) 175.
S. Jeon and L. G. Yaffe, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 5799 (1996)
H. Kouno, M. Maruyama, F. Takagi and K. Saito, Phys. Rev. D [**41**]{}, 2903 (1990).
J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D [**27**]{}, 140 (1983). I.N. Mishustin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4779 (1999);\
J. Randrup, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 122301 (2004)\
L. P. Csernai and J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 1379 (1992).
W. Israel and J. M. Stewart, Annals Phys. [**118**]{} (1979) 341.
M. P. Heller and R. A. Janik, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 025027 (2007) G. S. Denicol, T. Kodama, T. Koide and Ph. Mota, J. Phys. G [**35**]{}, 115102 (2008) \[arXiv:0807.3120 \[hep-ph\]\].
[^1]: Here $l$ (“long”) is the z direction (parallel to the beam), $o$ (“out”) is the direction of the pair momentum, and $s$ (“side”) is the cross product of the previous two. Averaging is done over the emission function $S(x,p)$, the probability of producing a particle of momentum $p$ at $x$. See [@hbtreview] for details
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article we address the problem of the nonlinear interaction of subdiffusive particles. We introduce the random walk model in which statistical characteristics of a random walker such as escape rate and jump distribution depend on the mean density of particles. We derive a set of nonlinear subdiffusive fractional master equations and consider their diffusion approximations. We show that these equations describe the transition from an intermediate subdiffusive regime to asymptotically normal advection-diffusion transport regime. This transition is governed by nonlinear tempering parameter that generalizes the standard linear tempering. We illustrate the general results through the use of the examples from cell and population biology. We find that a nonuniform anomalous exponent has a strong influence on the aggregation phenomenon.'
author:
- Sergei Fedotov
title: Nonlinear subdiffusive fractional equations and aggregation phenomenon
---
Introduction
============
Anomalous subdiffusion is a widespread phenomenon in physics and biology [@MK1; @Klages; @MFH]. It is observed in the transport of proteins and lipids on cell membranes [@Sa], RNA molecules in the cells [@Go], signaling molecules in spiny dendrites [@Santa], and elsewhere. Apart from fractional Brownian motion, the *linear* fractional equations are the standard models for the description of anomalous subdiffusive transport [@Klages]. In these models the diffusing particles do not interact. The question then arises as to how to extend these equations for the *nonlinear* case, involving particles interactions. These nonlinear effects are typical and very important in cellular and population biology. It is well known that many biophysical processes in microorganisms depend on the their population density. A typical example is the *quorum sensing phenomenon,* in which microorganisms coordinate their behaviour according to their local population density [@Q]. Other examples are a *cellular adhesion,* which involves the interaction between neighbouring cells [@Ad; @V; @Si; @Ha]; and the *volume filling effect,* which describes the dependence of cell motility on the availability of space in a crowded environment [@Hillen; @Hillen2]. The understanding of macroscopic phenomena like cell and microorganism aggregation requires an understanding of how individual species interact through attractive or repulsive forces (see, for example, [@Campos] and references therein). The attraction between individuals may result from various social interactions such as mating, settlement, defense against predators, etc. While the repulsion may occur due to low resources in highly populated regions [@Campos; @Fedot5]. Note that microorganisms interact both directly and indirectly via signaling molecules.
The main purpose of this paper is to incorporate these nonlinear effects into subdiffusive equations. Our aim is to take into account the interaction between particles on the mesoscopic level, at which the random walker’s characteristics depend on the mean field density of particles. Our intention is to derive the subdiffusive nonlinear fractional equations for the density of particles and apply these equations to the problem of aggregation. In this paper we use two different approaches that are based on the density-dependent dispersal kernels and density-dependent jump rate. Note that several theoretical studies have been devoted to nonlinear generalizations of linear fractional equations. However, most research has been focused on the problem how to incorporate the nonlinear reactions into subdiffusive equations [VR,YH,Nec,Sokolov,Fedot1,Abad,Fedot3,Soko,Sh,Vo,Au]{}. The aim of this paper is to study the nonlinear subdiffusive transport processes involving the anomalous trapping of particles and their interactions.
In this paper we deal with the random walk model involving a residence time dependent escape rate and the structural density of particles. This has been used by many authors for the analysis of the non-Markovian random walks [MFH,VR,YH,Fedotov,Steve1,Zubarev]{}. It turns out that this linear model is the most suitable for further nonlinear generalizations. We consider a ‘space-jump’ random walk in one space dimension. The particle waits for a random time (residence time) $T_{x}$ at point $x$ in space before making a jump to another point. The random residence time $T_{x}$ is determined by the probability density function $\psi (x,\tau )=\Pr \left\{ \tau
<T_{x}<\tau +d\tau \right\} .$ The key characteristic of this random walk is the escape rate $\gamma $ from the point $x.$ It depends on the residence time $\tau $ and the position $x:$ $\gamma =\gamma (x,\tau ).$ This rate can be rewritten in terms of the probability density function $\psi (x,\tau )$ and the survival probability $\Psi (x,\tau )=\int_{\tau }^{\infty }\psi
(x,u)du$ as follows [@Cox]$$\gamma (x,\tau )=\frac{\psi (x,\tau )}{\Psi (x,\tau )}. \label{gamma}$$It is convenient to write the survival probability $\Psi (x,\tau )$ in terms of $\gamma (x,\tau )$ as follows $$\Psi (x,\tau )=e^{-\int_{0}^{\tau }\gamma (x,s)ds}. \label{sur}$$
Let $\xi (x,\tau ,t)$ be the structural density of particles at point $x$ at time $t$ whose residence time lies in the interval $\left( \tau ,\tau +d\tau
\right) $. Here we neglect the aging phenomenon [@Bar2] and assume that at $t=0$ all particles have zero residence time: $$\xi (x,\tau ,0)=\rho _{0}(x)\delta (\tau ), \label{zero}$$where $\rho _{0}(x)$ is the initial density. To consider the aging we need to specify the general distribution for $\xi (x,\tau ,0).$
The density of particles, $\rho \left( x,t\right) ,$ is obtained by integration of the structural density $\xi (x,\tau ,t)$ with respect to the residence time variable $\tau $ from $0$ to $t$:$$\rho \left( x,t\right) =\int_{0}^{t}\xi (x,\tau ,t)d\tau . \label{den}$$The number of particles with fixed residence time $\tau $ escaping from the point $x$ per unit of time is defined as a product $\gamma (x,\tau )\xi
(x,\tau ,t).$ The total escape rate, $i\left( x,t\right) ,$ of particles from the point $x$ can be obtained by integration of this product with respect to $\tau $ from $0$ to $t$: $$i(x,t)=\int_{0}^{t}\gamma (x,\tau )\xi (x,\tau ,t)d\tau . \label{mean}$$The rate $i\left( x,t\right) $ is very useful quantity, since it allows to write a very simple master equation for the density $\rho \left( x,t\right) $ as the balance of particles at the point $x$ $$\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}=\int_{\mathbb{R}}i\left( x-z,t\right)
w\left( z|x-z\right) dz-i\left( x,t\right) , \label{mast}$$where $w\left( z|x\right) $ is the dispersal kernel for the jumps. We have assumed here that the jumps of particles are independent from the residence time. One of the main results in the non-Markovian random walk theory is that the mean escape rate $i\left( x,t\right) $ can be written as a convolution $$i\left( x,t\right) =\int_{0}^{t}K\left( x,t-\tau \right) \rho \left( x,\tau
\right) d\tau . \label{m_escape}$$(see, for example, [@MFH]). Here $K(x,t)$ is the memory kernel defined by its Laplace transform $$\hat{K}\left( x,s\right) =\frac{\hat{\psi}\left( x,s\right) }{\hat{\Psi}%
\left( x,s\right) }, \label{L}$$where $\hat{\psi}\left( x,s\right) =\int_{0}^{\infty }e^{-s\tau }\psi
(x,\tau )d\tau $ and $\hat{\Psi}\left( x,s\right) =\int_{0}^{\infty
}e^{-s\tau }\Psi (x,\tau )d\tau $.
In the anomalous subdiffusive case, the survival probability $\Psi _{\mu
}\left( x,\tau \right) $ can be modelled by the Mittag-Leffler function [Scalas]{} $$\Psi _{\mu }\left( x,\tau \right) =E_{\mu }\left[ -\left( \frac{\tau }{\tau
_{0}(x)}\right) ^{\mu (x)}\right] ,\ 0<\mu (x)<1, \label{sub2}$$where $\mu (x)$ is the space-dependent anomalous exponent. In what follows we assume for simplicity that $\tau _{0}$ is constant. The Laplace transform of the memory kernel $K_{\mu }\left( x,t\right) $ is $\hat{K}_{\mu }\left(
x,s\right) =s^{1-\mu (x)}\tau _{0}{}^{-\mu (x)}$ and the integral anomalous escape rate $i\left( x,t\right) $ can be written as $$i\left( x,t\right) =\frac{1}{\tau _{0}{}^{\mu (x)}}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu
(x)}\rho \left( x,t\right) , \label{ano_escape}$$where $\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}$ is the Riemann-Liouville derivative with varying anomalous exponent [@Ch]. Substitution of (\[ano\_escape\]) into (\[mast\]) gives the integral fractional equation with space-dependent anomalous exponent $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t} &=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{1}{\tau
_{0}{}^{\mu (x-z)}}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu (x-z)}\rho \left( x-z,t\right)
w\left( z|x-z\right) dz \notag \\
&&-\frac{1}{\tau _{0}{}^{\mu (x)}}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}\rho \left(
x,t\right) . \label{mm}\end{aligned}$$Note that if $\mu =const$ and $\tau _{0}=1$ one obtains the following equation [@Ma] $$\frac{\partial ^{\mu }\rho }{\partial t^{\mu }}=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\rho \left(
x-z,t\right) w\left( z|x-z\right) dz-\rho \left( x,t\right) , \label{Caputo}$$where the Caputo derivative $\partial ^{\mu }\rho /$ $\partial t^{\mu }$ is used instead of the Riemann-Liouville derivative $\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu
}\rho $.
Using the Taylor series expansion in terms of $z,$ and a symmetric dispersal kernel $w$ for which $\int_{\mathbb{R}}zw(z|x)dz=0$, we obtain the standard fractional subdiffusive equation$$\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}=\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}\left[
D_{\mu }\left( x\right) \mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}\rho \left( x,t\right) %
\right] \label{fr}$$with the fractional diffusion coefficient $$D_{\mu }\left( x\right) \mathcal{=}\frac{\sigma ^{2}(x)}{2\tau _{0}{}^{\mu
(x)}},$$where $\sigma ^{2}(x)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}z^{2}w(z|x)dz$.
It has been found recently that subdiffusive fractional equations with constant $\mu $ are not structurally stable with respect to the spatial variations of fractal exponent $\mu (x)$ [@Steve1; @Zubarev]. This leads to the anomalous aggregation of particles at the minimum of the function $%
\mu (x)$. In heterogeneous biological systems, in which the exponent $\mu
(x) $ is space-dependent, the question arises as to whether this anomalous aggregation of a population can be prevented. Therefore it is an important problem to find the way how to regularize subdiffusive fractional equations. One way is to incorporate random killing, which ensures regular behaviour in the long-time limit [@Steve2]. The aim of this paper is to address this problem through a nonlinear escape rate that takes into account repulsive forces between particles. In the next section we derive the nonlinear generalization of the fractional equations like (\[mm\]) and (\[fr\]).
Non-Markovian and subdiffusive nonlinear fractional equations
=============================================================
There are two major ways in which nonlinear density-dependence effects can be implemented into non-Markovian and subdiffusive transport equations. The simplest way is to take into account the dependence of jump density $w$ on $%
\rho $. This dependence can take into account various nonlinear effects such as adhesion, quorum sensing, volume filling, etc. However, we begin with more complicated case of the random walk model for which the escape rate is a function of the residence time and the local density of particles.
Nonlinear escape rate
---------------------
The main problem with this anomalous escape rate (\[ano\_escape\]) is the phenomenon of anomalous aggregation [@Fedotov; @Steve1; @Zubarev]. Nonuniform distribution of the anomalous exponent $\mu (x)$ over the finite domain $\left[ 0,L\right] $ leads to$$\rho \left( x,t\right) \rightarrow \delta (x-x_{M})\qquad as\qquad
t\rightarrow \infty . \label{co}$$Here $x_{M}$ is the point in space where the anomalous exponent $\mu \left(
x\right) $ has a minimum. The problem is that that the escape rate ([ano\_escape]{}) is a linear functional of the density of particles $\rho
\left( x,t\right) $ and does not take into account nonlinear effects of repulsive forces which, in many situations, can prevent anomalous aggregation. According to (\[co\]) all particles aggregate into a small region around the point $x=x_{M}$ forming a high density system. To prevent such anomalous aggregation, one can assume that the overcrowding leads to an increase of repulsive forces and a corresponding correction of the anomalous escape rate $\gamma (x,\tau ).$
We assume that the probability of escape due to the repulsive forces is independent from anomalous trapping. We define this probability for a small time interval $\Delta t$ as $$\alpha (\rho (x,t))\Delta t+o(\Delta t).$$Here $\alpha (\rho )$ is the transition rate which is an increasing function of the particles density $\rho $. Another interpretation can be given in terms of the quorum sensing phenomenon [@Q]. The large cell density can lead to the local over-depletion of nutrients and oxygen and as a result cells can change phenotype from a proliferating state to a migrating one [@Fedot3]. In another words, when the concentration of cells is low, $%
\alpha (\rho )=0$, but if the concentration of cells $\rho (x,t)$ reaches a certain level $\rho _{cr}:$ $\alpha (\rho )\neq 0$ for $\rho \geq \rho
_{cr}.$ Of course, one can assume a non-monotonic dependence of the transition rate $\alpha (\rho )$ on $\rho $. For example, at low cell densities $\alpha (\rho )$ could decrease with $\rho $, while at high densities $\alpha (\rho )$ could be an increasing function: $\alpha (\rho
)=\alpha _{0}\left( 1-a_{1}\rho +a_{2}\rho ^{2}\right) $ [@Campos; @Hillen].
Firstly we formulate the Markovian model for the random walk of particles with the density-dependent escape rate. The balance equation for the structural density $\xi (x,\tau ,t)$ takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\xi (x,\tau +\Delta t,t+\Delta t,) &=&\xi (x,\tau ,t)\left( 1-\gamma (x,\tau
)\Delta t\right) \\
&&\times \left( 1-\alpha (\rho (x,t)\right) \Delta t)+o\left( \Delta
t\right) .\end{aligned}$$where $1-\gamma (x,\tau )\Delta t$ is the survival probability during time $%
\Delta t$ due to the trapping, and $1-\alpha (\rho (x,t))\Delta t$ is the survival probability during time $\Delta t$ corresponding to the repulsion forces between particles. In the limit $\Delta t\rightarrow 0,$ we obtain $$\frac{\partial \xi }{\partial t}+\frac{\partial \xi }{\partial \tau }=-\left[
\gamma (x,\tau )+\alpha (\rho (x,t))\right] \xi , \label{dif1}$$where the effective transition rate is the sum of two escape rates: $$\gamma (x,\tau )+\alpha (\rho (x,t)). \label{two}$$The second term $\alpha (\rho (x,t))$ can be treated as the correction of the escape rate $\gamma (x,\tau )$ defined by (\[gamma\]) due to repulsive forces. The boundary condition for $\xi (x,\tau ,t)$ at zero residence time $%
\tau =0$ is $$\xi (x,0,t)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}i(x-z,t)w\left( z|\rho (x-z,t)\right) dz.
\label{bou3}$$This equation describes the balance of particles just arriving at the point $%
x$ from the different positions $x-z.$ The jumps of particles are determined by the conditional probability density function (dispersal kernel) $w\left(
z|\rho (x-z,t)\right) $ that depends on the total density of particles $\rho
$ at the point $x-z$ from which the particles jump at point $x$ (see all details regarding $w$ in subsection D). Obviously this dispersal kernel satisfies the normalization condition $$\int_{\mathbb{R}}w\left( z|\rho (x,t)\right) dz=1.$$Because of (\[two\]) and (\[den\]), the effective escape rate $i\left(
x,t\right) $ from the point $x$ at time $t$ can be written as$$i\left( x,t\right) =\int_{0}^{t}\gamma (x,\tau )\xi (x,\tau ,t)d\tau +\alpha
(\rho )\rho (x,t). \label{eff}$$It is convenient to introduce the number of particles $j(x,t)$ just jumping at the point $x$ at time $t:j(x,t)=\xi (x,0,t)$, so the boundary condition (\[bou3\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
j(x,t) &=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\int_{0}^{t}\gamma (x-z,\tau )\xi (x-z,\tau ,t)
\notag \\
&&\times w\left( z|\rho (x-z,t)\right) d\tau dz \notag \\
&&+\int_{\mathbb{R}}\alpha (\rho (x-z,t))\rho (x-z,t) \notag \\
&&\times w\left( z|\rho (x-z,t)\right) dz. \label{bound2}\end{aligned}$$We solve (\[dif1\]) for $\xi (x,\tau ,t)$ by the methods of characteristics. For $\tau <t$ we find $$\xi (x,\tau ,t)=\xi (x,0,t-\tau )e^{-\int_{0}^{\tau }\gamma (x,\tau
)ds-\int_{t-\tau }^{t}\alpha (\rho (x,s))ds}. \label{sol3}$$This solution involves an exponential factor $e^{-\int_{0}^{\tau }\gamma
(x,\tau )ds}$ that can be interpreted as the survival function $\Psi (x,\tau
)$ defined by (\[sur\]). Taking into account the initial condition ([zero]{}), (\[gamma\]) and substituting (\[sol3\]) into (\[bound2\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
j(x,t) &=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\int_{0}^{t}[\psi (x-z,\tau )j(x-z,t-\tau )
\label{jjjj} \\
&&\times e^{-\int_{t-\tau }^{t}\alpha (\rho (x,s))ds}w\left( z|\rho
(x-z,t)\right) d\tau dz \notag \\
&&+\int_{\mathbb{R}}[\alpha (\rho (x-z,t))\rho (x-z,t)+\rho _{0}(x-z) \notag
\\
&&\times \psi (x-z,t)e^{-\int_{0}^{t}\alpha (\rho (x,s))ds}]w\left( z|\rho
(x-z,t)\right) dz. \notag\end{aligned}$$Substitution of (\[sol3\]) and (\[zero\]) into (\[den\]) gives$$\begin{aligned}
\rho (x,t) &=&\int_{0}^{t}[\Psi (x,\tau )j(x,t-\tau )e^{-\int_{t-\tau
}^{t}\alpha (\rho (x,s))ds}d\tau \notag \\
&&+\Psi (x,t)\rho _{0}(x)e^{-\int_{0}^{t}\alpha (\rho (x,s))ds}. \label{rr}\end{aligned}$$By using the Laplace transforms one can eliminate $j(x,t)$ from the above equations and express the the *integral* escape rate $i\left(
x,t\right) $ in terms of the density $\rho (x,t)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
i\left( x,t\right) &=&\int_{0}^{t}K\left( x,t-\tau \right) e^{-\int_{\tau
}^{t}\alpha (\rho (x,s))ds}\rho \left( x,\tau \right) d\tau \notag \\
&&+\alpha (\rho (x,t))\rho (x,t), \label{i2}\end{aligned}$$where the memory kernel $K\left( x,t\right) $ is defined by its Laplace transform (\[L\]). The details of this derivation can be found in [Fedot1,MFH]{}. Note that the first term in (\[i2\]) involves the exponential factor, $e^{-\int_{\tau }^{t}\alpha (\rho (x,s))ds},$ which can be interpreted as a nonlinear tempering. The main feature of this modified escape rates is that although the *local* rates $\gamma (x,\tau )$and $\alpha (\rho (x,t))$ are additive (see (\[two\])), the corresponding terms in the *integral* escape rate (\[i2\]) are not additive. This is clearly non-Markovian effect. One of the main aims of this paper is to find out what the implications of this effect on the long-time behaviour of the density $\rho (x,t)$ are (see section III). Note that in the linear homogeneous case, when $\alpha (\rho )=0,$ $\psi $ and $w$ are independent of $x$, we obtain from Eqs. (\[jjjj\]), (\[rr\]) and (\[i2\]) the classical continuos time random walk (CTRW) equation [@MK1; @Klages; @MFH]$$\rho (x,t)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\int_{0}^{t}\rho (x-z,t-\tau )\psi (\tau
)w(z)d\tau dz+\rho _{0}(x)\Psi (t).$$
Master equation for the mean field density of particles
--------------------------------------------------------
The master equation for the density $\rho \left( x,t\right) $ takes the simple form of the balance of jumping particles $$\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}=\int_{\mathbb{R}}i\left( x-z,t\right)
w\left( z|\rho (x-z,t)\right) dz-i\left( x,t\right) , \label{Master444}$$where the dispersal kernel $w$ depends on the mean density $\rho (x,t).$ Substitution of the integral escape rate (\[i2\]) into the equation ([Master444]{}) gives the closed equation for $\rho $$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t} &=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\int_{0}^{t}K\left(
x-z,t-\tau \right) e^{-\int_{\tau }^{t}\alpha (\rho (x-z,s))ds} \notag \\
&&\times \rho \left( x-z,\tau \right) w\left( z|\rho (x-z,t)\right) d\tau dz
\notag \\
&&-\int_{0}^{t}K\left( x,t-\tau \right) e^{-\int_{\tau }^{t}\alpha (\rho
(x,s))ds}\rho \left( x,\tau \right) d\tau \notag \\
&&+\int_{\mathbb{R}}\alpha (\rho (x-z,t))\rho (x-z,t)w\left( z|\rho
(x-z,t)\right) dz \notag \\
&&-\alpha (\rho (x,t))\rho (x,t). \label{Mastt}\end{aligned}$$One can find various nonlinear diffusion approximations of (\[Mastt\]) assuming the particular expressions for the density-dependent dispersal kernels $w\left( z|\rho \left( x,t\right) \right) $ and density-dependent jump rate $\alpha (\rho \left( x,t\right) )$ [@Campos].
When the escape rate $\gamma $ does not depend on the residence time variable $\tau $, the survival function $\Psi (x,\tau )$ (\[sur\]) has an exponential form: $\Psi (x,\tau )=e^{-\gamma (x)\tau }$. In this Markovian case the Laplace transform of the memory kernel, $\hat{K}\left( x,s\right) ,$ does not depend on $s:$ $\hat{K}\left( x,s\right) =\gamma (x).$ The integral escape rate $i(x,t)$ takes the standard Markovian form:$$i(x,t)=\left[ \gamma (x)+\alpha (\rho (x,t))\right] \rho \left( x,t\right) .$$Substitution of this formula into (\[Master444\]) gives the nonlinear Kolmogorov-Feller equation for $\rho \left( x,t\right) $ [@MFH]$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t} &=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}[\gamma (x-z)+\alpha
(\rho (x-z,t))]\rho \left( x-z,\tau \right) \\
&&\times w\left( z|\rho (x-z,t)\right) dz-\gamma (x)\rho -\alpha (\rho )\rho
.\end{aligned}$$Several approximations of this equation and its applications in population biology have been discussed in [@Campos].
Diffusion approximation and chemotaxis
--------------------------------------
In this subsection we derive from (\[Mastt\]) a fractional subdiffusive equation for $\rho $ when $\alpha (\rho )=0$. The main motivation is to study the chemotaxis which is a directed migration of cells toward a more favorable environment [@Hillen2; @OS].The aim is to illustrate as to how a fractional chemotaxis equation for cell movement can be derived. We consider the random walk in which particle (cell) performing instantaneous jumps in space such that the jump density $w$ involves only two outcomes $$w\left( z|x,t\right) =r(x,t)\delta (z-a)+l(x,t)\delta (z+a), \label{ww}$$where $a$ is the jump size, $r(x,t)$ is the jump probability from the point $%
x$ to $x+a$, $l(x,t)$ is the jump probability from the point $x$ to $x-a$ and $$r(x,t)+l(x,t)=1.$$For the jump kernel (\[ww\]) the master equation (\[Master444\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t} &=&r(x-a,t)i(x-a,t) \notag \\
&&+l(x+a,t)i(x+a,t)-i(x,t).\end{aligned}$$In the limit $a\rightarrow 0,$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t} &=&-a\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left\{
[r(x,t)-l(x,t)]i(x,t)\right\} \notag \\
&&+\frac{a^{2}}{2}\frac{\partial ^{2}i(x,t)}{\partial x^{2}}+o(a^{2}).
\label{TTT}\end{aligned}$$One can introduce the density of chemotactic substance $U(x,t)$ that induces the movement of the particles (cells) up or down the gradient [@Hillen2]. The presence of non-zero gradient $\partial U/\partial x$ gives rise to the bias of the random walk when $r(x,t)\neq l(x,t)$ [@OS; @LH]$.$ We define the difference $r(x,t)-l(x,t)$ as [@HLS] $$r(x,t)-l(x,t)=-\beta a\frac{\partial U(x,t)}{\partial x}+o(a), \label{www}$$where $\beta $ is the measure of the strength of chemotactic movement. When $%
\beta $ is negative, the advection (taxis) is in the direction of increase in the chemotactic substance $U(x,t)$. The equation (\[TTT\]) can be rewritten in terms of $U(x,t)$ as follows $$\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}=a^{2}\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left[
\beta \frac{\partial U}{\partial x}i(x,t)\right] +\frac{a^{2}}{2}\frac{%
\partial ^{2}i(x,t)}{\partial x^{2}}+o(a^{2}). \label{ii}$$Various expressions for the integral escape rate $i(x,t)$ generate the set of the equations for $\rho $ in the diffusion approximations. For example, the Markovian total escape rate $$i(x,t)=\gamma \rho (x,t)$$with escape rate $\gamma \rightarrow \infty $ and jump size $a\rightarrow 0$ give the standard advection-diffusion equation or classical Fokker-Planck equation $$\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}=2D\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left[ \beta
\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}\rho \right] +D\frac{\partial ^{2}\rho }{%
\partial x^{2}}$$with finite diffusion coefficient $D=a^{2}\gamma /2.$ Note that if we interpret $U(x,t)$ as the external potential then $\beta ^{-1}=2kT$ [Bar]{}. The anomalous escape rate (\[ano\_escape\]) $$i\left( x,t\right) =\frac{1}{\tau _{0}{}^{\mu (x)}}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu
(x)}\rho \left( x,t\right)$$generates the subdiffusive advection-diffusion equation or the fractional Fokker-Planck equation [@Bar; @HLS] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}& =2\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left[
D_{\mu }(x)\beta \frac{\partial U}{\partial x}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu
(x)}\rho \right] \notag \\
& +\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}\left[ D_{\mu }(x)\mathcal{D}%
_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}\rho \right] . \label{ff}\end{aligned}$$Here $D_{\mu }(x)$ is the fractional diffusion coefficient defined as $$D_{\mu }(x)=\frac{a^{2}}{2\tau _{0}{}^{\mu (x)}} \label{DD}$$which is finite in the limit $a\rightarrow 0$ and $\tau _{0}\rightarrow 0.$
Nonlinear jump distributions
----------------------------
In this subsection we discuss various nonlinear jump distributions leading to nonlinear fractional equations when $\alpha (\rho )=0$. As we mentioned previously, this is the simplest way to incorporate nonlinearity into subdiffusive fractional equations [@Steve1]. As long as the escape rate $%
i\left( x,t\right) $ is determined, we can define where to jump" through the dispersal kernel $w$. Let us assume that the dispersal kernel $w$ depends on the density of particles: $w=w(z|\rho (x,t))$. In what follows we restrict ourselves to the subdiffusive case for which the rate $%
i(x,t)$ is determined by (\[ano\_escape\]). In this case, the starting master equation is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t} &=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{\mathcal{D}%
_{t}^{1-\mu (x-z)}\rho \left( x-z,t\right) }{\tau _{0}{}^{\mu (x-z)}}w\left(
z|\rho (x-z,t)\right) dz \notag \\
&&-\frac{\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}\rho \left( x,t\right) }{\tau
_{0}{}^{\mu (x)}}. \label{mmm}\end{aligned}$$
First we consider the case for which the jump dependence on $\rho $ is local. For example, one can use a Gaussian dispersal kernel with rapidly decaying tails as $$w\left( z|\rho \right) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma ^{2}(\rho )}}\exp \left[ -%
\frac{z^{2}}{2\sigma ^{2}(\rho )}\right] .$$An increasing dispersion $\sigma ^{2}(\rho )$ describes the effect of the local repulsive forces due to overcrowding, while a decaying function $%
\sigma ^{2}(\rho )$ corresponds to attractive forces. Using the Taylor series expansion in terms of $z$ in the master equation (\[mmm\]), we obtain the subdiffusive equation$$\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}=\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}\left[
K_{\mu }\left( \rho \right) \mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}\rho \left(
x,t\right) \right]$$with the nonlinear fractional diffusion coefficient $$K_{\mu }\left( \rho \right) =\frac{\sigma ^{2}(\rho )}{\tau _{0}{}^{\mu (x)}}%
.$$One can also introduce the nonlinear drift term generated by Bernoulli jump distribution [@Campos] $$\begin{aligned}
w\left( z|\rho \right) &=&\frac{1}{2}\left( 1+au\left( \rho \right) \right)
\delta \left( z-a\right) \\
&&+\frac{1}{2}\left( 1-au\left( \rho \right) \right) \delta \left(
z+a\right) ,\end{aligned}$$where the positive function $u\left( \rho \right) $ takes into account the fact that the jump on the right is more likely than a jump to the left; $a$ is the jump size. It is assumed that $1-au\left( \rho \right) $ is not negative; that is, $u\left( \rho \right) $ $\leq a^{-1}$. The fractional master equation (\[mmm\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t} &=&\frac{1+au\left( \rho \left(
x-a,t\right) \right) }{2\tau _{0}{}^{\mu (x-a)}}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu
(x-a)}\rho \left( x-a,t\right) \notag \\
&&+\frac{1-au\left( \rho \left( x+a,t\right) \right) }{2\tau _{0}{}^{\mu
(x+a)}}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu (x+a)}\rho \left( x+a,t\right) \notag \\
&&-\frac{1}{\tau _{0}{}^{\mu (x)}}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}\rho \left(
x,t\right) . \label{bbb}\end{aligned}$$Using the Taylor series expansion in (\[bbb\]) as $a\rightarrow 0$, we obtain the nonlinear fractional Fokker-Planck equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}& =-\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left[
2D_{\mu }(x)u\left( \rho \left( x,t\right) \right) \mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu
(x)}\rho \right] \notag \\
& +\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}\left[ D_{\mu }(x)\mathcal{D}%
_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}\rho \right]\end{aligned}$$with the *nonlinear* advection term involving $u\left( \rho \left(
x,t\right) \right) $ and fractional diffusion coefficient $D_{\mu }(x).$
Now let us consider the random jump model when the jump kernel $w\left(
z|\rho \right) $ depends on the mean density at a neighbouring points (nonlocal nonlinearity). This model deals with so-called volume filling effect and cell-to-cell adhesion [@V; @Hillen]. Instead of considering the jump rates as in [@V; @Hillen] we model volume filling and adhesion effects via the jump density $$w\left( z|\rho \right) =r(\rho )\delta \left( z-a\right) +l(\rho )\delta
\left( z+a\right) ,$$where $r(\rho (x,t))$ is the probability of jumping right from $x$ to $x+a$ at time $t$ and $l(\rho (x,t))$ is the probability of jumping left from $x$ to $x-a$ at time $t.$ We define these probabilities by using two decreasing functions $f_{v}(\rho )\geq 0$ and $f_{a}(\rho )\geq 0$ as follows
$$\begin{aligned}
r(\rho (x,t)) &=&\frac{f_{v}(\rho (x+a,t))f_{a}(\rho (x-a,t))}{F\left( \rho
\right) }, \notag \\
l(\rho (x,t)) &=&\frac{f_{v}(\rho (x-a,t))f_{a}(\rho (x+a,t))}{F\left( \rho
\right) }, \label{pro}\end{aligned}$$
where the function $$\begin{aligned}
F\left( \rho \right) &=&f_{v}(\rho (x-a,t))f_{a}(\rho (x+a,t)) \\
&&+f_{v}(\rho (x+a,t))f_{a}(\rho (x-a,t))\end{aligned}$$makes sure that $$r(\rho (x,t))+l(\rho (x,t))=1.$$It follows from (\[pro\]) that the probabilities $r(\rho )$ and $l(\rho )$ of jumping into a neighbouring points are dependent on the densities of particles at these points. The decreasing function $f_{v}(\rho (x+a,t))$ is used to model volume filling: the jump probability $r(\rho (x,t))$ from the point $x$ to the right $x+a$ is reduced by the the presence of cells at the point $x+a$. The decreasing function $f_{a}(\rho (x-a,t))$ describes the adhesion effect, which says that the jump probability $r(\rho (x,t))$ from the point $x$ to the right $x+a$ is reduced by the presence of cells at the point $x-a.$
In the limit $a\rightarrow 0$, one can obtain the nonlinear fractional diffusion equation. To illustrate our theory let us consider the particular case involving only volume filling effects (no adhesion):$$f_{v}(\rho )=1-\rho ,\quad f_{a}(\rho )=1. \label{fff}$$In this case, we require that the initial density $$\rho _{0}(x)<1.$$Substitution of (\[fff\]) into (\[pro\]) gives the following probabilities $$\begin{aligned}
r(\rho (x,t)) &=&\frac{1-\rho (x+a,t)}{2-\rho (x+a,t)-\rho (x-a,t)}, \notag
\\
l(\rho (x,t)) &=&\frac{1-\rho (x-a,t)}{2-\rho (x+a,t)-\rho (x-a,t)}.\end{aligned}$$The master equation (\[Master444\]) for the mean density $\rho $ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t} &=&r(\rho (x-a,t))i(x-a,t) \notag \\
&&+l(\rho (x+a,t))i(x+a,t)-i(x,t). \label{ma99}\end{aligned}$$To consider the diffusion approximation when $a\rightarrow 0$ it is convenient to define the flux of particles $J_{x,x+a}$ from $x$ to $x+a$ as $$J_{x,x+a}=r(\rho (x,t))i(x,t)a-l(\rho (x+a,t))i(x+a,t)a$$and the flux of particles $J_{x-a,x}$ from $x-a$ to $x$ as$$J_{x-a,x}=r(\rho (x-a,t))i(x-a,t)a-l(\rho (x,t))i(x,t)a$$The master equation (\[ma99\]) can be rewritten in the form$$\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}=\frac{-J_{x,x+a}+J_{x-a,x}}{a}. \notag$$In the limit $a\rightarrow 0$ we obtain $$\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}=-\frac{\partial J(x,t)}{\partial x},
\label{diver}$$where $$J(x,t)=-\frac{a^{2}}{2}\frac{\partial i}{\partial x}-\frac{a^{2}i}{1-\rho }%
\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial x}+o(a^{2}). \label{flux3}$$ In the Markovian case, when the escape rate $\gamma (x)$ does not depend on the residence time and $$i(x,t)=\gamma (x)\rho (x,t) \notag$$we obtain the nonlinear diffusion equation for $\rho $: $$\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}=\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left[ D\left(
\rho \right) \frac{\partial \rho }{\partial x}\right] \label{ne}$$with the nonlinear diffusion coefficient $$D\left( \rho \right) =\frac{a^{2}\lambda (x)}{2}\frac{1+\rho }{1-\rho }.
\notag$$In the anomalous subdiffusive case, when the total escape rate from the point $x$ is given by $$i\left( x,t\right) =\frac{1}{\tau _{0}{}^{\mu (x)}}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu
(x)}\rho \left( x,t\right) ,$$the flux of particles (\[flux3\]) involves two terms$$\begin{aligned}
J(x,t) &=&-\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left[ D_{\mu }(x)\mathcal{D}%
_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}\rho \left( x,t\right) \right] \notag \\
&&-\frac{2D_{\mu }(x)\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}\rho \left( x,t\right) }{%
1-\rho }\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial x}, \label{flux4}\end{aligned}$$where $D_{\mu }(x)$ is the fractional diffusion coefficient defined by ([DD]{}). Substitution of (\[flux4\]) into (\[diver\]) gives a nonlinear fractional equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}& =\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}%
\left[ D_{\mu }(x)\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}\rho \right] \notag \\
& +\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left[ \frac{2D_{\mu }(x)\mathcal{D}%
_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}\rho \left( x,t\right) }{1-\rho }\frac{\partial \rho }{%
\partial x}\right] . \label{newf}\end{aligned}$$The first term on the RHS of (\[newf\]) is the standard term for the subdiffusive fractional equation, while the second one is the nonlinear term describing the volume filling effect in the subdiffusive case.
Anomalous subdiffusive case with nonlinear tempering
====================================================
The aim of this section is to derive the master equation that describes the transition from subdiffusive transport to asymptotic normal advection-diffusion transport. We consider the subdiffusive case for which the waiting time PDF $\psi (x,\tau )$ has a power law tail: $\psi (x,\tau
)\sim (\tau _{0}/\tau )^{1+\mu (x)}$ with $0<\mu (x)<1$ as $\tau \rightarrow
\infty $. One can use the survival probability $\Psi (x,\tau )$ defined by (\[sub2\]). The advantage of the Mittag-Leffler function (\[sub2\]) is that one can obtain the fractional subdiffusive equation without passing to the long-time limit [@Ma]. The Laplace transforms of $\psi (x,\tau
)=-\partial \Psi (x,\tau )/\partial \tau $ and $\Psi (x,\tau )$ are $$\hat{\psi}\left( x,s\right) =\frac{1}{1+\left( \tau _{0}s\right) ^{\mu (x)}},$$$$\hat{\Psi}\left( x,s\right) =\frac{\tau _{0}^{\mu (x)}s^{\mu (x)-1}}{%
1+\left( \tau _{0}s\right) ^{\mu (x)}}$$and, therefore, the Laplace transform of the memory kernel $K(x,t)$ is$$\hat{K}\left( x,s\right) =\frac{\hat{\psi}\left( x,s\right) }{\hat{\Psi}%
\left( x,s\right) }=\frac{s^{1-\mu (x)}}{\tau _{0}^{\mu (x)}}. \label{La}$$It follows from (\[i2\]) that instead of (\[ano\_escape\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
i\left( x,t\right) &=&\frac{e^{-\Phi (x,t)}}{\tau _{0}{}^{\mu (x)}}\mathcal{D%
}_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}\left[ e^{\Phi (x,t)}\rho \left( x,t\right) \right] \notag
\\
&&+\alpha (\rho )\rho (x,t), \label{ano5}\end{aligned}$$where $$\Phi \left( x,t\right) =\int_{0}^{t}\alpha \left( \rho \left( x,s\right)
\right) ds. \label{F}$$This function plays a very important role in what follows. It can be referred as a nonlinear tempering. From (\[Master444\]) and (\[ano5\]) we obtain the subdiffusive master equation for the density $\rho \left(
x,t\right) $ with the nonlinear tempering $\Phi \left( x,t\right) $
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t} &=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{e^{-\Phi (x-z,t)}%
}{\tau _{0}{}^{\mu (x-z)}}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu (x-z)}\left[ e^{\Phi
(x-z,t)}\rho \left( x-z,t\right) \right] \notag \\
&&\times w\left( z|\rho (x-z,t)\right) dz \notag \\
&&-\frac{e^{-\Phi (x,t)}}{\tau _{0}{}^{\mu (x)}}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}%
\left[ e^{\Phi (x,t)}\rho \left( x,t\right) \right] \notag \\
&&+\int_{\mathbb{R}}\alpha (\rho (x-z,t))\rho (x-z,t)w\left( z|\rho
(x-z,t)\right) dz \notag \\
&&-\alpha (\rho (x,t))\rho (x,t). \label{basic2}\end{aligned}$$
Using (\[basic2\]) one can obtain various fractional subdiffusive nonlinear equations. In particular, for the jump kernel (\[ww\]) with ([www]{}), in the limit $a\rightarrow 0$ we obtain from (\[basic2\]) a nonlinear fractional equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho }{\partial t}& =a^{2}\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left[
\beta \frac{\partial U}{\partial x}\left( \frac{e^{-\Phi }}{\tau _{0}{}^{\mu
(x)}}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}[e^{\Phi }\rho ]+\alpha (\rho )\rho \right) %
\right] \notag \\
& +\frac{a^{2}}{2}\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}\left[ \frac{e^{-\Phi }%
}{\tau _{0}{}^{\mu (x)}}\mathcal{D}_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}[e^{\Phi }\rho ]+\alpha
(\rho )\rho \right] \notag \\
& +o(a^{2}), \label{FFPE}\end{aligned}$$where $\Phi $ is defined by (\[F\]).
Transition to asymptotic advection-diffusion transport regime and aggregation phenomenon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we discuss a transition from a subdiffusive transport regime to an asymptotically normal advection-diffusion transport regime. This transition is governed by the nonlinear fractional equation (\[FFPE\]). It involves the exponential factor $e^{-\Phi \left( x,t\right) },$ with $%
\Phi \left( x,t\right) =\int_{0}^{t}\alpha \left( \rho \left( x,s\right)
\right) ds,$ that can be considered as a nonlinear tempering. It generalizes the linear tempering, where the power law waiting time distribution is truncated by an exponential factor $\exp (-\alpha t)$ [@Temp]. We expect that in the limit $\Phi \left( x,t\right) \rightarrow \infty $ we recover the stationary advection-diffusion equation or classical Fokker-Planck equation, while in the intermediate asymptotic regime, when $$\Phi \left( x,t\right) <<1$$we have a transient subdiffusive transport. If we take the limit $\Phi
\left( x,t\right) \rightarrow 0$ in (\[FFPE\]) for a small escape rate $%
\alpha (\rho ),$ nonuniform distribution of the anomalous exponent $\mu (x)$ in (\[ff\]) leads to the aggregation of particles at the point of minimum of $\mu (x)$ [@Fedot1; @Zubarev]. This phenomenon has been observed in experiments on phagotrophic protists when cells become immobile in attractive patches, which will then eventually trap all cells [@Protist]. In this case the anomalous exponent $\mu (x)$ dominates and the gradient of the chemotaxis substance (potential field) $U(x)$ is irrelevant to the partial distribution of the density of particles $\rho $. However, in general, this aggregation of particles around one point is just a transient phenomenon in the time interval $$\tau _{0}<<t<<\frac{1}{\overline{\alpha }} \label{inter}$$where $\overline{\alpha }=\frac{1}{t}\int_{0}^{t}\alpha \left( \rho \left(
x,s\right) \right) ds.$ If we consider the long time limit $t\rightarrow
\infty $ such that $\Phi \left( x,t\right) \rightarrow \infty ,$ then we obtain the stationary advection-diffusion equations (see next two subsections on aggregation of particles). The solution of these equations represents ultimate cells aggregation determined by the chemotaxis substance (potential field) $U(x)$ and the spatial distribution of anomalous exponent $%
\mu (x).$
### Aggregation of particles in the linear case
Firstly, we assume that the local escape rate $\alpha $ is independent of time, such that $\Phi \left( x,t\right) =\alpha (x)t.$ The total escape rate $i\left( x,t\right) $ defined by (\[ano5\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
i\left( x,t\right) &=&\frac{e^{-\alpha (x)t}}{\tau _{0}{}^{\mu (x)}}\mathcal{%
D}_{t}^{1-\mu (x)}\left[ e^{\alpha (x)t}\rho \left( x,t\right) \right]
\notag \\
&&+\alpha (x)\rho (x,t),\end{aligned}$$Its Laplace transform $\hat{\imath}\left( x,s\right) =\int_{0}^{\infty
}e^{-st}i(x,\tau )d\tau $ is $$\hat{\imath}\left( x,s\right) =\left[ \frac{\left( s+\alpha (x)\right)
^{1-\mu (x)}}{\tau _{0}^{\mu (x)}}+\alpha (x)\right] \hat{\rho}(x,s).
\label{Laaa}$$In the limit $s\rightarrow 0$ ($t\rightarrow \infty )$ one obtains the stationary escape rate $i_{st}\left( x\right) $ (if it exists) in terms of the stationary density $$\rho _{st}\left( x\right) =\lim_{s\rightarrow 0}s\hat{\rho}\left( x,s\right)
. \notag$$It follows from (\[Laaa\]) that the stationary rate $i_{st}\left( x\right)
$ can be written in the Markovian form $$i_{st}\left( x\right) =\gamma _{\mu }(x)\rho _{st}\left( x\right) , \notag$$where the effective rate of escape $\gamma _{\mu }(x)$ is $$\gamma _{\mu }(x)=\frac{\alpha (x)}{\left( \tau _{0}\alpha (x)\right) ^{\mu
(x)}}+\alpha (x). \notag$$The essential feature of this rate parameter $\gamma _{\mu }(x)$ is that it depends on the fractal exponent $\mu (x).$ This escape rate, together with (\[ii\]), leads to the stationary advection-diffusion equation $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left[ 2\beta \frac{\partial U}{\partial x}%
D\left( x\right) \rho _{st}(x)\right] \notag \\
&&+\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}\left[ D\left( x\right) \rho _{st}(x)%
\right] =0, \label{new1}\end{aligned}$$where the diffusion coefficient $D\left( x\right) =a^{2}\gamma _{\mu }(x)/2$ depends on $\mu (x)$ and $\alpha (x):$ $$D\left( x\right) =\frac{a^{2}\left[ \left( \tau _{0}\alpha (x)\right)
^{1-\mu (x)}+\tau _{0}\alpha (x)\right] }{2\tau _{0}}. \notag$$When the product $\tau _{0}\alpha $ is small, the term $\left( \tau
_{0}\alpha \right) ^{1-\mu (x)}$ is dominant in the anomalous case $\mu
(x)<1,$ so $D_{\mu }\left( x\right) $ can be approximated as $$D\left( x\right) =\frac{a^{2}\left( \tau _{0}\alpha (x)\right) ^{1-\mu (x)}}{%
2\tau _{0}},\qquad \tau _{0}\alpha (x)<<1. \notag$$
Let us find the solution $\rho _{st}(x)$ to (\[new1\]) in the interval $%
[0,L].$ We use the reflective boundary conditions at $x=0$ and $x=L$ which guarantees the conservation of the total population: $$\int_{0}^{L}\rho (x,t)dx=1. \notag$$We introduce the new function $$p(x)=D\left( x\right) \rho _{st}(x). \notag$$It follows from (\[new1\]) that this function obeys the equation $$\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left[ 2\beta \frac{\partial U(x)}{\partial x}%
p(x)\right] +\frac{\partial ^{2}p(x)}{\partial x^{2}}=0$$with the solution in the form of the Boltzmann distribution$$p(x)=N^{-1}\exp \left[ -2\beta U(x)\right] . \notag$$Thus, the steady profile is $$\rho _{st}(x)=N^{-1}D^{-1}\left( x\right) \exp \left[ -2\beta U(x)\right] ,
\label{sss}$$where $N$ is determined by the normalization condition $N=\int_{0}^{L}D^{-1}%
\left( x\right) \exp \left[ -2\beta U(x)\right] dx.$
To illustrate how the nonhomogeneous anomalous exponent $\mu (x)$ affects the aggregation pattern we consider the steady profile (\[sss\]) in the interval $[0,1]$ for two cases: (a) $U(x)=0$ and (b) $U(x)=mx$ for which the anomalous exponent $\mu (x)$ has the form $$\mu (x)=\mu _{0}\exp \left( -kx\right) , \notag$$where $0<\mu _{0}<1$ and $k\geq 0.$ Fig. 1 shows that for the uniform distribution of chemotaxis substance $U(x)=0$, the particles have the tendency to aggregate in the region of the small values of $\mu (x)$ (dashed line). When the gradient of chemotaxis substance $\partial U(x)/\partial x$ forces the cells (particles) to move from the right to the left ($U(x)=5x$ and $\beta =1$), the steady profile is not monotonic (solid line).
![[ Stationary profiles $\protect\rho _{st}(x)$ for the linear distribution of the potential $U(x)=5x$ (solid line) and $U(x)=0$ (dashed line), $\protect\beta =1$, $\protect\mu _{0}=0.9$, $\protect\alpha=10^{-4},$ $\protect\tau _{0}=1,$ $k=2.19$. ]{}[]{data-label="fig1"}](Sergei4.eps)
### Aggregation in the nonlinear case
Now we consider the nonlinear case when the escape rate $\alpha $ depends on the density $\rho $. For living systems, this nonlinear dependence results from a coupling between the local density of cells and the intensity of the response of individual cell to external signals. We assume that in the limit $t\rightarrow \infty $ the stationary distribution $\rho _{st}(x)$ exists. Then as $t\rightarrow \infty ,$ the tempering factor $e^{-\Phi \left(
x,t\right) }$ can be approximated by $e^{-\alpha \left( \rho _{st}(x)\right)
t}.$ The stationary escape rate $i_{st}(x)$ corresponding to (\[i2\]) can be written in terms of the Laplace transform $\hat{K}\left( x,s\right) $ as follows $$i_{st}(x)=\left[ \hat{K}\left( x,\alpha (\rho _{st})\right) +\alpha (\rho
_{st})\right] \rho _{st}\left( x\right) .$$This steady rate $i_{st}(x)$ has the Markovian form in which the rate parameter consists of two terms $\hat{K}\left( x,\alpha (\rho _{st})\right) $ and $\alpha (\rho _{st})$. The dependence of the first term on $\alpha (\rho
_{st})$ is due to the non-Markovian character of transport process. This effect does not exist in the Markovian case for which $\hat{K}$ is a function of $x$ only. The effective diffusion coefficient $D\left( \rho
_{st}(x)\right) $ is the function of the mean density and it depends on the structure of the Laplace transform of the memory kernel $K$ $$D\left( \rho _{st}\right) =\frac{a^{2}}{2}\left[ \hat{K}\left( x,\alpha
(\rho _{st})\right) +\alpha (\rho _{st})\right] . \label{DDD}$$
For the subdiffusive case when $\hat{K}\left( x,s\right) $ is defined by (\[La\]), the stationary escape rate $i_{st}(x)$ is$$i_{st}(x)=\left[ \frac{\left[ \alpha (\rho _{st}(x))\right] ^{1-\mu (x)}}{%
\tau _{0}^{\mu (x)}}+\alpha (\rho _{st}(x))\right] \rho _{st}\left( x\right)
. \label{ano}$$One can see that the first term on the RHS of (\[ano\]) is dominant for small $\alpha \tau _{0}$ and $\mu (x)<1$**.** For the jump density ([ww]{}), in the limit $a\rightarrow 0$ we obtain the stationary nonlinear Fokker-Planck equation $$\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left[ 2\beta \frac{\partial U}{\partial x}%
D\left( \rho _{st}\right) \rho _{st}(x)\right] +\frac{\partial ^{2}}{%
\partial x^{2}}\left[ D\left( \rho _{st}\right) \rho _{st}(x)\right] =0,
\label{st}$$where $D\left( \rho _{st}(x)\right) $ is the nonlinear diffusion coefficient defined as $$D\left( \rho _{st}\right) =\frac{a^{2}\left[ \alpha (\rho _{st}(x))\right]
^{1-\mu (x)}}{2\tau _{0}^{\mu (x)}},\qquad \tau _{0}\alpha (\rho
_{st}(x))<<1. \notag$$If we assume a zero flux condition at the boundaries of the interval $[0,L],$ then $$J=-2\beta \frac{\partial U}{\partial x}D\left( \rho _{st}\right) \rho
_{st}(x)-\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left[ D\left( \rho _{st}\right) \rho
_{st}(x)\right] =0,$$and the stationary profile $\rho _{st}(x)$ can be found from the nonlinear equation $$\rho _{st}(x)=N^{-1}D^{-1}\left( \rho _{st}(x)\right) \exp \left[ -2\beta
U(x)\right] . \label{st2}$$where $N$ is determined by the normalization condition $N=\int_{0}^{L}D^{-1}%
\left( \rho _{st}(x)\right) \exp \left[ -2\beta U(x)\right] dx.$ The time evolution of the density profile $\rho (x,t)$ for the nonlinear fractional equation (\[FFPE\]) can be described as follows. At lower values of $\Phi
=\int_{0}^{t}\alpha (\rho (x,s))ds$, the early evolution is the development of a single peak at the point of the minimum of $\mu (x).$ This can be considered as an intermediate anomalous aggregation of particles. However, incorporating the escape rate $\alpha \left( \rho \right) $ and the nonlinear tempering factor $e^{-\Phi }$ provide a regularization of anomalous aggregation. For sufficiently large $\Phi $ the density profile $%
\rho \left( x,t\right) $ must converge to a stationary solution (\[st2\]) as $t\rightarrow \infty .$
Conclusions.
============
The aim in this paper was to derive the macroscopic nonlinear subdiffusive fractional equations for the evolution of a mean density of random walkers by incorporating a nonlinear escape rate and nonlinear jump distributions. The main motivation was to take into account the interaction between particles on the mesoscopic level at which the random walker characteristics depend on the mean density of particles. We illustrated the general results for nonlinear random walk models by using the examples from cell and population biology. We derived nonlinear fractional equations that take into account chemotaxis, volume filling effect and cell-to-cell adhesion. We showed that the nonlinear escape rate leads to the effective regularization of standard subdiffusive fractional equations. Our modified fractional equations describe the transition from an intermediate subdiffusive regime to an asymptotically normal advection-diffusion transport regime. We showed that this transition is governed by a nonlinear tempering factor that generalize the standard linear tempering. We discussed the aggregation phenomenon and showed the impact of a nonuniform distribution of anomalous exponent on aggregation patterns.
Acknowledgements
================
The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the EPSRC Grant EP/J019526/1 and the warm hospitality of Department of Mathematical Physics, Ural Federal University. He wishes to thank Steven Falconer and Peter Straka for interesting discussions.
[99]{} R. Metzler and J. Klafter, Phys. Rep. **339** 1 (2000).
*Anomalous transport: foundations and applications.* Eds. R. Klages, G. Radons, I. M. Sokolov (Wiley-VCH, 2008).
V. Méndez, S. Fedotov and W. Horsthemke, *Reaction-Transport Systems* (Springer, Berlin 2010).
M. J. Saxton, Biophys. J. **81**, 2226 (2001).
I. Golding, E. Cox, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96,** 098102 (2006).
F. Santamaria, S. Wils, E. De Schutter, and G. J. Augustine, Neuron **52**, 635 (2006); S. Fedotov and V. Méndez, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 218102 (2008).
M.B. Miller and B. L. Bassler, Annu. Rev. Microbiol., **55** 165, (2001).
R. A. Weinberg, The Biology of Cancer (Garland Science, New York, 2007).
K. Anguige and C. Schmeiser, J. Math. Biol. **58**, 395 (2009).
S. T. Johnston, M. J. Simpson, and R. E. Baker, Phys. Rev. E **85**, 051922 (2012).
E. Khain, M. Katakowski, S. Hopkins, A. Szalad, X. Zheng, F. Jiang, and M. Chopp, Phys. Rev. E **83**, 031920 (2011).
K. Painter and Th. Hillen, Canadian Applied Mathematics Quarterly, **10** 501 (2002).
T. Hillen and K. J. Painter, J. Math. Biol. **58** 183 (2009).
V. Méndez, D. Campos, I. Pagonabarraga, and S. Fedotov, J. Theor. Biology, **309** 113 (2012).
S. Fedotov, D. Moss, and D. Campos, Phys. Rev. E **78**, 026107 (2008).
M. O. Vlad and J. Ross, Phys. Rev. E **66**, 061908 (2002).
A. Yadav and W. Horsthemke, Phys. Rev. E **74**, 066118 (2006).
Y. Nec and A. A. Nepomnyashchy, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. **40** 14687 (2007).
D. Froemberg and I. M. Sokolov, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 108304 (2008).
S. Fedotov, Phys. Rev. E **81**, 011117 (2010).
E. Abad, S. B. Yuste, and K. Lindenberg, Phys. Rev. E **81**, 031115 (2010).
S. Fedotov, A. Iomin, Phys. Rev. Lett.*,* **98** 118101 (2007); S. Fedotov, Phys. Rev. E **81**, 011117 (2010).
F. Sagues, V. P. Shkilev, I. M. Sokolov, Phys. Rev. E **77** (2008), 032102.
V. P. Shkilev. J. Exp. Theor. Physics, **112**, 711 (2011).
V. A. Volpert, Y. Nec, A. A. Nepomnyashchy. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A **371**, 20120179 (2013).
C. N. Angstmann, I. C. Donnelly, B. I. Henry, Math. Mod. Natural Phen, **8**, 17 (2013).
S. Fedotov, Phys. Rev. E **83**, 021110 (2011).
S. Fedotov and S. Falconer, Phys. Rev. E **85**, 031132 (2012).
S. Fedotov, A. O. Ivanov, and A. Y. Zubarev. Math. Mod. Natural Phen. **8**, 28 (2013).
D. R. Cox and H. D. Miller, *The Theory of Stochastic Processes* (Methuen, London, 1965).
Eli Barkai and Yuan-Chung Cheng, J. Chem. Phys. **118**, 6167 (2003).
E. Scalas, R. Gorenflo, F. Mainardi, and M. Raberto, Fractals **11**, 281 (2003).
A. V. Chechkin, R. Gorenflo and I. M. Sokolov, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen **38**, L679 (2005).
F. Mainardi, M. Raberto, R. Gorenflo, and E. Scalas, Physica A **287**, 468 (2000).
S. Fedotov and S. Falconer, Phys. Rev. E **87**, 052139 (2013).
H. G. Othmer and A. Stevens, SIAM J. Appl. Math. **57**, 1044 (1997).
T. A. M. Langlands and B. I. Henry, Phys. Rev. E **81**, 051102 (2010).
B. I. Henry, T. A. M. Langlands, and P. Straka, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105,** 170602 (2010).
E. Barkai, R. Metzler, and J. Klafter, Phys. Rev. E **61**, 132 (2000).
A. Cartea and D. del-Castillo-Negrete, Phys. Rev. E. **76**, 041105 (2007); M. M. Meerschaert, Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L17403 (2008); A. I. Saichev, and S. G. Utkin, J. Exp. Theory Phys., **99**, 443 (2004); A. Stanislavsky, K. Weron, and A. Weron, Phys. Rev. E **78**, 051106 (2008); J. Gajda and M. Magdziarz, Phys. Rev. E **82**, 011117 (2010).
T. Fenchel and N. Blackburn, Protist **160**, 325 (1999).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose an order parameter for the Symmetry-Protected Topological (SPT) phases which are protected by Abelian on-site symmetries. This order parameter, called the *SPT entanglement*, is defined as the entanglement between $A$ and $B$, two distant regions of the system, given that the total charge (associated with the symmetry) in a third region $C$ is measured and known, where $C$ is a connected region surrounded by $A$ and $B$ and the boundaries of the system. In the case of 1-dimensional systems we prove that at the limit where $A$ and $B$ are large and far from each other compared to the correlation length, the SPT entanglement remains constant throughout a SPT phase, and furthermore, it is zero for the trivial phase while it is nonzero for all the non-trivial phases. Moreover, we show that the SPT entanglement is invariant under the low-depth quantum circuits which respect the symmetry, and hence it remains constant throughout a SPT phase in the higher dimensions as well. Finally, we show that the concept of SPT entanglement leads us to a new interpretation of the string order parameters and based on this interpretation we propose an algorithm for extracting the relevant information about the SPT phase of the system from the string order parameters.'
author:
- Iman Marvian
title: 'Symmetry-Protected Topological Entanglement'
---
Symmetry-Protected Topological (SPT) order is a new kind of order at zero temperature which cannot be described by the traditional Landau paradigm of symmetry breaking [@Clas-Wen; @Clas-Wen2; @Pollman-Turner2; @Schuch-Cirac]. Different SPT orders remain distinct from each other in the presence of an appropriate symmetry. However, there is no local order parameter to distinguish SPT ordered phases from the trivial phase, and furthermore SPT ordered phases do not exhibit long-range order between distant sites. First known example of a SPT phase is the Haldane phase of the antiferromagnetic spin chains with odd integer spins, which is protected by the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}\times\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ symmetry corresponding to $\pi$ rotations around an orthogonal axis [@AKLT; @Hidden-Sym; @Pollman-Turner2].
It is often claimed that (symmetry-protected) topological order of a ground state is fundamentally related to its entanglement structure. So, it is desirable to have order parameters which directly detect this entanglement structure. In fact, in the case of topological order, topological entanglement entropy can reveal the presence of topological order based on the entanglement properties of the ground state [@Paolo; @Kitaev; @Lev-Wen]. In this paper, we propose a new quantity, called *SPT entanglement* (SPT-Ent), which detects SPT ordered phases based on their entanglement properties. We show that for Abelian symmetries and in the appropriate limits, SPT-Ent is a *universal* quantity, i.e. in any arbitrary dimension it remains constant throughout a SPT phase, similar to the fact that topological entanglement entropy remains constant throughout a topological phase [@Kitaev; @Lev-Wen]. Furthermore, in the case of 1-dimensional systems we calculate SPT-Ent in the Matrix Product State (MPS) framework and we show that it always successfully detects the presence of SPT order. We also show that the concept of SPT-Ent leads us to a new interpretation of the string order parameters and a systematic method for extracting the relevant information about the phase from them.
Although the main results of this paper are focused on the field of SPT order, it also contributes by showing that the *resource theory* point of view to entanglement can be useful in the study of many-body systems (See e.g. [@Resource] for a recent review). In this point of view, entanglement of a given state is characterized by the equivalence class of all states that can be reversibly transformed to the state via Local Operations and Classical Communications (LOCC). All states in the same equivalence class have the same amount of entanglement relative to all measures of entanglement. This point of view to entanglement is essential for deriving the results of this paper. This suggests that the resource theory point of view to entanglement might also be useful in the study of other many-body problems.
Another interesting aspect of this work is that it clearly shows how in a many-body problem, the distinction between entanglement and correlations becomes important. Although in the recent years tools of entanglement theory, and in particular entanglement measures, have been extensively used in the study of many-body systems, it is not always clear that why they are relevant in this context, and why they cannot be replaced by other measures of correlation, such as mutual information. The defining property of entanglement measures, which distinguishes them from other measures of correlation, is that they are non-increasing under classical communication, while they can increase under quantum communication. Interestingly, this distinction plays a clear role in the arguments that lead to the properties of SPT-Ent.
*Definition:* Consider a finite-dimensional lattice system. Let $G$ be an Abelian symmetry with on-site linear unitary representations on the sites of this system. Let $A$ and $B$ be two non-overlapping regions of the system, and $C$ be a connected region surrounded by $A$ and $B$ and the boundaries of the system (see Fig \[fig:Regions\].a). Suppose we measure the total charge associated with the symmetry $G$ in the region $C$ and obtain charge $\kappa$. Here, each $\kappa$ corresponds to a distinct irreducible representation (irrep) of $G$ as $g\rightarrow e^{i\kappa(g)}$. Let $\Pi_{\kappa}^{(C)}$ be the projector to the subspace of states with charge $\kappa$ in region $C$. By measuring the total charge in $C$ on state $\rho$, the charge $\kappa$ is obtained with the probability $p_{\kappa}= \text{tr}(\rho \Pi^{(C)}_{\kappa})$, and given this outcome the reduced state of $AB$ after the measurement will be $\rho_{{\kappa}}^{(AB)}\equiv\text{tr}_{\overline{AB}}(\Pi^{(C)}_{\kappa} \rho)/{p_{\kappa}}$, where the trace is over all the sites in the system except those in $A$ and $B$.
\[h\]
![a) Region $C$ is surrounded by regions $A$ and $B$ and the boundaries of the system. b) $\Omega^{(AB|C)}({\rho})$ describes the joint state of $K_{C}$, the classical degree of freedom of region $C$ corresponding to the total charge in this region and (the quantum degrees of freedom) of regions $A$ and $B$. SPT-Ent is defined as the bipartite entanglement of this state relative to the partition defined by either of the dashed lines. []{data-label="fig:Regions"}](Figures)
Consider the state $$\begin{aligned}
\label{state}
\Omega^{(AB|C)}({\rho})&\equiv \sum_{\kappa} p_{\kappa} |\kappa\rangle\langle\kappa|^{(K_{C})}\otimes \rho_{\kappa}^{(AB)} \end{aligned}$$ where $\{|\kappa\rangle\}$ are the orthonormal states of a register $K_{C}$. This state describes the average joint state of regions $A$ and $B$ and the register $K_{C}$, which keeps information about the charge measurement in region $C$.
The state $\Omega^{(AB|C)}({\rho})$ has another natural interpretation which does not involve measurements. It turns out that $$\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\cdot)\equiv\sum_{\kappa} |\kappa\rangle\langle\kappa|^{(K_{C})}\otimes \text{tr}_{\overline{AB}}(\Pi^{(C)}_{\kappa} \cdot)$$ is the completely positive super-operator which maps any input state to its reduced state with respect to the algebra generated by the local operators acting on $A$ and $B$ and the operator of the total charge in $C$. In other words, $\Omega^{(AB|C)}$ removes all the degrees of freedom of the system except the total charge in $C$ and local degrees of freedom at $A$ and $B$. This means that $\Omega^{(AB|C)}({\rho})$ describes *the reduced joint state of regions $A$ and $B$ and the classical degree of freedom of region $C$ corresponding to the total charge in this region*.
We define the *SPT-Ent of state $\rho$ between $A$ and $B$ relative to $C$* as the bipartite entanglement of state $\Omega^{(AB|C)}({\rho})$ relative to $AK_{C}|B$ partition, or equivalently, relative to $A|K_{C}B$ partition (See Fig \[fig:Regions\].b). Since $K_{C}$ can be transferred from one party to the other via classical communication, it follows that the bipartite entanglement does not depend on the choice of these partitions.
*Summary of results:* In this paper we report three major results about SPT-Ent. We also find an interesting connection between SPT-Ent and the string order parameters. In the following, we provide a summary of these results:
*i*) We prove that in the limit where two regions $A$ and $B$ are far from each other compared to the correlation length, the SPT-Ent is always zero in the *trivial phase* (See Theorem \[Thm0\] and the definition below it). It follows that
\[cor\] A non-vanishing SPT-Ent between two distant regions, in the limit where the distance between them is much larger than the correlation length, indicates the presence of SPT order.
This result provides a method for detecting SPT order in arbitrary dimension. As we show later, this method can detect all SPT ordered phases in 1-d systems. Note that, unlike most other proposed approaches for detecting SPT order, this method works even if the translational symmetry is broken. Theorem \[Thm0\] gives a criterion that should be satisfied by all states which can be prepared by low-depth symmetric circuits starting from a product state. For instance, using this result and by proving that SPT-Ent does not vanish in the ground state of Majorana chain [@Kitaev2] for certain values of parameters, one can show that these states cannot be generated from a product state using a low-depth symmetric circuit [@prep]. This result is recently proven in [@Kim; @Chen2] using totally different approaches.
*ii*) Theorem \[Thm0\] implies that SPT-Ent remains constant throughout the trivial phase. Making an assumption about the decay of correlations, we can extend this result to all SPT phases, and show that at the limit where regions $A$ and $B$ are large and far from each other compared to the correlation length, SPT-Ent is a *universal* quantity, i.e. it remains constant throughout the phase (See theorem \[Thm1\]). This result also holds in arbitrary dimension. The proof is analogous to the argument that shows topological entanglement entropy remains constant throughout a phase [@Kitaev; @Lev-Wen]. It is based on a reasonable, but unproven, assumption that in the limit where $A$ and $B$ are large and far from each other, small deformations of the boundaries of these regions do not affect the SPT-Ent. Since SPT-Ent is monotonically increasing with the sizes of $A$ and $B$ (See Eq.(\[LOCC-trans\])), given that the correlations are short range and the system is sufficiently homogenous (e.g., translational invariant), this assumption looks reasonable.
*iii*) We calculate SPT-Ent of 1-d systems in the MPS framework, and prove that, at the limit where $A, B$ and $C$ are large compared to the correlation length, SPT-Ent is: 1) independent of the sizes of these regions, 2) constant throughout all SPT phases, and 3) zero for the trivial phase while it is nonzero for all the non-trivial phases. Indeed, we show that in this limit the SPT-Ent is equal to the entanglement of a maximally entangled state of a pair of $d_{[\omega]}$-dimensional systems, where $d_{[\omega]}$ is the dimension of the projective irreps of the group $G$ in the cohomology class $[\omega]$ which characterizes the SPT phase of the system [@Clas-Wen; @Clas-Wen2; @Pollman-Turner2; @Schuch-Cirac]. Note that, in general, irreps whose factor system belong to the same cohomology class have different dimensions. But, interestingly it turns out that for *Abelian groups* all such irreps have the same dimension. (See lemma \[lemma3\] in the Supplementary Material [@SM].) According to the classifications of the SPT phases of 1-d systems, the equivalence class $[\omega]$ uniquely determines the SPT phase [@Clas-Wen; @Clas-Wen2; @Pollman-Turner2; @Schuch-Cirac]. Therefore, in the case of 1-d systems direct calculation of SPT-Ent confirms our general result that SPT-Ent is constant throughout SPT phases. It turns outs that the parameter $d_{[\omega]}$ has a natural interpretation as the edge mode degeneracy associated with each edge of an open chain [@Else2012; @prep]. Note that the parameter $d_{[\omega]}$ is only defined for 1-d systems.
It follows from these results that by quantifying SPT-Ent we can construct order parameters to detect SPT order. Consider the *negativity*, $\mathcal{N}(\sigma)\equiv(\|\sigma^{\textbf{T}_{A}}\|_{1}-1)/2$, as an example of continuous entanglement measures [@Vidal-Werner], where $\textbf{T}_{A}$ denotes the partial transpose and $\|\cdot\|_{1}$ is the trace norm. Then, the above result implies that at the limit where $A,B$ and $C$ are much larger than the correlation length, $$\label{order}
\lim\ \sum_{\kappa}\left\| \left[\text{tr}_{\overline{AB}}(\Pi^{(C)}_{\kappa} \rho)\right]^{\textbf{T}_{A}} \right\|_{1} -1= d_{[\omega]}-1.$$ The system is in a non-trivial phase iff $[\omega]$ is non-trivial [@Clas-Wen; @Clas-Wen2; @Pollman-Turner2; @Schuch-Cirac], or equivalently iff $d_{[\omega]}>1$. So, the left-hand side of Eq.(\[order\]) can serve as an order parameter whose value for the large blocks of $A$, $B$, and $C$ not only detects the presence of SPT order, but also reveals the dimension of the irreps in the equivalence class $[\omega]$ which characterizes the phase. For example, in the case of Haldane phase where $d_{[\omega]}=2$, the left-hand side of Eq.(\[order\]) converges to one, while it converges to zero in the trivial phase.
[*New perspective on string order parameters:* ]{} There exists a striking connection between SPT-Ent and the string type order parameters, which are the traditional tool for detecting the SPT order [@str-order; @Kasper; @Else2013; @Pollman-Turner; @Cirac-String]. Consider the string operators in the form of $O_{ij}(g)\equiv X^{(A)}_{i}\bigotimes_{l\in C} u^{(l)}(g)\otimes Y^{(B)}_{j}$ where $\{X^{(A)}_{i}\}$ and $\{Y^{(B)}_{j}\}$ are basis for the space of operators acting on $A$ and $B$ respectively, and $g\rightarrow u^{(l)}(g)$ is the representation of $G$ on site $l$. The relation between the string order parameters and SPT-Ent can be established using the Fourier transform $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Fourier}
\sum_{g\in G} &e^{-i\kappa(g)}\text{tr}\left(\rho\ O_{ij}(g)\right)\nonumber = \\ &\text{tr}\left(\left[\ |\kappa\rangle\langle\kappa|^{(K_{C})}\otimes X^{(A)}_{i}\otimes Y^{(B)}_{j}\right] \Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho)\right).\end{aligned}$$ These equations for different charges $\kappa$ and different $ X^{(A)}_{i}$ and $Y^{(B)}_{j} $, uniquely determine $\Omega^{(AB|C)}({\rho})$, and hence the SPT-Ent of $\rho$. This observation suggests each string order parameter $\text{tr}\left(\rho\ O_{ij}(g)\right)$ alone does not have any information about the SPT phase of the system, but together they provide enough information to find the SPT-Ent of state, and hence to detect the presence of SPT order. Therefore, it follows from our results on SPT-Ent that, in contrast to what has been suggested before, in the case of *Abelian* symmetries string order parameters can be used to detect the presence of SPT order.
This interpretation of string order parameters leads us to an algorithm for extracting the relevant information about SPT order of the system: One first uses the Fourier transform of the string order parameters to find the state $\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho)$ via Eqs.(\[Fourier\]) and then checks if this state is entangled or not. In fact, using this algorithm one can even find the dimension $d_{[\omega]}$ corresponding to the phase of system.
*Generalizations of SPT-Ent:* In the above, the concept of SPT-Ent is defined based on the notion of the charge associated with the symmetry group $G$, which protects the SPT phase. But, in general, instead of the charge associated with $G$, one can consider the charge associated with any subgroup $G'$ of $G$, and define a generalized notion of SPT-Ent based on such generalized charges. Using the fact these generalized charges are conserved under unitary dynamics with symmetry $G$, it is straightforward to show that these generalized versions of SPT-Ent are also universal quantities which remain constant throughout the phase. Indeed, even if the group $G$ in Non-Abelian, as long as the subgroup $G'$ whose charge is measured, is Abelian this result still holds. We explore these generalizations of SPT-Ent in [@prep].
In the rest of the paper we give a formal presentation of our main results. The proofs are presented in the Supplementary Materials (SM) [@SM].
*SPT-entanglement in arbitrary dimension:* Different SPT phases can be classified based on the equivalence classes of states induced by the *symmetric low-depth quantum circuits* [@Wen-Local]. According to this classification, two states are in the same SPT phase if one can be approximately transformed to the other by a low-depth circuit $V=\prod_{k=1}^{l} U_{i}$ where each $U_{i}$ is a product of a set of unitaries which i) act locally on non-overlapping regions of the system, and ii) are invariant under the symmetry. The circuit should be *low-depth* in the sense that the [depth]{} $l$ times the maximum range of each unitary in the circuit is bounded by some range $R$ which in the thermodynamics limit is negligible compared to the system size. Let $A$ and $B$ be two non-overlapping regions with *arbitrary sizes*, and $C$ be a connected region surrounded by $A$, $B$ and the boundaries of the system.
\[Thm0\] Suppose there exists a symmetric circuit with range bounded by $R$, which transforms state $\rho$ to a product state. Then, the SPT-Ent of state $\rho$ between any two regions $A$ and $B$ with distance more than $4R$ is zero, i.e. for any measure of entanglement $E$, it holds that $\text{dist}(A,B)>4R$ implies $E\left( \Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho)\right) =0.$
A state is said to be in the *trivial phase* if it can be transformed to a product state using a low-depth quantum circuit. Therefore, this theorem implies that for all states in the trivial phase, the SPT-Ent between two regions with distance much larger than the correlation length, is zero. This proves corollary \[cor\].
Theorem \[Thm0\] implies that in the trivial phase SPT-Ent remains constant throughout the phase. Making an assumption about the homogeneity of state, we can extend this result to all SPT phases, and show that in general SPT-Ent is a universal quantity. To show this we first note that, according to lemma 1 in SM [@SM] by making regions $A$ and $B$ larger we will monotonically increase SPT-Ent, that is for any non-overlapping regions $A'$ and $B'$ it holds that $$\label{LOCC-trans}
A\subseteq A',B\subseteq B'\ \Rightarrow \ \Omega^{\left(A'B'|{C'}\right)}(\rho)\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}}\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho)$$ where ${C'}\equiv C\backslash \left(A'\cup B'\right)$ is the subregion of $C$ surrounded by $A'$, $B'$ and the boundaries of the system. The arrow means that the transformation from the first state to the second is possible via $\emph{Local}$ Operations and Classical Communication, where locality is defined relative to partition $A'|K_{C'}B'$, or equivalently relative to $A'K_{C'}|B'$. The above relation holds for arbitrary state $\rho$ and arbitrary regions $A$ and $B$. Generally, the SPT-Ent between the larger regions $A'$ and $B'$ is greater than the SPT-Ent between the smaller regions $A$ and $B$, and hence this transformation is not reversible via LOCC. However, assuming that the system is sufficiently homogenous and regions $A$ and $B$ are large and far from each other compared to the correlation length, one expects that a small increase in the sizes of $A$ and $B$ cannot increase SPT-Ent anymore. In other words, it seems natural to assume that at this limit the inverse transformation should also be possible via LOCC, i.e $\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho)\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}} \Omega^{\left(A'B'|{C'}\right)}(\rho)$. Indeed, our results prove the validity of this assumption in the case of 1-d systems.
According to the following theorem, this assumption implies that in all SPT phases SPT-Ent is a universal quantity. Let $A_{l}$ and $B_{l}$ be the balls of radius $l$ about regions $A$ and $B$ respectively. Let $\tilde{C}_{l}\equiv C\backslash \left(A_{l}\cup B_{l}\right)$ be the subregion of $C$ surrounded by $A_{l}$, $B_{l}$ and the boundaries of the system. Finally, let region $D$ be the complement of regions $A, B$ and $C$. We prove in SM [@SM] that
\[Thm1\] Suppose there exists a symmetric circuit with range bounded by $R$, which maps state $\rho_{1}$ to $\rho_{2}$. Assume $\rho_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}$ satisfy the the homogeneity conditions $\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho_{1,2})\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}}\Omega^{\left(A_{l}B_{l}|\tilde{C}_{l}\right)}(\rho_{1,2})$, for some $l>2R$. Furthermore, in the case where $D$ is non-empty, assume the distance between $C$ and $D$ is more than $2R$. Then, the SPT-Ent of $\rho_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}$ between $A$ and $B$ relative to $C$ are equal, i.e. $\Omega^{(AB|{C})}({\rho}_{1})\xleftrightarrow{\text{LOCC}}\Omega^{(AB|{C})}({\rho}_{2}).$
*SPT-Ent in 1-d systems*: In the following we calculate SPT-Ent in the case of 1-d systems using MPS framework. We start by a short review of the results on the classification of SPT phases in MPS framework (We follow the presentation of [@Schuch-Cirac2]).
For a 1-d system with short range correlations by blocking the sites in the large blocks a translationally invariant ground state will converge to a fixed point in the form of $$\label{def-psi}
|\Psi\rangle=S^{\otimes N} |\lambda\rangle^{\otimes N}$$ where $ |\lambda\rangle= \sum_{k} \lambda_k |k\rangle|k\rangle$ is a ÒvirtualÓ entangled state between adjacent virtual sites with Schmidt coefficients $\{\lambda_{k}\}$, and $S$ is an isometry which maps two virtual sites $i_{L}$ and $i_{R}$ to a physical site $i$. This isometry can indeed be thought as a Renormalization Group (RG) transformation on a block [@Cirac-RG]. It is shown that for any gapped 1-d system with a unique ground state, by blocking the physical sites the ground state can be approximated by a state in the form of $|\Psi\rangle$ with an accuracy which is exponential in the block sizes [@Cirac-RG].
Consider a symmetry group $G$ with on-site linear unitary representation $g\rightarrow u(g)$. After blocking $L$ sites together this symmetry will be represented by $g\rightarrow U(g)$ on each block, where $U(g)=u(g)^{\otimes L}$. Assume $|\Psi\rangle$ is invariant under this symmetry, i.e. $U(g)^{\otimes N}|\Psi\rangle=|\Psi\rangle$. Then, it turns out that there always exists a projective representation $g\rightarrow V(g)$ of group $G$ such that $U_{i}(g)S=S \left[V_{i_L}(g)\otimes {V}^{\ast}_{i_R}(g) \right]$ and $ \left[{V}_{i_R}^{\ast}(g)\otimes V_{(i+1)_{L}}(g)\right] |\lambda\rangle=|\lambda\rangle$ where $V^{\ast}(g)$ is the complex conjugate of $V(g)$ [@Cirac-String]. Note that for any phase $e^{i\theta(g)}$ the representation $g\rightarrow e^{i\theta(g)}V(g)$ will also satisfy the above equations and so $V(g)$ is defined only up to a phase. Let $\omega$ be the factor system of the representation $g\rightarrow V(g)$, i.e. $V(g)V(h)=\omega(g,h) V(gh)$. Then, the gauge transformation $g\rightarrow e^{i\theta(g)}V(g)$ induces an equivalence relation on the space of the factor systems: $\omega$ and $\omega'$ are equivalent if $\omega(g,h)=\omega'(g,h)e^{i(\theta(gh)-\theta(g)-\theta(h))}$ for some phase $e^{i\theta(\cdot)}$. We denote the equivalence class of the factor system $\omega$ by $[\omega]$. In lemma \[lemma3\] in SM [@SM] we prove that for *Abelian groups* all irreps whose factor systems are in a given equivalence class $[\omega]$ have the same dimension, denoted by $d_{[\omega]}$. Note that $d_{[\omega]}=d_{[\omega^{\ast}]}$.
Let $A$ and $B$ be two non-neighbour blocks of a 1-d system and $C$ be a connected region between $A$ and $B$. Note that these regions are not necessarily large. We prove in SM [@SM] that
\[Thm\] For any state $|\Psi\rangle$ in the form of Eq.(\[def-psi\]), that is for any fixed point of the RG, the SPT-Ent between $A$ and $B$ relative to $C$, i.e. the bipartite entanglement of state $\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\Psi)$, is equal to the entanglement of a maximally entangled state of a pair of $d_{[\omega]}$-dimensional systems.
Since the SPT phase of state $|\Psi\rangle$ is uniquely determined by the equivalence class $[\omega]$, this theorem implies that for states in the form of Eq.(\[def-psi\]), the SPT-Ent depends only on the SPT phase of the state. Furthermore, since by blocking the sites, a general MPS ground state converges to a fixed point in the form of Eq.(\[def-psi\]), in the limit where $A, B$ and $C$ are large, this result applies to any general MPS with SPT order. It is worth pointing out that other approaches has been proposed recently for detecting SPT order based on the entanglement of the fixed point of the RG [@Chen2; @Singh].
*Conclusion:* In this paper we introduced the concept of SPT-entanglement and proved that it remains constant throughout a SPT phase in arbitrary dimension. Also we calculated SPT entanglement in 1-d systems and showed that it can always detect the presence of SPT order. In the future works we show that this property of SPT ordered phases is closely related to the fact that certain SPT phases can be used as *quantum wires* in the measurement based quantum computation [@Else2012; @ElseBartlettDoherty]. We will also show that the results on SPT Entanglement, can be used to find a lower bound on *localizable entanglement* [@Localizable].
*Ackntowledgement:* I would like to thank Stephen Bartlett and Paolo Zanardi for reading the manuscript and providing very useful comments. Also, I acknowledge helpful discussions with Spyridon Michalakis, and Lorenzo Venuti. This research was supported by ARO MURI grant W911NF-11-1-0268.
[000]{}
Xie Chen, Zheng-Cheng Gu, and Xiao-Gang Wen, Phys. Rev. B, 83, 035107 (2011), arXiv:quant-ph/1008.3745.
Xie Chen, Zheng-Cheng Gu, and Xiao-Gang Wen, Phys. Rev. B, 84, 235128 (2011), arXiv:quant-ph/1103.3323.
Norbert Schuch, David Perez-Garcia, and Ignacio Cirac, Phys. Rev. B, 84, 165139 (2011), arXiv:quant-ph/1010.3732.
Frank Pollmann, Erez Berg, Ari M. Turner, and Masaki Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. B, 85, 075125 (2012), arXiv:quant-ph/0909.4059.
T. Kennedy and H. Tasaki, Phys. Rev. B, 45, 304Ð307 (1992); Comm. Math. Phys., 147, 431 (1992).
I. Affleck, T. Kennedy, E.H. Lieb, and H. Tasaki, Comm. Math. Phys., 115, 477 (1988); Phys. Rev. Lett., 59, 799 (1987).
A. Hamma, R. Ionicioiu, and P. Zanardi, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022315 (2005).
A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill. Phys. Rev. Let. 96, 110404 (2006).
M. Levin, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. Let. 96, 110405 (2006).
M. Horodecki, and J. Oppenheim, Int. J. of Mod. Phys. B, 27(01n03) (2013).
R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 8, 865-942 (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0702225.
See Supplemental Material at \[URL will be inserted by publisher\].
A. Y. Kitaev, Phys. Usp., 44(10S): 131, (2001).
I. Marvian, under preparation.
I. H. Kim, Preprint arXiv:1306.4771 (2013).
Y. Huang, X. Chen, arXiv:quant-ph/1401.3820.
G. Vidal, R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002), arXiv:0102117.
D. Perez-Garcia, M. M. Wolf, M. Sanz, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 167202 (2008), arXiv:quant-ph/0802.0447.
Marcel den Nijs, and Koos Rommelse, Phys. Rev. B, 40, 4709 (1989).
Frank Pollmann and Ari M. Turner, Phys. Rev. B, 86, 125441 (2012), arXiv:quant-ph/1204.0704.
D. V. Else, S. D. Bartlett, and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. B 88, 085114 (2013), arXiv:quant-ph/1304.0783. D. V. Else, S. D. Bartlett, and A. C. Doherty, New J. Phys. 14, 113016 (2012), arXiv:quant-ph/1207.48053.
K. Duivenvoorden, T. Quella, Phys. Rev. B, 88, 125115 (2013), arXiv:1304.7234.
Xie Chen, Zheng-Cheng Gu, and Xiao-Gang Wen, Phys. Rev. B, 82, 155138 (2010), arXiv:1004.3835.
Jutho Haegeman, David Perez-Garcia, Ignacio Cirac, and Norbert Schuch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 050402 (2012) , arXiv:quant-ph/1201.4174v2.
F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, J. I. Latorre, E. Rico, and M. M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett., 94, 140601 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0410227.
D. Perez-Garcia, F. Verstraete, M. M. Wolf, and J. I. Cirac, Quant. Inf. Comput., 7, 401 (2007), arXiv:quant-ph/0608197.
C. Y. Huang, X. Chen, & F. L. Lin, Phys. Rev. B, 88(20), 205124, arXiv:1303.4190, arXiv:quant-ph/1303.4190 (2013). S. Singh, & G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. B, 88(12), 121108 (2013).
D. V. Else, I. Schwarz, S. D. Bartlett, and A. C. Doherty, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 240505 (2012), arXiv:quant-ph/1201.4877.
M. Popp, F. Verstraete, M. A. Martin-Delgado, & J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A, 71(4), 042306 (2005); F. Verstraete, M. Popp, & J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Let., 92(2), 027901 (2004); L. C. Venuti and M. Roncaglia, Phys. Rev. Lett., 94, 207207 (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0503021.
Basic properties of SPT-Entanglement (arbitrary dimensional systems)
====================================================================
In the following $\Pi^{(X)}_{\alpha}$ denotes the projector to the subspace with charge $\alpha$ in region $X$.
Monotonicity of SPT-Ent (Equation 5 in the paper)
-------------------------------------------------
Let $A$ and $B$ be two disjoint regions of the system and $C$ be a connected region surrounded by $A$, $B$ and the boundaries of the system.
For any non-overlapping regions $A'$ and $B'$ it holds that $$A\subseteq A',B\subseteq B'\ \Rightarrow \ \Omega^{\left(A'B'|C'\right)}(\rho)\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}}\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho),$$ where ${C}'\equiv C\backslash \left(A'\cup B'\right)$ is the subregion of $C$ surrounded by $A'$, $B'$ and the boundaries of the system.
\[h\]
![Region $A'$ is partitioned to region $A$ and region $\Delta A$. Similarly, region $B'$ is partitioned to region $B$ and region $\Delta B$. Region ${C}'\equiv C\backslash \left(A'\cup B'\right)$ is the subregion of $C$ surrounded by $A'$, $B'$ and the boundaries of the system. []{data-label="fig:Extended"}](Extended)
Recall that $$\label{Def:state}
\Omega^{\left(A'B'|C'\right)}(\rho)= \sum_{\tau} q_{\tau} |\tau\rangle\langle\tau|^{(K_{C'})}\otimes \ \rho_{\tau}^{(A'B')},$$ where $$q_{\tau} \rho_{\tau}^{(A'B')}\equiv \text{tr}_{\overline{A'B'}}(\Pi^{(C')}_{\tau}\rho),$$ where the trace is over all sites except the sites in regions $A'$ and $B'$. Similarly $$\Omega^{\left(AB|C\right)}(\rho)= \sum_{\kappa} p_{\kappa} |\kappa\rangle\langle\kappa|^{(K_{C})}\otimes \ \rho_{\kappa}^{(AB)}$$ where $$p_{\kappa} \rho_{\kappa}^{(AB)}\equiv \text{tr}_{\overline{AB}}(\Pi^{({C})}_{\kappa}\rho).$$
The key point here is that Abelian charges are additive, that is to measure the total charge of a region we can measure the charges of different parts of that regions and then add them up. In other word, measuring the total charge can be implemented via local measurements and classical communication, which is required to communicate the outcomes of these measurements and find the total charge.
Region $C$ can be partitioned as the union of the pairwise disjoint regions $C'$, $\Delta A$ and $\Delta B$, where $$\Delta A\equiv C \cap \left(A'\backslash A\right),\ \text{and} \ \ \Delta B\equiv C \cap \left(B'\backslash B\right).$$ So, the total charge in region ${C}$ can be written as the sum of the charges in $C'$, $\Delta A$ and $\Delta B$. In other words, $$\Pi^{({C})}_{\kappa}=\sum_{\tau,\tau_{A},\tau_{B}\atop \tau+\tau_{A}+\tau_{B}=\kappa} \Pi^{(C')}_{\tau}\otimes\Pi^{(\Delta A)}_{\tau_{A}}\otimes\Pi^{(\Delta B)}_{\tau_{B}}$$ where the summation is over all the charges $\tau,\tau_{A}$ and $\tau_{B}$ that adds up to $\kappa$. It follows that $$\label{Eq:LOCC1}
p_{\kappa} \rho_{\kappa}^{(AB)}=\text{tr}_{\overline{AB}}(\Pi^{({C})}_{\kappa}\rho)=\sum_{\tau,\tau_{A}\tau_{B}\atop \tau+\tau_{A}+\tau_{B}=\kappa}q_{\tau}\ \text{tr}_{\overline{AB}}\left(\left[\Pi^{(\Delta A)}_{\tau_{A}}\otimes\Pi^{(\Delta B)}_{\tau_{B}}\right] \rho_{\tau}^{(A'B')}\right)$$ where the trace is over all the system except the sites in $A$ and $B$.
Based on this observation we can now explicitly define a LOCC which transforms the state $\Omega^{\left(A'B'|C'\right)}(\rho)$ to the state $\Omega^{\left(AB|C\right)}(\rho)$. Suppose two local parties acting on $A'$ and $B'$ measure the charges in regions $\Delta A$ and $\Delta B$ and obtain charges $\tau_{A}$ and $\tau_{B}$ respectively. Then, they implement the following transformation on the classical register: $$|\tau\rangle\longrightarrow |\tau_{A}+\tau_{B}+\tau\rangle.$$ Note that to implement this transformation they need to communicate via a classical channel.
Using Eqs.(\[Eq:LOCC1\]), it is straightforward to check that after this LOCC the joint state of regions $A$, $B$ and the classical register is described by $\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho)$. This completes the proof.
Effect of symmetric low-depth circuits on the SPT-Entanglement
--------------------------------------------------------------
As we defined in the paper, a *low-depth* circuit is a circuit in which the [depth]{} $l$ times the maximum range of each unitary in the circuit is bounded by some range $R$ which in the thermodynamics limit is negligible compared to the system size. An important feature of the low-depth circuits is that under this type of transformations localized quantum information cannot propagate outside of a region with diameter of order $R$. Equivalently, in the Heisenberg picture, under these circuits a local observable evolves to an observable whose support is restricted to a region with the diameter of order $R$. This implies that
\[Prop\] Consider two circuits $T$ and $T'$ whose ranges are bounded by $R$. If in the ball of radius $l>R$ around a region $A$ the local unitaries which form these two circuits are identical, then the two circuits act identically on region $A$, i.e. for any states $\rho$ of the system $$\text{tr}_{\overline{A}}\left(T\rho T^{\dag}\right)=\text{tr}_{\overline{A}}\left(T'\rho T'^{\dag} \right).$$ where the trace is over all the sites in the system except the sites in region $A$.
Let $A$ and $B$ be two disjoint regions of the system, $C$ be a connected region surrounded by $A$, $B$ and the boundaries of the system, and let region $D$ be the rest of the system, i.e. all the sites not covered by $A, B$ and $C$.
Define $A_{l}$ and $B_{l}$ to be the balls of radius $l<\frac{1}{2}\text{dist}(A,B)$ about regions $A$ and $B$ respectively, where $\text{dist}(A,B)$ is the distance of $A$ and $B$. Let $\tilde{C}_{l}\equiv C\backslash \left(A_{l}\cup B_{l}\right)$ be the subregion of $C$ surrounded by $A_{l}$, $B_{l}$ and the boundaries of the system.
\[Thm:LOCC-trans\] Let $V$ be a symmetric low-depth circuit with range bounded by $R$. Assume, in the case where $D$ is non-empty, $\text{dist}(D,C)>2R$. Then, for any $l$ in the interval $2R<l<\text{dist}(A,B)/2$ it holds that $$\Omega^{\left(A_{l}B_{l}|\tilde{C}_{l}\right)}(V \rho V^{\dag})\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}}\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho).$$
Consider the circuit $V=V_{1}\cdots V_{N}$ where all $V_{i}: 1\le i\le N$ are local, symmetric unitaris. By assumption the depth of this circuit times the maximum range of each unitary in the circuit is bounded by $R$. Consider the inverse circuit $V^{\dag}=V^{\dag}_{N} \cdots V^{\dag}_{1}$. This is also a symmetric circuit whose range is bounded by $R$. Now based on this circuit we define the symmetric local circuits $V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}$ and $V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}$ using the following recipe: The circuit $V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}$ ($V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}$) is obtained by replacing all the local unitaries in the circuit $V^{\dag}_{N} \cdots V^{\dag}_{1}$ whose support are not restricted to $A_{l}$ ($B_{l}$) by the identity operator. So, $V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}$ and $V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}$ are local symmetric circuits whose support are restricted to $A_{l}$ and $B_{l}$ respectively.
Next, we note that the circuit $(V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})})V$ is a symmetric circuit with range 2$R$. It is straightforward to show that $(V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})})V$ has the following decomposition $$\label{decomp1}
(V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})})V=S^{(C)}\otimes S^{(D)}$$ where $S^{(C)}$ is a symmetric unitary acting on $C$ and $S^{(D)}$ is a symmetric unitary acting on $D$. This simply follows by applying the proposition \[Prop\] for the regions $A$, $B$, $C$ and separately. For instance, in the case of region $A$, proposition \[Prop\] implies that if $l$ is larger than the range of $(V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})})V$ then the effect of $(V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})})V$ and $V^{\dag}V=I$, on region $A$ are indistinguishable. So, for $l>2 R$, $(V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})})V$ acts as identity on $A$. A similar argument implies that $(V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})})V$ acts as identity on $B$ too. Finally, note that the distance between $C$ and $D$ by assumption is larger than $2R$, and since the range of $(V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})})V$ is bounded by $2R$, it cannot generate any correlation between $C$ and $D$. This proves Eq.(\[decomp1\]).
The important consequence of Eq.(\[decomp1\]) is that, under $(V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})})V$ region $C$ evolves unitarily, and since this unitary is symmetric, it follows that under $(V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})})V$ the charge in region $C$ is conserved.
Now we can define the LOCC which transforms state $\Omega^{\left(A_{l}B_{l}|\tilde{C}_{l}\right)}(V \rho V^{\dag})$ to the state $\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho)$:
1. Two local parties apply local unitaries $V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}$ and $V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}$ on regions $A_{l}$ and $B_{l}$ respectively.
2. Then, they measure the total charges in regions $\Delta A\equiv C \cap \left(A_{l}\backslash A\right),\ \text{and} \ \ \Delta B\equiv C \cap \left(B_{l}\backslash B\right).$
3. FInally, they apply the following transformation on the classical register $$|\tau\rangle\longrightarrow |\tau_{A}+\tau_{B}+\tau\rangle,$$ where $\tau_{A}$ and $\tau_{B}$ are charges of regions $\Delta A$ and $\Delta B$ respectively.
In the following we show that after the above LOCC transformation, the joint state of regions $A$ and $B$ and the classical register is described by $\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho)$.
Recall that $$\label{Def:state}
\Omega^{\left(A_{l}B_{l}|\tilde{C}_{l}\right)}(V \rho V^{\dag})= \sum_{\tau} q_{\tau} |\tau\rangle\langle\tau|^{(K_{\tilde{C}_{l}})}\otimes \ \sigma_{\tau}^{(A_{l}B_{l})},$$ where $$q_{\tau} \sigma_{\tau}^{(A_{l}B_{l})}\equiv \text{tr}_{\overline{A_{l}B_{l}}}\left(\Pi^{(\tilde{C}_{l})}_{\tau} V\rho V^{\dag}\right),$$ and the trace is over all sites in the system except the sites in regions $A_{l}$ and $B_{l}$. Similarly $$\Omega^{\left(AB|C\right)}(\rho)= \sum_{\kappa} p_{\kappa} |\kappa\rangle\langle\kappa|^{(K_{C})}\otimes \ \rho_{\kappa}^{(AB)}$$ where $$p_{\kappa} \rho_{\kappa}^{(AB)}\equiv \text{tr}_{\overline{AB}}(\Pi^{({C})}_{\kappa}\rho).$$ It is straightforward to see that after the above LOCC the joint state of regions $A$ and $B$ and the classical register will be described by $$\sum_{\tau,\tau_{A},\tau_{B}} q_{\tau} |\tau+\tau_{A}+\tau_{B}\rangle\langle\tau+\tau_{A}+\tau_{B}|^{(K_{C})}\otimes \ \text{tr}_{\overline{AB}}\left([\Pi^{(\Delta A)}_{\tau_{A}}\otimes\Pi^{(\Delta B)}_{\tau_{B}}] [V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}] \sigma_{\tau}^{(A_{l}B_{l})} [V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}]^{\dag} \right)$$ We now prove that this state is equal to $\Omega^{\left(AB|C\right)}(\rho)$, which completes the proof the theorem. To prove this we need to show that $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\kappa}\rho_{\kappa}=\sum_{\tau,\tau_{A},\tau_{B}\atop \tau+\tau_{A}+\tau_{B}=\kappa} q_{\tau}\times \text{tr}_{\overline{AB}} \left([\Pi^{(\Delta A)}_{\tau_{A}}\otimes\Pi^{(\Delta B)}_{\tau_{B}}][V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}]
\sigma_{\tau}^{(A_{l}B_{l})} [V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}]^{\dag}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Here, we simplify the right-hand side $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\tau,\tau_{A},\tau_{B}\atop \tau+\tau_{A}+\tau_{B}=\kappa} &q_{\tau}\times \text{tr}_{\overline{AB}} \left([\Pi^{(\Delta A)}_{\tau_{A}}\otimes\Pi^{(\Delta B)}_{\tau_{B}}][V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}]
\sigma_{\tau}^{(A_{l}B_{l})} [V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}]^{\dag}\right)\\
&=\sum_{\tau,\tau_{A},\tau_{B}\atop \tau+\tau_{A}+\tau_{B}=\kappa} \text{tr}_{\overline{AB}} \left([\Pi^{(\Delta A)}_{\tau_{A}}\otimes\Pi^{(\Delta B)}_{\tau_{B}}][V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}]
\Pi^{(\tilde{C}_{l})}_{\tau}V\rho V^{\dag} [V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}]^{\dag}\right)\\
&= \sum_{\tau,\tau_{A},\tau_{B}\atop \tau+\tau_{A}+\tau_{B}=\kappa} \text{tr}_{\overline{AB}} \left([\Pi^{(\tilde{C}_{l})}_{\tau}\otimes\Pi^{(\Delta A)}_{\tau_{A}}\otimes\Pi^{(\Delta B)}_{\tau_{B}}][V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}]
V\rho V^{\dag} [V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}]^{\dag}\right)\\
&= \text{tr}_{\overline{AB}} \left(\Pi_{\kappa}^{(C)} [V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}]
V\rho V^{\dag} [V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}]^{\dag}\right)\\
&=\text{tr}_{\overline{AB}}\left(\Pi^{({C})}_{\kappa}[S^{(C)}\otimes S^{(D)}] \rho [S^{(C)}\otimes S^{(D)}]^{\dag}\right)\\
&=\text{tr}_{\overline{AB}}(\Pi_{\kappa}^{(C)}\rho)=p_{\kappa}\rho_{\kappa}\end{aligned}$$ where to get the third line we have used the fact that the support of $\Pi^{(\tilde{C}_{l})}_{\tau}$ is restricted to $\tilde{C}_{l}$ and so it commutes with $V_{\text{inv}}^{(A_{l})}\otimes V_{\text{inv}}^{(B_{l})}$(whose support is restricted to $\Delta A \cup \Delta B$). To get the fourth line we have used the additivity of Abelian charges, i.e. $$\Pi^{({C})}_{\kappa}=\sum_{\tau,\tau_{A},\tau_{B}\atop \tau+\tau_{A}+\tau_{B}=\kappa} \Pi^{(\tilde{C}_{l})}_{\tau}\otimes\Pi^{(\Delta A)}_{\tau_{A}}\otimes\Pi^{(\Delta B)}_{\tau_{B}}$$ To get the fifth line we have used Eq.(\[decomp1\]), and finally to get the sixth line we have used the fact that $S^{(D)}$ acts trivially on $C$ and the fact that since $S^{(C)}$ is a symmetric unitary acting on region $C$, it preserves the charge in this region, i.e. for all charges $\tau$ it holds that $$[\Pi_{\tau}^{(C)}, S^{(C)}]=0.$$ This completes the proof.
SPT-Entanglement vanishes in the trivial phase (Proof of theorem \[Thm0\])
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we first repeat the statement of theorem \[Thm0\], and then prove it.
**Theorem \[Thm0\]** *Suppose there exists a symmetric circuit with range bounded by $R$, which transforms state $\rho$ to a product state. Then, the SPT-Ent of state $\rho$ between any two regions $A$ and $B$ with distance more than $4R$ is zero, i.e. for any measure of entanglement $E$, it holds that $\text{dist}(A,B)>4R$ implies $E\left( \Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho)\right) =0.$*
For simplicity we assume $A, B$ and $C$ cover the entire system, and so $D$ is empty. Otherwise, if this is not the case, we can add region $D$ to $A$ and $B$. Assuming the result holds in the case where $D$ is empty, SPT-Entanglement is zero between these extended regions. But, since tracing over the added region cannot increase entanglement, it follows that SPT-Entanglement is also zero between the original regions $A$ and $B$.
Suppose $V$ is the local symmetric circuit with range bounded by $R$ which maps state $\rho$ to a product state denoted by $\sigma$, i.e. $V\rho V^{\dag}=\sigma$, or equivalently $\sigma=V^{\dag}\rho V$. Note that $V^{\dag}$ is also a symmetric circuit with range bounded by $R$. Then from theorem \[Thm:LOCC-trans\] we find that for all $l$ in the interval $2R< l< \text{dist}(A,B)/2$ it holds that $$\Omega^{\left(A_{l}B_{l}|\tilde{C}_{l}\right)}(\sigma)\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}}\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho).$$ where $A_{l}$ and $B_{l}$ are the balls of radius $l$ about regions $A$ and $B$ respectively, and $\tilde{C}_{l}\equiv C\backslash \left(A_{l}\cup B_{l}\right)$ is the subregion of $C$ surrounded by $A_{l}$, $B_{l}$ and the boundaries of the system. But, since $\sigma$ is unentangled, it follows that $ \Omega^{\left(A_{l}B_{l}|\tilde{C}_{l}\right)}(\sigma)$ is also unentangled. Since $\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho)$ can be obtained from $ \Omega^{\left(A_{l}B_{l}|\tilde{C}_{l}\right)}(\sigma)$ via LOCC, it follows that $\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho)$ is also unentangled. This completes the proof.
SPT-Entanglement is a universal quantity in all SPT phases (Proof of theorem \[Thm1\])
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we first repeat the statement of theorem \[Thm1\], and then prove it.
Let $A_{l}$ and $B_{l}$ be the balls of radius $l$ about regions $A$ and $B$ respectively. Let $\tilde{C}_{l}\equiv C\backslash \left(A_{l}\cup B_{l}\right)$ be the subregion of $C$ surrounded by $A_{l}$, $B_{l}$ and the boundaries of the system. Finally, let region $D$ be the complement of regions $A, B$ and $C$. Then
**Theorem \[Thm1\]** *Suppose there exists a symmetric circuit with range $R$ which maps state $\rho_{1}$ to $\rho_{2}$. Assume $\rho_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}$ satisfy the the homogeneity conditions $\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho_{1,2})\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}}\Omega^{\left(A_{l}B_{l}|\tilde{C}_{l}\right)}(\rho_{1,2})$, for some $l>2R$. Furthermore, in the case where $D$ is non-empty, assume the distance between $C$ and $D$ is more than $2R$. Then, the SPT-Ent of $\rho_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}$ between $A$ and $B$ relative to $C$ are equal, i.e. $\Omega^{(AB|{C})}({\rho}_{1})\xleftrightarrow{\text{LOCC}}\Omega^{(AB|{C})}({\rho}_{2}).$*
Let $V$ be the unitary with depth $R$ which transforms $\rho_{1}$ to $\rho_{2}$, i.e. $V\rho_{1}V^{\dag}=\rho_{2}$. Then according to theorem \[Thm:LOCC-trans\] for any $l$ in the interval $2R<l<\text{dist}(A,B)/2$ there exists LOCC which realizes the transformation $$\Omega^{\left(A_{l}B_{l}|\tilde{C}_{l}\right)}(\rho_{2})\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}}\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho_{1}).$$ But according to the assumptions, for some $l>2R$ there exists LOCC which realizes the transformation $$\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho_{2})\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}}\Omega^{\left(A_{l}B_{l}|\tilde{C}_{l}\right)}(\rho_{2}).$$ The above two equations together imply that there exists LOCC which realizes the transformation $$\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho_{2})\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}}\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho_{1}).$$ On the other hand, $\rho_{1}=V^{\dag}\rho_{2} V$ and since $V$ is a symmetric unitary with range bounded by $R$, so is $V^{\dag}$. Therefore, we can repeat the above argument and show that there exists LOCC which realizes $$\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho_{2})\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}}\Omega^{(AB|C)}(\rho_{1}).$$ This completes the proof.
One-dimensional systems
=======================
In this section of supplementary materials we prove theorem 4 in the paper. This theorem determines the SPT-entanglement of states in the form of $$|\Psi\rangle=S^{\otimes N} |\lambda\rangle^{\otimes N}$$ where $ |\lambda\rangle= \sum_{k} \lambda_k |k\rangle|k\rangle$ is a “virtual” entangled state between adjacent virtual sites with Schmidt coefficients $\{\lambda_{k}\}$, and $S$ is an isometry which maps two virtual sites $i_L$ and $i_R$ to the physical site $i$ (See Fig. \[fig:MPS\]).
\[h\]
![The isometry $S$ maps two virtual sites $i_L$ and $i_R$ to the physical site $i$. []{data-label="fig:MPS"}](MPS2)
To find the SPT-Entanglement of state $\Psi$ between $A$ and $B$ relative to $C$, we need to calculate the bipartite entanglement of state $$\Omega^{(AB|C)}({\Psi})\equiv \sum_{\kappa} p_{\kappa} |\kappa\rangle\langle\kappa|^{(K_{C})}\otimes \rho_{\kappa}^{(AB)}$$ relative to $AK_{C}|B$ partition, or equivalently, relative to $A|K_{C}B$ partition, where $$\label{rho-AB}
\rho_{\kappa}^{(AB)}=\frac{1}{p_{\kappa}}\text{tr}_{\overline{AB}}\left( {\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} |\Psi\rangle\langle \Psi|{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa}\right).$$ In the following, we show that the entanglement of this state is equal to the entanglement of a maximally entangled state of a pair of $d_{[\omega]}$-dimensional systems. Recall that $d_{[\omega]}$ is the dimension of the irreps of $G$ whose factor systems belong to $[\omega]$, the equivalence class that the factor system of the representation $g\rightarrow V(g)$ belongs to it. Also, recall that $d_{[\omega]}=d_{[\omega^{\ast}]}$ (See lemma \[lemma3\]).
In the following we first show that using LOCC the state $|\text{ME}_{d_{[\omega]}}\rangle$, a maximally entangled state of a pair of $d_{[\omega]}$-dimensional systems, can be transformed to the state $\Omega^{(AB|C)}({\Psi})$. We denote this transformation by $$\label{Eq:trans1}
|\text{ME}_{d_{[\omega]}}\rangle \xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}} \Omega^{(AB|C)}({\Psi}).$$ To prove this we use the following lemma
\[lem:charge\] Consider projective unitary representations of an Abelian symmetry $G$ on two local systems $R$ and $\overline{R}$ and assume the factor systems of these representations respectively belong to the equivalence classes $[\omega]$ and $[\omega^{\ast}]$. Then, the total charge of $R$ and $\overline{R}$ can be measured via LOCC by consuming a maximally entangled state of a pair of $d_{[\omega]}$-dimensional systems.
The lemma is proven at the end of the supplementary materials.
Then, we prove the reverse, i.e. we show that using LOCC the state $\Omega^{(AB|C)}({\Psi})$ can be transformed to the state $ |\text{ME}_{d_{[\omega]}}\rangle$. We denote this transformation by $$\label{Eq:trans2}
\Omega^{(AB|C)}({\Psi})\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}} |\text{ME}_{d_{[\omega]}}\rangle.$$ To prove this we use the following lemma proven at the end of the supplementary materials
\[lem:charge2\] Let $g\rightarrow T_{R}(g)$ and $g\rightarrow T_{\overline{R}}(g)$ be the projective unitary representations of an Abelian symmetry $G$ on the local systems $R$ and $\overline{R}$ respectively. Assume the factor systems of these representations belong to the equivalence classes $[\omega]$ and $[\omega^{\ast}]$ respectively. Let $\rho$ be an arbitrary (pure or mixed) state of the joint system of $R$ and $\overline{R}$ with a definite charge, i.e. $\forall g\in G$ $$\left[T_{R}(g)\otimes T_{\overline{R}}(g) \right]\rho=\rho\left[T_{R}(g)\otimes T_{\overline{R}}(g) \right]=e^{i\kappa(g)}\rho$$ for some 1-d representation $g\rightarrow e^{i\kappa(g)}$. Then, there exists an LOCC which transforms the state $\rho$ to a maximally entangled state of a pair of $d_{[\omega]}$-dimensional systems.
Equations. (\[Eq:trans1\]) and (\[Eq:trans2\]) together prove theorem 1. We proceed by proving these equations and then we prove lemmas \[lem:charge\] and \[lem:charge2\].
\[h\]
![Alice and Bob locally prepare systems $\overline{R}_{A/B}\otimes R_{A/B}$ in the state $|\lambda\rangle$ and then they measure the total charge of the joint system formed by $R_{A}$ and $\overline{R}_{B}$. This total charge can be measured via LOCC by consuming a maximally entangled state of a pair of $d_{[\omega]}$-dimensional systems (See the proof of lemma \[lem:charge\].). The maximally entangled state is chosen to have the trivial charge and so it does not change the total charge of the system. But, because of the added pair of systems, it follows that the representation of the symmetry on the joint system in each box is now Abelian. Therefore, the total charge of the two boxes can be measured by measuring the charge in each box locally, $\kappa_{A}$ and $\kappa_{B}$, and then adding these two charges to obtain the total charge $\kappa$.[]{data-label="fig:Meas"}](Meas2)
Proof of $|\text{ME}_{d_{[\omega]}}\rangle \xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}} \Omega^{(AB|C)}({\Psi})$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose two local parties, Alice and Bob, each has a pair of systems $(R_{A},\overline{R}_{A})$ and $(R_{B},\overline{R}_{B})$ where the Hilbert spaces of all of these four systems are isomorphic to the Hilbert space of the virtual systems which describe the state $\Psi$. Assume the symmetry $G$ is represented by $g\rightarrow V(g)$ on $R_{A/B}$ and by $g\rightarrow V^{\ast}(g)$ on $\overline{R}_{A/B}$. Suppose Alice and Bob each prepares their local systems $ \overline{R}_{A/B}\otimes R_{A/B}$ in the state $|\lambda\rangle$ (See Fig. \[fig:Meas\]). Note that $|\lambda\rangle$ satisfies $\forall g\in G:\ [V^{\ast}(g)\otimes V(g)]|\lambda\rangle=|\lambda\rangle$. Then, Alice and Bob measure the total charge in the joint system formed by ${R}_{A}$ and $\overline{R}_{B}$ (See Fig. \[fig:Meas\]).
In general, when the representation $g\rightarrow V(g)$ is non-Abelian, this measurement is non-local, i.e. it cannot be realized via LOCC alone. However, according to the lemma \[lem:charge\], by consuming a maximally entangled state of a pair of $d_{[\omega]}$-dimensional systems this measurement can be realized via LOCC. Then, after this measurement Alice and Bob discard ${R}_{A}$ and $\overline{R}_{B}$ but they keep the record of the outcome of the charge measurement. Let $\tilde{\Pi}^{(R_{A}\overline{R}_{B})}_{\kappa}$ be the projector to the subspace in which the total system formed by $R_A$ and $\overline{R}_{B}$ has charge $\kappa$. Then, the probability of observing charge $\kappa$ in this measurement is $q_{\kappa}\equiv\langle\lambda|\langle\lambda| \tilde{\Pi}^{(R_{A}\overline{R}_{B})}_{\kappa}|\lambda\rangle|\lambda\rangle$. Furthermore, given the charge $\kappa$ is obtained in this measurement the state of $\overline{R}_{A}{R}_{B}$ after the measurement will be $$\sigma_{\kappa}^{(AB)}\equiv\frac{1}{q_{\kappa}}\text{tr}_{R_{A}\overline{R}_{B}}\left(\tilde{\Pi}^{(R_{A}\overline{R}_{B})}_{\kappa} \left[|\lambda\rangle\langle\lambda|^{\otimes 2}\right]\tilde{\Pi}^{(R_{A}\overline{R}_{B})}_{\kappa} \right)$$ We will prove that for all charges $\kappa$ it holds that $q_{\kappa}=p_{\kappa}$ and furthermore $$\label{Eq:LO}
\rho_{\kappa}^{(AB)}= \mathcal{E}_{A}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{B} (\sigma_{\kappa}^{(AB)})$$ where $\mathcal{E}_{A}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{B}$ are local operations acting on Alice’s and Bob’s systems respectively. This implies that $ \mathcal{E}_{A}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{B}$ transforms $\sum_{\kappa} q_{\kappa} |\kappa\rangle\langle\kappa|^{(K_{C})}\otimes \sigma_{\kappa}^{(AB)} $ to $\Omega^{(AB|C)}({\Psi})$. This in turn implies that there exists a LOCC which consumes a maximally entangled state of a pair of $d_{[\omega]}$-dimensional systems and create $\Omega^{(AB|C)}({\Psi})$ which proves Eq.(\[Eq:trans1\]).
So, to complete the proof we need to show Eq.(\[Eq:LO\]) holds (The fact that $q_{\kappa}=p_{\kappa}$ can also be shown similarly.). Let $\Pi^{(C)}_{\kappa}$ be the projector to the subspace of states in which the region $C$ has the total charge $\kappa$. This means that $$\Pi^{(C)}_{\kappa}\left[\bigotimes_{i\in C} U_{i}(g)\right] =\left[\bigotimes_{i\in C} U_{i}(g)\right] \Pi^{(C)}_{\kappa}=e^{i\kappa(g)}\Pi^{(C)}_{\kappa}$$ where $g\rightarrow e^{i\kappa(g)}$ is the 1-dimensional representation of the symmetry group $G$ corresponding to the charge $\kappa$ and $g\rightarrow U_{i}(g)$ is the representation of the symmetry on the physical site $i$. Similarly, let $\tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} $ be the projector to the subspace corresponding to the charge $\kappa$ of the representation $g\rightarrow \bigotimes_{i\in C} V_{i_L}(g) \otimes V^\ast_{i_R}(g) $ where $g\rightarrow V_{i_L}(g)$ and $g\rightarrow V^{\ast}_{i_R}(g)$ are the representation of symmetry $G$ on the virtual sites $i_{L}$ and $i_{R}$ respectively. This means that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq-sym-vir}
e^{i\kappa(g)}\tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa}&=\left[\bigotimes_{i\in C} V_{i_L}(g) \otimes V^\ast_{i_R}(g) \right]\tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} \nonumber \\ &=\tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa}\left[\bigotimes_{i\in C} V_{i_L}(g) \otimes V^\ast_{i_R}(g) \right]\end{aligned}$$ As we have seen before $g\rightarrow V(g)$ is defined such that $$\label{S-sym}
U_{i}(g)S=S \left[V_{i_L}(g)\otimes {V}^{\ast}_{i_R}(g) \right]$$ This implies that $$\label{rel-proj}
\Pi^{(C)}_{\kappa} S^{\otimes N}=S^{\otimes N} \tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa}$$ Since $|\Psi\rangle=S^{\otimes N} |\lambda\rangle^{\otimes N}$ we conclude that $$\label{Eq-isometry}
{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} |\Psi\rangle= S^{\otimes N} \tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} |\lambda\rangle^{\otimes N}$$ Comparing the above equation with the definition of $\rho_{\kappa}^{(AB)}$ given by Eq.(\[rho-AB\]) and noting that $S$ is an isometry we can conclude that $$\label{Eq:iso}
\rho_{\kappa}^{(AB)}\cong\frac{1}{p_{\kappa}}\text{tr}_{\overline{AB}}\left( \tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} |\lambda\rangle\langle \lambda|^{\otimes N} \tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} \right)$$ where the equality holds up to local isometries.
Let $\tilde{\rho}_{\kappa}^{(a_Rb_L)}$ be the reduced state of the virtual sites $a_R$ and $b_L$ when the total system is in the state $\tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} |\lambda\rangle/\sqrt{p_{\kappa}}$ $$\tilde{\rho}_{\kappa}^{(a_Rb_L)}\equiv \frac{1}{p_{\kappa}}\text{tr}_{\overline{a_{R}b_{L}}}\left( \tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} |\lambda\rangle\langle \lambda|^{\otimes N} \tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} \right).$$ where the trace is over all the virtual sites except $a_R$ and $b_L$. Then, one can easily show that there exists local operations $\mathcal{E}_{A}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{B}$ such that $$\rho_{\kappa}^{(AB)}= \mathcal{E}_{A}\otimes\mathcal{E}_{B}(\tilde{\rho}_{\kappa}^{(a_Rb_L)}).$$ On the other hand, using the fact that $|\lambda\rangle$ has the trivial charge, it turns out that $$\tilde{\rho}_{\kappa}^{(a_Rb_L)}=\sigma_{\kappa}^{(AB)}$$ These two equations together prove Eq.(\[Eq:LO\]) and this completes the proof of $|\text{ME}_{d_{[\omega]}}\rangle \xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}} \Omega^{(AB|C)}({\Psi})$.
Proof of $\Omega^{(AB|C)}({\Psi})\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}} |\text{ME}_{d_{[\omega]}}\rangle$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To show that $\Omega^{(AB|C)}({\Psi})\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}} |\text{ME}_{d_{[\omega]}}\rangle$ it is sufficient to show that for all $\kappa$ with nonzero $p_{\kappa}$ the state $\rho_{\kappa}^{(AB)}$ can be transformed to $|\text{ME}_{d_{[\omega]}}\rangle$ under LOCC. But as we have seen in Eq.(\[Eq:iso\]), $\rho_{\kappa}^{(AB)}$ is equal to $\frac{1}{p_{\kappa}}\text{tr}_{\overline{AB}}\left( \tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} |\lambda\rangle\langle \lambda|^{\otimes N} \tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} \right)$ up to local isometries. So to prove $\Omega^{(AB|C)}({\Psi})\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}} |\text{ME}_{d_{[\omega]}}\rangle$ it is sufficient to prove that $$\label{Eq:trans}
\frac{1}{p_{\kappa}}\text{tr}_{\overline{AB}}\left( \tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} |\lambda\rangle\langle \lambda|^{\otimes N} \tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} \right)\xrightarrow{\text{LOCC}} |\text{ME}_{d_{[\omega]}}\rangle.$$ To prove this we show that $$\label{virt-sym}
\left[V^\ast_{a_R}(g) \otimes V_{b_L}(g)\right] \tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} |\lambda\rangle^{\otimes N}= e^{-i\kappa(g)}\tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} |\lambda\rangle^{\otimes N}$$ This equation together with lemma \[lem:charge2\] imply Eq.(\[Eq:trans\]).
So, to complete the proof in the following we show Eq.(\[virt-sym\]) holds. We first note that Eq.(\[Eq-sym-vir\]) implies $$\label{Eq-proof1}
\left[\bigotimes_{i\in C} V_{i_L}(g) \otimes V^\ast_{i_R}(g)\right] \tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} |\lambda\rangle^{\otimes N}=e^{i\kappa(g)} \tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa}|\lambda\rangle^{\otimes N}$$ On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq-proof2}
&\left[\bigotimes_{i\in C} V_{i_L}(g) \otimes V^\ast_{i_R}(g)\right] \tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} |\lambda\rangle^{\otimes N} \nonumber\\ &=
\tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa}\left[\bigotimes_{i\in C} V_{i_L}(g) \otimes V^\ast_{i_R}(g)\right] |\lambda\rangle^{\otimes N} \nonumber \\ &=\tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} \left[V^\ast_{a_R}(g^{-1}) \otimes V_{b_L}(g^{-1})\right] |\lambda\rangle^{\otimes N}\nonumber \\ &= \left[V^\ast_{a_R}(g^{-1}) \otimes V_{b_L}(g^{-1})\right] \tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa} |\lambda\rangle^{\otimes N}
\end{aligned}$$ where in the second line we have used Eq.(\[Eq-sym-vir\]), in the third line we have used the fact that $$\forall g\in G:\ \ \left({V}_{i_R}^{\ast}(g)\otimes V_{(i+1,L)}(g)\right) |\lambda\rangle=|\lambda\rangle$$ and in the fourth line we have used the fact that $\tilde{\Pi}^{(C)}_{\kappa}$ acts trivially on the virtual sites $a_R$ and $b_L$. Equations (\[Eq-proof1\]) and (\[Eq-proof2\]) together imply Eq.(\[virt-sym\]) and this completes the proof.
Proof of lemma \[lem:charge\]
-----------------------------
Consider systems ${r}$ and ${\overline{r}}$ with $d_{[\omega]}$-dimensional Hilbert spaces, $\mathcal{H}_{r}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{\overline{r}}$. Assume the representation of the symmetry $G$ on the systems ${r}$ and ${\overline{r}}$ are respectively $g\rightarrow t(g)$ and $g\rightarrow t^{\ast}(g)$, where $g\rightarrow t(g)$ is an irrep of $G$ whose factor system belongs to the equivalence class $[\omega]$. Let $|\Theta\rangle\in \mathcal{H}_{\overline{r}}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{r}$ be the state with the trivial charge, i.e. the state which satisfies $$\forall g\in G:\ \ \left[t^{\ast}(g)\otimes t(g)\right] |\Theta\rangle=|\Theta\rangle$$ Since $g\rightarrow t(g)$ is an irrep it follows that $|\Theta\rangle$ is uniquely specified by the above equation up to a phase and, furthermore, it is a maximally entangled state.
Now assume $r$ and $\overline{r}$ are in state $|\Theta\rangle$. Since the total charge of $r$ and $\overline{r}$ is trivial, the total charge of the joint systems $R\overline{R}r\overline{r}$ is equal to the total charge of the joint systems $R\overline{R}$. Now consider the representation of the symmetry $G$ on $R$ and $\overline{r}$ as a joint system on one side, and also its representation on $\overline{R}$ and ${r}$ as another joint system on the other side. One can easily see that the factor systems of both of these representations belong to the trivial equivalence class. Since the group is Abelian this means that both of these representations are Abelian. It follows that to measure $\kappa$, the total charge of $R\overline{R}r\overline{r}$, one can measure $\kappa_{A}$, the total charge of $R\overline{r}$, and $\kappa_{B}$, the total charge of $\overline{R}{r}$, locally and then adds them up together to obtain $\kappa=\kappa_{A}+\kappa_{B}$ (See Fig. \[fig:Meas\]). This means that the total charge of $R\overline{R}$ can be measured via LOCC and by consuming the entangled state $|\Theta\rangle$.
Proof of lemma \[lem:charge2\]
------------------------------
We prove this using the following lemma.
\[lem1\] Any projective unitary representation $g\rightarrow T(g)$ of an Abelian group $G$ is equivalent to the tensor product of two representations as $T(g)= W\left[t(g)\otimes t'(g)\right]W^{\dag}$ where $W$ is a unitary, $g\rightarrow t(g)$ is a fixed irrep whose factor system is in the equivalence class that the factor system of the original representation $g\rightarrow T(g)$ belongs to it, and $g\rightarrow t'(g)$ is a linear (Abelian) unitary representation of $G$.
This lemma is proven at the end of the supplementary materials.
Note that the decomposition $T(g)=W\left[t(g)\otimes t'(g)\right]W^{\dag}$ is not unique. In particular, by choosing a different unitary $\tilde{W}$ one can obtain a decomposition as $T(g)=\tilde{W}\left[t(g)\otimes r(g)\right]\tilde{W}^{\dag}$ where the representations $g\rightarrow r(g)$ and $g\rightarrow t'(g)$ are not necessarily equivalent. (One can show that for a particular cohomology class, called the *maximally non-commuting class*, by a proper choice of the unitary $W$ the representation $g\rightarrow t'(g)$ can always be chosen to be the trivial representation. However, in general the representation $g\rightarrow t'(g)$ cannot be chosen to be trivial.)
This lemma implies that the representation $g\rightarrow T(g)$ induces a decomposition of the Hilbert space as $\mathcal{H}\cong \mathcal{M}\otimes \mathcal{N}$ where $g\rightarrow t(g)$ acts irreducibly on $\mathcal{M}$ and $g\rightarrow{t}'(g)$ acts on $\mathcal{N}$. Note that for a given representation $g\rightarrow T(g)$ the decomposition of $\mathcal{H}$ as $\mathcal{H}\cong\mathcal{M}\otimes \mathcal{N}$ is uniquely specified. On the other hand, by decomposing the representation $g\rightarrow t'(g)$ to 1-dimensional irreps of $G$, one can decompose $\mathcal{N}$ as $\mathcal{N} \cong \left(\bigoplus_{\lambda} \mathcal{N}_{\lambda}\right)$ where the subspace $\mathcal{N}_{\lambda}$ is the subspace on which the representation $g\rightarrow t'(g)$ acts as 1-d irrep $g\rightarrow e^{i\lambda(g)}$ (We assume each $\lambda$ in the summation corresponds to a distinct 1-d irrep $g\rightarrow e^{i\lambda(g)}$.). Considering this decomposition of $\mathcal{H}$, an arbitrary vector $|\phi\rangle\in \mathcal{H}$ can be expanded as $$\label{notation}
|\phi\rangle=\sum_{i=1}^{d_{[\omega]}} \sum_{\lambda} |i\rangle\otimes|\lambda\rangle\otimes|\phi(i,\lambda)\rangle$$ where $\{|i\rangle: 1\le i\le d_{[\omega]} \}$ is a basis for $\mathcal{M}$, $\{|\lambda\rangle\}$ labels different inequivalent 1-d irrep of $G$ corresponding to different sectors of $\mathcal{N} \cong \left(\bigoplus_{\lambda} \mathcal{N}_{\lambda}\right)$ and $|\phi(i,\lambda)\rangle$ is a vector in $\mathcal{N}_{\lambda}$.
In the following we use this result to prove lemma \[lem:charge2\]. Let $\mathcal{H}^{(R)}$ and $\mathcal{H}^{(\overline{R})}$ be respectively the Hilbert spaces on which the representations $g\rightarrow T_R(g)$ and $g\rightarrow {T}_{\overline{R}}(g)$ act. Then, according to the above discussion, these representations induce decompositions of $\mathcal{H}^{(R)}$ and $\mathcal{H}^{(\overline{R})}$ as $$\mathcal{H}^{(R)}=\mathcal{M}^{{(R)}}\otimes \left(\bigoplus_{\lambda} \mathcal{N}^{{(R)}}_{\lambda}\right)$$ and $$\mathcal{H}^{(\overline{R})}=\mathcal{M}^{{(\overline{R})}}\otimes \left(\bigoplus_{\lambda} \mathcal{N}^{{(\overline{R})}}_{\lambda}\right)$$ where $\mathcal{M}^{{(R)}}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{{(\overline{R})}}$ are the subsystems corresponding to the irreps $g\rightarrow t(g)$ and $g\rightarrow t^{\ast}(g)$. We define $|\Theta(\eta)\rangle\in \mathcal{M}^{{(R)}}\otimes\mathcal{M}^{{(\overline{R})}}$ to to be the state which satisfies $$\left[ t(g)\otimes t^{\ast}(g)\right] |\Theta(\eta)\rangle=e^{i\eta(g)} |\Theta(\eta)\rangle$$ where $g\rightarrow e^{i\eta(g)}$ is an arbitrary 1-d representation of the Abelian group $G$ which shows up in the representation $g\rightarrow t(g)\otimes t^{\ast}(g)$. Note that this state is maximally entangled and is uniquely defined by the above equation up to a phase.
Consider an arbitrary state $|\phi\rangle\in \mathcal{H}^{(R)}\otimes\mathcal{H}^{(\overline{R})}$ which has a definite charge $\kappa$, i.e. it satisfies $$\left[ {T}_{{R}}(g) \otimes {T}_{\overline{R}}(g)\right] |\phi\rangle= e^{i\kappa(g)} |\phi\rangle$$
Then, one can easily show that $|\phi\rangle$ has a decomposition in the following form $$|\phi\rangle= \sum_{{\lambda_{a}},{\lambda_{b}}} |\Theta(\kappa-\lambda_{a}-\lambda_{b})\rangle |\lambda_{a},\lambda_{b}\rangle |\phi(\kappa,\lambda_{a},\lambda_{b})\rangle$$ where $|\phi(\kappa,\lambda_{a},\lambda_{b})\rangle\in \mathcal{N}_{\lambda_{a}}^{({R})}\otimes \mathcal{N}_{\lambda_{b}}^{(\overline{R})}$ and we have used the notation introduced in Eq.(\[notation\]).
According to this decomposition we can conclude that by performing local measurements $\{|\lambda_{a}\rangle\}$ and $\{|\lambda_{b}\rangle\}$ we project the state $|\phi\rangle$ to $|\Theta(\kappa-\lambda_{a}-\lambda_{b})\rangle |\lambda_{a},\lambda_{b}\rangle |\phi(\kappa,\lambda_{a},\lambda_{b})\rangle$. Therefore, after this measurement the subsystem $\mathcal{M}^{{(R)}}\otimes\mathcal{M}^{{(\overline{R})}}$ is in the state $|\Theta(\kappa-\lambda_{a}-\lambda_{b})\rangle$ which is a maximally entangled. Since after this measurement two parties know $\kappa$, $\lambda_{a}$ and $\lambda_{b}$ they can transform this state via LOCC to a standard maximally entangled state independent of these charges. This completes the proof of lemma \[lem:charge2\] for pure states. This proof can be easily extended to the case of mixed states via a standard purification argument.
Proof of lemma \[lem1\]
-----------------------
The lemma \[lem1\] is an immediate consequence of the following lemma
\[lemma3\] Let $g\rightarrow u^{(\beta)}(g)$ and $g\rightarrow u^{(\gamma)}(g)$ be two irreps of an Abelian group $G$ whose factor systems are in the same cohomology class. Then, their dimension is the same, and furthermore there exists a unitary $W$ and a 1-d representation of group $g\rightarrow e^{i\kappa(g)}$ such that $$\forall g\in G:\ \ u^{(\beta)}(g)=e^{i\kappa(g)} Wu^{(\gamma)}(g) W^{\dag}.$$
Let ${{u}^{(\gamma)}}^{\ast}(g)$ be the complex conjugate of ${{u}^{(\gamma)}}(g)$. Then, one can easily see that $g\rightarrow u^{(\beta)}(g)\otimes {{u}^{(\gamma)}}^{\ast}(g)$ is a representation of $G$ whose factor system belongs to the trivial cohomology class. Since the group is Abelian all of its irreps in the trivial cohomology class are 1-dimensional and so this representation can be decomposed to 1-d irreps of $G$. Let the normalized vector $|\Theta(\kappa)\rangle$ be a 1-dimensional subspace on which $g\rightarrow u^{(\beta)}(g)\otimes {{u}^{(\gamma)}}^{\ast}(g)$ acts irreducibly, i.e. $$\label{Eq-app}
\forall g\in G:\ \ \left[u^{(\beta)}(g)\otimes {{u}^{(\gamma)}}^{\ast}(g)\right]|\Theta(\kappa)\rangle=e^{i\kappa(g)}|\Theta(\kappa)\rangle$$ where $g\rightarrow e^{i\kappa(g)}$ is the corresponding 1-d representation of $G$. But, since the representations $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are irreducible using the Schur’s lemma we can conclude that $|\Theta(\kappa)\rangle$ should be a maximally entangled vector. This means that the dimension of the irrep $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are the same. We denote this dimension by $d$. Since $|\Theta(\kappa)\rangle$ is a maximally entangled normalized vector it follows that there exists a unitary $W$ such that $|\Theta(\kappa)\rangle=(W\otimes I) |\psi^{(+)}\rangle$ where $|\psi^{(+)}\rangle\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \sum_{i=1}^{d} |ii\rangle$ and $I$ is the identity operator acting on the $d$-dimensional space. Then Eq.(\[Eq-app\]) implies $$\left[(W^{\dag}u^{(\beta)}(g)W)\otimes{{u}^{(\gamma)}}^{\ast}(g)\right]|\psi^{(+)}\rangle= e^{i\kappa(g)}|\psi^{(+)}\rangle$$ But, since $(A\otimes B) |\psi^{(+)}\rangle= (AB^{\textbf{T}}\otimes I) |\psi^{(+)}\rangle$, where $B^{\textbf{T}}$ is the transpose of $B$ we find that $$\left[\left( W^{\dag}u^{(\beta)}(g)W {{u}^{(\gamma)}}^{\dag}(g)\right)\otimes I\right] |\psi^{(+)}\rangle= e^{i\kappa(g)} |\psi^{(+)}\rangle$$ This implies that $W^{\dag}u^{(\beta)}(g)W {{u}^{(\gamma)}}^{\dag}(g)=e^{i\kappa(g)}I$ and so $$\forall g\in G:\ u^{(\beta)}(g) =e^{i\kappa(g)} W{{u}^{(\gamma)}}(g) W^{\dag}$$ which completes the proof.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We are interested in modeling some two-level population dynamics, resulting from the interplay of ecological interactions and phenotypic variation of individuals (or hosts) and the evolution of cells (or parasites) of two types living in these individuals. The ecological parameters of the individual dynamics depend on the number of cells of each type contained by the individual and the cell dynamics depends on the trait of the invaded individual.
Our models are rooted in the microscopic description of a random (discrete) population of individuals characterized by one or several adaptive traits and cells characterized by their type. The population is modeled as a stochastic point process whose generator captures the probabilistic dynamics over continuous time of birth, mutation and death for individuals and birth and death for cells. The interaction between individuals (resp. between cells) is described by a competition between individual traits (resp. between cell types). We look for tractable large population approximations. By combining various scalings on population size, birth and death rates and mutation step, the single microscopic model is shown to lead to contrasting nonlinear macroscopic limits of different nature: deterministic approximations, in the form of ordinary, integro- or partial differential equations, or probabilistic ones, like stochastic partial differential equations or superprocesses. The study of the long time behavior of these processes seems very hard and we only develop some simple cases enlightening the difficulties involved.
author:
- 'Sylvie Méléard$^{1}$ and Sylvie Rœlly$^{2,3}$'
title: '**A host-parasite multilevel interacting process and continuous approximations**'
---
*Key-words:* two-level interacting processes, birth-death-mutation-competition point process, host-parasite stochastic particle system, nonlinear integro-differential equations, nonlinear partial differential equations, superprocesses.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In this paper, we are interested in describing the adaptive effects in a host-parasite system. We model two-level population dynamics resulting from the interplay of ecological interactions and phenotypic variation of individuals (or hosts) and the evolution of cells (or parasites) of two types living in these individuals. In one hand, the ecological parameters of the individual dynamics depend on its number of cells of each type. In another hand, the cells develop their own birth and death dynamics and their ecological parameters depend on the trait of the invaded individual.
We consider more precisely the following two-level population. The first level is composed of individuals governed by a mutation-birth and death process. Moreover each individual is a collection of cells of two types (types 1 and 2) which have their own dynamics and compose the second level. The model can easily be generalized to cells with a finite number of different types. We denote by $n_1^i$ (resp. by $n_2^i$) the number of cells of type 1 (resp. of type 2) living in the individual $i$. This individual is moreover characterized by a continuous quantitative phenotypic trait $x^i$. The individual $\ i\ $ can be removed or copied according a birth-and-death process depending on $x^i, n_1^i, n_2^i$. An offspring usually inherits the trait values of her progenitor except when a mutation occurs during the reproduction mechanism. In this case the offspring makes an instantaneous mutation step at birth to new trait value. The death of an individual can be natural or can be due to the competition exerted by the other individuals, for example sharing food. This competition between individuals through their traits will induce a nonlinear convolution term. The cells in the individual $i$ also reproduce and remove according to another birth-and-death process, depending on $x^i,
n_1^i, n_2^i$. At this second level, cell competition occurs and its pressure depends on the invaded individual trait.
Our model generalizes some approach firstly developed in Dawson and Hochberg [@Dawson:91] and in Wu [@Wu:93], [@Wu:95]. In these papers, a two-level system is studied: individuals and cells follow a branching dynamics but there is no interaction between individuals and between cells. Thus all the specific techniques these authors use - as Laplace transforms - are no more available for our model.
In this paper, we firstly rigorously construct the underlying mathematical model and prove its existence. Thus we obtain moment and martingale properties which are the key point to deduce approximations for large individual and cell populations. By combining various scalings on population size, birth and death rates and mutation step, the single microscopic model is shown to lead to contrasting macroscopic limits of different nature: deterministic approximations, in the form of ordinary, integro- or partial differential equations, or probabilistic ones, like stochastic partial differential equations or superprocesses. The study of the long time behavior of these processes seems very hard and we only develop some simple cases enlightening the difficulties involved.
Population point process {#sec:ppp}
========================
The model
---------
We model the evolving population by a stochastic interacting individual system, where each individual $i$ is characterized by a vector phenotypic trait value $x^i $ and by the number of its cells of type 1, $n_1^i$, and of type 2, $n_2^i$. The trait space ${\cal X}$ is assumed to be a compact subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, for some $d\geq 1$. We denote by $M_F=M_F({\cal X}\times {\mathbb{N}}\times {\mathbb{N}})$ the set of finite non-negative measures on ${\cal X}\times {\mathbb{N}}\times
{\mathbb{N}}$, endowed with the weak topology. Let also ${\cal M}$ be the subset of $M_F$ consisting of all finite point measures: $${\cal M} = \left\{ \sum_{i=1}^I \delta_{(x^i, n_1^i, n_2^i)} , \;
x^i \in {\cal X}, (n_1^i, n_2^i)\in {\mathbb{N}}\times {\mathbb{N}},\
1\leq i\leq I ,\; I \in {\mathbb{N}}\right\}.$$ Here and below $\delta_{(x,n_1,n_2)}$ denotes the Dirac mass at $(x,n_1,n_2)$. In case where $I=0$, the measure is the null measure.
Therefore, for a population modelled by $\nu=\sum_{i=1}^{I}\delta_{(x^i,n_1^i,n_2^i)}$, the total number of its individuals is $\langle \nu,1\rangle=I$ and, if we denote by $n:=n_1+n_2$ the number of cells of an individual (irrespective of type), then $\langle
\nu,n\rangle=\sum_{i=1}^I(n_1^i+n_2^i)$ is the total number of cells in the population $\nu$.\
Let us now describe the two-level dynamics. Any individual of the population with trait $x$ and cell state $(n_1,n_2)$ follows a mutation-selection-birth-and-death dynamics with
- birth (or reproduction) rate $B(x, n_1,n_2)$,
- the reproduction is clonal with probability $1-p(x)$ (the offspring inherits the trait $x$),
- a mutation occurs with probability $p(x)$,
- the mutant trait $x+z$ is distributed according the mutation kernel $M(x,z)\, dz$ which only weights $z$ such that $x+z\in {\cal X},$
- death rate $D(x, n_1,n_2)+ \alpha(x,
n_1,n_2)\sum_{j=1}^IU(x-x^j).$
Thus the interaction between individuals is modeled by a comparison between their respective trait values described by the competition kernel $U$. By simplicity, the mutations parameters $p$ and $M$ are assumed to be only influenced by the trait $x$. They could also depend on the cell composition $(n_{1}, n_{2})$ without inducing any additional technical difficulty.\
Any cell of type $1$ (resp. of type $2$) inside an individual with trait $x$ and cell state $(n_1,n_2)$ follows a birth-and-death dynamics with
- birth rate $b_1(x)$, (resp. $b_2(x)$),
- death rate $d_1(x)+\beta_1(x)(n_1 \lambda_{11}+ n_2 \lambda_{12})$, (resp. $d_2(x)+\beta_2(x)(n_1 \lambda_{21}+ n_2
\lambda_{22})$).
The nonnegative parameters $\lambda_{11}$, $\lambda_{22}$, $\lambda_{12}$, $\lambda_{21}$ quantify the cell interactions. The rate functions $b_1$, $b_2$, $d_1$, $d_2$, $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$ are assumed to be continuous (and thus bounded on the compact set ${\cal X}$).\
The population dynamics can be described by its possible transitions from a state $\nu$ to the following other states:\
1 - Individual dynamics due to an individual with trait $x$ and cell state $(n_1,n_2)$: && +\_[(x, n\_1,n\_2)]{} B(x,n\_1,n\_2)(1-p(x)) ; && -\_[(x,n\_1,n\_2)]{} D(x, n\_1,n\_2)+(x, n\_1,n\_2)\_[j=1]{}\^I U(x-x\^j) ; && +\_[(x+z,n\_1,n\_2)]{} B(x,n\_1,n\_2)p(x), z M(x,z) dz.
2 - Cell dynamics: && +\_[(x, n\_1+1,n\_2)]{} -\_[(x, n\_1,n\_2)]{} b\_1(x) ; && +\_[(x, n\_1,n\_2+1)]{}-\_[(x, n\_1,n\_2)]{} b\_2(x) ; && +\_[(x, n\_1-1,n\_2)]{} -\_[(x, n\_1,n\_2)]{} d\_1(x)+\_1(x)( \_[11]{}n\_1+ \_[12]{}n\_2 ) ;&& +\_[(x, n\_1,n\_2-1)]{} -\_[(x, n\_1,n\_2)]{} d\_2(x)+\_2(x)( \_[21]{}n\_1+ \_[22]{}n\_2).
Let us now prove the existence of a càdlàg Markov process $(\nu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ belonging to ${\mathbb{D}}({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\cal M})$ modeling the dynamics of such a discrete population. More precisely, we consider $$\label{pop}
\nu_t = \sum_{i=1}^{I(t)} \delta_{(X^i(t),N_1^i(t), N_2^i(t))}$$ where $I(t) \in {\mathbb{N}}$ stands for the number of individuals alive at time $t$, $X^1(t),...,X^{I(t)}(t) \in {\cal X}$ describes the traits of these individuals at time $t$ and $N_1^1(t),...,N_1^{I(t)}(t)$ (resp. $N_2^1(t),...,N_2^{I(t)}(t))$ are the numbers of cells of type 1 (resp. of type 2) for the individuals alive at time $t$.\
To write down the infinitesimal generator of $\nu$, we need an appropriate class of test functions. For bounded measurable functions $\phi$, $f$, $g_1$, $g_2$ defined respectively on ${\mathbb{R}}$, ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, ${\mathbb{N}}$ and ${\mathbb{N}}$, $\phi_{fg_1g_2}$ is given by \[phi\] \_[fg\_1g\_2]{}()&:=&(<,fg\_1g\_2>)=(\_[[X]{}\^2 ]{} f(x)g\_1(n\_1)g\_2(n\_2)(dx,dn\_1,dn\_2))&=&(\_[n\_1,n\_2\^2]{}\_[X]{} f(x)g\_1(n\_1)g\_2(n\_2)(n\_1,n\_2,dx)).
The infinitesimal generator $L$ of the Markov process $(\nu_t, t\geq 0)$ applied to such function $\phi_{fg_1g_2}$ is given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{generator} &L\phi_{fg_1g_2}(\nu)=\notag \\
&\sum_{i=1}^{I}
(\phi(\langle\nu,fg_1g_2\rangle+f(x^i)g_1(n^i_1)g_2(n_2^i))
-\phi(\langle\nu,fg_1g_2\rangle))B(x^i,n_1^i,n_2^i)(1-p(x^i)) \notag \\
&+\sum_{i=1}^{I}\int
(\phi(\langle\nu,fg_1g_2\rangle+f(x^i+z)g_1(n^i_1)g_2(n_2^i))
-\phi(\langle\nu,fg_1g_2\rangle)) B(x^i,n_1^i,n_2^i)\,p(x^i)M(x^i, z)dz \notag \\
&+\sum_{i=1}^{I}
(\phi(\langle\nu,fg_1g_2\rangle-f(x^i)g_1(n^i_1)g_2(n_2^i))
-\phi(\langle\nu,fg_1g_2\rangle))(D(x^i,n_1^i,n_2^i)+\alpha(x^i,n^i_1,n^i_2)U*\nu(x^i,n_1^i,n_2^i)) \notag \\
&+\sum_{i=1}^{I}
(\phi(\langle\nu,fg_1g_2\rangle+f(x^i)(g_1(n^i_1+1)-g_1(n^i_1))g_2(n_2^i))
-\phi(\langle\nu,fg_1g_2\rangle))b_1(x^i)n^i_1 \notag \\
&+\sum_{i=1}^{I}
(\phi(\langle\nu,fg_1g_2\rangle+f(x^i)g_1(n^i_1)(g_2(n_2^i+1)-g_2(n_2^i)))
-\phi(\langle\nu,fg_1g_2\rangle))b_2(x^i)n^i_2\notag \\
&+\sum_{i=1}^{I}
(\phi(\langle\nu,fg_1g_2\rangle+f(x^i)(g_1(n^i_1-1)-g_1(n^i_1))g_2(n_2^i))
-\phi(\langle\nu,fg_1g_2\rangle))\notag \\&\hskip 5cm(d_1(x^i)+\beta_1(x^i) ( \lambda_{11}n^i_1+ \lambda_{12}n^i_2))n^i_1\notag \\
&+\sum_{i=1}^{I}
(\phi(\langle\nu,fg_1g_2\rangle+f(x^i)g_1(n^i_1)(g_2(n_2^i-1)-g_2(n_2^i)))
-\phi(\langle\nu,fg_1g_2\rangle))\notag \\&\hskip 5cm(d_2(x^i)+\beta_2(x^i)( \lambda_{21}n^i_1+
\lambda_{22}n^i_2))n^i_2.\end{aligned}$$
The three first terms of (\[generator\]) capture the effects of births and deaths of individuals of the population and the for last terms that of the cells. The competition makes the death terms nonlinear.
Process construction {#sec:constr}
--------------------
Let us give a pathwise construction of a Markov process admitting $L$ as infinitesimal generator.
Remark that the jump rate of an individual with $n$ cells in the population $\nu$ is then upper-bounded by a constant times $n\
(1+ \langle\nu,1\rangle)$ and that the cell jump rate of such individual is upper-bounded by a constant times $ n (1+ n)$. Thus the model presents a double nonlinearity since the population jump rates may depend on the product of the size of the population times the number of cells and quadratically on the number of cells.
Let us now give a pathwise description of the population process $(\nu_t)_{t\geq 0}$.
\[defh\] We associate to any population state $\nu=\sum_{i=1}^I \delta_{(x^i, n_1^i, n_2^i)}\in {\cal M}$ the triplet $H^i(\nu)=(X^i(\nu), N_1^i(\nu), N_2^i(\nu))$ as the trait and state of the $i$th-individual, obtained by ordering all triplets with respect to some arbitrary order on $\mathbb{R}^d\times {\mathbb{N}}\times {\mathbb{N}}$ ( for example the lexicographic order).
We now introduce the probabilistic objects we will need.
\[poisson\] Let $(\Omega, {\cal F}, P)$ be a probability space on which we consider the following independent random elements:
: a ${\cal M}$-valued random variable $\nu_0$ (the initial distribution),
: A Poisson point measure $Q(ds,di,dz,d\theta)$ on ${\mathbb{R}}_+ \times \mathbb{N}^* \times
{\cal X} \times {\mathbb{R}}_+$ with intensity measure $\: ds
\left(\sum_{k\geq 1} \delta_k (di) \right)\bar{M}(z) dz d\theta\:$.
Let us denote by $( {\cal F}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ the canonical filtration generated by $\nu_0$ and $Q$.\
Let us finally define the quantities $\theta^i_1(s)$, $\theta^i_2(s)$, $\theta^i_3(s)$, $\theta^i_4(s)$, $\theta^i_5(s)$, $\theta^i_6(s)$, $\theta^i_7(s)$ related to the different jump rates at time $s$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{theta}
\theta^i_1(s)&=& B(H^i(\nu_{{s-}}))
(1-p(X^i(\nu_{{s-}})));\nonumber\\
\theta^i_2(s)-\theta^i_1(s)&=&B(H^i(\nu_{{s-}})) p(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}))
\frac{M(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}), z)}{\bar{M}(z)};\nonumber\\
\theta^i_{3}(s)-\theta^i_2(s)&=& D(H^i(\nu_{{s-}})) + \alpha(H^i(\nu_{{s-}}))\
U*\nu_{{s-}}(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}));\nonumber\\
\theta^i_4(s)-\theta^i_3(s)&=&b_1(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}))\ N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}});\nonumber\\ \theta^i_5(s)-\theta^i_4(s)&=&b_2(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}))\ N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}});\nonumber\\
\theta^i_6(s)-\theta^i_5(s)&=&d_1(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}))+\beta_1(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}))
(N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}})\lambda_{11} + N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}})\lambda_{12})\ N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}});\nonumber\\
\theta^i_7(s)-\theta^i_6(s)&=&d_2(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}))+\beta_2(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}))
(N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}})\lambda_{21} + N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}})\lambda_{22})\ N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}}).\nonumber\\
\\end{aligned}$$
We finally define the population process in terms of these stochastic objects.
\[dbpe\] Assume $(H1)$. A $( {\cal F}_t)_{t\geq 0}$-adapted stochastic process $\nu=(\nu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is called a population process if a.s., for all $t\geq 0$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\nu_t &= \nu_0 + \int_{(0,t] \times \mathbb{N}^*
\times
{\cal X}\times{\mathbb{R}}_+}\bigg\{\delta_{(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}}))}
{{\bf 1}}_{\{i \leq \left<
\nu_{{s-}},1 \right>\}} {{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta \leq
\theta^i_1(s)\right\}}
\notag \\ &+ \delta_{(X^i(\nu_{{s-}})+z ,N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}}))}
{{\bf 1}}_{\{i \leq \left<
\nu_{{s-}},1 \right>\}} {{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta^i_1(s)\leq \theta \leq
\theta^i_2(s)
\right\}} \notag \\ &- \delta_{(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}}))}
{{\bf 1}}_{\{i \leq
\left< \nu_{{s-}},1 \right>\}} {{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta^i_2(s)\leq \theta
\leq\theta^i_3(s)
\right\}}
\notag \\ &+\bigg(\delta_{(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}})+1,N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}}))}
-\delta_{(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}}))}\bigg){{\bf 1}}_{\{i \leq
\left< \nu_{{s-}},1 \right>\}} {{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta^i_3(s)\leq\theta \leq \theta^i_4(s)\right\}}
\notag \\ &+\bigg(\delta_{(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}})+1)}
-\delta_{(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}}))}\bigg){{\bf 1}}_{\{i \leq
\left< \nu_{{s-}},1 \right>\}} {{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta^i_4(s)\leq\theta \leq \theta^i_5(s)\right\}}
\notag \\ &+\bigg(\delta_{(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}})-1,N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}}))}
-\delta_{(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}}))}\bigg){{\bf 1}}_{\{i \leq
\left< \nu_{{s-}},1 \right>\}}
{{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta^i_5(s)\leq\theta \leq \theta^i_6(s)
\right\}}
\notag \\ &+\bigg(\delta_{(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}})-1)}
-\delta_{(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}}))}\bigg){{\bf 1}}_{\{i \leq
\left< \nu_{{s-}},1 \right>\}} {{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta^i_6(s)\leq \theta
\leq\theta^i_7(s)
\right\}}\bigg\}\notag \\
&\hskip 12cm Q(ds,di,dz,d\theta)\notag \\
\
\label{bpe}
\end{aligned}$$
Let us now show that if $\nu$ solves (\[bpe\]), then $\nu$ follows the Markovian dynamics we are interested in.
\[gi\] Assume $(H1)$ and consider a process $(\nu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ defined by (\[bpe\]) such that for all $T>0$, $\mathbb{E} (\sup_{t\leq
T}\langle\nu_t, 1\rangle^3)<+\infty $ and $\mathbb{E} (\sup_{t\leq T}\langle\nu_t,n^2\rangle)<+\infty$. Then $(\nu_t)_{t\leq 0}$ is a Markov process. Its infinitesimal generator $L$ applied to any bounded and measurable maps $\phi_ {fg_1g_2}: {\cal
M}\mapsto \mathbb{R}$ and $\nu \in {\cal M}$ satisfies (\[generator\]). In particular, the law of $(\nu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ does not depend on the chosen order in Notation \[defh\].
The fact that $(\nu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is a Markov process is immediate. Let us now consider a function $\phi_ {fg_1g_2}$ as in the statement. Using the decomposition (\[bpe\]) of the measure $\nu_t$ and the fact that \[ito\] \_[fg\_1g\_2]{}(\_t) = \_[fg\_1g\_2]{}(\_0) + \_[st]{} (\_[fg\_1g\_2]{}(\_[[s-]{}]{}+ (\_s-\_[[s-]{}]{}))-\_ [fg\_1g\_2]{}(\_[[s-]{}]{})) , we get a decomposition of $\phi_{fg_1g_2}(\nu_t)$.
Thanks to the moment assumptions, $\phi_{fg_1g_2}(\nu_t)$ is integrable. Let us check it for the nonlinear individual death term (which is the more delicate to deal with): $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{E}\bigg( \int_{(0,t] \times \mathbb{N}^*
\times
{\cal X}\times{\mathbb{R}}_+} \big( \phi(\langle \nu_{{s-}}- \delta_{(X^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}}),N_2^i(\nu_{{s-}}))}, fg_{1} g_{2}\rangle - \phi(\langle \nu_{{s-}}, fg_{1} g_{2}\rangle\big)
{{\bf 1}}_{\{i \leq
\left< \nu_{{s-}},1 \right>\}} \\
&\hskip 7cm {{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta^i_2(s)\leq \theta
\leq\theta^i_3(s)
\right\}} Q(ds,di,dz,d\theta)\bigg) \\
&=\\
& \mathbb{E}\bigg( \int_{0}^t \langle \nu_{s}, \big( \phi(\langle \nu_s, fg_{1} g_{2}\rangle - f(x)g_{1}(n_{1}) g_{2}(n_{2})) - \phi(\langle \nu_s, fg_{1} g_{2}\rangle\big)
(D(x,n_{1},n_{2}) + \alpha(x,n_{1},n_{2})\
U*\nu_s(x))\rangle ds\bigg).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\phi$ is bounded and thanks to Assumption $(H1)$, the right hand side term will be finite as soon as $$\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{t\leq T} (\langle\nu_{t},n\rangle +\langle\nu_{t},n\rangle \langle\nu_{t},1\rangle)\right)<\infty.$$ Remark firstly that $\langle\nu,n\rangle \leq \langle\nu,n^2\rangle$. Moreover we get $n\langle\nu,1\rangle\leq 1/2(n^2+ \langle\nu,1\rangle^2)$ and thus ,n ,11/2(,n\^2+ ,1\^2)= 1/2(,n\^2+ ,1\^3). The moment assumptions allow us to conclude and to show that the expectation is differentiable in time at $t=0$. It leads to (\[generator\]).
Let us show existence and moment properties for the population process.
\[existence\] Assume (H1).
If $\ \mathbb{E} \left( \left<\nu_0, 1 \right> \right)
<+\infty$, then the process $(\nu_t)_{t}$ introduced in Definition \[dbpe\] is well defined on ${\mathbb{R}}_+$.
Furthermore, if for some $p\geq 1$, $\mathbb{E} \left(
\left<\nu_0,1 \right>^p \right) <+\infty$, then for any $T<\infty$, \[lp\] (\_[t]{} \^p ) <+.
If moreover $\mathbb{E} \left( \left<\nu_0,n^2 \right> \right) <+\infty$, then for any $T<\infty$, \[n2\] (\_[t]{} ) <+.
We compute $ \phi(<\nu_t,1>)$ using and for $f\equiv g_1\equiv g_2 \equiv 1$: we get $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(<\nu_t,1>) & = \phi(<\nu_0,1>)+\int_{(0,t] \times \mathbb{N}^*
\times
{\cal X}\times{\mathbb{R}}_+}\bigg\{\left(\phi(<\nu_{{s-}},1>+1)
- \phi(<\nu_{{s-}},1>) \right) {{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta \leq
\theta^i_2(s)\right\}}\notag\\&
+ \left(\phi(<\nu_{{s-}},1>-1)
- \phi(<\nu_{{s-}},1>) \right){{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta^i_2(s) \leq \theta \leq
\theta^i_3(s)\right\}}\bigg\} {{\bf 1}}_{\{i \leq
\left< \nu_{{s-}},1 \right>\}} Q(ds,di,dz,d\theta)
\label{phinu}
\end{aligned}$$ and for $g_1(n_1)=n_1$, $$\begin{aligned}
<\nu_t,n_1> & = <\nu_0,n_1>+\int_{(0,t] \times \mathbb{N}^*
\times
{\cal X}\times{\mathbb{R}}_+} \bigg\{N^i_1(\nu_{{s-}})\bigg({{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta \leq
\theta^i_2(s)\right\}}-
{{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta^i_2(s) \leq \theta \leq
\theta^i_3(s)\right\}}\bigg)\notag\\ &+ {{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta^i_3(s) \leq \theta \leq
\theta^i_4(s)\right\}}-{{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta^i_5(s) \leq \theta \leq
\theta^i_6(s)\right\}}\bigg\} {{\bf 1}}_{\{i \leq
\left< \nu_{{s-}},1 \right>\}} Q(ds,di,dz,d\theta).
\label{nun}
\end{aligned}$$ A similar decomposition holds for $ <\nu_t,n_2> $.\
The proof of ([*i*]{}) and ([*ii*]{}) is standard and can easily be adapted from [@FM04]: we introduce for each integer $k$ the stopping time $\tau_k = \inf \left\{ t
\geq 0 , \; \left<\nu_t,1 \right> \geq k \right\}$ and show that the sequence$(\tau_{k})_{k}$ tends a.s. to infinity, using that $$\begin{aligned}
& \sup_{s\in[0,t\land \tau_k]} \left< \nu_s,1\right>\leq \left< \nu_0,1\right> + \int_{(0,t\land \tau_k] \times
\mathbb{N}^* \times {\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}^+} {{\bf 1}}_{\{i \leq \left< \nu_{{s-}},1
\right>\}}
\ {{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta \leq
\theta_2^i(s)\right\}}
Q(ds,di,dz,d\theta),
\end{aligned}$$ and the estimates of moments up to time $\tau_{k}$ deduced from the latter and Assumption $(H1)$ and Gronwall’s lemma.
Further, one may build the solution $(\nu_t)_{t\geq 0}$ step by step. One only has to check that the sequence of jump instants $(T_k)$ goes a.s. to infinity as $k$ tends to infinity, which follows from the previous result.\
The proof of ([*iii*]{}) follows a similar argument with $\tau_k^1 := \inf \left\{ t
\geq 0 , \; \left<\nu_t,n_1^2 \right> \geq k \right\}$. From $$\begin{aligned}
& \sup_{s\in[0,t\land \tau_k^1]} \left< \nu_s,n_1^2\right>\leq \left<
\nu_0,n_1^2\right> + \int_{(0,t\land \tau_k^1] \times
\mathbb{N}^* \times {\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}^+} {{\bf 1}}_{\{i \leq \left< \nu_{{s-}},1
\right>\}}
\\
&\hskip 2cm \bigg\{( N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}}))^2\,{{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta \leq
\theta_2^i(s)\right\}} + (2\, N_1^i(\nu_{{s-}}) + 1)\,{{\bf 1}}_{\left\{\theta^i_3(s)\theta \leq
\theta^i_4(s)\right\}}\bigg\}
Q(ds,di,dz,d\theta),
\end{aligned}$$ and $\mathbb{E} \left(
\left<\nu_0,n^2 \right> \right) <+\infty$ and ([*ii*]{}) since $2 n_{1} + 1 \leq n_{1}^2 +2$, we firstly get, using Assumption $(H1)$ and Gronwall’s lemma, that $$\mathbb{E} ( \sup_{t \in [0,T\land \tau_k^1]} \left< \nu_t,n_{1}^2\right>)\leq C_{T}.$$ Then we deduce that $\tau_k^1$ tends to infinity a.s. and that $\mathbb{E} (\sup_{t\in[0,T]} \left< \nu_t,n_1^2\right> ) <+\infty$. The same is true replacing $n_1$ by $n_2$.
Martingale Properties {#secexist}
---------------------
We finally give some martingale properties of the process $(\nu_t)_{t\geq 0}$, which are the key point of our approach. For measurable functions $f, g_1, g_2$, let us denote by $F_{fg}$ the function defined on $M_F$ by $$F_{fg}(\nu):= <\nu,fg_1g_2>
.$$
\[martingales\] Assume $(H1)$ together with $\mathbb{E} \left( \left<
\nu_0,1 \right>^3 \right) <+\infty$ and $\mathbb{E} \left( \left<
\nu_0,n^2\right> \right) <+\infty$.\
(i) For all measurable functions $\ \phi, f, g_1, g_2\ $ such that\
$\ | \phi_{fg_1g_2} (\nu) | +|L \phi_{fg_1g_2}(\nu)|\leq
C(1+ \langle \nu,1\rangle^3 +\langle \nu,n^2\rangle)$, the process $$\label{pbm1}
\phi_{fg_1g_2} (\nu_t) - \phi_{fg_1g_2} (\nu_0) - {\displaystyle \int _0^t }L \phi_{fg_1g_2}(\nu_s)
ds$$ is a càdlàg $({\cal F}_t)_{t\geq 0}$-martingale starting from $0$, where $L \phi_{fg_1g_2}$ has been defined in (\[generator\]).\
(ii) For all measurable bounded functions $f, g_1, g_2$, the process $$\label{pbm2}
M_t^{fg}= \left<\nu_t,fg_1g_2\right> - \left<\nu_0,fg_1g_2\right> - {\displaystyle \int _0^t }LF_{fg}(\nu_s)
ds$$ is a càdlàg square integrable $({\cal F}_t)_{t\geq 0}$-martingale starting from $0$, where $$\begin{aligned}
LF_{fg}(\nu) &=
\int_{{\cal X} \times {\mathbb{N}}^2}
\bigg\{\bigg(B(x,n_1,n_2)(1-p(x,n_1,n_2))
-(D(x,n_1,n_2)+\alpha(x,n_1,n_2)U*\nu (x))\bigg)\notag \\
&\hskip 5cm f(x)
g_1(n_1)g_2(n_2)
\notag \\
&+p(x,n_1,n_2)B(x,n_1,n_2)\int_{}f(x+z)g_1(n_1)g_2(n_2)M(x,n_1,n_2,z)dz \notag \\
&+ f(x)\big(g_1(n_1+1)-g_1(n_1)\big)g_2(n_2)b_1(x)n_1+
f(x)g_1(n_1)\big(g_2(n_2+1)-g_2(n_2)\big)b_2(x)n_2\notag \\
&+ f(x)\big(g_1(n_1-1)-g_1(n_1)\big)g_2(n_2)\big(d_1(x)+\beta_1(x)(\lambda_{11}n_1 + \lambda_{12}n_2)\big)n_1\notag \\
& +
f(x)g_1(n_1)\big(g_2(n_1-1)-g_2(n_2)\big)\big(d_2(x)+\beta_2(x)(\lambda_{21}n_1 +\lambda_{22}n_2)\big)n_2\bigg\}\nu(dx,dn_1,dn_2).
\label{gen}
\end{aligned}$$
Its quadratic variation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle M^{fg}\rangle_t &= {\displaystyle \int _0^t }\int_{{\cal X}\times {\mathbb{N}}^2}
\bigg\{\bigg((1-p(x,n_1,n_2))B(x,n_1,n_2)+(D(x,n_1,n_2)+\alpha(x,n_1,n_2)U*\nu_s(x))\bigg)\notag \\
& \hskip 5cm
f^2(x)g_1^2(n_1)g_2^2(n_2)
\notag \\
&+p(x,n_1,n_2)B(x,n_1,n_2)\int_{}f^2(x+z)g_1^2(n_1)g_2^2(n_2)M(x,n_1,n_2,z)dz
\notag \\
& + f^2(x)\big(g_1(n_1+1)-g_1(n_1)\big)^2g_2^2(n_2)b_1(x)n_1\notag \\
&+
f^2(x)g_1^2(n_1)\big(g_2(n_2+1)-g_2(n_2)\big)^2b_2(x)n_2\notag \\
&+ f^2(x)\big(g_1(n_1-1)-g_1(n_1)\big)^2g_2^2(n_2)\big(d_1(x)+\beta_1(x)(\lambda_{11}n_1 +\lambda_{12}n_2)\big)n_1\notag \\
& + f^2(x)g_1^2(n_1)\big(g_2(n_1-1)-g_2(n_2)\big)^2\big(d_2(x)+\beta_2(x)(\lambda_{21}n_1 + \lambda_{22}n_2)\big)n_2
\bigg\} \nu_s(dx,dn_1,dn_2) ds. \label{qv}
\end{aligned}$$
The martingale property is immediate by Proposition \[gi\] and Theorem \[existence\]. Let us justify the form of the quadratic variation process. Using a localization argument as in Theorem \[existence\], we may compare two different expressions of $ \langle \nu_t, fg_1g_2\rangle^2$. The first one is obtained by applying (\[pbm1\]) with $\phi(\nu) := \left< \nu,
fg_1g_2\right>^2$. The second one is obtained by applying Itô’s formula to compute $\left< \nu_t, fg_1g_2\right>^2$ from (\[pbm2\]). Comparing these expressions leads to (\[qv\]). We may let go the localization stopping time sequence to infinity since $E \big( \left< \nu_0,1 \right>^3 \big)<+\infty$ and $E\left( \left< \nu_0,n^2\right> \right) <+\infty$. Indeed, in this case, $E(\langle M^{fg} \rangle_t)<+\infty$ thanks to Theorem \[existence\] and to the proof of Proposition \[gi\].
Deterministic large population approximations {#sec:large-popu}
=============================================
We are interested in studying large population approximations of our individual-based system. We rescale the size of individual population by $K$ and the size of the cell populations by $ K_{1}$ respectively $ K_{2}$. With $\kappa =( K, K_{1}, K_{2})$, the process of interest is now the Markov process $(Y^\kappa_t)_{t\geq 0}$ defined as $$Y^\kappa_t= \frac{1}{K} \sum_{i=1}^{I_\kappa(t)} \delta_{(X^i_\kappa(t),\frac{N_{1,\kappa}^i(t)}{K_1}, \frac{N_{2,\kappa}^i(t)}{K_2})}
\in M_F({\cal X}\times{\mathbb{R}}_+ \times {\mathbb{R}}_+)$$ in which cells of type $1$ (resp. of type $2$) have been weighted by ${1\over K_{1}}$ (resp. by ${1\over K_{2}}$) and individuals by ${1\over K}$. The dynamics of the process $(X^i_\kappa(t), N_{1,\kappa}^i(t), N_{2,\kappa}^i(t))$ is the one described in Section $2$ except some coefficients are depending on the scaling $\kappa$ as described below.\
The individual dynamics depends on $B_\kappa$, $p_\kappa$, $M_\kappa$, $D_\kappa$, $\alpha_\kappa$, $U_\kappa$ which are assumed to satisfy the assumptions $(H_{1})$ of the section 2 for any fixed $\kappa$.
[**Notation**]{}: We say that $\kappa \to \infty$ when the three parameters $K, K_1, K_2$ tend to infinity.
[**Assumptions (H2):**]{}\
*1) There exist continuous functions $B$, $D$ and $\alpha$ on ${\cal X} \times {\mathbb{R}}_+\times {\mathbb{R}}_+$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{scaling}
&\lim_{\kappa \to \infty} \sup_{x,y_{1}, y_{2}}|B_\kappa(x, K_1 y_1,K_2 y_2)-B(x,y_1,y_2)|+
|D_\kappa(x, K_1 y_1,K_2 y_2)-D(x,y_1,y_2)|=0,\nonumber\\
&\lim_{\kappa \to \infty} \sup_{x,y_{1}, y_{2}}|\alpha_\kappa(x, K_1 y_1,K_2 y_2)-\alpha(x,y_1,y_2) |=0.\end{aligned}$$*
We assume that the functions $B$, $D$ and $\alpha$ satisfy Assumption $(H1)$.
2\) The competition kernel $U_{\kappa}$ satisfies \[resource\] U\_(x)=[U(x)K]{},where $U$ is a continuous function.
3\) The others parameters $p_{\kappa}=p$ and $M_{\kappa}=M$ stay unchanged, as also the cell ecological parameters: $b_{1,\kappa}=b_{1}$, $b_{2,\kappa}=b_{2}$, $d_{1,\kappa}=d_{1}$,$d_{2,\kappa}=d_{2}$, $\beta_{1,\kappa}=\beta_{1}$, $\beta_{2,\kappa}=\beta_{2}$. The functions $p$ and $M$ are assumed to be continuous and the functions $b_{i}, d_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$ are of class $C^1$.\
We assume $$r_{i}= b_{i} - d_{i}>0\ , \quad i \in \{1,2 \}.$$
4\) Similarly to , the interaction rates between cells satisfy \[inter-cell\] \_[ij]{}\^=, i,j {1,2} .
Remark that Assumption (H2) 1) means that at a large scale $K$, the individuals are influenced in their ecological behavior by the cells if the number of the latter is of order $K_{1}$ for cells of type $1$, resp. of order $K_{2}$ for cells of type $2$. On the other side the hypothesis (H2) 2) may be a consequence of a fixed amount of available resources to be partitioned among all the individuals. Larger systems are made up of smaller interacting individuals whose biomass is scaled by $1/K$, which implies that the interaction effect of the global population on a focal individual is of order $1$.
[**Examples**]{}
\(i) If $K_{1} = K_{2} $ and if the individual rates $B_\kappa, D_\kappa, \alpha_\kappa$ only depend on $x, n_{1}, n_{2}$ by the proportion of cells of type $1$, then is satisfied.
\(ii) Assume that $K_{1} = K_{2} = K$ and that the functions $B_\kappa, D_\kappa, \alpha_\kappa$ only depend on the weighted total number of cells ${1\over K} (n_{1}+n_{2})$.
A convergence theorem
---------------------
We assume that the sequence of random initial conditions $Y_0^\kappa$ converges in law to some finite measure $v_0 \in M_F({\cal X}\times{\mathbb{R}}_+ \times {\mathbb{R}}_+)$ when $\kappa \to \infty$. Our aim is to study the limiting behavior of the processes $Y^\kappa_\cdot$ as $\kappa \to \infty$.
The generator $L^\kappa$ of $(Y^\kappa_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is easily obtained by computing, for any measurable function $\phi$ from $M_F({\cal X}\times{\mathbb{R}}_+ \times {\mathbb{R}}_+)$ into ${\mathbb{R}}$ and any $\mu
\in M_F({\cal X}\times{\mathbb{R}}_+ \times {\mathbb{R}}_+)$, $$L^\kappa\phi(\mu)=\partial_t \mathbb{E}_{\mu}(\phi(Y^\kappa_t))_{t=0}.$$
In particular, similarly as in Theorem \[martingales\], we may summarize the moment and martingale properties of $Y^\kappa$.
\[YK\] Assume that for some $p\geq 3$, $\mathbb{E}(\langle Y^\kappa_0,1\rangle^p + \langle Y^\kappa_0,y_1^2+y_2^2\rangle)<+\infty$. Then
: For any $T>0$, $\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\langle Y^\kappa_t,1\rangle^p +\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\langle Y^\kappa_t,y_1^2+y_2^2\rangle\right)<+\infty$.
: For any measurable bounded functions $f, g_1, g_2$, the process $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pbmYK}
&\tilde M_t^{\kappa,fg} = \left<Y^\kappa_t,fg_1g_2\right> - \left<Y^\kappa_0,fg_1g_2\right>
- \int_0^t \int_{{\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}^2_+}
\bigg\{\Big( B_\kappa(x,K_1 y_1,K_2 y_2)(1-p(x)) \notag \\
& \qquad -\big(D_\kappa(x,K_1 y_1,K_2 y_2)+ \alpha_\kappa(x,K_1 y_1,K_2 y_2)\ U*Y^\kappa_s(x,y_1,y_2)\big)\Big)
f(x)g_1(y_1)g_2(y_2) \notag \\
& \qquad + p(x)B_\kappa(x,K_1 y_1,K_2 y_2)\int_{}f(x+z)g_1(y_1)g_2(y_2)M(x,z)dz \notag \\
& \qquad + f(x)\big(g_1(y_1+\frac{1}{K_1})-g_1(y_1)\big)g_2(y_2)\ b_{1}(x)\ K_1 y_1 \notag \\
&\qquad + f(x)g_1(y_1)\big(g_2(y_2+\frac{1}{K_2})-g_2(y_2)\big)\ b_{2}(x)\ K_2 y_2\notag \\
& \qquad + f(x)\big(g_1(y_1-\frac{1}{K_1})-g_1(y_1)\big)g_2(y_2)
\Big(d_{1}(x)+\beta_{1}(x)(\lambda_{11}y_1+\lambda_{12}y_2)\Big) K_1 y_1\notag \\
& \qquad + f(x)g_1(y_1)\big(g_2(y_1-\frac{1}{K_2})-g_2(y_2)\big)
\Big(d_{2}(x)+\beta_{2}(x)(\lambda_{21}y_1+\lambda_{22}y_2)\Big) K_2 y_2\bigg\} \notag \\
& \hskip 8.3cm Y_s^\kappa(dx,dy_1,dy_2)\ ds \end{aligned}$$ is a càdlàg square integrable martingale starting from $0$ with quadratic variation $$\begin{aligned}
& \langle \tilde M^{\kappa,fg}\rangle_t =
\frac{1}{K}{\displaystyle \int _0^t }\int_{{\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}^2_+}
\bigg\{\Big( B_\kappa(x,K_1 y_1,K_2 y_2)(1-p(x)) \notag \\
& \qquad \qquad + \big(D_\kappa(x,K_1 y_1,K_2 y_2)+ \alpha_\kappa(x,K_1 y_1,K_2 y_2)\ U*Y^\kappa_s(x,y_1,y_2)\big)\Big)
f^2(x)g_1^2(y_1)g_2^2(y_2) \notag \\
& + p(x)B_\kappa(x,K_1 y_1,K_2 y_2)\int_{}f^2(x+z)g_1^2(y_1)g_2^2(y_2)M(x,z)dz \notag \\
& + f^2(x)\ \big( g_1(y_1+\frac{1}{K_1})-g_1(y_1) \big)^2\ g_2^2(y_2)\ b_{1}(x)\ K_1 y_1 \notag \\
& + f^2(x)\ g_1^2(y_1)\ \big (g_2(y_2+\frac{1}{K_2})-g_2(y_2) \big)^2\ b_{2}(x)\ K_2 y_2 \notag \\
& + f^2(x)\ \big( g_1(y_1-\frac{1}{K_1})-g_1(y_1) \big)^2\ g_2^2(y_2)\
\Big(d_{1}(x)+\beta_{1}(x)(\lambda_{11}y_1 +\lambda_{12}y_2 )\Big) K_1 y_1 \notag \\
& + f^2(x)\ g_1^2(y_1)\ \big( g_2(y_2-\frac{1}{K_2})-g_2(y_2) \big)^2\
\Big(d_{2}(x)+\beta_{2}(x)(\lambda_{21}y_1+ \lambda_{22}y_2 )\Big) K_2 y_2
\bigg\} \notag \\
& \hskip 9.3cm Y^\kappa_s(dx,dy_1,dy_2)\ ds. \label{qv2}\end{aligned}$$
We can now state our convergence result.
\[largepoplargecells\] Assume (H2). Assume moreover that the sequence of initial conditions $Y^\kappa_0 \in M_F({\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2)$ satisfies $ \sup_\kappa \mathbb{E}(\langle Y^\kappa_0,1\rangle^3)<+\infty$ and $\sup_\kappa \mathbb{E}(\langle Y^\kappa_0,y_1^2+y_2^2 \rangle)<+\infty$. If $Y^\kappa_0$ converges in law, as $\kappa$ tends to infinity, to a finite deterministic measure $v_0$, then the sequence of processes $(Y^\kappa_t)_{0 \leq t\leq T}$ converges in law in the Skorohod space ${\mathbb{D}}([0,T],M_F({\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2))$, as $\kappa$ goes to infinity, to the unique (deterministic) measure-valued flow $v \in
C([0,T],M_F({\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2))$ satisfying for any bounded and continuous function $f$ and any bounded functions $ g_1,g_2$ of class $C^1_{b}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:limit}
& \langle v_t,fg_1g_2\rangle =\langle v_0,fg_1g_2\rangle +\int_0^t\int_{{\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2} \bigg\{\Big(B(x,y_1,y_2)(1-p(x)) \notag \\
& \hskip 3.8cm -\big(D(x,y_1,y_2)+\alpha(x,y_1,y_2)\ U*v_s(x,y_1,y_2)\big)\Big)
f(x) g_1(y_1)g_2(y_2) \notag \\
& \qquad + p(x)B(x,y_1,y_2)\int_{}f(x+z)M(x,z)dz \ g_1(y_1)g_2(y_2) \notag \\
& \qquad + f(x) \Big[g'_1(y_1) g_2(y_2) b_{1}(x)\ y_1
+ g_1(y_1) g'_2(y_2) b_{2}(x)\ y_2 \notag \\
& \qquad - g'_1(y_1)g_2(y_2)\Big(d_{1}(x)+\beta_{1}(x)(\lambda_{11}y_1+\lambda_{12}y_2)\Big)y_1\notag \\
& \qquad -g_1(y_1) g'_2(y_2)\Big(d_{2}(x)+\beta_{2}(x)(\lambda_{21}y_1+\lambda_{22}y_2)\Big)y_2\Big]\bigg\}
v_s(dx,dy_1,dy_2)\ ds.\end{aligned}$$
Note that for this dynamics, a transport term appears at the level of cells.\
- A solution of is a measure-valued solution of the nonlinear integro-differential equation $$\label{edptransport}
{\partial \over \partial t} v_{t} = \Big(B(1-p) -\big(D+\alpha\ U*v_t\big)\Big)v_{t} + (B\,p\, v_{t})* M
- \triangledown_y \cdot \big( c v_{t}\big)$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
c_1(x,y)&:=& y_1 \left(r_1(x) - \beta_1(x) \big( \lambda_{11} y_1 + \lambda_{12} y_2 \big)\right)\nonumber \\
c_2(x,y)&:=& y_2\left(r_2(x) - \beta_2(x) \big( \lambda_{21} y_1 + \lambda_{22} y_2 \big) \right).\label{def-c} \end{aligned}$$ Thus, the existence of a weak solution for Equation is obtained as corollary of Theorem \[largepoplargecells\].
- We deduce from (\[eq:limit\]) the limiting dynamics of the total number of individuals:$$\begin{aligned}
\label{totalmass}
& \langle v_t,1\rangle =\langle
v_0,1\rangle +\int_0^t\int_{{\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2}
\Big( B(x,y_1,y_2) - D(x,y_1,y_2) \notag\\
& \hskip 3.5cm -\alpha(x,y_1,y_2)\ U*v_s(x,y_1,y_2)\Big)
v_s(dx,dy_1,dy_2)\ ds,\end{aligned}$$ while the total number $\langle v_t,y_i\rangle$ of cells of type $i$ at time $t$ is obtained by taking $f\equiv 1, g_i(y)=y, g_j\equiv 1$ ($i\neq j)$ in (\[eq:limit\]) : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cellmassgen}
& \langle v_t,y_i\rangle =\langle
v_0,y_i\rangle \notag \\
& + \int_0^t
\int_{{\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2} \Big( B(x,y_1,y_2) - D(x,y_1,y_2)-\alpha(x,y_1,y_2)\ U*v_s(x,y_1,y_2)\Big)
y_i \ v_s(dx,dy_1,dy_2) ds \notag \\
& + \int_0^t\int_{{\cal X}\times
{\mathbb{R}}_+^2}\Big( (b_{i}(x)-d_i(x))y_i
-\beta_{i}(x)(\lambda_{ii}y_i+\lambda_{ij}y_j)y_i \Big)
v_s(dx,dy_1,dy_2)\ ds.\end{aligned}$$
The proof of the theorem is obtained by a standard compactness-uniqueness result (see e.g. [@Ethier-Kurtz]). The compactness is a consequence, using Prokhorov’s Theorem, of the uniform tightness of the sequence of laws of $(Y^\kappa_{t}, t\geq 0)$. This uniform tightness derives from uniform moment estimates. Their proof is standard and we refer for details to [@Ro86], [@FM04] Theorem 5.3 or to [@ChF06]. To identify the limit, we first remark using that the quadratic variation tends to $0$ when $K$ tends to infinity. Thus the limiting values are deterministic and it remains to prove the convergence of the drift term in to the one in . The drift term in has the form $\int_0^t \langle Y^{\kappa}_{s}, A^\kappa(Y^\kappa_{s})(fg_{1}g_{2}) \rangle ds $ and the limiting term in has the form $\int_0^t \langle v_{s}, A(v_{s})(fg_{1}g_{2})\rangle ds$. (The exact values of $A^\kappa$ and $A$ are immediately given by and ).
Thus, let us show that if $Y^\kappa$ is a sequence of random measure-valued processes weakly converging to a measure-valued flow $Y$ and satisfying the moment assumptions \[asmom\] \_ (\_[tT]{}Y\^\_[t]{},1\^3) + \_ (\_[tT]{}Y\^\_[t]{},y\^2) <+ , then $\langle Y^{\kappa}_{t}, A^\kappa(Y^\kappa_{t})(fg_{1}g_{2})\rangle$ converges in $L^1$ to $\langle Y_{t}, A(Y_{t})(fg_{1}g_{2})\rangle$ uniformly in time $t\in [0, T]$. We write \[conv-gen\] &&Y\^\_[t]{}, A\^(Y\^\_[t]{})(fg\_[1]{}g\_[2]{})- Y\_[t]{}, A(Y\_[t]{})(fg\_[1]{}g\_[2]{})\
&&= Y\^\_[t]{}, A\^(Y\^\_[t]{})(fg\_[1]{}g\_[2]{}) - A(Y\^\_[t]{})(fg\_[1]{}g\_[2]{})+Y\^\_[t]{}, A(Y\^\_[t]{})(fg\_[1]{}g\_[2]{})-A(Y\_[t]{})(fg\_[1]{}g\_[2]{})\
&& 0.5cm+ Y\^\_[t]{} - Y\_[t]{}, A(Y\_[t]{})(fg\_[1]{}g\_[2]{}). The convergence of the first term to zero follows from Assumptions $(H2)$ and and from the following remark, that for $C^1_{b}$-functions $g_{1}$ and $g_{2}$, the terms $$K_{i} \Big( g_{i}(y_{i}-{1\over K_{i}} ) - g_{i}(y_{i})\Big) + g'_{i}(y_{i})$$ converge to $0$ in a bounded pointwise sense, which allows us to apply the Lebesgue’s theorem.
The convergence of the second term to $0$ is immediately obtained by use of , since the functions $\alpha$ and $U$ are continuous and bounded.
The convergence of the third term of is due to the weak convergence of $Y^\kappa$ to $Y$. We know that for all bounded and continuous functions $\phi$, the quantity $\langle Y^\kappa_{t} - Y_{t}, \phi\rangle$ tends to $0$. The function $A(Y_{t})(fg_{1}g_{2})$ is a continuous function which is not bounded because of linear terms in $y$ and $y^2$. Thus we need to cutoff at a level $M$ replacing $y$ by $y\wedge M$. The remaining terms are proved to go to $0$ using . Hence we have proved that each limiting value satisfies .
We have now to prove the uniqueness of the solutions $v \in C([0,T],M_F({\cal X}\times \mathbb{R}_+^2))$ of . Our argument is based on properties of Lotka-Volterra’s flows. Firstly we need the following comparison lemma.
\[ineglogistique\] If $u_t$ is a non negative function with positive initial value and satisfying for some $a,b\in \mathbb{R}_+^*$ the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\forall t>0, \quad \frac{\partial }{\partial t} u_t &\leq & a u_t - b u_t^2, \\
\textrm{ then } \qquad 0 & \leq & \sup_{t \geq 0} u_t =: \overline u < + \infty .\end{aligned}$$
Moreover 0 is an absorbing value: if $u_{t_0}=0$ then for all $ t \geq t_0, u_{t}\equiv 0$.
[**of Lemma \[ineglogistique\]**]{}. Let us define $U_t $ as solution of the associated logistic equation $$\frac{\partial U_t}{\partial t} = a U_t - b U_t^2, \quad U_0= u_0 .$$ Then $
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}(U_t - u_t)
\geq a(U_t -u_t) - b (U_t^2 - u_t^2).
$ With $\delta_t:= U_t - u_t$ it holds $$\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\delta_t
\geq \Big( a - b (U_t + u_t) \Big)\delta_t, \quad \delta_0=0.$$ Let us show that $t\mapsto \delta_t$ increases, and therefore is positive. For $t= 0$, since $\delta_0=0, \,\frac{\partial \delta_t}{\partial t}|_{t=0} \geq 0 $. Thus $\delta_t \geq 0$ in a neighborhood of 0.\
Let define $t_0:= \sup\{t>0 :\delta_t=0 \}$. If $t_0 = + \infty$ the problem is solved.\
If not, $ U_t \equiv u_t $ on $[0, t_0]$. Let us now define $t_1:= \inf\{t>t_0 :\delta_t<0 \}$. If $t_1 = + \infty$ the problem is solved. If $t_1 < +\infty$, by continuity $\delta_{t_1}=0$ and then $\frac{\partial \delta_t}{\partial t}|_{t=t_1} \geq 0$. Thus, in a small time intervall after $t_1$, $\delta_t$ would increase and be positive, which is a contradiction with the definition of $t_1$. Therefore $t\mapsto \delta_t$ increases and stays positive, which implies that $$0 \leq \overline{u} := \sup_{t \geq 0} u_t \leq \sup_{t \geq 0} U_t < + \infty.$$
\
Let us now recall some properties of the Lotka-Volterra’s flow involved in the cell dynamics.
\[lotka-volterra\] Let $t_{0}\in [0,T]$, $x\in {\cal X} $ and $y=( y_1, y_2)\in \mathbb{R}_+^2 $ be given. The differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:LVdim2}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t} y(t) = c(x, y(t)),\ t \in [t_0,T], \textrm{ with }
y(t_0)= y\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ defined in , admits in $\mathbb{R}_+^2 $ a unique solution $t \mapsto\varphi^{t_{0},y}_{x}(t)=(\varphi^{t_{0},y}_{x,1}(t),\varphi^{t_{0},y}_{x,2}(t))$. Moreover the mapping $(x, t, s, y) \mapsto \varphi^{s,y}_{x}(t)$ is $C^0$ in $x\in {\cal X} $ and $C^\infty$ in $t,s,y\in [0,T]^2\times \mathbb{R}_+^2$ and is a characteristic flow in the sense that for all $s, t, u$, \[flow\] \^[s,y]{}\_[x]{}(t) = \^[u,z]{}\_[x]{}(t), z = \^[s,y]{}\_[x]{}(u).
[**of Lemma \[lotka-volterra\]**]{}. Since the coefficients $c_{i}$ are of class $C^1$ and thus locally bounded with locally bounded derivatives, the lemma is standard (cf [@Golse06]) as soon as the solution does not explode in finite time. The latter is obvious, since the quadratic terms are non positive. Indeed, the functions $(y_{1}, y_{2})$ are dominated by the solution $(z_{1}, z_{2})$ of the system $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:LVdim2mono}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t} z_i(t) = r_i(x) z_{i}(t) -\beta_i(x) \lambda_{ii} z_i^2\ ;\
z_i(0) = y_i , \quad i=1,2,\end{aligned}$$ and we use Lemma \[ineglogistique\].
The flow clearly satisfies \^[t\_[0]{},y]{}\_[x,1]{}(t) &=& y\_[1]{} (\_[t\_0]{}\^t (r\_1(x) - \_1(x) ( \_[11]{} \^[t\_[0]{},y]{}\_[x,1]{}(s)+ \_[12]{}\^[t\_[0]{},y]{}\_[x,2]{}(s) )ds),\
\^[t\_[0]{},y]{}\_[x,2]{}(t) &=& y\_[2]{} (\_[t\_0]{}\^t (r\_2(x) - \_2(x) ( \_[21]{} \^[t\_[0]{},y]{}\_[x,1]{}(s) + \_[22]{} \^[t\_[0]{},y]{}\_[x,2]{}(s))ds).
The proof of uniqueness will be based on the mild equation satisfied by any solution of (\[eq:limit\]). Let us consider a function $G$ defined on ${\cal X} \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^2$ of class $C^1$ on the two last variables and for any $x\in {\cal X}$, let us define the first-order differential operator \[def:L\] [L]{}G (x,y) := c\_1(x,y) (x,y) + c\_2(x, y) (x,y) = c\_y G (x,y) ,where the notation $\cdot$ means the scalar product in $\mathbb{R}^2$.\
Then the function $\tilde G(s,t,x,y):= G(x,\varphi^{s,y}_{x}(t))$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{edp:G}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t} \tilde G & =&
\triangledown_y G (x, \varphi^{s,y}_{x}(t)) \cdot \frac{\partial }{\partial t} \varphi^{t_{0},y}_{x}(t) \nonumber \\
& =& c(x, \varphi^{t_{0},y}_{x}(t)) \cdot \triangledown_y G (x,\varphi^{s,y}_{x}(t))\nonumber\\
&=& {\cal L}G (x,\varphi^{s,y}_{x}(t)) = {\cal L} \tilde G\end{aligned}$$ Let us fix $t>0$. We deduce from (\[edp:G\]) and from the flow property that $\tilde G$ satisfies the backward transport equation: \[eqntransport\] G + [L]{}G = 0, st G(t,t,x,y) = G(x, y).
We now write applying the measure $v_t$ to the time-dependent function $(s,x,y) \mapsto \tilde G(s,t, x, y)$ where $G(x, y)=f(x)g(y)$ and obtain the mild equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mild}
\langle v_t,fg\rangle & =\langle v_0, f\, g\circ \varphi^{0,y}_{x}(t)\rangle +\int_0^t\int_{{\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2} \bigg\{\Big(B(x,y_1,y_2)(1-p(x)) \notag \\
& \hskip 3cm -\big(D(x,y_1,y_2)+\alpha(x,y_1,y_2)\ U*v_s(x,y_1,y_2)\big)\Big)
f(x) g\circ \varphi^{s,y}_{x}(t)\notag \\
& + p(x)B(x,y_1,y_2)\int_{} f(x+z) g\circ \varphi^{s,y}_{x+z}(t) M(x,z)dz \bigg\}
v_s(dx,dy_1,dy_2)\ ds.\end{aligned}$$ (The last term involving the quantity $\frac{\partial }{\partial s} g\circ \varphi^{s,y}_{x}(t) + {\cal L}g (\varphi^{s,y}_{x}(t))$ vanishes by .)\
Let us now consider two continuous functions $v$ and $\bar v$ in $C([0,T],M_F({\cal X}\times \mathbb{R}_+^2))$ solutions of with the same initial condition $v_{0}$. Then the difference of both solutions satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
& \langle v_t - \bar v_{t} ,fg_1g_2\rangle =
\int_0^t\int_{{\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2} \bigg\{\bigg[\Big(B(x,y_1,y_2)(1-p(x)) -D(x,y_1,y_2)\Big) f(x) g\circ \varphi^{s,y}_{x}(t) \\
&
+ p(x)B(x,y_1,y_2)\int_{} f(x+z) g\circ\varphi^{s,y}_{x+z}(t) M(x,z)dz\bigg]
( v_s(dx,dy_1,dy_2)-\bar v_s(dx,dy_1,dy_2))\\
&- \alpha(x,y_1,y_2) f(x) g\circ \varphi^{s,y}_{x}(t) \Big( U*v_s(x,y_1,y_2) v_s(dx,dy_1,dy_2)- U*\bar v_s(x,y_1,y_2) \bar v_s(dx,dy_1,dy_2)\Big)\bigg\} ds.\end{aligned}$$ The finite variation norm of a measure $v$ is defined as usual by $$\|v\|_{FV} := \sup \{ \langle v, h \rangle, h \hbox{ measurable and bounded by } 1\}.$$ Since all coefficients are bounded as well as the total masses of $v_{t}$ and $\bar v_{t}$ , it is easy to show that there exists a constant $C_{T}$ such that v\_[t]{} -|v\_t\_[FV]{} C\_[T]{} \_[0]{}\^t v\_[s]{} -|v\_s\_[FV]{} ds, which implies, by Gronwall’s Lemma, that $v$ and $\bar v$ are equal .
Let us now prove that if the initial measure has a density with respect to Lebesgue measure, then there exists a unique function solution of . That gives a general existence and uniqueness result for such nontrivial equations with nonlinear reaction and transport terms, and a nonlocal term involved by the mutation kernel. The existence takes place in a very general set of $L^1$-functions.
\[prop:density\] Assume that the initial measure $v_{0}$ admits a density $\phi_0$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure $dxdy_{1}dy_{2}$; then for each $t>0$, the measure $v_{t}$ solution of also admits a density.
Let us come back to the equation satisfied by $v$. Using basic results on linear parabolic equations, we construct by induction a sequence of functions $(\phi^{n})_{n}$ satisfying in a weak sense the following semi-implicit scheme: $\phi^{n+1}_0 \equiv \phi_{0}$ and
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:linmild}
&\langle \phi^{n+1}_t,fg\rangle =\langle \phi_{0}, f\, g\circ \varphi^{0,y}_{x}(t)\rangle +\int_0^t\int_{{\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2} \Big[\bigg\{\Big(B(x,y_1,y_2)(1-p(x)) f(x) g\circ \varphi^{s,y}_{x}(t) \notag \\
& \hskip 2cm + p(x)B(x,y_1,y_2)\int_{} f(x+z) g\circ \varphi^{s,y}_{x+z}(t) M(x,z)dz \bigg\}
\phi^n_s(x, y_{1},y_{2})\notag \\
&-\big(D(x,y_1,y_2)+\alpha(x,y_1,y_2)\ U*\phi^n_s(x,y_1,y_2)\big)\Big)
f(x) g\circ \varphi^{s,y}_{x}(t) \phi^{n+1}_s(x, y_{1},y_{2})
\Big] dxdy_1dy_2 ds.\end{aligned}$$
Thanks to the nonnegativity of $\phi_{0}$ and of the parameters $B$, $p$, $1-p$, and applying the maximum principle for transport equations (Cf. [@Golse06]), we can show that the functions $\phi^n$ are nonnegative. Taking $f=g=1$ and thanks to the nonnegativity of the functions $\phi^{n}$ and to the boundedness of the coefficients we get \_[st]{} \^[n+1]{}\_[s]{}\_[1]{} \_[0]{}\_1 +C\_1 \^t\_[0]{} \_[us]{}\^[n]{}\_[u]{}\_[1]{} du, where the constant $C_{1}$ does not depend on $n$ and can be chosen uniformly on \[0,T\]. By Gronwall’s Lemma, we conclude that \[L1-bound\] \_[n]{}\_[tT]{} \^[n]{}\_[t]{}\_[1]{} \_[0]{}\_1 e\^[C\_[1]{}T]{}.
Let us now prove the convergence of the sequence $\phi^n$ in $L^{\infty}([0,T], L^1)$. A straightforward computation using , , the assumptions on the coefficients and similar arguments as above yields \_[st]{} \^[n+1]{}\_[s]{}-\^[n]{}\_[s]{}\_[1]{} C\_[2]{} \^t\_[0]{} ( \_[us]{} \^[n+1]{}\_[u]{}-\^[n]{}\_[u]{}\_[1]{} + \_[us]{} \^[n]{}\_[u]{}-\^[n-1]{}\_[u]{}\_[1]{}) ds, where $C_{2}$ is a positive constant independent of $n$ and $t\in[0,T]$. It follows from Gronwall’s Lemma that for each $t\leq T$ and $n$, $$\sup_{s\leq t} \|\phi^{n+1}_{s}-\phi^{n}_{s}\|_{1} \leq C_{3}\, \int^t_{0} \sup_{u\leq s} \|\phi^{n}_{u}-\phi^{n-1}_{u}\|_{1}\, ds.$$ We conclude that the series $\ \sum_{n}\sup_{t\in [0,T]} \|\phi^{n+1}_{t}-\phi^{n}_{t}\|_{1} \ $ converges for any $T>0$. Therefore the sequence of functions $(\phi^n)_{n}$ converges in $L^{\infty}([0,T], L^1)$ to a continuous function $t \mapsto \phi_t$ satisfying $$\sup_{t\leq T} \|\phi_{t}\|_{1} \leq \|\phi_{0}\|_1\, e^{C_{1}T}.$$ Moreover, since the sequence converges in $L^1$, the limiting measure $\phi_{t}(x,y_{1},y_{2}) dx dy_{1}dy_{2}$ is solution of and then it is its unique solution. Hence, that implies that for all $t$, $$v_{t}( dx, dy_{1},dy_{2})= \phi_{t}(x,y_{1},y_{2})\, dx dy_{1}dy_{2}.$$
We have thus proved that the nonlinear integro-differential equation admits a unique weak function-valued solution as soon as the initial condition $\phi_0$ is a $L^1$-function, without any additional regularity assumption.
Stationary states under a mean field assumption and without trait mutation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This part is a first step in the research of stationary states for the deterministic measure-valued process $(v_t, t\geq 0)$ defined above. We firstly remark that equation (\[totalmass\]), which determines the evolution of the total number of individuals $t
\mapsto \langle v_t,1 \rangle$, is not closed if the functions $U, B, D$ or $\alpha$ are not constant, which makes the problem very hard. In this section we consider the simplest case where the individual ecological parameters $B$ and $D$ and the cell ecological parameters $b_i$ and $d_i$ are constant and where the mutation probability $p$ vanishes. Moreover, we work under the mean field assumption, that is the competition/selection kernel $U$ is a constant. We consider two different cases corresponding to different selection rates $\alpha$.
### Case with constant selection rate
Let us assume that the selection rate $\alpha$ is constant. In this case, the mass equation (\[totalmass\]) is closed and reduces to the standard logistic equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{closemass} \langle v_t,1\rangle =\langle
v_0,1\rangle +\int_0^t \langle v_s,1\rangle \big((B - D) -\alpha
U\langle v_s,1\rangle \big)\ ds,\end{aligned}$$ whose asymptotical behavior is well known: the mass of any stationary measure $v_{\infty}$ satisfies $$(B - D)\langle v_{\infty},1\rangle =\alpha U\langle v_{\infty},1\rangle^2.$$ Either $R:= B-D \leq 0$ and there is extinction of the population, that is $$\lim_{t \rightarrow +\infty}\langle v_t,1\rangle = \langle v_{\infty},1\rangle = 0.$$ Or $R>0$ and the mass of the population converges to a non degenerate value \[stat\] \_[t +]{}v\_t,1= v\_,1= . Furthermore, the convergence of the mass holds exponentially fast: due to (\[closemass\]), $$\frac{\partial }{\partial t} \langle v_t - v_{\infty},1 \rangle= - \alpha U \langle v_t,1\rangle \langle v_t - v_{\infty},1 \rangle .$$ \[vitconvmasse\] v\_t - v\_,1 = v\_0 - v\_ , 1 e\^[-U \_0\^t v\_s,1 ds]{} which vanishes exponentially fast.
Assume $R>0$ in such a way that the mass of the population does not vanish. In what follows we will need the following notations: $$\langle \overline{v,1} \rangle := \sup_t \langle v_t,1 \rangle < +\infty$$ and $$\bar\alpha := \sup_t \alpha_t (< +\infty) \quad \textrm{ where } \quad \alpha_t := R-\alpha U \langle v_t,1\rangle = - \alpha U \langle v_t - v_{\infty},1\rangle
.$$
Let us now consider the weak convergence of the measures $v_t$ towards the stationary measure $v_\infty$, which is concentrated on the equilibrium state of the Lotka-Volterra dynamics.
Applying equation (\[eq:limit\]) to any bounded smooth fonction $g(y)=g_1(y_1)g_2(y_2)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vtg}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\langle v_t,g \rangle & =&
\alpha_t \langle v_t,g \rangle + \langle v_t,r_1 y_1 \frac{\partial g }{\partial y_1} + r_2 y_2 \frac{\partial g }{\partial y_2} \rangle \nonumber\\
&&- \langle v_t, \beta_1 \frac{\partial g }{\partial y_1}\big( \lambda_{11} y_1 + \lambda_{12} y_2\big) y_1
+ \beta_2 \frac{\partial g }{\partial y_2} \big( \lambda_{21} y_1 + \lambda_{22} y_2\big) y_2
\rangle \nonumber\\
& = & \alpha_t \langle v_t,g \rangle + \langle v_t,{\cal L}g \rangle\end{aligned}$$ where the differential first order operator ${\cal L}= c \cdot \triangledown $ is the same as in (\[def:L\]) but without dependence on the trait $x$. Using the flow of Lotka-Volterra equation (see (\[eq:LVdim2\])), we represent the mild solution of (\[eq:vtg\]) as
$$\label{eq:vtgmild}
\langle v_t,g \rangle = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2_+} g\circ \varphi^{0,y }(t) \, v_0(dy) +
\int_0^t \alpha_s \int_{\mathbb{R}^2_+} g\circ \varphi^{s,y }(t) \, v_s (dy) \, ds .$$
Let us firstly recall the long time behavior of the Lotka-Volterra system in case where the coefficients $c_{i}$ don’t depend on $x$(see Istas [@Istas05]).
\[proporcells\] \[LTBLV\] Any solution of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:LVdim2const}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t} y_1(t)&=& y_1(t) \left(r_1 - \beta_1 \big( \lambda_{11} y_1(t) + \lambda_{12} y_2(t) \big)\right) \nonumber\\
\frac{\partial }{\partial t} y_2(t)&=& y_2(t)\left(r_2 - \beta_2 \big( \lambda_{21} y_1(t) + \lambda_{22} y_2(t) \big) \right)\end{aligned}$$ with non-zero initial condition in ${\mathbb R}_{+}^2$ converges for $t$ large to a finite limit, called equilibrium and denoted by $\pi=(\pi_{1}, \pi_{2})\in {\mathbb R}_{+}^2\setminus \{(0,0)\}$. It takes the following values:
1. $\pi=({r_{1}\over \beta_{1}\lambda_{{11}}},0)\quad $ if $\quad r_{2}\lambda_{{11}}- r_{1}\lambda_{21}< 0$ (resp. $=0$ and $r_{1}\lambda_{{22}}- r_{2}\lambda_{12}>0$).
2. $\pi=(0,{r_{2}\over \beta_{2}\lambda_{22}}) \quad $ if $\quad r_{1}\lambda_{{22}}- r_{2}\lambda_{12}<0$ (resp. $=0$ and $r_{2}\lambda_{11}- r_{1}\lambda_{21}>0$ ).
3. If $\quad r_{2}\lambda_{{11}}- r_{1}\lambda_{12}>0$ and $r_{1}\lambda_{{22}}- r_{2}\lambda_{21}>0$ $$\label{equ:proporcells}
\pi=
\Big(\frac{\beta_1 \lambda_{12}(b_2-d_2)- \beta_2 \lambda_{22}(b_1-d_1)}{\beta_1\beta_2 (\lambda_{12}\lambda_{21}-\lambda_{11}\lambda_{22})},\frac{\beta_2 \lambda_{21}(b_1-d_1)- \beta_1 \lambda_{11}(b_2-d_2)}{\beta_1\beta_2 (\lambda_{12}\lambda_{21}-\lambda_{11}\lambda_{22})} \Big) .$$
Therefore we obtain the following convergence result.
\[convversmestat\] The deterministic measure-valued process $v_t$ converges for large time $t$ - in the weak topology - towards the singular measure concentrated on the equilibrium state $ \pi$ of the associated Lotka-Volterra dynamics: $$\lim_{t \rightarrow +\infty} v_t = \frac{R}{\alpha U} \,\delta_{(\pi_1,\pi_2)} ,$$ where $\pi=(\pi_1,\pi_2)$ is defined in Lemma \[proporcells\].
First, the Lotka-Volterra flow $\varphi^{0,y }(t)$ converges for large $t$ towards $(\pi_1,\pi_2)$ given by Lemma \[proporcells\]. Since the test function $g$ is continuous and bounded and $v_0$ has a finite mass, Lebesgue’s dominated theorem implies that the first term in the right hand side of (\[eq:vtgmild\]) converges: $$\lim_t \int_{\mathbb{R}^2_+} g\circ \varphi^{0,y }(t) \, v_0(dy) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2_+} \lim_t g\circ \varphi^{0,y }(t) \, v_0(dy) =
g(\pi_1,\pi_2) \, \langle v_0,1 \rangle .$$ Secondly, as already seen in (\[vitconvmasse\]), the mass $\langle v_t,1 \rangle $ of the total population converges exponentially fast to its equilibrium size, that is $\alpha_t $ converges exponentially fast to 0: $$\exists c>0, \exists t_0, \quad \forall s>t_0 \quad \alpha_s \leq e^{-cs} .$$ Therefore the second term in the right hand side of (\[eq:vtgmild\]) can be disintegrated, for $t$ larger than $t_0$, in the sum of two integrals over $[0,t_0]$ and $[t_0,t]$. The control of the integral over $[t_0,t]$ is simple: $$\left| \int^t_{t_0} \alpha_s \int_{\mathbb{R}^2_+} g\circ \varphi^{s,y }(t) \, v_s (dy) \, ds \right| \leq \langle \overline{v,1} \rangle \sup_y |g(y)| \int^t_{t_0} e^{-cs} ds$$ which is as small as one wants, when $t_0$ is large enough.\
On the compact time interval $[0, t_0]$ the following convergence holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_t \int_0^{t_0} \alpha_s \int_{\mathbb{R}^2_+} g\circ \varphi^{s,y }(t) \, v_s (dy) \, ds &=&
\int_0^{t_0} \alpha_s \int_{\mathbb{R}^2_+} \lim_t g\circ \varphi^{s,y }(t) \, v_s (dy) \, ds \\
&=&
g(\pi_1,\pi_2) \int_0^{t_0} \alpha_s \int_{\mathbb{R}^2_+} v_s (dy) \, ds .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore for large time $t>t_0$, $\langle v_t,g \rangle $ is as close as one wants to $$g(\pi_1,\pi_2) \, \langle v_0,1 \rangle \, + g(\pi_1,\pi_2)\, \int_0^{t_0} \alpha_s \int_{\mathbb{R}^2_+} v_s (dy) \, ds = g(\pi_1,\pi_2) \, \langle v_{t_0},1 \rangle .$$ For $t_0$ large enough, this last quantity is close to $g(\pi_1,\pi_2) \, \langle v_\infty,1 \rangle = \frac{R}{\alpha U} \,\langle \delta_{(\pi_1,\pi_2)}, g \rangle $.
This completes the proof of the weak convergence of the measures $v_t$.
The stationary state is a singular one even if the initial measure $v_0$ has a density: the absolute continuity property of the measure $v_t$ is conserved for any finite time $t$, but it is lost in infinite time.
[**Convergence of the number of cells**]{}\
First we prove the boundedness of the number of cells of each type and the boundedness of its second moment. To this aim, we compare the multitype dynamics with a dynamics where the different types do not interact, which corresponds to two independent monotype systems.
\[momentnbrecellulesmulti\] If $\langle v_0 , 1 \rangle + \langle v_0 , y_i^2 \rangle < + \infty$ then $\sup_{t \geq 0} \, \langle v_t , y_i^2 \rangle < + \infty $.
Let us firstly prove that $\sup_{t \geq 0} \, \langle v_t , y_i \rangle < + \infty $.\
At time $t=0$ , $\langle v_0 , y_i \rangle \leq \langle v_0 , 1 \rangle+ \langle v_0 , y_i^2 \rangle < + \infty. $ Moreover, equation (\[cellmassgen\]) reads now $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ctcellmass}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\langle v_t,y_i \rangle & =&
\big( R-\alpha U\langle v_t,1\rangle \big)\langle v_t,y_i\rangle
+ (b_{i}-d_i)\langle v_t,y_i\rangle
-\beta_{i}(\lambda_{ii}\langle v_t,y_i^2\rangle+\lambda_{ij}\langle v_t,y_iy_j\rangle )\nonumber\\
&\leq &( \alpha_t +b_{i}-d_i) \langle v_t,y_i\rangle - \beta_i\lambda_{ii} \langle v_t,y_i^2\rangle \nonumber\\
&\leq &( \alpha_t +b_{i}-d_i) \langle v_t,y_i\rangle - \frac{\beta_i\lambda_{ii}}{\langle v_t,1 \rangle } \langle v_t,y_i \rangle^2 \nonumber\\
&\leq & ( \bar\alpha +r_i) \langle v_t,y_i\rangle - \frac{\beta_i\lambda_{ii}}{\langle \overline{v,1} \rangle } \langle v_t,y_i\rangle^2.\end{aligned}$$ This inequality is a logistic one in the sense of Lemma \[ineglogistique\]. Therefore one deduces that the number of cells of type $i$ is uniformly bounded in time: $$\sup_{t \geq 0} \langle v_t,y_i \rangle < + \infty , \quad i =1,2 .$$ By (\[eq:limit\]) applied with $f\equiv 1, \, g_1(y_1)=y^2_1, \, g_2\equiv 1$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\langle v_t,y_1^2 \rangle & =&
\alpha_t \langle v_t,y_1^2 \rangle + 2r_1 \langle v_t,y_1^2 \rangle
- 2 \beta_1 \Big( \lambda_{11} \langle v_t,y_1^3\rangle + \lambda_{12}\langle v_t,y_1^2 y_2\rangle \Big)\\
& \leq &
( \alpha_t + 2r_1) \langle v_t,y_1^2 \rangle - 2 \beta_1 \lambda_{11} \langle v_t,y_1^3\rangle \\
& \leq &
( \alpha_t + 2r_1) \langle v_t,y_1^2 \rangle - 2 \beta_1 \lambda_{11}\frac{1}{\langle v_t,y_1 \rangle } \langle v_t,y_1^2\rangle^2 \\
& \leq &
( \bar\alpha + 2r_1) \langle v_t,y_1^2 \rangle - 2 \beta_1 \lambda_{11}\frac{1}{\langle \overline{v,y_1} \rangle } \langle v_t,y_1^2\rangle^2
\end{aligned}$$ since $$\langle v_t,y_1^2 \rangle^2 \leq
\langle v_t,y_1^3\rangle \langle v_t,y_1 \rangle .$$ This inequality on $\langle v_t,y_1^2 \rangle $ is of logistic type as (\[ctcellmass\]). Lemma \[ineglogistique\] implies $$\langle \overline{v,y_1^2} \rangle:= \sup_{t \geq 0} \langle v_t,y_1^2 \rangle < + \infty.$$ The same holds for $\langle \overline{v,y_2^2} \rangle$.
\[statmeasurebitype\] If $\langle v_0 , y_i \rangle < + \infty$ and $\langle v_0 , y_i^2 \rangle < + \infty$, then the total number of cells of each type per individual $\frac{\langle v_t,y_i \rangle }{\langle v_t,1 \rangle} $ stabilizes for $t$ large: $$\lim_{t \rightarrow + \infty} \frac{\langle v_t,y_i \rangle }{\langle v_t,1 \rangle} =
\pi_i .$$
Due to Proposition \[convversmestat\], the family of measures $(v_t)_t$ converge weakly towards $v_\infty$. Moreover, by Lemma \[momentnbrecellulesmulti\], the second moments of $v_t$ are uniformly bounded. Therefore $y_i$ is uniformly integrable under the family of $(v_t)_t $ which leads to : $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{t \rightarrow +\infty} \langle v_t,y_i \rangle & = & \langle \lim_{t \rightarrow +\infty} v_t,y_i \rangle = \langle v_\infty,y_i \rangle .\end{aligned}$$
Let us underline the decorrelation at infinity between cell and individual dynamics.
### Case with linear selection rate {#sec:alphalineaire}
Suppose now that the selection rate $\alpha$ does not depend on the trait $x$ but is linear as function of the number of cells of each type : $$\exists \alpha_1, \alpha_2 \in ]0,1[, \quad \alpha (x,y_1,y_2) = \alpha_1 y_1 + \alpha_2 y_2 =:\alpha \cdot y.$$ With other words the selection increases linearly when the number of cells increases.\
The new main difficulty comes from the fact that the mass equation is no more closed : \[eqmassalineaire\] v\_t,1=v\_0,1+ \_0\^t v\_s,1( R - Uv\_s,y ) ds, which has as (implicit) solution $$\label{massalineaire}
\langle v_t,1 \rangle = \langle v_0,1 \rangle e^{ - \int_0^t \big( U\langle v_s,\alpha \cdot y \rangle -R \big) ds}.$$
For this reason, unfortunately, we did not succeed in proving the convergence in time of $\langle v_t,1\rangle $. Nevertheless, we can conjecture some limiting behavior of the process.\
[**Conjecture**]{} : The deterministic measure-valued process $v_t$ converges for large time $t$ towards the following stationary value $$\label{statmeasurealineaire}
\lim_{t \rightarrow +\infty} v_t = v_\infty := \frac{R}{U ( \alpha_1\pi_1 + \alpha_2\pi_2 )} \, \delta_{(\pi_1,\pi_2)} ,$$ where $\pi=(\pi_1,\pi_2)$ is given in Lemma \[proporcells\].\
In this case too, the asymptotic proportions of the cells of different types per individual would become deterministic and independent.
[**Some partial answers**]{}
- Equation (\[eqmassalineaire\]) implies that any stationary measure $v_{\infty}$ should satisfy $$\langle v_{\infty},1\rangle \big( R- U \langle v_{\infty},\alpha \cdot y \rangle \big)=0.$$ Then, either $\langle v_{\infty},1\rangle = 0$, that means the extinction of the individual population holds, or \[statalineaire\] v\_,y = v\_,\_1 y\_1 + \_2 y\_2 = = which describes a constraint between the limiting number of the different types of cells.
- [*Boundedness of the number of cells.*]{}
\[nbrecellulesalineairemono\] $$\langle v_0 , y_i \rangle < + \infty \quad \Longrightarrow \quad
\sup_{t\geq 0} \, \langle v_t,y_i \rangle < + \infty .$$
The number of cells of type $i$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \langle v_t,y_i\rangle & = &
\langle v_t,y_i \rangle \big( R+ r_i\big) - U \langle v_t,y_i \alpha \cdot y \rangle \langle v_t,1\rangle
-\beta_i \big( \lambda_{ii}\langle v_t,y_i^2\rangle + \lambda_{ij} \langle v_t,y_iy_j \rangle \big)\nonumber \\
&\leq & ( R +r_i) \langle v_t,y_i\rangle - \alpha_i U \langle v_t,y_i\rangle^2 \end{aligned}$$ which reduces to the monotype case solved in Lemma \[ineglogistique\].
- [*Identification of a unique possible non trivial equilibrium.*]{}\
Applying Equation (\[eq:limit\]) to $f\equiv 1, \, g_i(y)=e^{-z_iy}$ and letting $t$ tend to infinity, we remark that the Laplace transform ${\bf L}_{\infty}(z)$ of any non vanishing stationary state $ v_{\infty}$ should satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{edpalineaire}
& R {\bf L}_{\infty}(z) - U\langle v_{\infty},1\rangle \langle v_{\infty},(\alpha \cdot y)e^{-z\cdot y}\rangle \notag \\
& - \sum_{i=1}^2 z_i \Big( r_{i}\langle v_{\infty},y_i e^{-z\cdot y}\rangle
-\beta_{i}\big(\lambda_{ii}\langle v_{\infty},y_i^2e^{-z\cdot y}\rangle+\lambda_{ij}\langle v_{\infty},y_iy_je^{-z\cdot y} \rangle\big)
\Big) = 0 \notag \\
&\Rightarrow
R {\bf L}_{\infty} +
U {\bf L}_{\infty}(0)(\alpha_1\frac{\partial {\bf L}_{\infty}}{\partial z_1}+ \alpha_2 \frac{\partial {\bf L}_{\infty}}{\partial z_2})
\notag \\
& \qquad + \sum_{i=1}^2 \Big( z_i r_{i}\frac{\partial {\bf L}_{\infty}}{\partial z_i} +
z_i \beta_{i}\big(\lambda_{ii}\frac{\partial^2 {\bf L}_{\infty}}{\partial z_i^2}+
\lambda_{ij}\frac{\partial^2 {\bf L}_{\infty}}{\partial z_i\partial z_j}\big) \Big)= 0\end{aligned}$$ with usual boundary conditions $${\bf L}_{\infty}(0)= \langle v_{\infty},1 \rangle, \quad \frac{\partial {\bf L}_{\infty}}{\partial z_i}(0) = -\langle v_{\infty},y_i\rangle .$$ The unique non trivial solution of this p.d.e. is $${ \bf L}_{\infty}(z) = \langle v_{\infty},1 \rangle \, e^{- \tilde \pi \cdot z},$$ where $\langle v_{\infty},1 \rangle = \frac{U}{\alpha\cdot \tilde\pi}$ and where $\tilde\pi_i$, the equilibrium proportion of cells of type $i$ in the global population, has to be equal to the equilibrium proportion given in Lemma \[proporcells\]: $\tilde\pi=\pi$.
- [*Local stability of the non trivial equilibrium $v_\infty:= \frac{R}{U \alpha\cdot \pi} \, \delta_{(\pi_1,\pi_2)} $.*]{}\
Although we cannot control the convergence of $\langle v_t,1\rangle $ to a positive number, we can analyze the stability of the nontrivial stationary state $v_\infty$ in the following sense.\
[*Stability of the mass around its positive stationary value $\frac{R}{U \alpha\cdot \pi}$*]{}\
Let start with $v_0 = v_\infty + \varepsilon \delta_{(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)} $, where $\varepsilon$ is small and $(\zeta_1,\zeta_2) \in {\mathbb{R}}_+^2$. From the mass equation ([\[eqmassalineaire\]]{}) one obtains for $t$ small : $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \langle v_t,1\rangle & = &\langle v_t,1\rangle \big( R -U \langle v_t,\alpha \cdot y \rangle \big)\\
& \simeq & (\langle v_\infty,1\rangle + \varepsilon ) \big( R -U \langle v_\infty,\alpha \cdot y \rangle -\varepsilon U \, \alpha \cdot \zeta \big)\\
& \simeq & -\varepsilon \, \frac{\alpha \cdot \zeta}{\alpha\cdot \pi} + o(\varepsilon ).\end{aligned}$$ This quantity is negative for small $\varepsilon $, which implies the stability of the mass around its positive stationary value.\
[*Stability of the number of cells of each type around its limit value if $\max (r_1, r_2 )< R$*]{}\
We prove it only for the type $1$. From (\[cellmassgen\]) we get an expansion in $\varepsilon$ of the variation of the global number of cells of type $1$ for small time : $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \langle v_t,y_1\rangle & = &
\langle v_t,y_1 \rangle \big( R + r_1 \big) - U \langle v_t,y_1 \,\alpha \cdot y \rangle \langle v_t,1\rangle
-\beta_1 \big( \lambda_{11}\langle v_t,y_1^2\rangle + \lambda_{12} \langle v_t,y_1y_2 \rangle \big)\\
& \simeq & \big( \langle v_\infty,y_1\rangle +\varepsilon \zeta_1 \big) \big( R + r_1 \big)
- U \big( \langle v_\infty,y_1 \,\alpha \cdot y \rangle +\varepsilon \zeta_1 \,\alpha \cdot \zeta \big) (\langle v_\infty,1\rangle +\varepsilon )\\
&& \quad -\beta_1 \big( \lambda_{11}\langle v_\infty,y_1^2\rangle +\lambda_{12} \langle v_\infty,y_1y_2 \rangle \big)
-\varepsilon \beta_1 ( \lambda_{11}\zeta_1^2 +\lambda_{12}\zeta_1\zeta_2 ) \\
& = & \varepsilon \Big( ( R + r_1) \zeta_1
- U \langle v_\infty,y_1 \,\alpha \cdot y \rangle -U \zeta_1 \,\alpha \cdot \zeta \langle v_\infty,1\rangle
-\beta_1 ( \lambda_{11}\zeta_1^2 +\lambda_{12}\zeta_1\zeta_2) \Big)+ o(\varepsilon )\\
& = & \bar P_1(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)+ o(\varepsilon )\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar P_1(y_1,y_2) \leq P_1(y_1)$ for all $y_2>0$, with $$P_1(X):= -\big(U \alpha_1 \langle v_\infty,1\rangle + \beta_1 \lambda_{11} \big) X^2
+ ( R + r_1) X - U \alpha_1 \pi_1^2 \langle v_\infty,1\rangle .$$ As second degree polynomial $P_1$ is negative if its discriminant is non positive. This condition is fulfilled when $$( R + r_1)^2 -4 U \alpha_1 \pi_1^2 \langle v_\infty,1\rangle \big(U \alpha_1 \langle v_\infty,1\rangle + \beta_1 \lambda_{11} \big) <0.$$ It is true as soon as $$(R + r_1)^2 -4 R^2 <0 \Leftrightarrow r_1 < R .$$ Thus if $\max (r_1, r_2 )< R$, the number of cells of each type is stable around its limiting value.
Diffusion and superprocess approximations {#sec:limit3}
=========================================
As in the above section we introduce the renormalization $\kappa= (K, K_1, K_2)$ both for individuals and for cells. Moreover we introduce an acceleration of individual births and deaths with a factor $K^\eta$ (and a mutation kernel $M_K$ with amplitude of order $K^{\eta/2}$ ) and an acceleration of cell births and deaths with a factor $K_1$ (resp. $K_2$).
We summarize below the assumptions we need on the model and which will be considered in all this section.
:\
[*1) There exist continuous functions $\Gamma, B, D, \alpha$ on ${\cal X} \times {\mathbb{R}}_+\times {\mathbb{R}}_+$ such that \[scalingbis\] && B\_(x,n\_1,n\_2)= K\^ (x, ,) + B(x, ,);\
&& D\_(x,n\_1,n\_2)= K\^ (x, ,) + D(x, ,);\
&&\_(x, n\_1,n\_2)(x,,). The function $\Gamma$ is assumed to be bounded and $B, D, \alpha$ satisfy Assumptions (H1).\
2) As before, the competition kernel satisfies $$U_\kappa(x)={U(x)\over K},$$ where $U$ is a continuous function which satisfies Assumption (H1).\
3) The mutation law $ z\mapsto M_K(x,z)$ is a centered probability density on ${\cal X} - x$. Its covariance matrix is $\frac{\sigma(x)^2}{K^\eta} Id$, where $\sigma $ is a continuous function. We also assume that $$\lim_{K\to \infty} K^\eta\, \sup_{x} \int |z|^3 M_{K}(x,z)dz = 0.$$ The parameter $p_\kappa$ stays unchanged: $p_\kappa(x)=p(x)$ .\
4) At the cell level, we introduce Lipschitz continuous functions $b_i, d_i$ on ${\cal X}$ and a continuous function $ \gamma$ such that \[scalingter\] &&b\_[i,]{}(x)= K\_i (x) + b\_i(x) ;\
&& d\_[i,]{}(x)= K\_i (x) + d\_i(x) , i =1,2. The interaction between the cells is rescaled according on their type : \[scalinglambda\] \_[ij]{}\^=, i,j {1,2} . The other parameters stay unchanged: $\beta_{1,\kappa}=\beta_1$, $\beta_{2,\kappa}=\beta_2$.\
5) [**Ellipticity:**]{} The functions $p$, $\sigma$, $\gamma$ and $\Gamma$ are lower bounded by positive constants and $\sigma\,\sqrt{p\,\Gamma}$ and $\sqrt{\gamma}$ are Lipschitz continuous.\
*]{}
As in the section 3, we define the measure-valued Markov process $(Z^\kappa_t)_{t\geq 0}$ as $$Z^\kappa_t= \frac{1}{K} \sum_{i=1}^{I_\kappa(t)} \delta_{(X^i_\kappa(t),\frac{N_{1,\kappa}^i(t)}{K_1},\frac{ N_{2,\kappa}^i(t)}{K_2})}.$$ We may summarize as in Proposition \[YK\] the moment and martingale properties of $Z^\kappa$.
\[YK1\] Assume that for some $p\geq 3$, $\mathbb{E}(\langle Z^\kappa_0,1\rangle^p + \langle Z^\kappa_0,y_1^2+y_2^2\rangle)<+\infty$. Then
: For any $T>0$, $\mathbb{E}\left(\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\langle Z^\kappa_t,1\rangle^3 + \sup_{t\in[0,T]}\langle Z^\kappa_t,y_1^2+y_2^2\rangle \right)<+\infty.$
: For any measurable bounded functions $f, g_1, g_2$, the process $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pbmZK}
& \bar M_t^{\kappa,fg} = \left<Z^\kappa_t,fg_1g_2\right> - \left<Z^\kappa_0,fg_1g_2\right> \notag \\
& - \int_0^t \int_{{\cal X} \times {\mathbb{R}}^2_+}
\bigg\{\Big( B(x,y_1,y_2) - D(x,y_1,y_2) - \alpha(x,y_1,y_2) \ U*Z^\kappa_s(x,y_1,y_2) \Big) f(x)g_1(y_1)g_2(y_2) \notag \\
& \qquad + p(x)\big( K^{\eta} \, \Gamma(x, y_1 ,y_2) + B(x,y_1,y_2) \big) \int \big( f(x+z)-f(x) \big) g_1(y_1)g_2(y_2)M_K(x,z)dz \notag \\
& \qquad + f(x) \big( g_1(y_1+\frac{1}{K_1})-g_1(y_1)\big)g_2(y_2)\, \left(K_1 \gamma(x) + b_1(x)\right) \, K_1 y_1\notag \\
& \qquad + f(x)g_1(y_1)\big(g_2(y_2+\frac{1}{K_2})-g_2(y_2)\big)\, \left(K_2 \gamma(x) + b_2(x)\right) \, K_2 y_2\notag \\
& \qquad + f(x)\big(g_1(y_1-\frac{1}{K_1})-g_1(y_1) \big) g_2(y_2)
\left( K_1 \gamma(x) + d_1(x) +\beta_{1}(x)(y_1\lambda_{11}+y_2\lambda_{12})\right) K_1 y_1\notag \\
& \qquad + f(x)g_1(y_1)\big(g_2(y_1-\frac{1}{K_2})-g_2(y_2)\big)
\left( K_2 \gamma(x) + d_2(x) +\beta_{2}(x)(y_1\lambda_{21}+y_2\lambda_{22})\right) K_2 y_2\bigg\} \notag \\
& \hskip 9cm Z_s^\kappa(dx,dy_1,dy_2)\ ds\end{aligned}$$ is a càdlàg square integrable $({\cal F}_t)_{t\geq 0}$-martingale with quadratic variation $$\begin{aligned}
& \langle \bar M^{\kappa,fg}\rangle_t =
{1\over K}{\displaystyle \int _0^t }\int_{{\cal X} \times {\mathbb{R}}^2_+}
\bigg\{\Big( 2K^\eta \,\Gamma(x,y_1,y_2) + B(x,y_1,y_2) \notag \\
&\hskip 3cm + D(x,y_1,y_2) + \alpha(x,y_1,y_2) \ U*Z^\kappa_s(x,y_1,y_2) \Big)
f^2(x)g_1^2(y_1)g_2^2(y_2) \notag \\
& + p(x)\big( K^{\eta} \,\Gamma(x, y_1 ,y_2) + B(x,y_1,y_2) \big) \int_{}\big( f(x+z)-f(x) \big)^2 M_K(x,z)dz \, g_1^2(y_1)g_2^2(y_2) \notag \\
& + f^2(x)\ \big( g_1(y_1+\frac{1}{K_1})-g_1(y_1) \big)^2\ g_2^2(y_2)\ (K_1 \gamma(x) + b_1(x)) \ K_1 y_1 \notag \\
& + f^2(x)\ g_1^2(y_1)\ \big (g_2(y_2+\frac{1}{K_2})-g_2(y_2) \big)^2\ (K_2 \gamma(x) + b_2(x)) \ K_2 y_2 \notag \\
& + f^2(x)\ \big( g_1(y_1-\frac{1}{K_1})-g_1(y_1) \big)^2\ g_2^2(y_2)\
\Big(K_1 \gamma(x) + d_{1}(x)+\beta_{1}(x)(y_1\lambda_{11} +y_2\lambda_{12} )\Big) K_1 y_1 \notag \\
& + f^2(x)\ g_1^2(y_1)\ \big( g_2(y_2-\frac{1}{K_2})-g_2(y_2) \big)^2\
\Big( K_2 \gamma(x) + d_{2}(x)+\beta_{2}(x)(y_1\lambda_{21} + y_2\lambda_{22} )\Big) K_2 y_2
\bigg\} \notag \\
& \hskip 9.3cm Z^\kappa_s(dx,dy_1,dy_2)\ ds. \label{qv3}\end{aligned}$$
We assume that the sequence of initial conditions $Z_0^\kappa$ converges in law to some finite measure $\zeta_0$. Let us study the limiting behavior of the processes $Z^\kappa$ as $\kappa$ tends to infinity. It depends on the value of $\eta$ and leads to two different convergence results.\
As before we denote by $r_{i}$ the rate $ b_{i}-d_{i}$.
\[largepopcellsbirthratedet\] Assume $(H3)$ and $\eta \in ]0,1[$; suppose that the initial conditions $Z^\kappa_0 \in M_F({\cal X} \times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2)$ satisfies $\ \sup_\kappa E(\langle Z^\kappa_0,1\rangle^3)<+\infty$. If further, the sequence of measures $(Z^\kappa_0)_\kappa$ converges in law to a finite deterministic measure $w_0$, then the sequence of processes $(Z^\kappa_t)_{0\leq t\leq T}$ converges in law in the Skorohod space ${\mathbb{D}}([0,T],M_F({\cal X} \times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2))$, as $\kappa$ goes to infinity, to the unique (deterministic) flow of functions $w \in C([0,T], \mathbb{L}^1({\cal X} \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^2))$ weak solution of \[reac-dif\] [t]{} w\_[t]{} = (B - D - U\*w\_t )w\_[t]{} + \_[x]{}(p \^2 w\_[t]{}) + \_[y]{} (w\_[t]{}) - \_[y]{} (c w\_t).
One obtains the existence and uniqueness of function-valued solutions of even if the initial measure $w_0$ is a degenerate one without density.
The proof follows the same steps as the one of Theorem \[largepoplargecells\] except that the mutation term will lead to a Laplacian term in $f$ since the mutation kernel is centered and the mutation steps converge to $0$ in the appropriate scale. We first obtain the tightness of the sequence $(Z^\kappa)$ and the fact that each subsequence converges to a measure-valued flow $w \in C([0,T], M_{F}({\cal X} \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^2))$ satisfying for bounded $C^2$-functions $f, g_{1}, g_{2}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:diffusion}
& \langle w_t,fg_1g_2\rangle =\langle w_0,fg_1g_2\rangle +\int_0^t\int_{{\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2} \bigg\{\Big( B(x,y_1,y_2)\notag \\
& \hskip 2cm - D(x,y_1,y_2)- \alpha(x,y_1,y_2)\ U*w_s(x,y_1,y_2)\Big)
f(x) g_1(y_1)g_2(y_2) \notag \\
& \qquad + p(x)\sigma^2(x) \Gamma(x,y_1,y_2) \bigtriangleup f(x) \, g_1(y_1)g_2(y_2) \notag \\
& \qquad + f(x) \triangledown g_1(y_1) g_2(y_2)
\Big( r_{1}(x) - \beta_{1}(x)(y_1\lambda_{11}+y_2\lambda_{12})\Big)\ y_1 \notag \\
& \qquad + f(x) g_1(y_1) \triangledown g_2(y_2) \Big( r_{2}(x) - \beta_{2}(x)(y_1\lambda_{21}+y_2\lambda_{22})\Big)\ y_2 \notag \\
& \qquad + f(x) \gamma(x)\left( \bigtriangleup g_1(y_1) g_2(y_2)
+g_1(y_1) \bigtriangleup g_2(y_2) \right) \bigg\} w_s(dx,dy_1,y_2)\, ds.\end{aligned}$$ We can also apply $w_t$ to smooth time-dependent test functions $h(t,x,y)$ defined on $\mathbb{R}_{+} \times {\cal X}\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^2$ . That will add a term of the form $\langle \partial_{s}h,w_{s}\rangle$ in .
Let us now sketch the uniqueness argument. Thanks to the Lipschitz continuity and ellipticity assumption $(H3)$, the semigroup associated with the infinitesimal generator $${\cal A}:= p\, \sigma^2\, \Gamma \bigtriangleup_{x} + \,\gamma \bigtriangleup_{y}
+ \, c \cdot \triangledown_{y}$$ admits at each time $t>0$ a smooth density denoted by $\psi^{x,y}(t,\cdot,\cdot) $ on ${\cal X} \times \mathbb{R}_+^2$. That is, for any bounded continuous function $G$ on ${\cal X}\times \mathbb{R}_{+}^2$, the function $$\check G(t,x,y)= \int \psi^{x,y}(t,x',y') G(x',y')dx'dy'$$ satisfies $${\partial \over \partial t}\check G = {\cal A} \check G; \quad \check G(0,\cdot,\cdot) = G.$$
Thus applied to the test function $(s,x,y) \mapsto \check G(t-s,x,y)$ leads to the mild equation: for any continuous and bounded function $G$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:milddiffusion}
\langle w_t,G\rangle & =\langle w_0,\check G(t,\cdot)\rangle
+\int_0^t \langle w_s, (B-D-\alpha U*w_s)
\check G(t-s,\cdot )\rangle
\ ds\notag\\
& =\int_{{\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2} G(x', y') \int_{{\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2} \psi^{x,y}(t,x',y') w_0(dx,dy) \ dx'dy' \notag \\
& + \int G(x', y') \int_0^t
\int \big(B-D-\alpha U*w_s\big)(x,y)\, \psi^{x,y}(t-s,x',y')
w_s(dx,dy)\ ds \ dx'dy'.\end{aligned}$$ It is simple to deduce from this representation the uniqueness of the measure-valued solutions of (\[eq:diffusion\]). Moreover, by Fubini’s theorem and $(H3)$ and since $\sup_{t\leq T} \langle w_{t},1\rangle <+\infty$, one observes that $$\langle w_t,G\rangle =\int_{{\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2} G(x', y') H_{t}(x',y') dx' dy',$$ with $H\in \mathbb{L}^\infty([0,T], \mathbb{L}^1({\cal X}\times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2))$. Thus for any $t\leq T$, the finite measure $w_{t}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue’s measure and the solution of (\[eq:diffusion\]) is indeed a function for any positive time.
If $\eta=1$ the limiting process of $Z^\kappa$ is no more deterministic but is a random superprocess with values in $ C([0,T], M_{F}({\cal X} \times \mathbb{R}_{+}^2))$.
\[largepopcellsbirthrate\] Assume $(H3)$ and $\eta =1$. Assume moreover that the initial conditions $Z^\kappa_0 \in M_F({\cal X} \times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2)$ satisfy $\ \sup_\kappa E(\langle Z^\kappa_0,1\rangle^3)<+\infty$. If they converge in law as $\kappa$ tends to infinity to a finite deterministic measure $\zeta_0$, then the sequence of processes $(Z^\kappa_t)_{0\leq t\leq T}$ converges in law in the Skorohod space ${\mathbb{D}}([0,T],M_F({\cal X} \times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2))$, as $\kappa$ goes to infinity, to the continuous measure-valued semimartingale $\zeta \in
C([0,T],M_F({\cal X} \times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2))$ satisfying for any bounded smooth functions $f, g_1,g_2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:limit3}
& M_t^{fg}:= \langle \zeta_t,fg_1g_2\rangle - \langle \zeta_0,fg_1g_2\rangle \notag \\
& - \int_0^t\int_{{\cal X} \times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2} \bigg\{\Big( B(x,y_1,y_2) - D(x,y_1,y_2)
- \alpha(x,y_1,y_2) \ U*\zeta_s(x,y_1,y_2) \Big) f(x) g_1(y_1)g_2(y_2) \notag \\
& \qquad + p(x)\sigma^2(x) \Gamma(x,y_1,y_2) \bigtriangleup f(x) g_1(y_1)g_2(y_2) \notag \\
& \qquad + f(x) \triangledown g_1(y_1) g_2(y_2)
\Big( r_{1}(x)- \beta_{1}(x)(y_1\lambda_{11}+y_2\lambda_{12})\Big)\ y_1 \notag \\
& \qquad + f(x) g_1(y_1) \triangledown g_2(y_2) \Big( r_{2}(x) - \beta_{2}(x)(y_1\lambda_{21}+y_2\lambda_{22})\Big)\ y_2 \notag \\
& \qquad + f(x)\gamma(x)
\left( \bigtriangleup g_1(y_1) g_2(y_2) + g_1(y_1) \bigtriangleup g_2(y_2)\right) \bigg\} \zeta_s(dx,dy_1,dy_2)\ ds\end{aligned}$$ is a continuous square integrable $({\cal F}_t)_{t\geq 0}$-martingale with quadratic variation \[qv3\] M\^[fg]{}\_t = [\_0\^t ]{}\_[ [X]{} \^2\_+]{} 2 (x,y\_1,y\_2) f\^2(x)g\_1\^2(y\_1)g\_2\^2(y\_2) \_s(dx,dy\_1,dy\_2) ds.
The convergence is obtained by a compactness-uniqueness argument. The uniform tightness of the laws and the identification of the limiting values can be adapted from [@FM04] with some careful moment estimates and an additional drift term as in the proof of Theorem \[largepoplargecells\].
The uniqueness can be deduced from the one with $B=D= \alpha=0$ by using the Dawson-Girsanov transform for measure-valued processes (cf. Theorem 2.3 in [@EP94]), as soon as the ellipticity assumption for $\Gamma$ is satisfied. Indeed, $$\mathbb{E}\left( \int_0^t\int_{{\cal X} \times {\mathbb{R}}_+^2}
\Big( B(x,y_1,y_2) - D(x,y_1,y_2)
- \alpha(x,y_1,y_2) \ U*\zeta_s(x,y_1,y_2) \Big)^2 \zeta_s(dx,dy_1,dy_2) ds\right)<+\infty,$$ which allows us to use this transform.
In the case $B=D=\alpha=0$ the proof of uniqueness can be adapted from the general results of Fitzsimmons, see [@F92] Corollary 2.23: the Laplace transform of the process is uniquely identified using the extension of the martingale problem to test functions depending smoothly on the time like $(s,x,y_{1},y_{2})\mapsto \psi_{t-s}f(x,y_{1},y_{2})$ for bounded functions $f$ (see [@F92] Proposition 2.13).
[99]{}
Bouchut, F., Golse, F. and Pulvirenti, M.: [*Kinetic equations and asymptotic theory*]{}. Edited by B. Perthame and L. Desvillettes. Series in Applied Mathematics (Paris), 4, Gauthier-Villars, Editions Scientifiques et Médicales Elsevier, Paris, (2000).
Champagnat, N., Ferriere, R. and Méléard, S.: Individual-based probabilistic models of adaptive evolution and various scaling approximations, Stoch. Models 24, suppl. 1, 2–44 (2008).
Ethier, S.N. and Kurtz, T.G.: Markov Processes, characterization and convergence. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1986).
Evans, S.N. and Perkins, E.A.: Measure-valued branching diffusions with singular interactions. Canad. J. Math. **46**, 120–168 (1994).
Fitzsimmons, P.J.: On the martingale problem for measure-valued Markov branching processes. Seminar on Stochastic Processes 91, Birkha" user, 39–51 (1992).
Fournier, N. and Méléard, S.: A microscopic probabilistic description of a locally regulated population and macroscopic approximations. Ann. Appl. Probab. **14**, 1880–1919 (2004).
Istas, J.: [*Mathematical Modeling for the Life Sciences*]{}, Universitext, Springer-Verlag (2005).
Lapeyre B., Pardoux E. and Sentis R.: [*Méthodes de Monte-Carlo pour les équations de transport et de diffusion*]{}, Mathématiques et Applications 29, Springer (1998).
Roelly-Coppoletta, S.: A criterion of convergence of measure-valued processes: application to measure branching processes. Stoch. Stoch. Rep. **17**, 43–65 (1986).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Observations of long gamma-ray bursts (LGRBs) offer a unique opportunity for probing the cosmic star formation history, although whether or not LGRB rates are biased tracers of star formation rate history is highly debated. Based on an extensive sample of LGRBs compiled by @2012ApJ...744...95R, we analyze various models of star formation rate and the possible effect of the evolution of cosmic metallicity under the assumption that LGRBs tend to occur in low-metallicity galaxies. The models of star formation rate tested in this work include empirical fits from observational data as well as a self-consistent model calculated in the framework of the hierarchical structure formation. Comparing with the observational data, we find a relatively higher metallicity cut of $Z\gtrsim0.6Z_{\odot}$ for the empirical fits and no metallicity cut for the self-consistent model. These results imply that there is no strong metallicity preference for the host galaxy of LGRBs, in contrast to previous work which suggest a cut of $Z\sim0.1-0.3Z_{\odot}$, and that the inferred dependencies of LGRBs on their host galaxy properties are strongly related to the specific models of star formation rate. Furthermore, a significant fraction of LGRBs occur in small dark matter halos down to $3\times10^{8}\,\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ can provide an alternative explanation for the discrepancy between the star formation rate history and LGRB rate history.'
author:
- 'Jing-Meng Hao and Ye-Fei Yuan[^1]'
title: 'Is the metallicity of the progenitor of long gamma-ray bursts really low?'
---
Introduction
============
When reionization was complete and what kind of sources should be responsible for it still remain open questions. The optical depth of electron scattering constrained from the *Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe* (WMAP) infers that the universe was substantially ionized by $z\sim10$ [@2011ApJS..192...18K], which is somewhat in conflict with the Gunn-Peterson trough in the spectra of high-redshift quasars implying an end to reionization at $z\approx6$ . Models which are consistent with these constrains strongly suggest that reionization is likely to be a much more extended process [@2003ApJ...591...12C; @2006MNRAS.371L..55C; @2007MNRAS.376..534I]. In addition, observations of the Ly $\alpha$ forest and the high-redshift galaxies at $z\sim6-10$ infer a photon-starved end to reionization [@2007MNRAS.382..325B; @2012ApJ...745..110O]. One possibility is that small galaxies forming in the dark matter halos with masses below $\sim10^{9}\,\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ produce the bulk of ionizing photons during the epoch of reionization. However, these galaxies are too faint to be detected by the current observational facilities. Even the *James Webb Space Telescope* (JWST) will be incapable of reaching the required sensitivity. Fortunately, long gamma-ray burst (LGRB) observations offer a unique opportunity for probing the history of the high-redshift star formation, unlimited by the faintness of the host galaxy.
As a result of the collapse of massive stars [@1999ApJ...524..262M], LGRBs are thought to be well suited to investigate the cosmic star formation rate (CSFR) [@2001ApJ...548..522P; @2002ApJ...575..111B; @2008ApJ...683L...5Y; @2009ApJ...705L.104K]. Still, this is challenging, because detailed modeling is required to connect the LGRB rate to the CSFR. In this respect, whether or not LGRBs are biased tracers of star formation is highly debated [@2006MNRAS.372.1034D; @2008ApJ...673L.119K]. Earlier studies [e.g. @2008ApJ...673L.119K] often modeled the relation between the LGRB rate and the CSFR using a redshift dependence quantity which is parameterized as a simple power law, $\Psi(z)\propto(1+z)^{\beta}$, with $\beta\approx1.2$. A possible physical explanation for such an enhancement is the cosmic metallicity evolution, because the collapsar model for LGRBs suggests that they can only be produced by stars with metallicity $Z\lesssim0.1Z_{\odot}$ . Observationally, @2010MNRAS.405...57S and @2010AJ....140.1557L found that LGRBs at $z\lesssim1$ occur preferentially in relatively low-mass, low-metallicity galaxies. However, the picture is not a simple one: several LGRB hosts with high-metallicity have been found [@2009AIPC.1133..269G; @2010AJ....140.1557L; @2010ApJ...712L..26L; @2010ApJ...725.1337L], which suggests that a low-metallicity cut-off is unlikely. Compiling a large sample of 46 LGRBs over $0<z<6.3$, @2009ApJ...691..182S found that the properties of their host galaxies are those expected for normal star-forming galaxies. Most recently, by analyzing a sample of 22 LGRB hosts with new radio data, @2012ApJ...755...85M have found that the properties of LGRB population are consistent with those of other star-forming galaxies at $z\lesssim1$, implying that LGRBs trace a large fraction of all star formation. Hence, owing to the limited sample size, the biases of the LGRB hosts in terms of morphology and metallicity are far from being well understood.
In this work we investigate the effect of the evolution of cosmic metallicity placed on the CSFR-LGRB rate connection using an extensive sample of LGRBs compiled by @2012ApJ...744...95R together with several CSFR models, including empirical models fitted from the observational data as well as a self-consistent model derived from the hierarchical formation scenario using a Press-Schechter-like formalism. This analysis could also be used for a better estimate of the high-redshift CSFR using the LGRB rate as the observational data. Furthermore, this work could contribute to the study of the environments of LGRB host galaxies. This paper is organized as follows. The CSFR and LGRB rate models are explained in Section 2. In Section 3, we compare the predictions of the different models with the observed cumulative redshift distribution of LGRBs. Conclusions are presented in Section 4.
The cosmological parameters used in this paper are from the WMAP-7 results: $\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}=0.266$, $\Omega_{\mathrm{\Lambda}}=0.734$, $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=0.0449$, $h=0.71$ and $\sigma_{8}=0.801$.
LGRB rate
=========
In order to successfully produce a LGRB with a collapsar, the progenitor star has to be sufficiently massive to result in the formation of a central black hole [@1999ApJ...524..262M]. Then the relationship between the intrinsic LGRB rate and the black hole formation rate can be parameterized as $$\dot{n}_{\mathrm{GRB}}(z)\propto\Psi(z)\dot{n}_{\mathrm{BH}}(z),$$ where $\dot{n}_{\mathrm{BH}}(z)$ is the black hole formation rate and $\Psi(z)$ is the redshift-dependent LGRB formation efficiency that can be used to model possible biases in the relation between $\dot{n}_{\mathrm{BH}}$ and $\dot{n}_{\mathrm{GRB}}$.
Model for $\Psi(z)$
-------------------
@2008ApJ...673L.119K and @2012ApJ...744...95R found that $\Psi\sim\mathrm{constant}$ was inconsistent with the observational data, implying that there is an enhancement in the LGRB rate by some mechanism at high redshift. As suggested by the collapsar model [@1999ApJ...524..262M], the most likely physical explanation for this enhancement is the cosmic metallicity evolution, which has been explored by many authors [@2006ApJ...638L..63L; @2007ApJ...656L..49S; @2008MNRAS.388.1487L; @2009MNRAS.400L..10W; @2010ApJ...711..495B; @2011MNRAS.417.3025V]. For instance, @2007ApJ...656L..49S explored a scenario in which LGRBs arise in metal-poor host galaxies, resulting in a metallicity cut of $Z\lesssim0.1Z_{\odot}$. Following @2006ApJ...638L..63L (LN), in the case where LGRBs preferentially occur in galaxies with low-metallicity, the LGRB formation efficiency can be described by an analytical form for the fraction of mass density belonging to metallicity below a given threshold of $Z_{\mathrm{th}}$: $$\Psi(Z_{\mathrm{th}},z)=\frac{\hat{\Gamma}[\alpha_{1}+2,(Z_{\mathrm{th}}/Z_{\odot})^{\beta}10^{0.15\beta z}]}{\Gamma(\alpha_{1}+2)},$$ where $\hat{\Gamma}$ and $\Gamma$ are the incomplete and complete gamma functions, $\alpha_{1}=-1.16$ is the slope in the Schechter distribution function of galaxy stellar masses [@2004MNRAS.355..764P] and $\beta=2$ is the power-law index of the galaxy mass-metallicity relation. It is worth stressing that this analytical form is based on a Schechter function of galaxy stellar masses from @2004MNRAS.355..764P and the linear bisector fit to the mass-metallicity relation derived by @2005ApJ...635..260S, of the form $M/M_{*}=K(Z/Z_{\odot})^{\beta}$. LN did not address the redshift evolution of the galaxy stellar mass function, and assumed that the average cosmic metallicity simply evolves with redshift according to $Z/Z_{\odot}\propto10^{-0.15z}$, which is from the metallicity measurements of emission-line galaxies by @2005ASSL..329..307K. The validity of these simplifications needs to be examined.
Following @2008MNRAS.388.1487L, we estimate the redshift evolution of the average metallicity below. Given the scaling $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})=\log(Z/Z_{\odot})+8.69$ [@2001ApJ...556L..63A], the redshift-dependent mass-metallicity relation derived by @2005ApJ...635..260S can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\log(Z/Z_{\odot}) & = & -16.2803+2.5315\log M\nonumber \\
& & -0.09649\log^{2}M\nonumber \\
& & +5.1733\log t_{\mathrm{H}}-0.3944\log^{2}t_{\mathrm{H}}\nonumber \\
& & -0.403\log t_{\mathrm{H}}\log M,\label{eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $t_{\mathrm{H}}$ is the Hubble time in units of Gyr and $M$ is the galaxy stellar mass in units of $\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$. Equation (\[eq\]) then can be used to calculate the average metallicity which is defined by averaging over the stellar mass $$\left\langle \frac{Z}{Z_{\odot}}\right\rangle \equiv\frac{\int_{0}^{\infty}Z(M,z)M\Phi(M)\,\mathrm{d}M}{Z_{\odot}\int_{0}^{\infty}M\Phi(M)\,\mathrm{d}M}.$$ By adopting a redshift evolving stellar mass function from @2008ApJ...680...41D, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(M,z)\,\mathrm{d}M & = & \Phi_{*}\left(\frac{M}{M_{*}}\right)^{\gamma}\exp\left(-\frac{M}{M_{*}}\right)\frac{\mathrm{d}M}{M_{*}},\\
\Phi_{*} & \approx & 0.003(1+z)^{-1.07}\,\mathrm{Mpc^{-3}dex^{-1}}\nonumber \\
\log M_{*}(z) & \approx & 11.35-0.22\ln(1+z)\nonumber \\
\gamma(z) & \approx & -1.3,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $\left\langle Z/Z_{\odot}\right\rangle $ is calculated and shown in Fig. \[fig1\], with comparison to the measurements from @2005ASSL..329..307K. The result of $\left\langle Z/Z_{\odot}\right\rangle $ with the non-evolving stellar mass function from @2004MNRAS.355..764P is also shown in Fig. \[fig1\]. As can be seen, the redshift evolution of the metallicity according to $Z/Z_{\odot}\propto10^{-0.15z}$ evolves more rapidly to lower metallicity with increasing redshift than that of $\left\langle Z/Z_{\odot}\right\rangle $ with both the evolving and the non-evolving stellar mass function. This is because that the contribution to $\left\langle Z/Z_{\odot}\right\rangle $ is dominated by galaxies with stellar masses around $M_{*}\sim10^{11}$ while faster evolution and lower metallicity are primarily due to galaxies with smaller stellar masses [@2005ApJ...635..260S; @2008MNRAS.388.1487L]. However, due to the limited number of LGRBs with measured redshifts and many uncertain biases, such as their selection effects, evolving luminosity function, the evolving stellar initial mass function (IMF), for our purpose, it is enough to adopt the analytical form of LN in this paper.
![Cosmic average metallicity as a function of redshift $z$. The solid line is the evolution of the metallicity according to $Z/Z_{\odot}\propto10^{-0.15z}$. The dashed line and dotted line are the average metallicities calculated by adopting the redshift-dependent mass-metallicity relation of @2005ApJ...635..260S, with the non-evolving (Model 1) and evolving (Model 2) stellar mass function, respectively.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1){width="50.00000%"}
Other than LN, @2012ApJ...744...95R extended the model of @2009ApJ...702..377K to calculate $\Psi(z)$ from the fraction of star formation occurring below some metallicity cut. They found that star formation occurring in galaxies with metallicity below the value $12+\log[\mathrm{O/H}]_{\mathrm{crit}}\approx8.7$, which corresponds to $Z\sim0.6-1.0Z_{\odot}$ depending on the adopted metallicity scale and solar abundance value [@2008AJ....135.1136M], tracks the LGRB rate with high consistency and parameterized it as: $$\Psi_{\mathrm{fit}}(z)=0.5454+(1-0.5454)\times[\mathrm{erf}(0.324675z)]^{1.45}.$$
In Fig. \[fig2\], we show a comparison of equation (2) with different values in metallicity cut ($Z_{\mathrm{th}}=0.1-0.6Z_{\odot}$) and the parameterized best-fit from @2012ApJ...744...95R. As can be seen, the best-fit of @2012ApJ...744...95R is similar to the $Z=0.6Z_{\odot}$ case of LN.
![Fraction of the density of the stellar mass in galaxies with metallicities below a certain threshold of $Z/Z_{\odot}$ as a function of redshift $z$. These results are from @2006ApJ...638L..63L(LN). The metallicity cuts are taken to be $Z_{\mathrm{th}}=0.1$ (solid line), 0.3 (dashed line), 0.6 (short-dashed line), respectively. A parameterized fit from @2012ApJ...744...95R (RE) is also shown in dotted line for comparison.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2){width="50.00000%"}
The CSFR models
---------------
The black hole formation rate $\dot{n}_{\mathrm{BH}}(z)$ is calculated by $$\dot{n}_{\mathrm{BH}}(t)=\int_{m_{\mathrm{BH}}}^{m_{\mathrm{up}}}\Phi(m)\dot{\rho}_{*}(t-\tau_{\mathrm{m}})\,\mathrm{d}m.$$ where the lower limit of the integral, $m_{\mathrm{BH}}$, corresponds to the minimum mass of a star that could collapse to a BH, which we set to be $25\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ [@2002ApJ...575..111B], $\Phi(m)$ is the stellar IMF and $\dot{\rho}_{*}(t-\tau_{\mathrm{m}})$ represents the CSFR at the retarded time $(t-\tau_{\mathrm{m}})$, where $\tau_{\mathrm{m}}$ is the lifetime of a star of mass $m$.
We consider that the IMF follows the @1955ApJ...121..161S form $\Phi(m)=Am^{-2.35}$ and this function is normalized as $\int_{m_{\mathrm{inf}}}^{m_{\mathrm{up}}}Am^{-2.35}m\,\mathrm{d}m=1$, where we take $m_{\mathrm{inf}}=0.1\,\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{up}}=140$ for lower and upper mass limits respectively.
The stellar lifetime $\tau_{\mathrm{m}}$ as a function of mass $m$ is given by the fit of @1986FCPh...11....1S and @1997ApJ...487..704C: $$\log_{10}(\tau_{\mathrm{m}})=10.0-3.6\log_{10}\left(\frac{M}{\mathrm{M_{\odot}}}\right)+\left[\log_{10}\left(\frac{M}{\mathrm{M_{\odot}}}\right)\right]^{2}.$$
For CSFR $\dot{\rho}_{*}$, there are many forms available in the literature. @2008ApJ...673L.119K [@2009ApJ...705L.104K] and @2012ApJ...744...95R adopted the piecewise-linear model of @2006ApJ...651..142H, which provides a good statistical fit to the available star formation density data. However, it should be stressed that the empirical fit will obviously vary depending on the functional form as well as the observational data used. As a comparison, we also consider the model of @2001MNRAS.326..255C, which use the parametric form: $$\dot{\rho}_{*}=\frac{(a+bz)h}{1+(z/c)^{d}},$$ where $h=0.7$, $a=0.017$, $b=0.13$, $c=3.3$ and $d=5.3$ [@2006ApJ...651..142H].
In addition, we utilize a self-consistent model of @2010MNRAS.401.1924P. In the framework of hierarchical structure formation using a Press-Schechter-like formalism, @2010MNRAS.401.1924P obtained the CSFR by means of solving the equations governing the total gas density taking into account the baryon accretion rate and the lifetime of the stars formed in the dark matter halos. We show two model predictions with different assumptions on the threshold dark matter halo mass below which galaxy formation is suppressed: $M_{\mathrm{min}}=3\times10^{8}\,\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ and $M_{\mathrm{min}}=3\times10^{9}\,\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$. The lower value assumes the star formation proceeds in dark matter halos down to the limit of HI cooling ($T_{\mathrm{vir}}\sim2\times10^{4}\,\mathrm{K}$), while the higher value corresponds to a fit to the observed high redshift CSFR, which successfully reproduces the CSFR from $z=5$ to $z=8$.
![Cosmic Star Formation Rate (CSFR) versus redshift $z$. The solid line represents the empirical fit of @2006ApJ...651..142H (HB) and the dashed line corresponds the empirical fit of @2001MNRAS.326..255C (C). The short-dashed line and dot-dashed line represent the model of @2010MNRAS.401.1924P with a threshold mass: $\log M_{\mathrm{min}}=8.5$ and $\log M_{\mathrm{min}}=9.5$, respectively. The observational data is taken from @2004ApJ...615..209H [@2007ApJ...654.1175H] and @2008MNRAS.388.1487L.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3){width="50.00000%"}
All these different CSFRs are summarized in Fig. \[fig3\], compared to data from @2004ApJ...615..209H [@2007ApJ...654.1175H] and @2008MNRAS.388.1487L. As can be seen, all of these models are similar and have good agreement with observational data at redshift $z<4$. At high redshifts, the @2010MNRAS.401.1924P CSFR remains much flatter than the two empirical fits from @2006ApJ...651..142H and @2001MNRAS.326..255C, which are already beginning to drop exponentially.
Comparison with the observational data
======================================
In order to compare with observations, we calculate the expected cumulative redshift distribution of LGRBs as $$N(<z)=A\int_{0}^{z}\Psi(z)\dot{n}_{\mathrm{BH}}(z)\frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}z}\frac{\mathrm{d}z}{1+z},$$ where $A$ is a constant that depends on the observing time, sky coverage, the survey flux limit and so on. $\mathrm{d}V/\mathrm{d}z$ is the comoving volume element per unit redshift, given by $$\frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}z}=\frac{4\pi cd_{\mathrm{L}}^{2}}{1+z}\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}z}\right|,$$ where $d_{\mathrm{L}}$ is the luminosity distance and $\mathrm{d}t/\mathrm{d}z$ is given by [@2010MNRAS.401.1924P] $$\frac{\mathrm{d}t}{\mathrm{d}z}=\frac{9.78h^{-1}\mathrm{Gyr}}{(1+z)\sqrt{\Omega_{\Lambda}+\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}(1+z)^{3}}}.$$ The constant $A$ can be removed by simply normalizing the cumulative redshift of GRBs to $N(0,z_{\mathrm{max}})$, as $$N(<z|z_{\mathrm{max}})=\frac{N(0,z)}{N(0,z_{\mathrm{max}})}.$$
Our LGRB sample is taken from @2012ApJ...744...95R, which is consist of 162 long GRBs with measured redshifts or redshift limits. @2012ApJ...744...95R chose the sample from @2007ApJ...671..656B, @2009AJ....138.1690P, @2010ApJ...711..495B, @2011ApJS..195....2S, and , including only LGRBs occurring before the end of the Second *Swift* BAT GRB Catalog. To remove the influence of the *Swift* threshold owing to which low luminosity bursts could not have been seen at higher $z$, as in @2008ApJ...673L.119K and @2012ApJ...744...95R, we use bursts only with isotropic-equivalent luminosities $L_{\mathrm{iso}}>10^{51}\mathrm{ergs\, s^{-1}}$ which is computed by $$L_{\mathrm{iso}}=\frac{E_{\mathrm{iso}}}{T_{90}/(1+z)},$$ where $E_{\mathrm{iso}}$ is the isotropic-equivalent energy and $T_{90}$ is the time interval containing 90% of the prompt emission. This culling leaves us 87 GRBs over $0<z<4$. For more details on the burst sample, see @2012ApJ...744...95R.
![Cumulative redshift distribution of LGRBs with $z<4$ and $L_{\mathrm{iso}}>10^{51}\mathrm{ergs\, s^{-1}}$. The observational sample with 87 LGRBs are from @2012ApJ...744...95R. The model distributions are calculated assuming the @2006ApJ...651..142H CSFR model, for three choices of the metallicity cuts given by Equation (2) and the parameterized best-fit from @2012ApJ...744...95R.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4){width="50.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig4\] shows the comparison between the cumulative redshift distribution of observed LGRBs and the expectations $N(<z|z_{\mathrm{max}}=4)$ with the adoption of the @2006ApJ...651..142H CSFR model, for three choices of the metallicity cut and the parameterized best-fit of @2012ApJ...744...95R. We then use the one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test to evaluate the consistency between the observed and expected LGRB redshift distributions. In agreement with previous studies [@2008ApJ...673L.119K; @2012ApJ...744...95R], the model with no metallicity cut shows little consistency with the observations, with $P\approx0.1$. However, in contrast to previous studies that suggest a metallicity cut of $Z_{\mathrm{th}}\lesssim0.3Z_{\odot}$ [@2006ApJ...637..914W; @2006ApJ...638L..63L; @2007ApJ...656L..49S; @2008MNRAS.388.1487L; @2010MNRAS.407.1972C], the model with a cut of $Z_{\mathrm{th}}=0.3Z_{\odot}$ shows little consistency with the data. Only the intermediate model adopting the value of $Z_{\mathrm{th}}=0.6Z_{\odot}$ shows high consistency with the data, similar to the model from the best-fit of @2012ApJ...744...95R. On the other hand, when assuming the @2001MNRAS.326..255C model for the star formation rate, even the model with no metallicity cut is fully consistent with the data at the probability level of 0.78 (Fig. \[fig5\]). The K-S test gives the probability 99% of a more relaxed cut of $Z_{\mathrm{th}}=0.9Z_{\odot}$. Note that this higher cut is also more consistent with recent studies of the LGRB host galaxies [@2009AIPC.1133..269G; @2010AJ....140.1557L; @2010ApJ...712L..26L; @2012ApJ...755...85M]. The test statistics and probability for the relevant models are summarized in Table \[tab:1\].
![Same as Fig. \[fig4\], but the star formation rate is based on the model of @2001MNRAS.326..255C []{data-label="fig5"}](fig5){width="50.00000%"}
------------ -------------------------- ----------------
CSFR model Metal cut K-S test
($Z/\mathrm{Z_{\odot}}$) D-stat, Prob
HB no cut 0.1289, 0.1021
HB 0.3 0.1309, 0.0930
HB 0.6 0.0465, 0.9903
HB RE fit 0.0705, 0.7652
C no cut 0.0696, 0.7793
C 0.6 0.0923, 0.4305
C 0.9 0.0537, 0.9587
C RE fit 0.0714, 0.7512
PM no cut 0.0620, 0.9663
PM 0.3 0.2218, 0.0036
PM 0.6 0.1107, 0.4120
------------ -------------------------- ----------------
: Statistical tests of the models of CSFR for a variety of metallicity cuts\[tab:1\]
\
\
\
We now consider the self-consistent CSFR model of @2010MNRAS.401.1924P. Fig. \[fig6\] shows a comparison with the cumulative redshift distribution of the 62 LGRBs with $z<5$ and $L>3\times10^{51}\,\mathrm{erg\, s^{-1}}$, normalized over the redshift range $0<z<5$. As can be seen, provided that the star formation proceeds in dark matter halos down to the limit of HI cooling ($T_{\mathrm{vir}}\sim2\times10^{4}\,\mathrm{K}$ and $M_{\mathrm{DM}}\sim3\times10^{8}\,\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$), the calculated LGRB redshift distribution $N(<z|z_{\mathrm{max}}=5)$ fits the observational data very well even without considering the extra evolution effect of metallicity ($P\approx0.96$), implying that LGRBs are occurring in any type of galaxy. This result also implies an alternative explanation for the CSFR-LGRB rate discrepancy, i.e., there is significant star formation in faint galaxies, as suggested by @2012ApJ...749L..38T. To illustrate this, we utilize this CSFR model to calculate the LGRB distributions for different threshold masses of dark matter halos. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig7\] and demonstrate that the LGRB redshift distribution is consistent with a threshold halo mass of $M_{\mathrm{min}}=3\times10^{8}\,\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ at 96% level (and $M_{\mathrm{min}}=3\times10^{9}\,\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ at 39% level). This is also in agreement with what is found by @2011ApJ...729...99M, in which the minimum mass halo capable of hosting galaxies is suggested to be around $2.5\times10^{9}\,\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$.
![Cumulative redshift distribution of LGRBs with $z<5$ and $L_{\mathrm{iso}}>3\times10^{51}\mathrm{ergs\, s^{-1}}$. The observational sample with 62 LGRBs are from @2012ApJ...744...95R, and the theoretical distributions $N(<z|z_{\mathrm{max}}=5)$ are based on the self-consistent star formation rate model of @2010MNRAS.401.1924P with different metallicity cuts. The threshold mass of dark matter halo is $\log M_{\mathrm{min}}=8.5$.[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig6){width="50.00000%"}
![Theoretical distributions of LGRBs in the CSFR model of @2010MNRAS.401.1924P with two threshold masses( $\log M_{\mathrm{min}}=8.5$ and $\log M_{\mathrm{min}}=9.5$).[]{data-label="fig7"}](fig7){width="50.00000%"}
Conclusion
==========
The association of LGRBs with the death of massive stars has presented a unique opportunity for probing the history of star formation at high redshift. In this case, the manner in which how the LGRB rate traces the CSFR should to be known. In this work, we have investigated the idea that LGRBs as biased tracers of the CSFR occur preferentially in galaxies with low-metallicity. We have tested various CSFR models together with the metallicity considerations of @2006ApJ...638L..63L using the constraints from newly discovered bursts.
Comparing with the cumulative redshift distribution of luminous ($L_{\mathrm{iso}}>10^{51}\mathrm{ergs\, s^{-1}}$) *Swift* LGRBs compiled by @2012ApJ...744...95R over $0<z<4$, we find a relatively higher metallicity cut of $Z_{\mathrm{th}}=0.6-0.9Z_{\odot}$ for both star formation rate models of @2006ApJ...651..142H and @2001MNRAS.326..255C, in contrast to previous studies which suggest a strong metallicity cut of $\sim0.1-0.3Z_{\odot}$ [@2007ApJ...656L..49S; @2010MNRAS.407.1972C; @2011MNRAS.417.3025V]. Especially when considering a self-consistent star formation model of @2010MNRAS.401.1924P that takes into account a hierarchical structure formation scenario using a Press-Schechter-like formalism, the calculated expectations show strong consistency with the observational data over $0<z<5$, requiring no metallicity cut at all. These results imply that LGRBs trace a large fraction of all star formation with no preference on the properties of their host galaxies, and are therefore less biased indicators than previously thought, which is consistent with recent studies on LGRB hosts . Therefore, we conclude that LGRBs populate all types of star-forming galaxies, with no strong metallicity preference. Using the self-consistent CSFR model, we also find that the scenario that a significant fraction of LGRBs occur in small dark matter halos down to $3\times10^{8}\,\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ can provide an alternative explanation for the discrepancy between the CSFR history and LGRB rate history. Our results also show that the inferred dependencies of LGRBs on their host galaxy properties are strongly related to the specific CSFR model one adopts, suggesting that detailed observations of individual LGRB host galaxies are essential to provide a better understanding of the metallicity cut for LGRB production. If numbers of similar observations are confirmed, it could mean that the key role that metallicity plays in the production of LGRBs, which is suggested by the traditional collapsar model, needs reconsideration in future studies or it may need alternative progenitor pathways that do not necessarily require a low-metallicity environment.
We thank the anonymous referee for her/his useful suggestions which are helpful for improving the manuscript. This work is partially supported by National Basic Research Program of China (2009CB824800, 2012CB821800), the National Natural Science Foundation (11073020, 11133005, 11233003), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (WK2030220004).
[54]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, C., [Lambert]{}, D. L., & [Asplund]{}, M. 2001, , 556, L63
, J. S., & [Haehnelt]{}, M. G. 2007, , 382, 325
, V., & [Loeb]{}, A. 2002, , 575, 111
, N. R., [Bloom]{}, J. S., & [Poznanski]{}, D. 2010, , 711, 495
, N. R., [Kocevski]{}, D., [Bloom]{}, J. S., & [Curtis]{}, J. L. 2007, , 671, 656
, M. A., [Li]{}, L.-X., & [Jakobsson]{}, P. 2010, , 407, 1972
, R. 2003, , 591, 12
, T. R., & [Ferrara]{}, A. 2006, , 371, L55
, S., [Norberg]{}, P., [Baugh]{}, C. M., [et al.]{} 2001, , 326, 255
, C. J. 1997, , 487, 704
, F., [Rossi]{}, E. M., & [Mochkovitch]{}, R. 2006, , 372, 1034
, N., & [Alvarez]{}, M. 2008, , 680, 41
, J., [Greiner]{}, J., [Khochfar]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2012, , 539, A113
, X., [Carilli]{}, C. L., & [Keating]{}, B. 2006, , 44, 415
, J. F., [Fruchter]{}, A. S., [Kewley]{}, L. J., [et al.]{} 2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1133, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, ed. C. [Meegan]{}, C. [Kouveliotou]{}, & N. [Gehrels]{}, 269–272
, J., [Kr[ü]{}hler]{}, T., [Klose]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2011, , 526, A30
, A. M. 2004, , 615, 209
—. 2007, , 654, 1175
, A. M., & [Beacom]{}, J. F. 2006, , 651, 142
, I. T., [Mellema]{}, G., [Shapiro]{}, P. R., & [Pen]{}, U.-L. 2007, , 376, 534
, L., & [Kobulnicky]{}, H. A. 2005, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 329, Starbursts: From 30 Doradus to Lyman Break Galaxies, ed. R. [de Grijs]{} & R. M. [Gonz[á]{}lez Delgado]{}, 307
, M. D., [Y[ü]{}ksel]{}, H., [Beacom]{}, J. F., [Hopkins]{}, A. M., & [Wyithe]{}, J. S. B. 2009, , 705, L104
, M. D., [Y[ü]{}ksel]{}, H., [Beacom]{}, J. F., & [Stanek]{}, K. Z. 2008, , 673, L119
, D., [West]{}, A. A., & [Modjaz]{}, M. 2009, , 702, 377
, E., [Smith]{}, K. M., [Dunkley]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2011, , 192, 18
, T., [Greiner]{}, J., [Schady]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2011, , 534, A108
, N., & [Norman]{}, C. A. 2006, , 638, L63
, E. M., [Kewley]{}, L. J., [Berger]{}, E., & [Zahid]{}, H. J. 2010, , 140, 1557
, E. M., [Kewley]{}, L. J., [Graham]{}, J. F., & [Fruchter]{}, A. S. 2010, , 712, L26
, E. M., [Soderberg]{}, A. M., [Kewley]{}, L. J., & [Berger]{}, E. 2010, , 725, 1337
, L.-X. 2008, , 388, 1487
, A. I., & [Woosley]{}, S. E. 1999, , 524, 262
, M. J., [Kamble]{}, A., [Hjorth]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2012, , 755, 85
, M., [Kewley]{}, L., [Kirshner]{}, R. P., [et al.]{} 2008, , 135, 1136
, J. A., & [Loeb]{}, A. 2011, , 729, 99
, P. A., [Bouwens]{}, R. J., [Illingworth]{}, G. D., [et al.]{} 2012, , 745, 110
, B., [Heavens]{}, A. F., & [Jimenez]{}, R. 2004, , 355, 764
Pereira, E. S., & Miranda, O. D. 2010, , 401, 1924
, D. A., [Cenko]{}, S. B., [Bloom]{}, J. S., [et al.]{} 2009, , 138, 1690
, C., & [Madau]{}, P. 2001, , 548, 522
, B. E., & [Ellis]{}, R. S. 2012, , 744, 95
, T., [Barthelmy]{}, S. D., [Baumgartner]{}, W. H., [et al.]{} 2011, , 195, 2
, E. E. 1955, , 121, 161
, R., & [Chincarini]{}, G. 2007, , 656, L49
, S., [Glazebrook]{}, K., & [Le Borgne]{}, D. 2009, , 691, 182
, S., [Glazebrook]{}, K., [Le Borgne]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2005, , 635, 260
, J. M. 1986, , 11, 1
, K. M., [Levan]{}, A. J., [Tanvir]{}, N. R., [Fruchter]{}, A. S., & [Strolger]{}, L.-G. 2010, , 405, 57
, M., [Perna]{}, R., [Levesque]{}, E. M., [Shull]{}, J. M., & [Stocke]{}, J. T. 2012, , 749, L38
, F. J., [Zhang]{}, B., [Nagamine]{}, K., & [Choi]{}, J.-H. 2011, , 417, 3025
, F. Y., & [Dai]{}, Z. G. 2009, , 400, L10
, S. E., & [Bloom]{}, J. S. 2006, , 44, 507
, S. E., & [Heger]{}, A. 2006, , 637, 914
, H., [Kistler]{}, M. D., [Beacom]{}, J. F., & [Hopkins]{}, A. M. 2008, , 683, L5
[^1]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Martin Asplund$^{1}$, Nicolas Grevesse$^{2,3}$, A. Jacques Sauval$^{4}$, Carlos Allende Prieto$^{5}$ and Dan Kiselman$^{6}$'
date: '[*Accepted for Astronomy & Astrophysics*]{}'
subtitle: 'IV. \[O[i]{}\], O[i]{} and OH lines and the photospheric O abundance'
title: Line formation in solar granulation
---
Introduction
============
Oxygen is the most abundant element in the Universe with a non-Big Bang nucleosynthesis origin. As a consequence, oxygen plays a central role in many different fields of astrophysics ranging from supernova physics and galaxy evolution to dating stars and production of the light elements through cosmic ray spallation. Yet it appears that in many crucial objects for which accurate knowledge of the oxygen abundances is necessary the oxygen content is hotly debated. Recent disputes revolve around the overabundance of oxygen in metal-poor halo stars (see Asplund & García P[é]{}rez 2001; Nissen et al. 2002 and references therein), the Galactic radial abundance gradient (Rolleston et al. 2000; Cunha & Daflon 2003), and, astonishingly, the solar oxygen abundance. Partly these disagreements stem from differences in the adopted input data (e.g. $gf$-values, effective temperatures $T_{\rm eff}$, surface gravities log$g$) but more importantly they reflect the choice of spectral lines to derive the abundances using classical 1D stellar model atmospheres. In particular in the solar case, the freedom of parameters to obtain consistency is very restricted yet the discrepancy is present in full.
Until recently the commonly adopted solar oxygen abundance was log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.93 \pm 0.04$[^1] (Anders & Grevesse 1989). This historically high abundance was suggested by analyses of the forbidden \[O[i]{}\] 630.0nm line (Lambert 1978) as well as OH vibration-rotation and pure rotation lines in the infrared (Grevesse et al. 1984; Sauval et al. 1984) using the 1D hydrostatic Holweger-Müller (1974) semi-empirical model of the solar atmosphere and LTE line formation. On the other hand, a much lower abundance is indicated by the permitted high-excitation O[i]{} lines, most noteworthy the IR triplet at 777nm, when employing the same model atmosphere with non-LTE line formation. This discrepancy of about 0.2dex between different abundance indicators have often been blamed on over-estimated departures from local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) for the O[i]{} lines (Tomkin et al. 1992; Takeda 1994). Indeed, the LTE abundance of the triplet is close to the \[O[i]{}\] and OH-based abundance with the Holweger-Müller model. Such argumentation, however, ignores the available observational evidence such as the center-to-limb variation that the triplet is definitely not formed in LTE (Altrock 1968; Sedlmayr 1974; Kiselman 1993; Kiselman & Nordlund 1995). Uncertainties surround not only the O[i]{} lines but also the other indicators. The \[O[i]{}\] line is very weak and blended with a Ni[i]{} line (Lambert 1978; Reetz 1998; Allende Prieto et al. 2001). The OH lines are, like all molecules in the relevant temperature regime of the solar atmosphere, very temperature sensitive and therefore susceptible to surface inhomogeneities like granulation (Kiselman & Nordlund 1995; Asplund & García P[é]{}rez 2001), which are ignored in classical 1D model atmospheres. Unfortunately, no guidance regarding the solar oxygen abundance is available from meteorites, contrary to the situation for most other elements (Grevesse & Sauval 1998). Like carbon and nitrogen, oxygen is a highly volatile element which has partly escaped from the most primitive meteorites, the CI-chondrites, leaving only a fraction of the original amount (10%, 3% and 54% of C, N and O, respectively).
Recently, Allende Prieto et al. (2001) suggested a significant down-ward revision of the solar oxygen abundance to log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.69 \pm 0.05$ based on a study of the \[O[i]{}\] 630.0nm line using a time-dependent 3D hydrodynamical model of the solar atmosphere (Asplund et al. 2000b). Most of the 0.24dex difference with the previous higher value is attributed to a previously ignored Ni[i]{} blend ($-0.13$dex), although the difference between 3D and 1D models compounds the effect ($-0.08$dex). In addition, a revision of the transition probability of the line causes a further 0.03dex decrease. A similar low value was obtained by Holweger (2001) driven primarily by permitted O[i]{} lines: log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.74 \pm 0.08$. This new low O abundance largely resolves another puzzling problem with the old high oxygen abundance, namely that the Sun is apparently oxygen-rich compared with the present-day local interstellar medium (e.g. Meyer et al. 1998; André et al. 2003) and nearby B stars (e.g. Cunha & Lambert 1994; Kilian et al. 1994; Sofia & Meyer 2001). Since the birth of the Sun some 4.5Gyr ago, the gas in the solar neighborhood from which these hot stars have recently formed should have been further chemically enriched by nuclear-processed ejecta from dying stars. Several explanations like migration of the solar Galactic orbit have been proposed to address this conundrum but they may all be superfluous if the new low solar oxygen abundance is confirmed.
Relying solely on a single line for an as important quantity as the solar O abundance is no doubt highly unsatisfactory, in particular given the significant Ni blend of the \[O[i]{}\] 630.0nm line. It is therefore clearly of importance to extend the work by Allende Prieto et al. (2001) to include also the O[i]{} and OH lines analysed with the same 3D hydrodynamical model atmosphere. Such a study is presented here, which firmly establishes the reality of the low solar photospheric oxygen abundance. It is noteworthy that for the first time ever the different line indicators give consistent results, which strongly supports the high degree of realism obtained with the new generation of 3D model atmospheres suggested by previous studies.
Analysis
========
Atomic and molecular data
-------------------------
[**\[O[i]{}\] lines:**]{} The $gf$-value of the \[O[i]{}\] 630.03nm line has recently been revised to log$gf = -9.717$ (Storey & Zeippen 2000), which we adopt here. This is a slight revision from the previously commonly adopted value of log$gf = -9.75$ (Lambert 1978). The 630.03nm feature has a non-negligible contribution from a Ni[i]{} line (Lambert 1968; Reetz 1998; Allende Prieto et al. 2001) which must be taken into account. Johansson et al. (2003) has very recently measured the transition probability of the Ni line and found log$gf = -2.11$. However, since only the product $\epsilon_{\rm Ni} \cdot gf$ enters the $\chi^2$-analysis of the \[O[i]{}\] 630.0nm line profile fitting as a free parameter (Allende Prieto et al. 2001), this new value will not modify the derived O abundance but only the solar Ni abundance suggested by this one line. The isotopic splitting for the Ni line also determined by Johansson et al. (2003) is taken into account for the synthesis of the 630.03nm line. The corresponding data for the weaker \[O[i]{}\] 636.37nm line is log$gf = -10.185$ (Storey & Zeippen 2000). In the analysis of this transition care must be exercised due to problematic blending of CN lines and a Ca[i]{} auto-ionization line at the wavelength of the \[O[i]{}\] 636.37nm line.
[**O[i]{} lines:**]{} As described below, we chose to retain only six permitted O[i]{} lines (615.81, 777.19, 777.41, 777.53, 844.67 and 926.6nm) for the abundance analysis to minimise the errors stemming from blends, uncertain $gf$-values, continuum placement and too weak spectral lines. The transition probabilities and lower level excitation potentials for the five lines were taken from the NIST database[^2]. The VALD database[^3] (Piskunov et al. 1995; Kupka et al. 1999) was consulted for radiative broadening and central wavelengths. Collisional broadening by H (commonly referred to as van der Waals broadening) was computed from the quantum mechanical theory of Anstee & O’Mara (1995), Barklem & O’Mara (1997) and Barklem et al. (1998). This removes the need for the conventional enhancement factors to the Unsöld (1955) classical recipe for collisional broadening. Some of the relevant line properties are listed in Table \[t:nlte\].
[**OH vibration-rotation and pure rotation lines:**]{} We selected the best 70 vibration-rotation lines of the (1,0), (2,1) and (3,2) bands as well as the best 127 pure rotation lines belonging to the 0-0, 1-1, 2-2 and 3-3 bands in the infrared solar spectrum. The dissociation energy of OH is very accurately known since quite a long time: $D_0$ (OH)=4.392 $\pm$ 0.005 eV (Carlone & Dalby 1969). The molecular partition functions and equilibrium constants have been taken from Sauval & Tatum (1984). Lower level excitation potentials were adopted from Mélen et al. (1995). The [*gf*]{}-values were calculated by E. van Dishoeck (private communication) adopting the Electric Dipole Moment Function (EDMF) of Nelson et al. (1990). We checked that this EDMF leads to more consistent results than other calculated EDMFs. We note that this EDMF has also been selected by Goldman et al. (1998) in their recent data base for the OH X $^2\Pi$ ground state. A direct comparison of the [*gf*]{}-values with those of Goldman et al. (1998) reveal essentially identical results.
Observational data
------------------
For the analysis of the forbidden \[O[i]{}\] and permitted O[i]{} lines which are all located in the optical region (600-850nm) the solar flux atlas of Kurucz et al. (1984) has been employed. This atlas has a signal-to-noise ratio in the optical of 200-3000, and a resolving power of about 500,000. Minor adjustments to the tabulated continuum level were made for the small wavelength regions directly surrounding the lines. For the 3D analysis, the oxygen abundances suggested by the individual lines were determined by profile fitting which is possible in view of the in general excellent agreement between predicted and observed line profiles in 3D (e.g. Asplund et al. 2000a,b,c). This is also the main reason why we employ flux profiles rather than the computationally less demanding disk-center intensity profiles for the oxygen lines: the agreement between predicted and observed profiles is slightly worse in intensity for the O[i]{} lines. Their very significant departures from LTE modify the intensity profiles more than the corresponding flux profiles. We emphasize, however, that very similar oxygen abundances are obtained for the O[i]{} and \[O[i]{}\] lines with flux and disk-center intensity profiles.
The OH vibration-rotation and pure rotation lines are located in the infrared. Our analysis has made use of the Spacelab-3 Atlas-3 [atmos]{}[^4] solar disk-center intensity IR observations recorded in November 1994 which are of better quality (i.e. less telluric absorption) than in the IR atlas (Farmer & Norton 1989; Farmer 1994). The relevant OH lines were identified and their equivalent widths measured (in milli-Kayser $\equiv$ milli cm$^{-1}$, subsequently converted to the corresponding values in wavelength units \[pm\]).
Solar observations of the center-to-limb variation of several spectral lines, were carried out in October 22, 1997, with the Gregory Coudé Telescope (GCT) and its Czerny-Turner echelle spectrograph (Kneer et al. 1987) at the Observatorio del Teide (Tenerife, Spain). The observations of the O[i]{} 777nm triplet have an estimated resolving power $R = 86,000$. Scattered light was estimated to amount to about $6$% and corrected by comparing the observations at the center of the disk with the Fourier Transform Spectrograph atlas by Brault & Neckel (1987). The observations were done for disk-positions $\mu = 1.00, 0.97, 0.87, 0.71, 0.50$ and $0.17$. The observed center-to-limb variations of the equivalent widths for the O[i]{} 777nm triplet are very similar to those measured by Müller et al. (1968) and Altrock (1968) except at the lowest $\mu$-point, where our data is less steep. More details of the observations and data reduction are provided in a separate paper (Allende Prieto et al., in preparation).
3D hydrodynamical solar model atmosphere
----------------------------------------
We employ the same 3D, time-dependent, hydrodynamical model of the solar atmosphere, which has previously been applied to solar spectrum line formation for the present series of articles (Asplund 2000; Asplund et al. 2000b,c; Asplund et al. 2004b,c) and elsewhere (Allende Prieto et al. 2001, 2002a, b; Asplund 2004). This new generation of model atmospheres has proven to be highly realistic, successfully reproducing a wide range of observational constraints, such as spectral line shapes, shifts and asymmetries (Paper I; Allende Prieto et al. 2002a), helioseismology (Rosenthal et al. 1999; Stein & Nordlund 2001), flux distribution and limb-darkening (Asplund et al. 1999b) and granulation properties (Stein & Nordlund 1998). It is clear that the new 3D solar model atmosphere represents a significant improvement over existing 1D hydrostatic LTE models.
----------------------- ------- ---------------------- -------------- ------------------------- --------------- --------------------------- ------------- ------------------------- ------------- ------------------------
log$\tau_{\rm 500nm}$ $T$ $\Delta T_{\rm rms}$ $\rho$ $\Delta \rho_{\rm rms}$ $P_{\rm gas}$ $\Delta P_{\rm gas, rms}$ $P_{\rm e}$ $\Delta P_{\rm e, rms}$ $v_{\rm z}$ $\Delta v_{\rm z,rms}$
\[K\] \[K\] \[kg/m$^3$\] \[kg/m$^3$\] \[Pa\] \[Pa\] \[Pa\] \[Pa\] \[km/s\] \[km/s\]
-5.00 4143 153 8.28E-13 8.39E-14 2.34E+01 3.16E+00 2.09E-03 4.56E-04 0.06 1.53
-4.80 4169 161 1.09E-12 1.16E-13 3.10E+01 4.40E+00 2.73E-03 6.39E-04 0.04 1.46
-4.60 4198 167 1.43E-12 1.55E-13 4.10E+01 5.89E+00 3.58E-03 8.65E-04 0.03 1.37
-4.40 4230 172 1.88E-12 1.99E-13 5.41E+01 7.54E+00 4.69E-03 1.14E-03 0.03 1.29
-4.20 4263 176 2.47E-12 2.44E-13 7.13E+01 9.30E+00 6.11E-03 1.47E-03 0.03 1.22
-4.00 4297 180 3.21E-12 2.90E-13 9.34E+01 1.12E+01 7.94E-03 1.88E-03 0.03 1.14
-3.80 4332 184 4.16E-12 3.40E-13 1.22E+02 1.32E+01 1.03E-02 2.39E-03 0.03 1.07
-3.60 4368 188 5.36E-12 3.99E-13 1.58E+02 1.55E+01 1.32E-02 3.03E-03 0.03 1.02
-3.40 4402 192 6.89E-12 4.69E-13 2.04E+02 1.81E+01 1.69E-02 3.84E-03 0.03 0.96
-3.20 4435 197 8.82E-12 5.56E-13 2.63E+02 2.11E+01 2.16E-02 4.88E-03 0.03 0.92
-3.00 4467 202 1.13E-11 6.75E-13 3.38E+02 2.46E+01 2.74E-02 6.22E-03 0.04 0.89
-2.80 4500 207 1.44E-11 8.38E-13 4.33E+02 2.89E+01 3.48E-02 7.93E-03 0.04 0.86
-2.60 4535 212 1.83E-11 1.06E-12 5.55E+02 3.43E+01 4.41E-02 1.01E-02 0.04 0.84
-2.40 4571 217 2.32E-11 1.35E-12 7.10E+02 4.11E+01 5.59E-02 1.30E-02 0.05 0.84
-2.20 4612 221 2.95E-11 1.72E-12 9.08E+02 4.98E+01 7.12E-02 1.67E-02 0.06 0.85
-2.00 4658 224 3.75E-11 2.16E-12 1.16E+03 6.05E+01 9.12E-02 2.14E-02 0.06 0.88
-1.80 4711 225 4.77E-11 2.68E-12 1.49E+03 7.46E+01 1.17E-01 2.75E-02 0.07 0.93
-1.60 4773 221 6.05E-11 3.27E-12 1.92E+03 9.27E+01 1.53E-01 3.50E-02 0.08 1.00
-1.40 4849 213 7.65E-11 3.94E-12 2.46E+03 1.17E+02 2.00E-01 4.41E-02 0.09 1.10
-1.20 4944 196 9.61E-11 4.83E-12 3.14E+03 1.52E+02 2.67E-01 5.44E-02 0.10 1.22
-1.00 5066 170 1.20E-10 6.20E-12 4.01E+03 2.05E+02 3.61E-01 6.57E-02 0.10 1.38
-0.80 5221 141 1.47E-10 8.30E-12 5.08E+03 2.83E+02 5.02E-01 8.04E-02 0.10 1.56
-0.60 5420 126 1.79E-10 1.12E-11 6.40E+03 3.89E+02 7.44E-01 1.24E-01 0.09 1.76
-0.40 5676 154 2.13E-10 1.57E-11 7.97E+03 5.27E+02 1.27E+00 3.48E-01 0.08 1.99
-0.20 6000 227 2.46E-10 2.40E-11 9.72E+03 7.63E+02 2.64E+00 1.20E+00 0.06 2.22
0.00 6412 332 2.70E-10 3.65E-11 1.14E+04 1.15E+03 6.71E+00 4.08E+00 -0.01 2.47
0.20 6919 481 2.82E-10 5.17E-11 1.28E+04 1.66E+03 1.98E+01 1.47E+01 -0.13 2.71
0.40 7500 645 2.85E-10 6.63E-11 1.39E+04 2.21E+03 5.69E+01 4.38E+01 -0.27 2.91
0.60 8084 759 2.83E-10 7.78E-11 1.49E+04 2.74E+03 1.33E+02 9.44E+01 -0.39 3.05
0.80 8619 813 2.81E-10 8.64E-11 1.58E+04 3.26E+03 2.52E+02 1.60E+02 -0.49 3.14
1.00 9086 817 2.79E-10 9.30E-11 1.67E+04 3.77E+03 4.08E+02 2.30E+02 -0.56 3.19
1.20 9478 782 2.79E-10 9.82E-11 1.76E+04 4.30E+03 5.90E+02 2.92E+02 -0.61 3.20
1.40 9797 719 2.82E-10 1.02E-10 1.86E+04 4.83E+03 7.82E+02 3.36E+02 -0.64 3.18
1.60 10060 644 2.87E-10 1.06E-10 1.97E+04 5.37E+03 9.84E+02 3.64E+02 -0.66 3.13
1.80 10290 573 2.96E-10 1.08E-10 2.09E+04 5.89E+03 1.21E+03 3.95E+02 -0.67 3.06
2.00 10493 509 3.09E-10 1.10E-10 2.25E+04 6.38E+03 1.46E+03 4.36E+02 -0.67 2.96
----------------------- ------- ---------------------- -------------- ------------------------- --------------- --------------------------- ------------- ------------------------- ------------- ------------------------
In short, the equations of mass, momentum and energy conservation together with the simultaneous solution of the 3D radiative transfer equation along nine inclined directions have been solved on a Eulerian mesh with 200x200x82 gridpoints: for the spectral line formation calculation this was subsequently interpolated to a 50x50x82 grid. The physical dimension (6Mm horizontally and 3.8Mm vertically with about 1Mm located above $\tau_{\rm 500} = 1$) of the numerical grid were sufficiently large to cover $\ga 10$ granules simultaneously and extends to nearly adiabatic conditions in the bottom. Periodic horizontal and open vertical boundary conditions have been employed. The simulations make use of the state-of-the-art MHD equation-of-state (Mihalas et al. 1988) and comprehensive opacities, including line opacities (Gustafsson et al. 1975 with subsequent updates; Kurucz 1993). The effects of line-blanketing is accounted for through opacity binning (Nordlund 1982) which is a form of multi-group opacities. Some relevant properties of the temporally and spatially (over surfaces of same optical depths) averaged 3D solar simulation is listed in Table \[t:model\], limited to the optical depth range relevant for spectrum formation. The mean temperature structure $<T(\tau_{500})>_\tau$ is shown in Fig. \[f:ttau\]. We emphasize, however, that the atmospheric inhomogeneities are also important for the spectrum formation, which has been fully taken into account in the 3D line formation. The reader is referred to Stein & Nordlund (1998) and Paper I for further details of the construction of the 3D solar model atmosphere.
For comparison purposes, we have also performed identical calculations employing two well-used 1D hydrostatic models of the solar atmosphere: the semi-empirical Holweger-Müller (1974) model and a theoretical, LTE, line-blanketed [marcs]{} model (Asplund et al. 1997). Their temperature structures $T(\tau_{500})$ are compared with the mean 3D stratification in Fig. \[f:ttau\].
3D LTE spectral line formation
------------------------------
Equipped with the 3D hydrodynamical solar model atmosphere, 3D spectral line formation calculations have been performed for the \[O[i]{}\], O[i]{} and OH lines. The radiative transfer equation has been solved under the assumption of LTE for the ionization and excitation with the source function being equal to the local Planck function ($S_\nu = B_\nu$). Comprehensive background continuous opacities (Gustafsson et al. 1975; Asplund et al. 1997) and an equation-of-state which accounts for excitation, ionization and molecule formation of the most important elements (Mihalas et al. 1988) have been used, with instantaneous chemical equilibrium being assumed for the molecule formation. For the \[O[i]{}\] and O[i]{} lines flux profiles have been computed from a solution of the radiative transfer equation along 17 different inclined directions ($N_\mu = N_\varphi = 4$ plus the vertical) making use of the periodic horizontal boundaries. For the OH lines disk-center intensity profiles have been obtained. The flux profiles have been disk-integrated assuming a solar rotation velocity of 1.8kms$^{-1}$. All 3D LTE spectral line formation computations have been carried out for 100 snapshots covering 50min of solar time after which temporal and spatial averaging have been performed. For each line, a local continuum flux/intensity has been computed with the same procedure as for the line profiles, enabling proper normalized profiles. Each line has been calculated with three different abundances differing by 0.2dex from which the profile with the correct equivalent width (OH lines) or line shape (\[O[i]{}\] and O[i]{} lines) has been interpolated. Extensive testing has shown that the procedure yields correct abundances to within 0.01dex. No micro- and macroturbulence enter the 3D calculations as the self-consistently computed convective velocities and temperature inhomogeneities induce Doppler shifts which give rise to excellent agreement between observed and predicted line shapes without such additional line broadening which is always needed in standard 1D analyses (Asplund et al. 2000b; Asplund 2000; Allende Prieto et al. 2002a).
The corresponding 1D calculations based on the [marcs]{} and Holweger-Müller model atmospheres have been performed using exactly the same codes and procedures as for the 3D case, with the exception that a microturbulence of $\xi_{\rm turb} = 1.0$kms$^{-1}$ has been adopted. To investigate the sensitivities of the lines to this parameter, all 1D profiles have also been computed using $\xi_{\rm turb} = 1.5$kms$^{-1}$.
3D non-LTE spectral line formation for O[i]{} \[s:nlte\]
--------------------------------------------------------
It is well-known that the high-excitation permitted O[i]{} lines suffer from significant departures from LTE (Sedlmayr 1974; Kiselman 1991; Kiselman & Nordlund 1995; Kiselman 2001). It is therefore paramount to investigate these non-LTE effects also in 3D and include non-LTE abundance corrections in the final analysis of the O[i]{} lines. The 3D non-LTE line formation calculations have been performed with [multi3d]{} (Botnen 1997; Botnen & Carlsson 1999; Asplund et al. 2003a), which iteratively solves the rate equations simultaneously with the radiative transfer equation assuming statistical equilibrium (${\rm d}N_{\rm i}(x,y,z)/{\rm d}t = 0$). Due to the very computationally demanding nature of 3D non-LTE line formation calculations, compromises must be made in terms of the number of snapshots for which the non-LTE solution is obtained. From the 50min time sequence for which the 3D LTE line formation calculations were performed, two typical snapshots were chosen which were sufficiently separated in time to be considered independent. To improve the numerical accuracy in the non-LTE case, the 50x50x82 grid used for the 3D LTE spectrum synthesis were interpolated to a finer 50x50x100 grid extending down to at least log$\tau_{500} = 2$ for all vertical columns. Test calculations were also performed on a smaller 25x25x100 grid, yielding very similar results. Tests with different vertical depth-scales yielded insignificant differences in the resulting non-LTE abundance corrections.
The radiative transfer equation was solved for 24 outgoing inclined rays using a short characteristic technique and making use of the periodic horizontal boundary conditions. The line broadening caused by Doppler shifts introduced by the convective motions in the hydrodynamical model atmospheres was taken into account. No microturbulence or macroturbulence thus enter the 3D calculations. The background continuous opacities and equation-of-state were computed with the Uppsala opacity package (Gustafsson et al. 1975 and subsequent updates). For completeness we note that this equation-of-state is not the same as used in the construction of the 3D model atmosphere but very similar in the relevant temperature regime. The effect of this difference will however be minute since both the LTE and non-LTE line profiles for the two selected snapshots used for the derivation of the non-LTE abundance corrections are both based on the same input physics in all aspects, as described in detail below. This non-LTE abundance correction is then applied to the LTE estimates based on the whole 100 snapshot long temporal sequence, which indeed have the same equation-of-state as the 3D model atmosphere. Finally, we note that all four codes employed in this study (3D hydrodynamics, 3D LTE line formation, [multi]{} for 1D non-LTE line formation and [multi3d]{} for 3D non-LTE line formation) rely on the Uppsala opacity package for continuous opacities.
Line-blanketing using data from Kurucz (1993) were taken into account for the photo-ionization rates but was found to be insignificant for the present case. The main effect of the line blanketing on the statistical equilibrium of metals that do not contribute significantly to the blanketing is generally through the reduction of the available photoionizing UV photons, but with such a large ionization energy, oxygen is insensitive to changes in the UV solar flux (see, e.g. Allende Prieto et al. 2003). Flux profiles were constructed from the angle-dependent intensity profiles. The corresponding LTE-profiles for the selected snapshots were also produced with [multi3d]{} using the same model atom but with all collisional probabilities multiplied by very large factors to ensure full thermalization of all rates. The non-LTE abundance corrections were estimated by computing both the non-LTE and LTE cases for three abundances differing by 0.2dex and interpolating the non-LTE line strengths reproducing the LTE equivalent widths from the profile fitting. Both 3D snapshots gave the same non-LTE correction to within 0.01dex. Similarly robust results were obtained in the case of Li (Asplund et al. 2003a). Hence, while the line strengths vary somewhat from snapshot to snapshot following differences in the granulation pattern, the non-LTE abundance [*corrections*]{} stay essentially the same.
The O model atom consists of 22 O[i]{} levels and the ground state of O[ii]{}. The term diagram of the adopted model atom is presented in Fig. \[f:OI\_atom\]. In total 43 bound-bound and 22 bound-free radiative transitions were included together with electron collisional excitation and ionization. Charge transfer reactions from the $^3$P ground states have been taken into account; large charge transfer cross-sections for excited states as for Li[i]{} (Barklem et al. 2003) are not expected for O. We note that removing all charge transfer reactions only implies $<0.005$dex changes to the computed non-LTE abundance corrections for the Sun, reflecting the very minor influence of all ionization rates. Inelastic collisions with H for excitation and ionization were not accounted for, as the available laboratory measurements and detailed calculations strongly suggests that the classical Drawin (1968) formula over-estimates the collisional rates by at least three orders of magnitude in the cases of Li and Na (Fleck et al. 1991; Belyaev et al. 1999; Barklem et al. 2003; see also discussion in Kiselman 2001). Unfortunately the specific case of O has not yet been investigated but there are no compelling reasons on atomic physics grounds to expect a qualitatively different behaviour for O compared with Li and Na in this respect. Furthermore, center-to-limb variation observations of the O[i]{} triplet suggests that the Drawin recipe over-estimates the collisional efficiency (Allende Prieto et al., in preparation). The adopted model atom is similar to the atom employed in the study of Kiselman (1993). We have verified that even an equivalent two-level atom yields very similar non-LTE abundance corrections as the full O atom. With the expected main non-LTE effect being photon losses in the line itself for the IR triplet our adopted atom is extensive enough to produce reliable results (Kiselman 1993). The 3D non-LTE abundance corrections for the O[i]{} lines employed in the present study are listed in Table \[t:nlte\].
Due to their high excitation potential ($\chi_{\rm exc} > 9$eV), the O[i]{} lines are formed in deep atmospheric layers with a significant temperature contrast between the warm upflowing gas (granules) and the cool downflows (intergranular lanes), as exemplified in Fig. \[f:OI\_xy\]. It is clear that the main effect of the non-LTE line formation is a general strengthening of the O[i]{} IR triplet over the whole granulation pattern. In this sense, the non-LTE line formation is largely a 1D problem: quite similar results are obtained for O[i]{} if the non-LTE calculations are restricted to 1.5D (i.e. ignoring all non-vertical radiative transfer) rather than 3D. The depression of the line source function thus operates qualitatively similarly in both up- and downflows, although the details differ somewhat. As seen in Fig. \[f:OI\_xy\], the largest 3D non-LTE effects are in fact seen in the intergranular lanes, which however, also house the smallest non-LTE effects in regions immediately adjacent to edge-brightened granules. Fig. \[f:OIvsI\] shows the line strength of the O[i]{} 777.41nm line as a function of the local continuum intensity. Again, the non-LTE and LTE behaviour are qualitatively similar for the triplet with the main difference being a shift in overall equivalent widths for the same abundance. The lack of a clear difference between the two cases in this respect is in sharp contrast to the case of Li (Kiselman 1997: Uitenbroek 1998; Asplund et al. 2003a), where the shapes of the LTE and non-LTE loci differ markedly. It will therefore be difficult to confirm the 3D non-LTE line formation modelling through observations of spatially resolved O[i]{} lines, as is possible for elements like Li and Fe (Kiselman & Asplund 2001). As expected, the \[O[i]{}\] lines are formed perfectly in LTE, as seen in Fig. \[f:OIvsI\].
---------- ------------------------- ------------------ ---------- --------- --------- -----------
line $\chi_{\rm exc}$ log$gf$
$$\[nm\] \[eV\] 3D HM [marcs]{}
:
630.03 $^3$P – $^1$D 0.00 $-9.72$ $+0.00$ $+0.00$ $+0.00$
636.67 $^3$P – $^1$D 0.02 $-10.19$ $+0.00$ $+0.00$ $+0.00$
O[i]{}:
615.81 $^5$P – $^5$D$^{\rm o}$ 10.74 $-0.30$ $-0.03$ $-0.05$ $-0.03$
777.19 $^5$S$^{\rm o}$ – $^5$P 9.15 $+0.37$ $-0.27$ $-0.29$ $-0.24$
777.41 $^5$S$^{\rm o}$ – $^5$P 9.15 $+0.22$ $-0.24$ $-0.27$ $-0.23$
777.53 $^5$S$^{\rm o}$ – $^5$P 9.15 $+0.00$ $-0.20$ $-0.24$ $-0.20$
844.67 $^3$S$^{\rm o}$ – $^3$P 9.52 $+0.01$ $-0.20$ $-0.25$ $-0.21$
926.60 $^5$P – $^5$D$^{\rm o}$ 10.74 $+0.82$ $-0.08$ $-0.11$ $-0.08$
---------- ------------------------- ------------------ ---------- --------- --------- -----------
: The computed non-LTE abundance corrections for the three different model atmospheres. The departures from LTE have been estimated using [multi3d]{} (Botnen 1997 Asplund et al. 2003a) for the 3D case and with [multi]{} (Carlsson 1986) for the 1D model atmospheres, in all cases using the same 23-level model atom. \[t:nlte\]
The 1D non-LTE line formation with the [marcs]{} and the Holweger-Müller model atmospheres has been studied with the code [multi]{} (Carlsson 1986) using the same model atom as in the 3D case. The structures of the [multi3d]{} and [multi]{} codes are very similar with the exceptions of the geometry and the use of long characteristics for the solution of the radiative transfer with [multi]{}. In particular, the subroutines for the background opacities and equation-of-state calculations are identical in the two cases. The non-LTE abundance corrections for the two 1D model atmospheres are presented in Table \[t:nlte\]. It is worth noting the similarity between the non-LTE corrections in 1D and 3D in the case of O[i]{} lines in the Sun, in particular for the theoretical [marcs]{} model. Although detailed results require 3D calculations, non-LTE computations in 1D model atmospheres are of great value to explore whether a given spectral line is prone to departures from LTE, at least at solar metallicities. At low metallicities, the temperature structure is sufficiently different between 1D and 3D model atmospheres that one can expect significantly larger non-LTE effects in 3D for many elements (Asplund et al. 1999a, 2003a).
The solar photospheric O abundance \[s:results\]
================================================
Forbidden \[O[i]{}\] lines
--------------------------
The ability of the 3D hydrodynamical solar model atmosphere to very accurately predict detailed spectral line shapes and asymmetries without invoking additional ad-hoc broadening like micro- and macroturbulence represents a major advantage in abundance analyses, as obvious from the analysis of the forbidden \[O[i]{}\] 630.0nm line. It has long been suspected that the line is indeed blended by a weak Ni[i]{} line (Lambert 1968). Due to the until recently very uncertain transition probability of the Ni line, it has been difficult to ascertain its overall contribution to the 630.0nm feature and hence the solar O abundance. Lambert (1978) estimated the Ni contribution to be 0.02pm=0.2mÅ, while the use of the theoretical $gf$-value (log$gf = -1.74$) of Kurucz (1993) for the Ni line would imply a very small left-over contribution for the \[O[i]{}\] line using the solar Ni abundance derived from other isolated lines. The 3D model atmosphere can be used to estimate the necessary Ni line contribution in order to reproduce the shape of the observed feature. Without taking into account the Ni line, the predicted \[O[i]{}\] line has completely the wrong central wavelength and a line shape different from observed (see Fig. 1 in Allende Prieto et al. 2001), a discrepancy which is far worse than seen in similar 3D calculations for any other unblended line.
From a $\chi^2$-analysis of the flux profile of the \[O[i]{}\] 630.0nm line, Allende Prieto et al. (2001) concluded that the solar O abundance is log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.69 \pm 0.05$ based on the same 3D model atmosphere as employed here. Since then, Johansson et al. (2003) have measured a new $gf$-value for the blending Ni[i]{} line and details of its isotopic splitting. Johansson et al. have modelled the shape of the Ni[i]{} line at the lab with two major components, due to the isotopes $^{60}$Ni and $^{58}$Ni, which contribute 94.3 % of the [*terrestrial*]{} abundance (Rosman & Taylor 1998). Although the exact $gf$-value is inconsequential for our purposes (only the product $\epsilon_{\rm Ni} \cdot gf$ enters the analysis[^5]), the additional line broadening from isotopic splitting changes the line profile of the Ni line somewhat and therefore also slightly the $\chi^2$-analysis. The center of gravity of the line is also mildly changed from the value used by Allende Prieto et al. (630.0339 nm; Litzén et al. 1993) to 630.0341 nm. Taking this into account, however, only results in a 0.005dex higher abundance than without the isotopic splitting. We therefore still arrive at log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.69 \pm 0.05$ (Table \[t:OI\]). The same abundance is obtained when using disk-center intensity profiles instead of flux profiles.
Adopting the theoretical line strength of only the \[O[i]{}\] 630.0nm line as judged by the 3D analysis (0.36pm=3.6mÅ for disk-center intensity and 0.43pm for flux) for the 1D calculations using the Holweger-Müller and the [marcs]{} model atmospheres, we find log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.77 \pm 0.05$ and log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.73 \pm 0.05$, respectively. It should be noted, however, that it is not possible to accurately evaluate the Ni line contribution to the feature based only on a 1D analysis (Lambert 1968; Reetz 1998) due to the absence of intrinsic line asymmetries and the poor overall agreement between predicted and observed line profiles with 1D hydrostatic models. For a long time, it was therefore simply assumed that the Ni line was unimportant, leading to a much larger derived solar O abundance (e.g. Lambert 1978; Sauval et al. 1984): log$\epsilon_{\rm O} \simeq 8.90$ for the Holweger-Müller model using the new $gf$-value of the \[O[i]{}\] 630.0nm line adopted here. This clearly illustrates the importance of having a realistic model atmosphere which adequately describes the intrinsic line shapes and asymmetries due to the convective motion and temperature inhomogeneities.
As mentioned above, the analysis of the \[O[i]{}\] 636.3nm line is hampered by blending CN lines. In addition, the line is located in the midst of a Ca[i]{} auto-ionization line. The main blending CN line is the Q$_2$ (25.5) 10-5 line with a center wavelength of 636.3776nm, which is very close to the wavelength of the \[O[i]{}\] line: 636.3792nm. In addition, the P$_1$ (53.5) 8-3 CN line at 636.3846nm is blending in the red wing. The contributions of these CN lines have been determined from spectrum synthesis using the parameters for the two bands determined from other CN lines as well as for theoretical values. Together the two CN lines are estimated to have an equivalent width of $0.050 \pm 0.005$pm (flux), where the uncertainty reflects the different possible choices of transition probabilities of the CN lines. This leaves $0.14$pm (1.4mÅ) to be attributed to the \[O[i]{}\] line. In terms of abundance this corresponds to log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.67$ when analysed with the 3D hydrodynamical solar model atmosphere (Table \[t:OI\]). For the Holweger-Müller and the [marcs]{} model atmospheres, we find log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.75$ and log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.71$, respectively.
The \[O[i]{}\] 557.73nm line is not considered here since it is badly blended by a C$_2$ doublet whose exact contribution is very difficult to ascertain (Lambert 1978).
Permitted O[i]{} lines
----------------------
Of the 20 odd observable lines attributed to O[i]{} in the wavelength range $500-1400$nm, unfortunately only a few are suitable for accurate abundance analysis besides the two forbidden lines discussed above. The O[i]{} 615.68nm line is definitely blended as are five lines at wavelengths greater than 900nm (926.27, 974.15, 1130.24, 1316.39 and 1316.49nm). The heavy blending preventing their use has been verified by detailed 3D spectrum synthesis, as the shapes of clean lines are very well predicted by the new generation of 3D hydrodynamical model atmosphere (e.g. Asplund et al. 2000b; Asplund 2000; Allende Prieto et al. 2002a). The two very faint ($W_\lambda < 0.1$pm) lines at 645.44 and 700.19nm are not considered here because of their weakness and their uncertain theoretical $gf$-values. The 844.63nm line is affected by uncertainties in the continuum placement and blending while the 976.07nm lacks appropriate atomic data. This leaves only the familiar O[i]{} IR triplet at 777nm (777.19, 777.41, 777.53nm) and the even more high-excitation 615.81nm line. In addition, we include the 844.67nm line but with half weight compared with the other lines as it is partly blended and located in a region with a less well-determined continuum. The latter line also shows similarly large non-LTE abundance corrections as the IR triplet, i.e. $\simeq -0.2$dex. Finally, we include the 926.60nm line, also with half weight as the line is blended in the red wing by a telluric H$_2$O line. As a consequence, it is not possible to use the flux atlas to derive the abundance. While the Brault & Neckel (1987) disk-center intensity solar atlas[^6] still shows a prominent telluric feature, the Liège Jungfraujoch (Delbouille et al. 1973) disk-center atlas[^7] has a diminished problem with telluric absorption in this wavelength region. For this line only we therefore fit the disk center intensity profile instead of the flux profile for this particular line. Note that the line consists in fact of three components at 926.5827, 926.5927 and 926.6007nm with log$gf = -0.72$, $+0.13$ and $+0.71$, respectively, which have been taken into account for the theoretical calculations.
The derived O[i]{}-based abundances have been obtained from the temporally and spatially averaged 3D LTE flux profiles and taking into account the departures from LTE calculated in Sect. \[s:nlte\]. We note that almost identical abundances are derived when relying on disk-center intensity profiles instead. The 3D LTE profiles have been computed for 100 snapshots corresponding to 50min solar time for in total 17 different rays. Through a comparison with the observed profiles, the individual abundances best reproducing the line shapes and strengths for the different O[i]{} lines were estimated. To these 3D LTE abundances, the 3D non-LTE abundance corrections presented in Table \[t:nlte\] are added. The final 3D non-LTE abundances are found in Table \[t:OI\]. Due to the in general poorer agreement between predicted and observed profiles with 1D model atmospheres, the same profile fitting technique is not as easily employed in the 1D cases. Instead, the theoretical equivalent widths in 3D computed with the thus obtained abundances have been used as “observed" equivalent widths to be reproduced with the two different 1D model atmospheres. This ensures that the same line strengths are obtained in both 1D and 3D and isolates the impact of the new generation of 3D solar model atmosphere compared with existing 1D models. As in 3D, the 1D non-LTE abundance corrections individually computed for the two 1D model atmospheres have been added to the results presented in Table \[t:OI\].
------------------ ------------------ ---------- -------------- --------------------- -------------- --------------------- --
line $\chi_{\rm exc}$ log$gf$ 3D$^{\rm a}$ $W_\lambda^{\rm b}$ HM$^{\rm c}$ [marcs]{}$^{\rm c}$
$$\[nm\] \[eV\] \[pm\]
:
630.03 0.00 $-9.72$ 8.69 0.43 8.77 8.73
636.37 0.02 $-10.19$ 8.67 0.14 8.75 8.71
O[i]{}:
615.81 10.74 $-0.30$ 8.62 0.41 8.77 8.77
777.19 9.15 $+0.37$ 8.64 7.12 8.60 8.71
777.41 9.15 $+0.22$ 8.65 6.18 8.60 8.71
777.53 9.15 $+0.00$ 8.66 4.88 8.62 8.71
844.67$^{\rm d}$ 9.52 $+0.01$ 8.60 3.52 8.58 8.67
926.60$^{\rm e}$ 10.74 $+0.82$ 8.65 3.62 8.68 8.69
------------------ ------------------ ---------- -------------- --------------------- -------------- --------------------- --
: The derived solar oxygen abundance as indicated by forbidden \[O[i]{}\] and permitted O[i]{} lines. The results for the O[i]{} lines include the non-LTE abundance corrections presented in Table \[t:nlte\] which have been computed specifically for the three different model atmospheres \[t:OI\]
The abundances derived using the 3D model atmosphere have been obtained from profile fitting of the observed lines.
The predicted flux equivalent widths (except for 926.60nm which is for disk center intensity) with the 3D model atmosphere using the best fit abundances shown in the fourth column.
The derived abundances with the Holweger-Müller (1974) and the [marcs]{} (Asplund et al. 1997) 1D hydrostatic model atmospheres in order to reproduce the equivalent widths presented in the fifth column. Note that for the \[O[i]{}\] 630.03nm line use of 1D models prevents accurate estimation of the significant Ni[i]{} line blending (Allende Prieto et al. 2001). Without the 3D results at hand, a significantly larger O abundance of log$\epsilon_{\rm O} \simeq 8.9$ would therefore be obtained.
Half weight compared with the other lines is assigned to the 844.67nm line due to problems with blending and continuum placement.
Half weight compared with the other lines is assigned to the 926.60nm line due to problems with blending and continuum placement. Note that the line in fact consists of three components, which has been taken into account in the spectrum synthesis. In order to minimize the effect of the telluric H$_2$O blend, the disk-center intensity profile has been fitted, and hence the tabulated equivalent width is for the intensity rather than for flux profile as for all other lines here.
It is noteworthy that the 3D non-LTE abundances in Table \[t:OI\] show very gratifying agreement in spite of the very significant differences in non-LTE abundance corrections between the different lines. In particular, the 615.81nm and 926.60nm lines show a small departure from LTE ($-0.03$dex and $-0.08$dex, respectively, in terms of abundance) while the other four O[i]{} lines have substantial non-LTE effects ($-0.20...-0.27$dex), yet the final non-LTE abundances agree to within 0.06dex. While the non-LTE effect on the 615.81nm line is small, the 3D LTE effect (3D LTE - 1D LTE) is significantly larger than for the other O[i]{} lines in view of its very high excitation potential ($\chi_{\rm exc} = 10.74$eV) and large atmospheric formation depth. In sharp contrast, with the Holweger-Müller model atmosphere the 615.81nm line implies a significantly larger abundance than the 777nm triplet by $\ga 0.15$dex. With the [marcs]{} model atmosphere the agreement is better but still significantly poorer than in 3D. It should be noted however that the here performed 1D analyses benefit greatly from the 3D analysis. The equivalent widths estimated from the 3D line profile fitting are much more accurate than those directly measured from the observed profiles using for example Gaussian or Voigt functions as commonly done due to the asymmetries of the lines and the presence of blends. We interpret the excellent agreement in 3D as yet additional evidence for a very high degree of realism in the 3D model atmosphere and 3D line formation modelling.
Not only are the derived abundances very consistent in 3D, the predicted profiles also closely resemble the observed profiles, as evident from Fig. \[f:OI\_prof\]. While the 3D LTE profiles are broader and have a too pronounced blue asymmetry compared with what the observations indicate, including the 3D non-LTE effects results in almost perfect matches with the observed profiles for the O[i]{} IR triplet. It should be noted that due to computational constraints the 3D non-LTE calculations can only be performed for a small number of snapshots, preventing proper temporally averaged 3D non-LTE profiles as can be straight-forwardly achieved in 3D LTE. Instead the effects of departures from LTE on the 3D profiles have been included by multiplying the temporally averaged 3D LTE profiles with the ratios of the 3D non-LTE and 3D LTE profiles computed with [multi3d]{} for the two selected snapshots. This procedure is justified since the differences in 3D non-LTE abundance corrections between different snapshots are expected to be small (Asplund et al. 2003a), as also confirmed by specific calculations for O. Thereby the final 3D non-LTE profiles incorporates the effects of the Doppler shifts introduced by convective motions and solar oscillations, which in 1D is assumed to be replaced with a depth-independent and isotropic micro- and macroturbulence. The agreement between predicted and observed profiles is in general significantly poorer in 1D even when including an individually optimized macroturbulence parameter. The excellent agreement between observed and predicted profiles for the 3D non-LTE calculations is a very strong support for our modelling.
Further support for the 3D model atmosphere and the 3D non-LTE line formation modelling is obtained from a comparison of the center-to-limb variation of the O[i]{} 777nm triplet. As discussed in detail in Kiselman & Nordlund (1995), the observed dependence of line strength on disk location $\mu$ is much more shallow than predicted when assuming LTE regardless of whether a 3D or 1D model atmosphere is employed. In contrast, the non-LTE case reproduces the observed behaviour very nicely, at least when not including the very large cross-sections for inelastic collisions with H implied by the classical Drawin (1968) formula (see discussion in Kiselman 2001). Not surprisingly given the similarity in the employed 3D solar model atmospheres and the robustness of the non-LTE effects as discussed in Sect. \[s:nlte\], we confirm the findings of Kiselman & Nordlund (1995). In this respect, our much more extended model atom compared with their two-level approach is of little consequence, as the dominant non-LTE effect is a depression of the line source function due to escape of 777nm line photons (Kiselman 1993). As shown in Fig. \[f:OI\_limb\], the 3D non-LTE results for the center-to-limb variations of the triplet agree very well with the observational evidence, in particular for $\mu \ge 0.5$. We note that an even more impressive agreement for $\mu < 0.5$ would have been achieved had we relied on the only, to our knowledge at least, previously published center-to-limb variation observations of the triplet by Müller et al. (1968) and Altrock (1968). Our new solar observations are in excellent accordance with those of Müller et al. (1968) and Altrock (1968), except for the data points at $\mu =0.17$, the only disk position with $\mu < 0.5$ we acquired spectra for.
OH vibration-rotation lines \[s:OHvr\]
--------------------------------------
The availability of high-resolution solar atlases in the IR with exquisite signal-to-noise ratio such as the here employed ATMOS atlas enables the use of the OH vibration-rotation around 3$\mu$m and the OH pure rotation lines beyond 9$\mu$m as oxygen abundance indicators (Grevesse et al. 1984; Sauval et al. 1984). The high-quality observed spectrum combined with the relatively small amount of problematic blending in the relevant wavelength regions ensures that highly precise equivalent widths (initially in milli-Kayser = milli-cm$^{-1}$ due to the nature of the solar atlas and subsequently converted to pm) of the OH lines can be measured. For the analysis of the OH $X^2\Pi$ vibration-rotation lines we utilise 70 lines in the $P_i$-branch of the (1,0) and (2,1) bands with $N'' < 20$; the $Q$ and $R$ lines fall in wavelength regions completely dominated by CO$_2$ and H$_2$O. The (1,0) and (2,1) lines are all weak and hence insensitive to the non-thermal broadening (convective motions in 3D and microturbulence in 1D). Due to the large number of lines, our OH-based oxygen abundances are determined using the measured equivalent widths with the assumption of LTE in the line formation. For vibration-rotation lines like these, LTE is likely an excellent approximation (Hinkle & Lambert 1975). The issue of non-equilibrium molecule formation for OH has garnered relatively little attention in the literature but the available evidence suggests that it is not a serious worry for the OH lines in the Sun at least (Sánchez Almeida et al. 2001; Asensio Ramos et al. 2003).
The resulting O abundances with the 3D model atmosphere show encouragingly small scatter and without any trends with neither wavelength, excitation potential nor line strength, as clear from Fig. \[f:OHvr\_3D\]. Considering the high degree of temperature sensitivity of OH molecule formation and the minute fraction of oxygen tied up in OH, this excellent agreement strongly suggests that the temperature structure in the 3D model atmosphere is very close to reality in the relevant atmospheric depth interval (typical mean optical depth of line formation ${\rm log} \tau_{500} \approx -1.4$ in the case of the Holweger-Müller model. The concept of typical line formation depth is of course less well-defined in the case of 3D models). Giving equal weights to all 70 lines, the average of the individual abundances yields log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.61\pm 0.03$.
A similar analysis based on the 1D Holweger-Müller model atmosphere gives a significantly larger abundance: log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.87\pm 0.03$. While the scatter is only marginally larger than in 3D, there are disturbing trends in oxygen abundances as function of wavelength and excitation potential (Fig. \[f:OHvr\_hm\]); these trends are clearly inter-related as the low excitation lines have shorter wavelengths. It should also be noted that there is a significant trend with line strengths when using equivalent widths measured in wavenumber units rather than wavelengths. The relatively strong trend with excitation potential is particularly revealing, implying that the temperature structure of the Holweger-Müller model is inappropriate. In fact, the same conclusion led Grevesse & Sauval (1998) to experiment with a modified temperature structure in order to remove the existing trends but thereby also affecting the mean OH-based oxygen abundance. In this respect, the 1D [marcs]{} model atmosphere is performing better. The resulting trends are barely significant (Fig. \[f:OHvr\_ma\]) and the scatter is very similar to the 3D case. The [marcs]{}-based abundance is log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.74\pm 0.03$.
OH pure rotation lines
----------------------
The pure rotational lines of OH $X^2\Pi$ were first identified in the solar atlas by Goldman et al. (1981, $v=0$), Blatherwick et al. (1982, $v=1$ and $v=2$) and Sauval et al. (1984, $v=3$). Goldman et al. (1983) and Sauval et al. (1984) have advocated for their use as a prime abundance indicator of the solar oxygen abundance given the large number of clean lines beyond $9 \mu$m. Our analysis utilises 127 of the weakest OH pure rotation lines belonging to the $v=0$, $v=1$, $v=2$, and $v=3$ states with $N'' = 23-43$, whose equivalent widths have been measured from the ATMOS solar IR atlas. Care has been exercised to only consider OH lines minimally affected by telluric absorption. While the equivalent widths and line depths for the pure rotation lines are in general smaller than for the vibration-rotation lines, the pure rotation lines are partly saturated since they are formed in significantly higher atmospheric layers (typical mean optical depth of line formation $-2.0\la {\rm log} \tau_{500} \la -1.6$ in the case of the Holweger-Müller model). Hence the pure rotation lines are sensitive to the convective Doppler shifts (supposedly represented by microturbulence in 1D analyses) in addition to the temperature sensitivity normal for all molecules.
The equivalent width-based O abundances derived with the 3D model atmosphere show a small scatter, in particular for the lines with $W_\lambda = 1.5-10$pm. Due to observational problems in accurately measuring the line strengths of the weakest lines, the scatter increases significantly for $W_\lambda < 1.5$pm. However, there are distinct trends with excitation potential and line strength for lines with $\chi_{\rm exc} < 2$eV and $W_\lambda > 10$pm, as seen in Fig. \[f:OHrr\_3D\]. These two trends are directly related since the lowest excitation lines are also the strongest. It is expected that the realism of the 3D model atmosphere starts to deteriorate towards higher atmospheric layers, in particular due to the employed radiative transfer treatment (total radiative heating/cooling determined by relatively few lines, lack of non-LTE effects, no consideration of Doppler shifts for the energy balance etc). These lines are also sensitive to the atmospheric velocity field. Less weight should therefore be placed on the stronger rotational lines. In the following, the analysis is restricted to the pure rotation lines with $W_\sigma = 1.5-10$pm. Giving equal weight to these 69 lines results in log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.65\pm 0.02$.
We have also performed corresponding calculations with the [marcs]{} and Holweger-Müller 1D model atmospheres (Figs. \[f:OHrr\_ma\] and \[f:OHrr\_hm\]). The 1D analysis using the [marcs]{} model atmosphere produces even more spectacular trends with excitation potential and line strengths with almost 0.2dex higher abundance for the strongest lines compared with the weakest lines (Fig. \[f:OHrr\_ma\]). Adopting instead a high microturbulence of $\xi_{\rm turb} = 1.5$kms$^{-1}$ instead of the standard $\xi_{\rm turb} = 1.0$kms$^{-1}$ only goes about half-way in resolving the problems. Since such a high microturbulence is inconsistent with similar analyses of other species, we conclude that the temperature structure in these high atmospheric layers in the [marcs]{} model is clearly inappropriate for the analysis of OH pure rotation lines. The average abundance for the same 69 lines as for the 3D analysis is log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.83\pm 0.02$. In this respect, the Holweger-Müller (1974) model is performing remarkably well with essentially no trends with the standard microturbulence of $\xi_{\rm turb} = 1.0$kms$^{-1}$ and a very small scatter (Fig. \[f:OHrr\_hm\]). This is somewhat surprising given the problems encountered for the OH vibration-rotation lines with the same model atmosphere (Sect. \[s:OHvr\]). However, the pure rotation lines are formed in higher layers than the vibration-rotation lines (typically $-2.0 \la {\rm log} \tau_{500} \la -1.6$ and log$\tau_{500} \simeq -1.4$, respectively, in the case of the Holweger-Müller model). The average abundance with the Holweger-Müller model is log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.82\pm 0.01$.
As mentioned above, it is slightly surprising that the Holweger-Müller model performs better than the 3D model for the pure rotation lines while the opposite is true for the vibration lines. The main effects must reside in the differences in temperature structure and/or velocity field (convection in 3D and microturbulence in 1D). The mean temperature stratifications differ in the relevant atmospheric layers, as illustrated in Fig. \[f:ttau\]. It should be noted that the continuum optical depth scale at 3$\mu$m (typical wavelengths for vibration lines) is very similar to that of 500nm, while the continuum optical depth unity at 10$\mu$m (typical for rotation lines) occurs at $\tau_{500} \approx -1.3$. This also causes a reversal of the granulation pattern when viewed at these long IR wavelengths: the bright (warm) material is located above the intergranular lanes and the dark (cool) material lays above the normal granules (see Fig. 1 in Kiselman & Nordlund 1995). Since the typical line formation depths differ for the two types of OH lines, it is possible to remove the abundance trends present in Fig. \[f:OHrr\_3D\] without tampering with the excellent consistency achieved in Fig. \[f:OHvr\_3D\] by slightly decreasing the temperatures outside $\tau_{500} \approx -1.6$. According to test calculations, the necessary temperature modifications are relatively small and fully within the uncertainties of the 3D temperature structure given the inherent approximations for the energy balance in these high atmospheric layers. The main problem appears to be the relative fine-tuning of the temperature alterations necessary in order not to perturb the vibration lines. It is also possible that the resolution of the discrepancies can be found in underestimated temperature inhomogeneities in the OH line forming region with the present 3D model. A detailed comparison of observed and predicted [*absolute*]{} disk-center intensities is expected to be able to shed further light on this issue. While the strongest rotation lines are sensitive to the velocity field, the required changes make this a rather implausible solution according to various test calculations.
Summary
-------
As seen above and summarised in Table \[t:abund\], the different oxygen diagnostics used for the present study yield very consistent results when analysed with the 3D hydrodynamical solar model atmosphere. Clearly the situation is much less satisfactory when relying on classical 1D model atmospheres. We see no compelling reason to prefer or exclude any of the individual abundance indicators as the results are in all cases quite convincing. The quoted errors in Table \[t:abund\] only reflect the line-to-line scatter (standard deviation rather than standard deviation of the mean as occassionally used for solar analyses) for the different types of lines. Using these standard deviations, the weighted mean becomes ${\rm log} \, \epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.66 \pm 0.02$. However, the total error budget is most certainly dominated by systematic errors rather than statistical. Possible such sources include the atmosphere model (in particular the temperature structure), the continuous opacity (due perhaps to non-LTE effects on the H$^-$ molecule) and non-LTE effects on the line and molecule formation. To evaluate systematic errors is notoriously difficult. An attempt of doing so can be achieved by a comparison of the abundances implied by the different indicators, which in the 3D case suggests that the remaining systematic errors are under reasonable control given the very different types of line formation processes involved and their widely different temperature sensitivities. A reasonable estimate would be to assign an uncertainty of $\pm 0.05$dex on the derived solar oxygen abundance. We therefore arrive at our best estimate of the solar oxygen abundance as: $${\rm log} \, \epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.66 \pm 0.05.$$
------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
lines
3D HM [marcs]{}
$8.68 \pm 0.01$ $8.76 \pm 0.02$ $8.72 \pm 0.01$
O[i]{} $8.64 \pm 0.02$ $8.64 \pm 0.08$ $8.72 \pm 0.03$
OH vib-rot $8.61 \pm 0.03$ $8.87 \pm 0.03$ $8.74 \pm 0.03$
OH rot $8.65 \pm 0.02$ $8.82 \pm 0.01$ $8.83 \pm 0.03$
------------ ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
: The derived solar oxygen abundance as indicated by forbidden \[O[i]{}\], permitted O[i]{} lines, OH vibration-rotation line and OH pure rotation lines. The results for the O[i]{} lines include the non-LTE abundance corrections presented in Table \[t:nlte\]. The quoted uncertainties only reflect the line-to-line scatter for the different types of O diagnostics while no doubt the total error is dominated by systematic errors. \[t:abund\]
The solar photospheric Ne and Ar abundances
===========================================
The solar abundances of neon and argon are also directly affected by the new solar abundance of oxygen. Since spectral lines of Ne and Ar do not show up in the solar photospheric spectrum, their solar abundances have to be deduced from coronal matter. Oxygen, neon and argon particles are present in the solar wind as well as in solar energetic particles (SEP). As they are high FIP (First Ionisation Potential) elements they are not subject to fractionation affecting the low FIP elements in coronal matter. From the observed accurate SEP ratios, Ne/O = $0.152 \pm 0.004$ and Ar/O = $(3.3 \pm 0.2) \cdot 10^{-3}$ (Reames 1999; these values agree with the somewhat less accurate solar wind data as well as with local galactic ratios derived from hot stars and nebulae) we deduce revised values of the solar abundances of Ne and Ar: log$\epsilon_{\rm Ne} = 7.84 \pm 0.06$ and log$\epsilon_{\rm Ar} = 6.18 \pm 0.08$ respectively. These values are again much smaller than the previously recommended values of 8.08 and 6.40, respectively, in Grevesse & Sauval (1998). The quoted errors account both for the measurement uncertainty in the element ratios in SEP and the estimated systematic error in the solar O abundance.
Comparison with previous studies
================================
The derived solar oxygen abundances from the different indicators presented in Sect. \[s:results\] are particularly noteworthy for two reasons: the significantly lower O abundance by as much as 0.25dex compared with previously commonly adopted values (Anders & Grevesse 1989; Grevesse & Sauval 1998), and the excellent agreement for all different features, in stark contrast to what is achieved with 1D model atmospheres. In particular the latter fact is a very strong argument in favour of the new generation of 3D hydrodynamical model atmosphere and their application to accurate abundance analyses.
In spite of their weakness, the forbidden \[O[i]{}\] 630.0 and 636.3nm lines have often been advocated to be the superior O abundance indicators, in particular the former line (Lambert 1978). As both lines originate from the ground state, their line formations are guaranteed to be exceedingly well approximated by LTE as verified by our non-LTE calculations. Until recently, it was believed that the contribution from the blending Ni[i]{} 630.0nm line was negligible, leading to an oxygen abundance of log$\epsilon_{\rm O} \simeq 8.9$ with the Holweger-Müller semi-empirical model atmosphere (Lambert 1978; Sauval et al. 1984; Holweger 2001). Strong support for this high abundance has come from analyses of the OH vibration-rotation (Grevesse et al. 1984) and pure rotation lines (Sauval et al. 1984), which show an impressively small scatter between different OH lines using the Holweger-Müller model. Together this led to the conclusion that the solar O abundance is log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.93 \pm 0.03$ (Anders & Grevesse 1989). Since then the OH-based abundance has gradually come down by 0.1dex in view of new preliminary analyses using a Holweger-Müller model atmosphere with a slightly modified temperature stratification to remove existing trends with excitation potential and line strength (Grevesse & Sauval 1998, 1999) and improved $gf$-values and measured equivalent widths. In the meantime, it has become clear that the Ni[i]{} blend for the \[O[i]{}\] 630.0nm line may not be insignificant after all. Reetz (1998) made a very comprehensive investigation using both flux and intensity solar atlases at different disk locations in an attempt to constrain the Ni contribution. While no unanimous conclusion could be reached, Reetz concluded that the Ni line could affect the results so much that the solar O abundances may be as low as log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.75$ when analysed with the Holweger-Müller model. A more precise estimate of the Ni line contribution was obtained by Allende Prieto et al. (2001) by employing the same 3D hydrodynamical solar model atmosphere as used here. In terms of abundance it was found that properly taking the Ni line into account will lower the O abundance by about 0.13dex. In comparison, the impact of moving from the classical Holweger-Müller 1D model atmosphere to a 3D model was less important in this case, 0.08dex, but the two effects compound each other by going in the same direction. Together with a new $gf$-value (same as used here), Allende Prieto et al. (2001) obtained log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.69 \pm 0.05$. The work presented here builds on the success of this study but extends it greatly by also performing similar calculations for the other O diagnostics. It is always worrisome when a result rests entirely on only one spectral line, in particular when the implication in terms of derived abundance is as profound as in this case and the line itself is significantly blended.
While both the \[O[i]{}\] and OH lines for long pointed towards a high solar O abundance, the permitted high-excitation O[i]{} lines were causing severe problems, in particular the IR triplet at 777nm. It is well-known that the triplet is susceptible to departures from LTE, which increases the line strength and thus decreases the derived abundance. The exact magnitude of this non-LTE effect depends on the recipe, if any, for excitation by inelastic collisions with H. The exact choice of model atmosphere and other details of the model atom play a smaller role in this respect. The essentials of the line formation process of the triplet lines are in fact very well described even with a two-level approach in as far as the main non-LTE effect is photon-losses in the line itself, causing the line source function to deviate from the Planck value (Kiselman 1993). A smaller contribution from a slight change in the line opacity also modulates the result however. Without accounting for H-collisions, the non-LTE abundance corrections for these lines are about $-0.2$dex for the Sun, leading to a solar O abundance of log$\epsilon_{\rm O} \simeq 8.7$ (Kiselman 1993). Due to the large discrepancy in the non-LTE case with the \[O[i]{}\] and OH results, many authors have argued that the non-LTE calculations are faulty. Indeed the LTE-abundance is close to those provided by the other diagnostics, providing in some people’s eyes a mean to [*calibrate*]{} the poorly known H-collisions (Tomkin et al. 1992; Takeda 1994). By necessity, such a procedure requires the H-collisions to be very large, often even larger than the classical Drawin (1968) recipe for such processes, thus enforcing efficient thermalization of the line and a result close to the LTE-expectation. It is important to realise, however, that the available laboratory and theoretical calculations unambigously suggest that the Drawin recipe over-estimates the H-collisions by about three orders of magnitude in the sofar only studied cases of Li and Na (Fleck et al. 1991; Belyaev et al. 1999; Barklem et al. 2003). If the same conclusions hold for O then the H-collisions are completely negligible in the solar case. Furthermore, center-to-limb variations of the predicted LTE-profiles (or those obtained from non-LTE calculations with Drawin-like H-collisions) differ markedly from the observational evidence, as seen in Fig. \[f:OI\_limb\] (see also Kiselman & Nordlund 1995).
The root of the problem with 1D analyses has therefore been the poor agreement between the O abundances estimated from the \[O[i]{}\] and OH lines on the one hand and the O[i]{} lines on the other; with the Ni-induced downward revision of the \[O[i]{}\]-based abundance this statement must be modulated however. In an important paper, Kiselman & Nordlund (1995) attempted to resolve this long-standing discrepancy through a pioneering 3D analysis of the O[i]{} triplet, the \[O[i]{}\] 630.0nm line and a few OH vibration-rotation and pure rotation lines. They used a similar but less sophisticated 3D model atmosphere compared to the one employed here and restricted the calculations to only two different snapshots. A noteworthy finding of their study was that it may be possible to reconcile the different abundance indicators in a proper 3D analysis since the \[O[i]{}\] and OH lines became stronger than in the Holweger-Müller model atmosphere while the opposite was true for the triplet as indicated by an equivalent two-level non-LTE calculation. Due to the restricted numerical resolution and temporal coverage, they were unable to perform an accurate abundance analyses for the lines, but they concluded that “[*the solar oxygen abundance could very well be less than 8.80*]{}”. Our 3D model atmosphere covering some 100 snapshots over a 50min solar-time sequence with an improved temperature structure and extension to greater heights, allows us to derive significantly more accurate abundances and finally settle the issue.
Recently, Holweger (2001) has independently re-visited the solar O abundance using the \[O[i]{}\] 630.0nm and O[i]{} lines; he did not study molecular lines. Holweger used the old $gf$-value for the forbidden line and neglected the Ni-blend and consequently found a high oxygen abundance: log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.92$ using the Holweger-Müller model. His seven permitted lines suggested a significantly lower value, which, together with non-LTE abundance corrections, yielded log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.73 \pm 0.04$. The difference relative to our value with the Holweger-Müller model atmosphere can be traced to differences in selected lines, adopted equivalent widths and much smaller non-LTE corrections (for completeness it should also be noted that Holweger uses intensity rather than flux profiles). In particular, Holweger adopts large H collision cross-sections, leading to small non-LTE abundance corrections. As described above, the evidence is stacked against such efficient H collisions. In addition, Holweger added “granulation corrections” amounting to $-0.02$dex on average to the derived abundance, finally arriving at log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.74 \pm 0.08$ when including the \[O[i]{}\] 630.0nm line. It should be noted, however, that these granulation corrections represent the difference in derived abundances between full 2D spectrum synthesis calculations and corresponding 1D computations using the 1D average of the 2D model atmosphere (Steffen & Holweger 2002). Thus, the abundance corrections are designed to only reflect the effect of temperature inhomogeneities but not the difference in mean temperature structure with for example the Holweger-Müller model atmosphere. As a consequence, these granulation corrections can differ significantly both in magnitude and sign from those estimated by our method, which also includes the effects of different mean temperature structures between the 1D and 3D models. As our 3D solar model atmosphere has successfully passed a range of observational tests (e.g. Stein & Nordlund 1998: Rosenthal et al. 1999; Asplund et al. 2000b; Asensio Ramos et al. 2003), we are confident that our approach is fully justified.
Conclusions
===========
We have presented a determination of the solar oxygen abundance from an analysis of \[O[i]{}\], O[i]{}, OH vibration-rotation and OH pure rotation lines by means of a realistic time-dependent 3D, hydrodynamical model of the solar atmosphere. All oxygen indicators yield very consistent results, in marked contrast with studies employing classical 1D model atmospheres. The here derived solar oxygen abundance of log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.66 \pm 0.05$ (Table \[t:abund\]) is significantly smaller than previously thought: the revision amounts to almost a factor of two (0.27dex) compared with the often quoted value of log$\epsilon_{\rm O} = 8.93$ from Anders & Grevesse (1989), and still much smaller than the value of 8.83 recommended more recently by Grevesse & Sauval (1998). This low abundance is strongly supported by the excellent agreement between abundance indicators of very different temperature sensitivities and line formation depths, and between the observed and predicted line shapes and center-to-limb variations. It should be noted that not the whole difference with previous results is attributed to the employment of a 3D model atmosphere over classical 1D models since the adoption of more recent $gf$-values, more realistic non-LTE procedures, better observations and a proper accounting of blends also play an important role in this respect.
The new low solar oxygen abundance derived with the new generation of 3D hydrodynamical model atmospheres (e.g. Stein & Nordlund 1998; Asplund et al. 1999, 2000b; Asplund & García P[é]{}rez 2001) resolves the problematic high metallicity of the Sun compared with the solar neighborhood suggested by previous studies. The oxygen abundance presented here (O/H$=460\pm50 \cdot 10^{-6}$) is in very good agreement with that measured in the local interstellar medium for realistic gas-to-dust ratios (Meyer et al. 1998; André et al. 2003): O/H$=410\pm60 \cdot 10^{-6}$. In addition, the solar oxygen abundance is now similar to those obtained from studies of nearby B stars (Cunha & Lambert 1994; Kilian et al. 1994). The most recent collation suggests that the mean B star value is O/H$=350\pm130 \cdot 10^{-6}$ (Sofia & Meyer 2001) but there is a significant scatter between the existing B star analyses. Given the uncertainties we do not consider the remaining differences with our new solar oxygen abundance as significant. Finally, our value is close to those of nearby young, Galactic disk F and G dwarfs: O/H$=450\pm160 \cdot 10^{-6}$ (Sofia & Meyer 2001). Interestingly, while the previous discrepancy most often has been blamed on flaws in the analyses of hot stars and nebulae, the most serious shortcoming has apparently rather been on the solar side. We believe that 3D line formation calculations of late-type stars such as those presented herein finally address this important issue, promising much more accurate abundance analyses for the future.
There is, however, at least one area where the new solar O abundance together with the corresponding downward revisions of the photospheric C, N and Ne abundances (Asplund 2003, 2004; Asplund et al. 2004b,c) does not resolve a problem but rather severely aggrevates it. The accurate measurement of the solar oscillations, helioseismology, allows a unique glimpse of the structure of the solar interior (Christensen-Dalsgaard 2002). The analysis can be posed as an inversion problem, enabling the extraction of the variation of the sound speed with depth in the Sun. The predictions from standard models of the solar structure and evolution show a remarkable agreement with the observed sound speed from helioseismology to within $\Delta c_{\rm s}/c_{\rm s} = 4 \cdot 10^{-3}$ (e.g. Christensen-Dalsgaard 2002). The existing inversions are normally based on the opacities computed with the old Anders & Grevesse (1989) solar chemical composition, or at least compositions with much larger values than our new results. With the new significant down-ward revisions of the solar C, N, O and Ne abundances, the overall solar metallicity in the photosphere decreases from $Z_{\rm old} = 0.0194$ (Anders & Grevesse 1989) to $Z_{\rm new} = 0.0126$ (mass fraction of elements heavier than He). This diminished metallicity propagates to a significant modification of the opacity because C, N, O and Ne are main contributors to the opacity in different layers below the convection zone, and the sound speed is therefore directly affected. As a result, the excellent agreement between the predicted and observed sound speed variation with depth deteriorates markedly (Pijpers 2002, private communication; see also Boothroyd & Sackmann 2003). We note that the new solar chemical composition should also affect the determination of the solar He abundance in the outer convective zone from helioseismology inversion due to modifications of the standard solar model. Likewise, the initial He abundance in the protosolar cloud will likely be slightly smaller than the value $Y=0.27$ (mass fraction of He) normally derived with existing solar evolution models based on the old metal abundances.
At this stage it is unclear whether a resolution to this problem can be found and if so where the solution may lay. In the meantime, we offer the tentative suggestion that the problem may be traced to the fact that the here obtained solar C, N and O abundances only refer to the photospheric values rather than the abundances found in the solar interior. If the diffusion of metals, as incorporated into the stellar evolution models used for the solar inversion, is more efficient than currently thought, it is conceivable that the good correspondence in terms of the sound speed variation could be recovered. The metallicity in the interior would then be significantly higher than that of the convection zone and the photosphere. The excellent concordance between all the different C, N and O diagnostics achieved with the new generation of 3D hydrodynamical solar model atmospheres in contrast with 1D analyses certainly strongly argues for that the metallicity of the solar photosphere is indeed significantly lower than previously thought.
MA has been supported by research grants from the Swedish Natural Science Foundation, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the Göran Gustafsson Foundation, and the Australian Research Council. CAP gratefully acknowledges support from NSF (AST-0086321) and NASA (ADP02-0032-0106 and LTSA02-0017-0093). NG is grateful to the Royal Observatory (Brussels) for financial support. We wish to thank Mats Carlsson, Remo Collet, Ana Elia García P[é]{}rez, David Lambert, Arlette Noels, Åke Nordlund, Frank Pijpers, Bob Stein and Regner Trampedach for many helpful discussions and fruitful collaborations. We also thank Joan Vandekerckhove for his help with the calculations at the Royal Observatory (Brussels). NSO/Kitt Peak FTS data used here were produced by NSF/NOAO. The GCT was operated by the Universitäts/Sternwarte Göttingen at the Spanish Observatorio del Teide of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias. We have made extensive use of NASA ADS Abstract Service.
Allende Prieto, C., Asplund, M., García L[ó]{}pez, R.J., & Lambert, D.L. 2002a, ApJ, 567, 544 Allende Prieto, C., Hubeny, I., & Lambert, D.L. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1192 Allende Prieto, C., Lambert, D.L., & Asplund, M. 2001, ApJ, 556, L63 Allende Prieto, C., Lambert, D.L., & Asplund, M. 2002b, ApJ, 573, L137 Altrock, R.C. 1968, Sol. Phys., 5, 260 Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 197 André, M.K., Oliveira, C.M., Howk, J.C., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1000 Anstee, S.D., & O’Mara, B.J. 1995, MNRAS, 276, 859 Asensio Ramos, A., Trujillo Bueno, J., Carlsson, M., & Cernicharo, J. 2003 ApJ, 588, L61 Asplund, M. 2000, A&A, 359, 755 (Paper III) Asplund, M. 2003, in: CNO in the Universe, Charbonnel C., Schaerer D., Meynet G. (eds.), ASP conference series 304, in press \[astro-ph/0302409\] Asplund, M. 2004, A&A, in press (Paper V) Asplund, M., & García P[é]{}rez, A.E. 2001, A&A, 372, 601 Asplund, M., Carlsson, M., & Botnen, A.V. 2003a, A&A, 399, L31 Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A.J., Allende Prieto, C., & Blomme, R. 2004b, to be submitted to A&A (Paper VI) Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A.J., Allende Prieto, C., & Blomme, R. 2004c, to be submitted to A&A (Paper VII) Asplund, M., Gustafsson, B., Kiselman, D., & Eriksson, K. 1997, A&A, 318, 521 Asplund, M., Ludwig, H.-G., Nordlund, Å., & Stein, R.F. 2000a, A&A, 359, 669 Asplund, M., Nordlund, Å., Trampedach, R., & Stein, R.F. 1999a, A&A 346, L17 Asplund, M., Nordlund, Å., Trampedach, R., Allende Prieto, C., & Stein, R.F. 2000b, A&A, 359, 729 (Paper I) Asplund, M., Nordlund, Å., Trampedach, R., & Stein R.F. 2000c, A&A, 359, 743 (Paper II) Asplund, M., Nordlund, Å., & Trampedach, R. 1999b, in: Theory and tests of convection in stellar structure, Gimenez A., Guinan E.F., Montesinos B. (eds.), ASP Conf. series 173, p. 221 Barklem, P.S., Belyaev, A., & Asplund, M. 2003, A&A, 409, L1 Barklem, P.S., & O’Mara, B.J. 1997, MNRAS, 290, 102 Barklem, P.S., O’Mara, B.J., & Ross, J.E. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 1057 Belyaev, A., Grosser, J., Hahne, J., & Menzel, T. 1999, Phys. Rev. A, 60, 2151 Blatherwick, R.D., Murcray, F.J., Murcray, F.H., Goldman, A., & Murcray, D.G. 1982, Applied Optics, 21, 2658 Boothroyd, A.I., & Sackmann, I.J. 2003, ApJ, 583, 1004 Botnen, A.V. 1997, Cand. Sci. Thesis, University of Oslo Botnen, A.V., & Carlsson, M. 1999, in Numerical astrophysics, Miyama S.M., Tomisaka K., Hanawa T. (eds.), p. 379 Brault, J., & Neckel, H. 1987, Spectral atlas of solar absolute disk-averaged and disk-center intensity from 3290 to 12510Å Carlone, C., & Dalby, F.W. 1969, Can. J. Phys., 47, 1945 Carlsson, M. 1986, Uppsala Astronomical Observatory Report No. 3 Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1073 Cunha, K., & Daflon, S. 2003, in: CNO in the Universe, Charbonnel C., Schaerer D., Meynet G. (eds.), ASP Conf. series 304, in press Cunha, K., & Lambert, D.L. 1994, ApJ, 426, 170 Delbouille, L., Neven, L., & Roland, G. 1973, Photometric atlas of the solar spectrum from $\lambda3000$ to $\lambda10000$, Institut d’Astrophysique, Université de Liège Drawin, H.W. 1968, Z. Phys., 211, 404 Farmer, C.B. 1994, “The ATMOS solar atlas", in: Infrared Solar Physics, Rabin D.M., Jefferies J.T. and Lindsey C. (eds), Kluwer, Dordrecht, p. 511 Farmer, C.B., & Norton, R.H. 1989, “A high-resolution atlas of the infrared spectrum of the Sun and the Earth atmosphere from space: Vol. I The Sun", Nasa Ref. Publ. 1224 Fleck, I., Grosser, J., Schnecke, A., Steen, W., & Voigt H. 1991, J. Phys. B, 24, 4017 Goldman, A., Murcray, F.J., Gillis, J.H., & Murcray, D.G. 1981, ApJ, 248, L133 Goldman, A., Murcray, D.G., Lambert, D.L., & Dominy, J.F. 1983, MNRAS, 203, 767 Goldman, A., Schoenfeld, W.G., Goorvitch, D., et al. 1998, JQSRT, 59, 453 Grevesse, N., Sauval, A.J., & van Dishoeck, E.F. 1984, A&A, 141, 10 Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A.J. 1998, in: Solar composition and its evolution – from core to corona, Frölich C., Huber M.C.E., Solanki S.K., von Steiger R. (eds). Kluwer, Dordrecht, p. 161 (also Space Sci. Rev. 85, 161, 1998) Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A.J. 1999, A&A, 347, 348 Gustafsson, B., Bell, R.A., Eriksson, K., & Nordlund, Å. 1975, A&A, 42, 407 Hinkle K.H., & Lambert, D.L. 1975, MNRAS, 170, 447 Holweger, H. 2001, in: Solar and galactic composition, Joint SOHO/ACE workshop, Wimmer-Schweingruber R.F (ed.). AIP conference proceedings 598, p. 23 Holweger, H., & Müller, E.A. 1974, Sol. Phys., 39, 19 Johansson, S., Litzén, U. Lundberg, H., & Zhang, Z. 2003, ApJ, 584, L107 Kilian-Montenbruck, J., Gehren, T. & Nissen, P.E. 1994, A&A, 291, 757 Kiselman, D. 1991, A&A, 245, L9 Kiselman, D. 1993, A&A, 275, 269 Kiselman, D. 1997, ApJ, 489, L107 Kiselman, D. 2001, New Astronomy Reviews, 45, 559 \[astro-ph/0010300\] Kiselman, D., & Asplund, M. 2001, in ASP Conf. Ser. 223, Cool stars, stellar systems and the Sun, García López R.J. et al. (eds.), p. 684 Kiselman, D., & Nordlund, Å. 1995, A&A, 302, 578 Kneer, F., Schmidt, W., Wiehr, E., & Wittmann, A.D. 1987, Mitteliungen der Astronomischen Gesellschaft, 68, 181 Kupka, F., Piskunov, N.E., Ryabchikova, T.A., Stempels, H.C., & Weiss, W.W. 1999, A&AS, 138, 119 Kurucz, R.L. 1993, CD-ROM, private communication Kurucz, R.L., Furenlid, I., Brault, J., & Testerman, L. 1984, Solar Flux Atlas from 296 to 1300nm, National Solar Observatory, Sunspot, New Mexico Lambert, D.L. 1968, MNRAS, 138, 143 Lambert, D.L. 1978, MNRAS, 182, 249 Litzén, U., Brault, J.W., & Thorne, A.P. 1993, Phys. Scr., 47, 628 Mélen, F., Sauval, A.J., Grevesse, N., et al. 1995, J. Molec. Spectrosc., 174, 490 Meyer, D.M., Jura, M., & Cardelli, J.A. 1998, ApJ, 493, 222 Mihalas, D., Däppen, W., & Hummer, D.G. 1988, ApJ, 331, 815 Müller, E., Baschek, B., & Holweger, H. 1968, Sol. Phys., 3, 125 Nelson D.D. Jr., Schiffman, A., & Nesbitt, D.J. 1990, J. Chem. Phys., 93, 7003 Nissen, P.E., Primas, F., Asplund, M., & Lambert, D.L. 2002, A&A, 390, 235 Nordlund, Å. 1982, A&A, 107, 1 Piskunov, N.E., Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T.A., Weiss, W.W., & Jeffery, C.S. 1995, A&AS, 112, 525 Reames, D.V. 1999, Space Sci. Rev. 90, 413 Reetz, J. 1998, PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians Univ. Rolleston, W.R.J., Smartt, S.J., Dufton, P.L., & Ryans, R.S.I. 2000, A&A, 363, 537 Rosenthal, C.S., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Nordlund, Å., Stein, R.F., & Trampedach, R. 1999, A&A, 351, 689 Rosman, K.J.R., & Taylor, P.D.P. 1998, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 27, 1275 Sánchez Almeida, J., Asensio Ramos, A., Trujillo Bueno, J., & Chernicharo, J. 2001, ApJ, 555, 978 Sauval A.J., & Tatum J.B. 1984, ApJS, 56, 193 Sauval, A.J., Grevesse, N., Brault, J.B., Stokes, G.M., & Zander, R. 1984, ApJ, 282, 330 Sedlmayr, E. 1974, A&A, 31, 23 Sofia, U.J., & Meyer, D.M. 2001, ApJ, 554, L221 Steffen, M., & Holweger, H. 2002, A&A, 387, 258 Stein, R.F., & Nordlund, Å. 1998, ApJ, 499, 914 Stein, R.F., & Nordlund, Å. 2001, ApJ, 546, 585 Storey, P.J., & Zeippen, C.J. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 813 Takeda, Y. 1994, PASJ, 46, 53 Tomkin, J., Lemke, M., Lambert, D.L., & Sneden, C. 1992, AJ, 104, 1568 Unsöld, A. 1955, Physik der Sternatmosphären, 2nd ed., Springer, Heidelberg Uitenbroek, H. 1998, ApJ, 498, 427
[^1]: On the customary abundance scale defined as $\epsilon {\rm (X)} = 10^{12} \cdot N{\rm (X)}/ N{\rm (H)}$
[^2]: http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/AtData/main\_asd
[^3]: http://www.astro.uu.se/$\sim$vald
[^4]: http://remus.jpl.nasa.gov/atmos/ftp.at3.sun.html
[^5]: In principle, one should re-determine the solar Ni abundance using other Ni lines with our new 3D model atmosphere in order to evaluate whether the new $gf$-value for the Ni[i]{} 630.0nm line is indeed consistent with the solar Ni abundance. We postpone such a study to a later time as it is not crucial for our conclusions here.
[^6]: ftp.hs.uni-hamburg.de/pub/outgoing/FTS-atlas
[^7]: http://bass2000.obspm.fr/solar\_spect.php
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The association of equal heartbeat intervals with cardiac conditions and the effect of the equality on permutation-based time irreversibility are investigated in this paper. We measure the distributions of equal heartbeat intervals under three conditions, namely congestive heart failure (CHF), healthy young and elderly, whose time irreversibility of heartbeats is detected by measuring the probabilistic difference between permutations instead of raw vectors. We demonstrate that heartbeats contain high rates of equal states, particularly the CHF with around 20% equalities, and the distributions of equal values discriminate the heartbeats at very short data length. The CHF have more equal values than the healthy young (p$<$1.47$*$$10^{-15}$) and elderly (p$<$2.48$*$$10^{-11}$), and the healthy young have less equalities than the elderly (p$<$3.16$*$$10^{-4}$). Time irreversibility considering equal values is promising to extract nonlinear behaviors of heartbeats, confirming the decreased nonlinear complexity of the diseased and aging heart rates, while that involving no equality leads to erroneous nonlinearity detection. In our contribution, we highlight the pathological or physiological information contained by the distribution of equal heartbeat intervals that might contribute to develop relevant biomarkers in the area of heart analysis, and demonstrate the effectiveness of equality-based time irreversibility in the nonlinearity detection of heartbeats.'
address:
- 'School of Telecommunications and Information Engineering, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Nanjing 210003, Jiangsu, China'
- 'School of Mines, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China'
- 'Smart Health Big Data Analysis and Location Services Engineering Lab of Jiangsu Province, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Nanjing 210023, Jiangsu, China'
author:
- Wenpo Yao
- Wenli Yao
- Jun Wang
bibliography:
- 'mybibfile.bib'
title: 'Equal heartbeat intervals and their effects on the nonlinearity of permutation-based time irreversibility in heart rate'
---
equal heartbeat interval; time irreversibility; permutation; nonlinearity
Introduction
============
Electrocardiography (ECG) is a common process of recording the cardiac electrical activities to obtain the heart structure and/or function. Derived from the ECG, different cardiac intervals, like the PR interval (from the beginning of P wave to QRS complex), QRS interval, ST interval (between the end of QRS complex and the start of T wave), etc, carry a lot of important information, among which the RR interval between successive R waves, generally used to represent heart rate, has more clinical and scientific applications and arguably manifests with nonlinear properties [@Malik1996; @Billman2011; @Kleiger2005]. As a consequence, besides the time and frequency domains techniques, nonlinear dynamics is adopted to detect subtle nonlinear changes in heart rate to provide indices of cardiac autonomic regulation, such as Poincare plot [@Khandoker2013], fractal measures [@Peng1995; @Ivanov1999], symbolic dynamics [@Kurths1995; @Daw2003; @Yao2017aip; @Yao2018phya], entropy methods [@Richman2000; @Costa2002; @Xiong2017], and so on [@Voss2009; @Shiogai2010].
Time irreversibility is one of fundamental features to characterize nonequilibrium systems, like the nonlinear dynamical heartbeats. The statistical methodology of time irreversibility (directionality) describes a process whose probabilistic properties depend on time direction. From the statistical definitions, the quantification of time irreversibility involves in measuring the difference of joint probability distributions [@Weiss1975; @Kelly1979], which is not trivial, therefore some simplified alternatives are proposed. In Costa [@Costa2005; @Costa2008] and Port [@Porta2006; @Porta2008] parameters, temporal asymmetry is measured based on the probability divergence of ups and downs for the discrete dynamical heartbeats. L. Lacasa et al. [@Lacasa2012] estimate the degree of irreversibility using the Kullback¨CLeibler divergence between the in and out degree distributions based on horizontal visibility graph. And some symbolic methods, like the ’false flipped symbols’ proposed by C. Daw [@Daw2000], a data compression method introduced by M. Kennel [@Kennel2004], the ternary coding symbolic approach provided by C. Cammarota [@Cammarota2007] and so forth [@Graff2013; @Parlitz2012], are proposed and show promising nonlinearity detection. J. Martinez et al. [@Martinez2018] detect time reversibility by measuring the Jensen-Shannon divergence of time forward as well as its time-reversed counterpart by means of permutation, and M. Zanin et al. [@Zanin2018] adopt the KL divergence to compare the probability distributions of symmetric order patterns. Considering the existence of forbidden permutation, W. Yao et al. [@Yao2018PLA] propose a subtraction-based parameter to measure the probabilistic difference between order patterns for the time irreversibility. These simplified approaches have been gaining growing popularity for the features of fast, simplicity, noise insensitivity and so on.
Regarding the discrete heartbeats, HRV (heart rate variability) is defined as the physiological phenomenon of variation in successive heartbeats. To understand the physiological basis that underlies HRV, intensive investigations have been conducted. Variability in heartbeats is subject to the sympathetic and the parasympathetic nervous system, and the reduced HRV, extensively supported by experimental and clinical reports [@Malik1996; @Billman2011; @Wolf1978; @Tsuji1994; @Huikuri2001; @Thayer2010], is a promising indication of increased risk for severe ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac mortality. The low variability between heartbeats might lead to equal RR intervals under low precision of data collection or R wave detection [@Bian2012], therefore the equal states may contain important meaningful information about cardiac autonomic modulation. However, equal states and their effects on nonlinear dynamics analysis in heartbeats are not given deserved consideration.
In the Costa [@Costa2005; @Costa2008] and Port [@Porta2006; @Porta2008] parameters, considering only two neighboring heartbeats, equalities imply reversibility which is not reasonable if we consider more than two values. Equal values in the original permutation entropy [@Bandt2002] are neglected considering the continuous distribution of time series and rare equal values, which is true in some real-world signals like the brain electrical activities [@Yao2018PLA] while is not rational in heartbeats analysis. In the implementation of permutation, equal values may also introduce a significant spurious effect in practical contexts and lead to erroneous conclusions [@Zunino2017]. C. Bian et al. [@Bian2012] report that equal states play important role in permutation entropy analysis of heartbeats and propose a modified equality-involved permutation that allows more accurate characterization of heartbeat dynamics.
In our contribution, we conduct research on the association of equal RR intervals with cardiac physiological or pathological conditions, and analyze the effects of equality on the heartbeats’ time irreversibility quantified by the probabilistic differences between permutations. Three groups of heart rates, of congestive heart failure (CHF), healthy young and elderly subjects, from the public PhysioNet [@Goldberger2000] are collected for our research.
Methods
=======
Time irreversibility
--------------------
Time reversibility, or the term of temporal asymmetry, is a property being defined that time series is invariant with respect to time reversal [@Weiss1975; @Kelly1979], and reversibility is a property that is not affected by arbitrary static transformation [@Ramsey1995]. Statistically speaking, if a process $X(t)$ is time reversible, vector $\{X(t_{1}),X(t_{2}),\cdots,X(t_{m})\}$ and $\{X(-t_{1}),X(-t_{2}),\cdots,X(-t_{m})\}$ in reverse series and its symmetric form $\{X(t_{m}),\cdots,X(t_{2}),X(t_{1})\}$ for every $t$ and $m$ have the same joint probability distributions. It is equivalent to measure the temporal asymmetry based on the probabilistic differences between symmetric joint distributions and quantify the time irreversibility based on the probabilistic difference between forward and backward time series, demonstrated visually in Fig. \[fig1\].
![Exemplary vectors in forward and backward time series and the symmetric vector. For the vector of $(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4})$ in a), its symmetric one $(x_{4},x_{3},x_{2},x_{1})$ in b) and the corresponding form $(x_{-1},x_{-2},x_{-3},x_{-4})$ in c) in reverse series are same.[]{data-label="fig1"}](1.eps){width="8.3cm" height="4.5cm"}
It is difficult to calculate the joint probability distributions of time series, and to simplify the quantification of time irreversibility, several approaches have been proposed [@Costa2005; @Costa2008; @Porta2006; @Lacasa2012; @Daw2000]. Among these simplified alternatives, methods based on order patterns have gained growing popularity for its simplicity and close connection with time irreversibility [@Martinez2018; @Zanin2018; @Yao2018PLA].
Time irreversibility based on permutation
-----------------------------------------
The permutation method, coming naturally from time series without further model assumptions, is originally introduced by C. Bandt and B. Pompe in the permutation entropy [@Bandt2002], a complexity parameter based on comparison of neighboring values. Since then, the permutation entropy and the order pattern scheme have attracted much attention with a huge number of applications [@Bandt2016], and some modifications or improvements are proposed, such as non-uniform embedding [@Tao2018], equality-involved and weighted permutation entropy [@Bian2012; @Fadlallah2013], etc.
Let us recall the basic permutation method. Given time series $X(t)=\{x_{1},x_{2},\cdots,x_{t}\}$, we construct embedding space $X_{m}^{\tau}(i)=\{x(i),x(i+\tau),\ldots,x(i+(m-1)\tau)\}$ for dimension $m$ and delay $\tau$. And then, we reorder the elements in each space vector according to their relative values, for example in ascending order, $x(j_{1}) \leq x(j_{2}) \leq \cdots \leq x(j_{i})$, and map the vector onto order pattern $\pi_{j}=(j_{1},j_{2}, \cdots, j_{i})$. Fig. \[fig2\] displays order patterns of $m$=2 and 3 whose upper bound are 2=2! and 6=3!.
![Order patterns without equal values when $m$=2 and 3.[]{data-label="fig2"}](2.eps){width="8.3cm" height="3.7cm"}
To simplify the quantification of time irreversibility, symmetric vectors $X_{j}=\{x_{1},x_{2},\cdots,x_{m}\}$ and $X_{s}=\{x_{m},\cdots,x_{2},x_{1}\}$ could be replaced by their order patterns $\pi_{j}$ and $\pi_{s}$ whose probability distributions are $p(\pi_{j})$ and $p(\pi_{s})$. Concerning the existence of forbidden permutations that some order patterns may not have counterparts, the present authors [@Yao2018PLA] proposed a subtraction-based parameter $Y_{s}$, in Eq. \[eq1\], to measure the probabilistic divergence between $p(\pi_{j})$ and $p(\pi_{s})$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1}
Y_{s} = \sum p(\pi_{j})\frac{p(\pi_{j})-p(\pi_{s})}{p(\pi_{j})+p(\pi_{s})}\end{aligned}$$
In the original permutation [@Bandt2002], equal states are neglected under a weak stationarity assumption that time series have continuous distributions and equal states are very rare. The rare equalities are broken by adding random perturbations or treated as ups or downs according to their orders of occurrence in several areas [@Martinez2018; @Zanin2018; @Yao2018PLA; @Bandt2016; @Yao2014]. The neglect of equal values is reasonable in some applications, such as the brain electrical activities with rare equalities, however, in other situations, where equalities are not rare or the equal values contain important underlying information about systems [@Bian2012; @Zunino2017], it is not rational. For example, equal heartbeat intervals are highly relevant to physiological or pathological conditions and have effects on heart nonlinear dynamics analysis [@Bian2012].
Equality-involved permutation
-----------------------------
Taking the equal values into consideration, C. Bian and Q. Ma [@Bian2012] proposed a modified permutation method by replacing the successive indexes of equal values to the smallest ones to improve the permutation entropy in heartbeat analysis.
In the original permutation, equal values, for example $x(j_{i})=x(j_{i+1})$ and $x(j_{l})=x(j_{l+1})=x(j_{l+2})$, are in adjacent continuous orders if we organize them according to their orders of occurrence, and the indexes of the equal states in permutation are successive $(j_{i},j_{i+1})$ and $(j_{l},j_{l+1},j_{l+2})$. The modified method is to revise the values in each set of successive indexes to be identical to the smallest one in their related index sets, then $(j_{i},j_{i+1})$ and $(j_{l},j_{l+1},j_{l+2})$ will be rewritten to $(j_{i},j_{i})$ and $(j_{l},j_{l},j_{l})$. Taking vector $\{2,2,1,3,1,2\}$ as an example, its ascending reorganization is $\{1,1,2,2,2,3\}$, and the order pattern in the original permutation method is (351264) while in the equality-involved approach the order pattern should be modified to (331114).
![Modified permutations and original order patterns (in parentheses) of $m$=3 when there are two equal values (in gray).[]{data-label="fig3"}](3.eps){width="6.3cm" height="3.9cm"}
In the modified permutation, to determine the upper bounds is more complicate than the original $m$!. When $m$ is 2, there are three order patterns, up, down and equality, and when $m$ is 3, besides the 6 permutations in Fig. \[fig2\], there are 6 more order patterns considering two equal values, illustrated in Fig. \[fig3\], and a triple-equal order type of ’111’. C. Bian and Q. Ma provided a recursive method in their contribution together with the upper bounds (13, 73, 501, 4051 and 37633) of $m$ from 3 to 7.
Equal values in heart rates
===========================
Heart rates from the public PhysioNet
-------------------------------------
Three groups of heart data from PhysioNet [@Goldberger2000] are collected in our study. Two groups of healthy subjects, 20 young (mean age 25.8$\pm $4.3 years, range 21 to 34 years) and 20 elderly (mean age 74.5$\pm $4.4 years, range 68 to 85 years) volunteers, of the Fantasia database [@Iyengar1996] contribute 120 minutes of continuous ECG collection. The CHF data sets [@Baim1986] include long-term ECG recordings from 44 patients (mean age 55.5$ \pm $11.4 years, range 22 to 79 years), of which 15 subjects (11 men, aged 22 to 71, and 4 women, aged 54 to 63) are from the ‘chfdb’ database and 29 subjects (aged 34 to 79) are from the ‘chf2db’ database. Sampling frequency of the ECG in the ‘fantasia’ and ‘chfdb’ databases is 250 Hz and those in the ‘chf2db’ is 128 Hz, and the ADC (analog to digital converters) resolution is 16 bit (the f1\* records in ‘fantasia’ database) or 12 bit (the records in ‘chfdb’ and f2\* records in ‘fantasia’ database). Each set of heartbeat derived from ECG is manually reviewed and corrected by data providers or the present authors. Exemplary heart rates and the distributions of equality-involved permutations of $m$=3 are illustrated in in Fig. \[fig4\].
![Heartbeats and the equality-involved permutations. Of the subplot b), 0 to 5 in x-label denote permutation without equal values, 6 to 11 refer double-equal order patterns and 12 represents the triple-equal ’111’.[]{data-label="fig4"}](4a.eps "fig:"){width="6.3cm" height="3.9cm"} ![Heartbeats and the equality-involved permutations. Of the subplot b), 0 to 5 in x-label denote permutation without equal values, 6 to 11 refer double-equal order patterns and 12 represents the triple-equal ’111’.[]{data-label="fig4"}](4b.eps "fig:"){width="6.3cm" height="3.9cm"}
In Fig. \[fig4\]a, CHF heart rates have low variability and low amplitude resolutions while the healthy young has high variability. In Fig. \[fig4\]b, the equality-involved permutations of the CHF heartbeats have comparative distribution probabilities to those without equal values, all around 6% to 8%, and the probability of triple equality ’111’ represented by ’12’ is about 5%. Permutations involving equal values in the two groups of healthy heartbeats, especially the healthy young, are much less than those without equalities.
Equal values exist in heartbeats and their distribution probabilities are different under different cardiac conditions, suggesting the equal heartbeat intervals might have connections with cardiac physiological and pathological conditions.
The distribution of equal states in heart rates
-----------------------------------------------
Given neighboring equal state, $x_{i}=x_{i+\tau}$, $\tau \neq 0$, we define the rate of equal values of time series as Eq. \[eq2\], where $N(x_{i}=x_{i+\tau})$ is the amount of equal values and $N(x_{i})$ is the total number of heart beats. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2}
eR = \frac{N(x_{i}=x_{i+\tau})}{N(x_{i})-1}\end{aligned}$$
Let us look at the distributions of equal states in the CHF, healthy elderly and young heart rates, shown in Fig. \[fig5\].
![Rates of neighboring equal values (mean$\pm$std) in CHF, healthy elderly and young heartbeats.[]{data-label="fig5"}](5.eps){width="7.2cm" height="4.5cm"}
From Fig. \[fig5\], equalities in the CHF heartbeats are much more than those of the two healthy groups, and $eR$ of the healthy young are the least. In the CHF heart beats, the mean rates of neighboring equalities are close to 20%. The distribution of equal values of the healthy young is the lowest 2.6%, and equal values in the healthy elderly account about 6.5%, in-between the CHF and the healthy young. And we find the highest equality rate of 46.11% is from the set of heartbeats identified as ’chf226’ in the ’chf2db’ when $\tau$=2. Statistical tests (p value of independent sample t test) for $eR$ of the three groups of heart rates are listed in Table \[tab1\].
$\tau$ C-E C-Y E-Y
-------- ------------------ ------------------ -----------------
1 2.48\*$10^{-11}$ 1.10\*$10^{-19}$ 3.16\*$10^{-4}$
2 7.78\*$10^{-12}$ 4.75\*$10^{-16}$ 9.90\*$10^{-5}$
3 1.61\*$10^{-11}$ 3.26\*$10^{-16}$ 2.29\*$10^{-4}$
4 8.76\*$10^{-13}$ 8.76\*$10^{-16}$ 5.10\*$10^{-5}$
5 1.47\*$10^{-12}$ 1.47\*$10^{-15}$ 6.80\*$10^{-5}$
6 2.81\*$10^{-12}$ 2.81\*$10^{-16}$ 1.87\*$10^{-4}$
: Independent sample t test of the heartbeats’ rates of equal values. ’C’, ’E’ and ’Y’ represent the CHF, healthy elderly and young heartbeats.[]{data-label="tab1"}
The rates of neighboring equal values in heart rates significantly discriminate the CHF, healthy young and elderly subjects, and the differences between each two groups¡¯ distribution of double-equal values are not affected by time delay. When $\tau$=4, the CHF-elderly (p=8.76\*$10^{-13}$) and elderly-young (p=5.10\*$10^{-5}$) heartbeats have best discrimination and the best difference of the CHF-young (p=1.10\*$10^{-19}$) group comes when $\tau$=1. CHF-elderly p values are generally smaller than 3.0\*$10^{-11}$, and the CHF-young p values are not bigger than 4.0\*$10^{-15}$, the difference of between the two groups healthy subjects (p$<$0.0004) although not that satisfied still significant and statistically acceptable, suggesting the rates of equal values could represent a promising parameter for differentiating heart conditions.
Moreover, the rates of equal RR intervals differentiate the three groups of heart rates at very short data length, illustrated in Fig. \[fig5+\].
![Rates of equal RR intervals (mean$\pm$std) in CHF, healthy heartbeats with changing data length. a) $\tau$=1. b) $\tau$=2.[]{data-label="fig5+"}](5a.eps "fig:"){width="5.9cm" height="4.5cm"} ![Rates of equal RR intervals (mean$\pm$std) in CHF, healthy heartbeats with changing data length. a) $\tau$=1. b) $\tau$=2.[]{data-label="fig5+"}](5b.eps "fig:"){width="5.9cm" height="4.5cm"}
When data length is bigger than 80, $eR$ of the three groups of heartbeats become convergent and the statistical discriminations are all acceptable (p$<$0.0001). And we find that the starting points have no significant influence to the results, suggesting the distribution of equal values in heartbeats could reliably characterize the three cardiac conditions.
The connection between slower heart rates and acute myocardial infarction is first demonstrated by Wolf et al. [@Wolf1978], which has been subsequently confirmed by numerous representative clinical reports and following investigators [@Malik1996; @Billman2011; @Tsuji1994; @Thayer2010]. Specifically, patients recovering from myocardial infarctions have reduced variability in heart rates, further, those with greater low HRV also have greater risk for sudden death. Investigators have demonstrated that patients with myocardial infarctions have the greatest risk of sudden death if they have smallest HRV. Reduced HRV now has been serve as a strong independent predictor of mortality following infraction due to structural heart changes, although the exact biological mechanism accounting for the association of reduced HRV with mortality is unknown. Reduced variability in heartbeats leads to increased possibility of equal R-R intervals, and therefore the increased rate of equal heartbeats interval contains valuable information about cardiac regulation.
As the reduced HRV is a clinical indicator to sudden death, the increased distribution of equal values in heart rates, quantifying the degree of reduction of variability in heart rates, might serve as an independent indicator for some cardiac physiological or pathological conditions clinically.
Time irreversibility of the heart rates
=======================================
The discrete dynamical heartbeats manifest the property of time irreversibility [@Costa2005; @Costa2008; @Porta2006; @Porta2008]. In this section, we employ $Y_{s}$ to measure the probabilistic difference of permutations instead of raw vectors for time irreversibility, and analyze the effects of equal states on the nonlinearity detection of heart rates.
We generate 100 surrogate data sets for each set of heartbeat to testify the nonlinearity by determining whether time irreversibility of the original data is significantly different from the surrogate [@Theiler1992], say, smaller than the 2.5th percentile or bigger than 97.5th percentile of the surrogate data set. The improved amplitude adjusted Fourier transform (iAAFT) [@Schreiber1996] that consists of iterative random shuffle and Fourier transform of time series is adopted in this paper. The iAAFT generates surrogate data with same autocorrelations, probability distribution and power spectrum to the original data and keeps the linear correlations and destroy all the nonlinear ones.
$Y_{s}$ of $m$=2 and Costa parameter
------------------------------------
Let us first use the Costa parameter to detect the nonlinearity of temporal asymmetry. Defining the difference between neighboring heartbeats as $\Delta x=x(i+\tau)-x(i)$, $\tau \neq 0$, of which $\Delta x^{+}$ denotes up and $\Delta x^{-}$ represents down, Costa [@Costa2005] proposed $\widehat{A}=\frac{\sum Prln(-\Delta x^{-})-\sum Prln(\Delta x^{+})}{\sum Prln(\Delta x)}$ for temporal asymmetry of heartbeats, and then simplified the parameter to $A=\frac{\sum H(-\Delta x^{-})-\sum H(\Delta x^{+})}{N(\Delta x )-1}$ [@Costa2008] that yields comparable results and is easier to implement.
Costa indexes of the CHF, healthy elderly and young heartbeats as well as their surrogate data are listed in Table \[tab2\]. For statistical convenience, we provide Costa parameter (mean$\pm$std) of all the surrogate data for each groups of heartbeats in Table \[tab2\]. We should note that Costa index of each set of heartbeat is larger than 97.5th percentile of its surrogate data sets, validating the nonlinearity of heartbeats, which is also true in the following sections.
CHF Elderly Young
--------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
Costa 0.0227$\pm$0.0217 0.0341$\pm$0.0274 0.0416$\pm$0.0294
Costa-S 0.0013$\pm$0.0010 0.0053$\pm$0.0040 0.0058$\pm$0.0044
: Costa parameter (mean$\pm$std) of the three groups of heartbeats and the surrogate. Costa-S denotes the Costa index of the surrogate data.[]{data-label="tab2"}
The healthy young have the highest time irreversibility while the CHF have the lowest, being consistent with the complexity losing theory [@Ivanov1999; @Yao2017aip; @Costa2002; @Costa2005; @Goldberger2002; @Glass2001] of diseased and aging heartbeats. The theory of complexity loss in aging and disease lies in the reduced cardiac adaptive capabilities of individuals that CHF patients have damaged cardiac regulation, and the aging subjects have abnormalities in cardiac functionalities, while the healthy physiological systems reveal complex variability long-range correlations and distinct nonlinear interactions. Independent sample t tests for the heartbeats¡¯ time irreversibility suggest that Costa has acceptable discriminations between the CHF-young (p=0.011) group while does not discriminate the CHF-elderly (p=0.073) and elderly-young (p=0.499) groups statistically.
$Y_{s}$ of probabilistic difference of symmetric permutation with and without equal values when $m$=2 are shown in Fig. \[fig6\]. In Fig. \[fig6\]a, time irreversibility based on original permutation of the three groups of heartbeats are completely contradictory to the complexity losing theory about the diseased and aging heart rates. $Y_{s}$ of the CHF heartbeats are the biggest while the healthy young have the lowest time irreversibility. In Fig. \[fig6\]b, considering equal states and applying the modified permutation, time irreversibility of the three kinds of heart data are rational, the healthy young $>$ the healthy elderly $>$ the CHF, in line with complexity losing theory.
![Time irreversibility (mean$\pm$std) of heartbeats and surrogate when $m$=2. a) $Y_{s}$ of original permutations. b) $Y_{s}$ of equality-based permutations. ’CHF-S’, ’Eld-S’ and ’Yng-S’ represent the surrogate data of the CHF, healthy elderly and young heartbeats.[]{data-label="fig6"}](6a.eps "fig:"){width="5.9cm" height="4.5cm"} ![Time irreversibility (mean$\pm$std) of heartbeats and surrogate when $m$=2. a) $Y_{s}$ of original permutations. b) $Y_{s}$ of equality-based permutations. ’CHF-S’, ’Eld-S’ and ’Yng-S’ represent the surrogate data of the CHF, healthy elderly and young heartbeats.[]{data-label="fig6"}](6b.eps "fig:"){width="5.9cm" height="4.5cm"}
When $m$=2 and $\tau$=1, if equal values are very rare, $Y_{s}$ of permutation is equivalent to the Costa parameter [@Yao2018PLA], and if equalities can not be neglected, order pattern of equal states is the self-symmetric ’11’, then $Y_{s}$ of modified permutation, measuring the difference between ups and downs, is in line with the Costa index. $Y_{s}$ of modified permutation confirms the complexity losing theory in heartbeats while the discrimination between each two groups are not statistically acceptable (p$>$0.05), indicated by Table \[tab3\].
$\tau$ 1 2 3 4 5 6
-------- --------- ---------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------
C-E 0.70640 0.040802 0.00165 0.00458 0.11587 0.11587
E-Y 0.42238 0.017727 0.00054 0.69059 0.92693 0.64279
C-Y 0.33137 6.39E-09 3.06E-07 0.00021 0.03152 0.01403
: Independent sample t test of the heartbeats¡¯ time irreversibility of $Y_{s}$ when $m$=2.[]{data-label="tab3"}
When time delay increases to 2 or 3, $Y_{s}$ of the different heartbeats show satisfied statistical discriminations. The best discrimination between nonlinearity of the CHF and young heart rates lie in $\tau$=3, and those for the healthy elderly and other two groups is $\tau$=2. As $\tau$ increases to 4 or bigger, the heartbeats¡¯ nonlinearity although conforms the complexity losing theory, the discrimination between them deteriorate, especially for the healthy elderly and other two groups of heartbeats (p$>$0.05).
In this subsection, we note that equal values have significant effects on the time irreversibility based on permutation. $Y_{s}$ for probabilistic difference of permutation has reliable heartbeats nonlinearity detection if we take equal states into account while do not have acceptable results if we neglect the equalities. And we learn that the delay plays important role and a proper delay leads to better nonlinearity extraction.
Equality-involved time irreversibility when $m>$2
-------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we test the effect of equal states on the simplified time irreversibility of $m>$2. $Y_{s}$ of probabilistic difference of symmetric permutation of dimension from 3 to 6 and delay from 1 to 6 for the three groups of heartbeats are displayed in Fig. \[fig7\]. To ensure the existence of all possible permutations and have reliable outcomes, we recommend the data length to be no less than 8\*m!.
![Time irreversibility (mean$\pm$std) of heartbeats and surrogate when $m$=3 to 6 and $\tau$=1 to 6. a), b), c) and d) $Y_{s}$ of original permutations. e), f), g) and h) $Y_{s}$ of equality-based permutations.[]{data-label="fig7"}](7a.eps "fig:"){width="4cm" height="4cm"} ![Time irreversibility (mean$\pm$std) of heartbeats and surrogate when $m$=3 to 6 and $\tau$=1 to 6. a), b), c) and d) $Y_{s}$ of original permutations. e), f), g) and h) $Y_{s}$ of equality-based permutations.[]{data-label="fig7"}](7b.eps "fig:"){width="4cm" height="4cm"} ![Time irreversibility (mean$\pm$std) of heartbeats and surrogate when $m$=3 to 6 and $\tau$=1 to 6. a), b), c) and d) $Y_{s}$ of original permutations. e), f), g) and h) $Y_{s}$ of equality-based permutations.[]{data-label="fig7"}](7c.eps "fig:"){width="4cm" height="4cm"} ![Time irreversibility (mean$\pm$std) of heartbeats and surrogate when $m$=3 to 6 and $\tau$=1 to 6. a), b), c) and d) $Y_{s}$ of original permutations. e), f), g) and h) $Y_{s}$ of equality-based permutations.[]{data-label="fig7"}](7d.eps "fig:"){width="4cm" height="4cm"} ![Time irreversibility (mean$\pm$std) of heartbeats and surrogate when $m$=3 to 6 and $\tau$=1 to 6. a), b), c) and d) $Y_{s}$ of original permutations. e), f), g) and h) $Y_{s}$ of equality-based permutations.[]{data-label="fig7"}](7e.eps "fig:"){width="4cm" height="4cm"} ![Time irreversibility (mean$\pm$std) of heartbeats and surrogate when $m$=3 to 6 and $\tau$=1 to 6. a), b), c) and d) $Y_{s}$ of original permutations. e), f), g) and h) $Y_{s}$ of equality-based permutations.[]{data-label="fig7"}](7f.eps "fig:"){width="4cm" height="4cm"} ![Time irreversibility (mean$\pm$std) of heartbeats and surrogate when $m$=3 to 6 and $\tau$=1 to 6. a), b), c) and d) $Y_{s}$ of original permutations. e), f), g) and h) $Y_{s}$ of equality-based permutations.[]{data-label="fig7"}](7g.eps "fig:"){width="4cm" height="4cm"} ![Time irreversibility (mean$\pm$std) of heartbeats and surrogate when $m$=3 to 6 and $\tau$=1 to 6. a), b), c) and d) $Y_{s}$ of original permutations. e), f), g) and h) $Y_{s}$ of equality-based permutations.[]{data-label="fig7"}](7h.eps "fig:"){width="4cm" height="4cm"}
Same to Costa index and $Y_{s}$ of $m$=2, $Y_{s}$ of each set of heartbeat is bigger than 97.5th percentile of its 100 sets of surrogate data, and $Y_{s}$ (mean$\pm$std) of all the surrogate data are provided for statistical convenience in Fig. \[fig7\]. When $m$=3 and 4, the results share the conclusions of $m$=2. Time irreversibility without considering equal states have contradictory outcomes to the complexity losing theory while that involving equal values have reliable nonlinearity detection whose statistical tests are listed in Tab. \[tab4\].
--- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------- --------- ----------
C-E E-Y C-Y C-E E-Y C-Y C-E E-Y C-Y
2 0.16645 0.04805 1.10E-5 0.00058 0.00562 1.35E-9 9.17E-12 0.01354 6.52E-16
3 8.31E-5 5.80E-5 8.83E-8 5.74E-9 0.00030 3.96E-8 2.15E-18 0.00303 2.74E-11
4 0.01759 0.06108 9.39E-8 3.00E-6 0.01405 1.25E-11 2.79E-15 0.37826 9.54E-17
5 0.01072 0.23631 7.30E-5 4.95E-6 0.20714 2.74E-8 3.13E-17 0.87201 1.75E-16
--- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------- --------- ----------
: Independent sample t test of $Y_{s}$ of equality-based permutations in heartbeats.[]{data-label="tab4"}
As for the equal-involved $Y_{s}$, when $m$=3 and 4, the best discrimination of the heartbeats lie in $\tau$=3 or 4, and when the delay becomes bigger, the discriminations deteriorate, which is in line with the case of $m$=2. When $m$=5, statistical discriminations between the CHF and the two groups of healthy heartbeats become better, while those between the healthy young and elderly deteriorate when $\tau$ is bigger than 4, the healthy elderly even have higher time irreversibility than the healthy young, which is shared by cases of $m$=6 and $\tau$$>$1. According to our findings and for computational convenience, we would like to recommend $m$ no bigger than 4 for the time irreversibility in heartbeats.
$Y_{s}$ of the probabilities of permutations considering equal values reliably characterize the time irreversibility of heartbeats, while that involving no equality yields results completely contradictory with the conventional wisdom. Equal state in heartbeats should not be neglected not only due to its association with cardiac regulation but also because of its significant effects on the nonlinear dynamics analysis, particularly those based on relative values like the permutation.
Discussions
===========
Theoretically speaking, there should not be exact equal heartbeat interval if the resolution is high enough, however, there might be equal values in practical applications under low precision of signals collection and R wave detection. Due to the limited time and ADC resolutions, there are equal heartbeats intervals (3.62$\pm$1.80 and 8.05$\pm$4.41 percents in the healthy young and elderly data sets), and under some pathological conditions, like the congestive heart failure, decreased HRV will bring more equal states (20.31$\pm$7.34 percent in the CHF heartbeats). The high distribution of equal RR intervals, brought by the limited time and ADC resolutions, also has close connection with cardiac conditions. Noting that there are other different cardiac intervals (PR, QRS, ST, etc) that carry a lot of important information about cardiac conditions. Our idea of employing the distribution of equal values in RR interval may also expand to measuring changes in the length of these interval, which is worth more detailed and comprehensive research.
To apply the rate of equal RR intervals clinically, it is important to investigate its quality in case of frightening a healthy subject or missing a severe situation. Taking $\tau$=1 as example, if we treat ’$eR\leq0.054$’ as healthy young, ’$eR\geq0.124$’ as CHF and ’$0.054<eR<0.124$’ as healthy elderly, two types of errors of the three kinds of heartbeats are listed in Tab. \[tab5\]. In the table, the CHF-Young type I error (false positive) is defined as the probability of CHF being mistreated as healthy young, and the CHF-Young type II error (false negative) implies the probability of healthy young being mistaken as CHF.
CHF-Young CHF-Elderly Elderly-Young
--------- ----------- ------------- ---------------
Type I 0.000 0.114 0.250
Type II 0.000 0.150 0.100
: Type I and type II errors of $eR$ in the three groups of heartbeats.[]{data-label="tab5"}
From Tab. \[tab5\], there is no mistreatment between the CHF and healthy young while 5 CHF patients are mistreated as the healthy elderly and 3 healthy elderly people are taken care as CHF patients. Also, 5 healthy elderly volunteers are regarded as the young and 2 healthy young subjects are labeled to be elderly. Therefore the healthy elderly subjects are more likely to be mistaken. Due to the limitation of data sets, we would like to emphasize that $eR$ have to be validated by more representative number of heartbeats.
Concerning the important information about cardiac autonomic function conveyed by the equal heartbeat intervals, some preprocessing methods, like the multi-scale technique [@Costa2002; @Costa2008], for heart rates should be reconsidered. As for the contradictory time irreversibility of the three groups of heartbeats considering no equal states, an explanation might be the multi-scale theory that the single scale method fails to account for the multiple time scales inherent in the healthy systems and lead to paradox. The multi-scale process, constructing scaled $\{y_{j}\}$ as $y_{j}=\frac{1}{s}\Sigma^{js}_{i=(j-1)S +1}x_{i}$ where $s$ is scale factor, is a coarse-graining procedure and has impact on the distribution of equal heartbeat intervals, illustrated in Fig. \[fig8\].
![The rates of equal values (mean$\pm$std) of CHF, healthy young and elderly heartbeats . a) $\tau$=1. b) $\tau$=2.[]{data-label="fig8"}](8a.eps "fig:"){width="5.9cm" height="4.5cm"} ![The rates of equal values (mean$\pm$std) of CHF, healthy young and elderly heartbeats . a) $\tau$=1. b) $\tau$=2.[]{data-label="fig8"}](8b.eps "fig:"){width="5.9cm" height="4.5cm"}
The multi-scale process significantly eliminates the equal states in heartbeats. There is no equal states in the healthy young heartbeats when scale is bigger 30. Of $\tau$=1, when scale is bigger than 7, the healthy young and elderly cannot be discriminated (p$>$0.05), and when scale is bigger than 17 and 18, the discriminations of CHF and healthy young and elderly are not acceptable (p$>$0.05) statistically. Of $\tau$=2, when the scale is larger than 5, the healthy young-elderly differences is not acceptable (p$>$0.05) in statistics. The equal states as well as the physiological and pathological information are eliminated by the coarse-graining multiscale procedure. Therefore, the side effects of multi-scale technique on heartbeats analysis should be paid more attention.
The selection of $m$ and $\tau$ is crucial for the quality of nonlinearity extraction [@Casdagli1991] and has significant impact on the permutation-based time irreversibility analysis [@Yao2018PLA]. Many scholars have proposed methods to estimate the interrelated $m$ and $\tau$ or alternative parameter like time window length [@Kugiumtzis1996; @Kim1999]. However, there is no strict standard for the most appropriate delay, some employ ¡®trial and error¡¯ or make choices empirically. According to our analysis in these heartbeats, when $\tau$ is 1, the nonlinear information might be still compressed along the identity line, which is called redundance, and when $\tau$ is 4 or bigger, heartbeats¡¯ nonlinear dynamics are causally disconnected, which is called irrelevance. The most appropriate choice $\tau$=2 or 3 might also represent some relevant frequency in the dynamic of the heart rate, which however need to be validated by more related researches. As for the dimension $m$, it should not be smaller than the inherent dimension of a process from the physical point of view. According to C. Bandt and F. Shiha [@2007Bandt], when $m\geq$5, there are no close formulas for arbitrary order patterns, and order patterns do not fit very well with autocorrelation or spectrum even for Brownian motion and simplest moving-average processes, which is shared by our findings. When $m\geq$5, time irreversibility of the healthy young and elderly heartbeats change and become different as $\tau$ increases. We recommend the dimension of no bigger than 4 and the delay of 2 or 3 in time irreversibility analysis of heartbeats, while the parameters should be investigated and adjusted accordingly in other situations.
Conclusions
===========
To conclude, there is a significant number of equal values in the discrete heartbeats, and the rate of equal RR interval contains important information about cardiac regulation mechanism and plays a crucial role in the permutation-based time irreversibility analysis.
The distribution of equal heartbeats interval is a simple and feasible indicator for cardiac conditions and contributes to develop relevant biomarkers in the area of heart analysis. The CHF heart rates have significantly higher distribution of equal RR interval than the healthy subjects and the healthy young have lower rate of equal states than the elderly, and the discriminations among the three kinds of heart rates are acceptable even at very short data length. HRV has close connections with cardiac physiological conditions and autonomic regulation, and the reduced HRV, serving as an independent predictor of mortality, could be characterized by the increased distribution of equal heartbeat intervals clinically.
In the heartbeats¡¯ nonlinear dynamics analysis using probabilistic difference between order patterns, neglected equalities lead false conclusions while $Y_{s}$ of permutation considering equal values shows promising nonlinearity detection. And the time irreversibility based on equality-involved permutation further validates the complexity losing theory about diseased and aging heartbeats.
Acknowledgments
===============
The project is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 31671006, 61771251), Jiangsu Provincial Key R&D Program (Social Development) (Grant No.BE2015700, BE2016773), Natural Science Research Major Program in Universities of Jiangsu Province (Grant No.16KJA310002), Postgraduate Research & Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province (KYCX17-0788).
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A new method of abstracting the independent gauge invariances of higher derivative systems, recently introduced in [@bmp], has been applied to higher derivative field theories. This has been discussed taking the extended Maxwell-Chern-Simons model as an example. A new Hamiltonian analysis of the model is provided. This Hamiltonian analysis has been used to construct the independent gauge generator. An exact mapping between the Hamiltonian gauge transformations and the U(1) symmetries of the action has been established.'
author:
- |
[**[Pradip Mukherjee]{}**]{}[[^1]]{}\
[*Department of Physics, Barasat Government College,*]{}\
[*Barasat, West Bengal, India.*]{}\
[`[email protected]` ]{}\
[**[Biswajit Paul]{}**]{}\
[*S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences,*]{}\
[*Block-JD, Sector III, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700098, India.*]{}\
[`[email protected]`]{}
title: '**[Gauge invariances of higher derivative Maxwell-Chern-Simons field theory – a new Hamiltonian approach]{}**'
---
Introduction
============
It is usual in field theories to assume the Lagrangian to be function of the fields and their first derivatives only. But there is no natural restriction which should confine us within this limitation. In fact, higher derivative theories were once thought to be attractive to get rid of infinities appearing in the scattering amplitudes [@podolsky1; @podolsky2; @podolsky3; @mont; @podolsky4]. However initial interest in such theories waned due to various difficulties in their formulation [@Pais] and also due to emergence of the powerful techniques of renormalisation. Notwithstanding this, research in the higher derivative theories still continued in a steady, albeit slow, pace with discoveries of many interesting results. Subsequently, new impetus to study higher derivative theories came from the attempt to quantize gravity [@smilga]. It is well known that the usual Einstein - Hilbert theory of gravity is not renormalizable because it contains dimensionfull coupling constant. By writing the gravity action in terms of the Weyl tensor we get a theory with dimensionless coupling constant which ensures renormalisability [@stelle; @fradkin]. Such higher derivative theories are now generically explored in terms of $f(R)$ gravity [@odnit1; @soti; @odnit2]. Higher derivative theories are again inevitable in the context of braneworld theory of quantum gravity. They have been obtained from string theory [@elie], noncommutative theory [@clz], and have been used in electrodynamics [@wf], dark energy physics [@gib; @caroll; @woodard1], inflation [@ani], as ultra violet regulators[@slav; @evens; @bekeyv] and in other context[@lw1; @lw2; @cai; @michel; @polonyi]. Interesting connections of the higher derivative theories to non-commutative geometry and anyon physics are demonstrated [@pl5].\
Like the usual theories the higher derivative theories may be endowed with gauge symmetry. In the canonical approach these are classified as singular theories. From the point of view of modern theoretical physics, gauge invariance is an essential component for physically interesting theories. Understanding the manifestations of the gauge symmetry in the canonical formalism has always been an issue of prime importance and has long been pursued in the literature[@D; @HRT; @rothe; @sunder; @heannux; @gitman2]. There are several powerful techniques for abstracting the independent gauge transformations in the phase space and identifying them with the gauge invariances of the action[@cast; @CGS; @GP; @BRR; @BRR1; @BRR2]. However all these works refer to usual first order theories. Though many investigations have been devoted to the Hamiltonian analysis of the higher derivative theories [@gitman2; @ostro; @gitman1; @pl1; @pl2; @pl3; @pl4; @N; @B; @morozov; @dunin; @AGMM; @MARTINEZ], certain important points remain unnoticed. One such issue is the extent of gauge degrees of freedom of a higher derivative theory.\
Indeed, the issue of gauge symmetry in higher derivative theory has its own peculiarities which demarcate it from the usual theories. For theories the Lagrangian of which contain the first derivative of the coordinates only, it has been proved quite generally that the number of independent gauge invariances of a theory is equal to the number of independent primary first class constraint [@cast; @BRR; @BRR1]. This feature is, however not shared by the higher derivative theories. Consider for instance the example of a relativistic particle with rigidity [@P][^2]. The action is given by: $$S=-m \int{\sqrt{-\dot{x}^{2}}}d\tau - \textbf{•}\alpha\int{\frac{\left( \left( \dot{x}\ddot{x}\right)^{2}-\dot{x}^{2}\ddot{x}^{2} \right)^\frac{1}{2}}{\dot{x}^{2}}}d\tau
\label{masparaction}$$ A Hamiltonian analysis of the model [@N] exhibits that the Hamiltonian contains only a single arbitrary multiplier. Thus there is one independent gauge symmetry of the model. This is consistent with the fact that the action (\[masparaction\]) has diffeomorphism invariance only. However, the number of independent primary first class constraints(PFC) of the theory is two. The number of independent PFCs is thus more than the number of independent gauge degrees of freedom. The situation takes an interesting turn when the mass term is dropped from (\[masparaction\]). Symmetries of the theory is now more general $W_{3}$- symmetry [@RR; @RR1; @RRO]. Here the number of independent gauge transformation is equal to the number of PFCs. These examples show that in the case of the higher derivative theories the number of independent gauge invariances sometimes matches with the number of PFCs and sometimes not. This fact was not much noticed and far less emphasized.\
Recently we have provided a general Hamiltonian method of abstracting the independent gauge transformations of the higher derivative theories [@bmp]. It is based on an equivalent first order formalism introduced earlier in the literature[@pl1; @pl2; @pl3][^3]. In this formalism the original higher derivative theory is converted to an equivalent first order theory by introducing new coordinates to account for the higher derivative terms. This leads to Lagrangian constraints which are imposed in the modified action by the Lagrange multiplier technique. These multipliers are then elevated to the level of independent fields. An unphysical sector is thus added in the phase space to proceed with the Hamiltonian analysis, followed by subsequent reduction to exhibit the physical sector. This equivalent first order formalism enables us to apply a structured algorithm [@BRR; @BRR1] for constructing the independent gauge generator of the first order theories, which has been applied to numerous models in the literature [@BMS1; @BMS2; @GHS; @MS; @samanta; @BGMR; @BGR]. The particular manner of extension of variables introduce novel connection in the phase space leading to new restrictions on the gauge parameters. In case of the theory (\[masparaction\]) we find that the new restrictions impose one more constraint on the gauge parameters leading to 2(nunber of independent PFC) - 1(number of new condition) = 1 independent gauge transformation. When the mass term is dropped the new restriction becomes trivial leading to two independent gauge transformation. Our method thus clearly illustrate the inter relation of Hamiltonian gauge transformations with the PFCs for higher derivative theories, thereby explaining the apparent anomalies mentioned above. Also a general formulation for the construction of the Hamiltonian gauge generator containing the right number of independent gauge parameters is provided.\
The method advanced in [@bmp] offers a definite algorithm for abstracting independent gauge transformation for higher derivative theories in the canonical approach. In principle, it is applicable to both mechanical and field theoretic models. However so far this general method has only been tested in the context of particle models. A transition to field theories bring novel features even in the usual first derivative systems. It is thus natural to enquire how the method of [@bmp] works in the case of field theoretic models. We would like to address this issue in the present paper.\
To illustrate the application of our method to field theories consider the action in $2+1$ dimension
$$S = \int d^{3}x \left({ -\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} + \frac{g}{2} \epsilon^{ \alpha \beta \gamma }(\partial^{\rho}\partial_{\rho} A_{\alpha})(\partial_{\beta}A_{\gamma})}\right)
\label{mcslag}$$
where $F_{\mu \nu} = \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}$. The second term in the action contains higher derivative terms and may be viewed as extension of the Chern-Simons piece. The theory (\[mcslag\]) is thus called the extended Maxwell-Chern-Simons Model[@deser]. The choice of the model is dictated by the following:\
1. [The model is a simple but an interesting field theoretic model [@deser]. It has been investigated several times in the recent past [@kumar; @reyes].]{}
2. [Under the usual gauge transformation $$A_{\mu} \rightarrow A_{\mu} + \partial_{\mu} \lambda
\label{gengaugeinv}$$ the Lagrangian of (\[mcslag\]) is invariant modulo total boundary terms. Thus the action (\[mcslag\]) is invariant under (\[gengaugeinv\]) if the function $ \lambda $ vanishes on the boundary. Thus the model offers a simple setting for comparing the Hamiltonian gauge symmetries with those of the action.]{}
Since our method is based on the equivalent first order approach, a detailed Hamiltonian analysis of the model (\[mcslag\]) from the same point of view is required. Earlier Hamiltonian analysis of the model [@kumar; @reyes] were based on Ostrogradski method [@ostro]. We need a constrained Hamiltonian analysis a la Dirac [@D] which we develop here. The constraint structure of the theory will be seen to have some nontrivial features which makes it interesting in it’s own right. Before concluding the introductory section let us elaborate the organisation of the paper. In Sec. 2 a review of the general method is discussed. Then in Sec 3 a detailed Hamiltonian analysis of the model (\[mcslag\]) in the equivalent first order formalism is given. Note that this is a new calculation and distinct from that of [@kumar; @reyes] which are based on the Ostrogradski method [@ostro] [^4]. In Sec. 4 the application of the method of [@bmp] to construct the Hamiltonian gauge generator is described. The gauge transformation generated by the gauge generator is compared with the transformation under (\[gengaugeinv\]). Finally we conclude in Sec. 5.\
General formalism – a review
============================
We begin with a general higher derivative theory given by the Lagrangian $$L = L\left(x, \dot{x}, \ddot{x}, ..... , x^{\left(\nu\right)}\right)
\label{originallagrangean}$$ where $x = x_n(n = 1,2,....,\nu)$ are the coordinates and $\dot{x}$ means derivative of $x$ with respect to time. $\nu$-th order derivative of time is denoted by $x^{\left(\nu\right)}$. The Hamiltonian formulation of the theory may be conveniently done by a variant of Ostrogradskii method. The crux of the method consists in embedding the original higher derivative theory to an effective first order theory. We define the variables $q_{n,\alpha} \left(\alpha = 1, 2, ...., \nu - 1 \right)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
q_{n,1} &=& x_n\nonumber\\
q_{n,\alpha} &=& \dot{q}_{n,\alpha -1}, \left(\alpha > 1 \right)
\label{newvariables}\end{aligned}$$ This leads to the following Lagrangian constraints $$\begin{aligned}
q_{n,\alpha} - \dot{q}_{n,\alpha -1} = 0, \left(\alpha > 1 \right)
\label{lagrangeanconstraints}\end{aligned}$$ which must be enforced by corresponding Lagrange multipliers . The auxiliary Lagrange function of this extended description of the system is given by $$\begin{aligned}
L^*(q_{n,\alpha},\dot{q}_{n,\alpha},\lambda_{n,\beta})
=L\left(q_{n,1},q_{n,2}\cdots,q_{n,\nu-1},
\dot{q}_{n,\nu-1}\right)+\sum_{\beta=2}^{\nu-1}\left(q_{n,\beta}-\dot{q}_{n,\beta-1}\right)\lambda_{n,\beta}\ ,
\label{extendedlagrangean}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_{n,\beta} (\beta = 2,\cdots , \nu - 1)$ are the Lagrange multipliers. If we consider these multipliers as independent fields then the Lagrangian $L^*$ becomes first order to which the well known methods of Hamiltonian analysis for first order systems apply. The momenta canonically conjugate to the degrees of freedom $q_{n,\alpha}$, $(\alpha=1,2,\cdots,\nu-1)$ and $\lambda_{n,\beta}$ $(\beta = 2, \cdots,\nu-1)$ are defined, respectively, by, $$p_{n,\alpha}=\frac{\partial L^{*}}{\partial \dot{q}_{n,\alpha}}\ ,\ \
\pi_{n,\beta}=\frac{\partial L^{*}}{\partial\dot{\lambda}_{n,\beta}}\ .$$ These immediately lead at least to the following primary constraints, $$\Phi_{n,\beta} \approx 0\ ,
\ \ \pi_{n,\beta} \approx 0\ ,\ \
\beta = 2,\cdots,\nu -1\ ,
\label{constraints}$$ where $$\Phi_{n,\beta}\equiv p_{n,\beta -1}+\lambda_{n,\beta}\ , \ \
\beta = 2,\cdots,\nu - 1\ .$$ Note that depending on the situation whether the original Lagrangian $L$ is singular there may be more primary constraints.\
Assuming L to be singular the following possibilities may arise:
1. The original Lagrangian is singular but the additional constraints are all second class. Conserving the full set of primary constraints in time does not yield any secondary constraint. Rather, all the multipliers in the total Hamiltonian will get fixed. The reduction of phase space may be done by implementing the second class constraints strongly provided we replace all the PBs by appropriate DBs.
2. The original Lagrangian is singular and there are both primary second class and first class constraints among them. Conserving the primary constraints in time, secondary constraints will now be obtained. There may be both secondary second class and first class constraints. The second class constraints may be eliminated again by the DB technique. The first class constraints generate gauge transformations which are required to be further analysed. These constraints may yield further constraints and so on. The iterative process stops when no new constraints are generated.
From the point of view of gauge invariance the second case is important. Since the original Lagrangian system is replaced by the first order theory (\[extendedlagrangean\]) the algorithm of [@BRR; @BRR1] can be readily applied. All the first class constraints appear in the gauge generator G $$G = \sum_a \epsilon^a \Phi_a
\label{217}$$ where $\{\Phi_a\}$ is the whole set of (primary and secondary) first class constraints and $\epsilon^a$ are the gauge parameters. These parameters are however not independent. For a first order system the number of independent gauge parameters is equal to the number of independent PFCs. Following the algorithm of [@BRR; @BRR1] we can express the dependent gauge parameters in terms of the independent set using the conditions $$\frac{d\epsilon^{a_2}}{dt}
-\epsilon^{a}\left(V_{a}^{a_2}
+\lambda^{b_1}C_{b_1a}^{a_2}\right) = 0
\label{219}$$ The indices $a_1, b_1 ...$ refer to the primary first class constraints while the indices $a_2, b_2 ...$ correspond to the secondary first class constraints. The coefficients $V_{a}^{a_{1}}$ and $C_{b_1a}^{a_1}$ are the structure functions of the involutive algebra, defined as[^5] $$\begin{aligned}
\{H_{can},\Phi_{a}\} = V_{a}^b\Phi_{b}\nonumber\\
\{\Phi_{a},\Phi_{b}\} = C_{ab}^{c}\Phi_{c}
\label{2110}\end{aligned}$$ and $\lambda^{a_1}$ are the Lagrange multipliers(associated with the primary first class constraints) appearing in the expression of the total Hamiltonian. Solving (\[219\]) it is possible to choose $a_1$ independent gauge parameters from the set $\epsilon^{a}$ and express $G$ of (\[217\]) entirely in terms of them. For the conventional first order theories this completes the picture. The situation for higher order theories is, however, different. This is because of the new constraints (\[lagrangeanconstraints\]) appearing in the effective first order Lagrangian (\[extendedlagrangean\]). Owing to these we additionally require $$\begin{aligned}
\delta q_{n,\alpha} - \frac{d}{dt}\delta{q}_{n,\alpha -1} = 0, \left(\alpha > 1 \right)
\label{varsgauge}\end{aligned}$$ These conditions may reduce the number of independent gauge parameters further. Thus the number of independent gauge parameters is, in general, less than the number of primary first class constraints.
Hamiltonian analysis of the model in the equivalent first order formalism
=========================================================================
In our approach the time derivative of the field $ A_{\mu} $ will be considered as additional fields. Thus it will be convenient to expand the Lagrangian of the model (\[mcslag\]) in space and time parts. Using the mostly positive metric ($ \eta_{\mu\nu} $ = -, +, +) the Lagrangian is written as\
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal{L} = &=& \frac{1}{2} ( \dot{A}_{i}^{2} + (\partial_{i}A_{0})^{2} - (\partial_{i}A_{j})^{2} -2 \dot{A}_{i}\partial_{i}A_{0} + \partial_{i}A_{j}\partial_{j}A_{i} )+ \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j } ( -\ddot{A}_{0} +\nabla^{2} A_{0} )\partial_{i}A_{j} \\
&&- \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j } ( -\ddot{A}_{i} + \nabla^{2} A_{i} )\dot{A}_{j}+ \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j } ( -\ddot{A}_{i} + \nabla^{2} A_{i} )\partial_{j}A_{0}
\label{mcslag1}\end{aligned}$$ Here the fields are referred to their covariant components and dot represents derivative with respect to time. Note that the effect of the relativistic metric $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ has been taken care of explicitly in writing (\[mcslag1\]). In the following subscripts from the middle of the Greek alphabet $ \mu $, $ \nu $ assume the values 0,1, 2 and those from the middle of the Latin alphabet $i$, $j$ take values 1 and 2. In any case, they just label the components and no further reference to the relativistic metric is implied.\
To analyse the model in the equivalent first order formalism we define the new coordinates $$\xi_{1\mu} = A_{\mu} \ \ \ {\rm{and}} \ \ \xi_{2\mu} = \dot{A}_{\mu}
\label{fielddef}$$ This immediately imposes the constraint $$\xi_{2\mu} = \dot{\xi}_{1\mu}
\label{lagconst}$$ The equivalent first order Lagrangian is obtained from (\[mcslag1\]) using the definitions (\[fielddef\]) as
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal{L}^{\prime} &=& \frac{1}{2} ( \xi_{2i}\xi_{2i} + \partial_{i}\xi_{10}\partial_{i}\xi_{10} - \partial_{i}\xi_{1j}\partial_{i}\xi_{1j} -2 \xi_{2j}\partial_{j}\xi_{10} + \partial_{i}\xi_{1j}\partial_{j}\xi_{1i} )+ \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j } ( -\dot{\xi}_{20} +\nabla^{2} \xi_{10} )\partial_{i}\xi_{1j} \\
&&- \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j } ( -\dot{\xi}_{2i} + \nabla^{2} \xi_{1i} )\xi_{2j}+ \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j } ( -\dot{\xi}_{2i} + \nabla^{2} \xi_{1i} )\partial_{j}\xi_{10} + \xi_{0\mu} (\xi_{2\mu} - \dot{\xi}_{1\mu})
\label{auxilag}\end{aligned}$$
Where the constraint (\[lagconst\]) is enforced by the Lagrange multiplier $ \xi_{0\mu} $. Henceforth $ \xi_{0\mu} $ will be considered as independent fields.\
To proceed with the canonical analysis we define the momenta $ \Pi_{0\mu} $,$ \Pi_{1\mu} $, $ \Pi_{2\mu} $ conjugate to the fields $ \xi_{0\mu} $, $ \xi_{1\mu} $, $ \xi_{2\mu} $ respectively in the usual way : $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\alpha\mu} &=& \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}^{\prime}}{\partial \dot{\xi}_{\alpha\mu}} \ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \alpha = 0, 1, 2\end{aligned}$$ As a result the following primary constraints emerge. $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\\
\Phi_{0\mu} &=& \Pi_{0\mu} \approx 0
\nonumber\\
\Phi_{1\mu} &=& \Pi_{1\mu} + \xi_{0\mu} \approx 0
\nonumber\\
\Phi_{20} &=& \Pi_{20} + \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j }\partial_{i}\xi_{1j} \approx 0
\nonumber\\
\Phi_{2i} &=& \Pi_{2i} - \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j }\xi_{2j} + \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j }\partial_{j}\xi_{10} \approx 0
%\nonumber\\
%\Phi_{3}^{\mu} &=& h^{\mu} \approx 0\end{aligned}$$ The basic Poisson brackets are $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\\
\lbrace{ \xi_{\alpha\mu}(\textbf{x}), \Pi_{\beta \nu}(\textbf{x}^{\prime}) }\rbrace &=& \delta_{\alpha\beta}\delta_{\mu\nu} \delta^{2}( \textbf{x} - \textbf{x}^{\prime} )
\label{basicpoisbarc}\end{aligned}$$ where $ \alpha $, $ \beta $ = 0, 1, 2. This leads to the following algebra of the primary constraint, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\\
\lbrace{ \Phi_{10}(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{2i}(\textbf{x}^{\prime}) }\rbrace &=& -\frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ij} \partial^{\prime }_{j}\delta^{2}( \textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime} )
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace {\Phi_{1i}(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{20}(\textbf{x}^{\prime})}\right\rbrace &=& \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ij}\partial_{j}^{\prime} \delta^{2}(\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}^{\prime})
\nonumber\\
\lbrace{ \Phi_{2 i}(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{2j}(\textbf{x}^{\prime}) }\rbrace &=& - g \epsilon_{ i j} \delta^{2}( \textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime} )
\nonumber\\
\lbrace{ \Phi_{0\mu}(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{1\nu}(\textbf{x}^{\prime}) }\rbrace &=& - \delta_{\mu\nu} \delta^{2}( \textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime} )
\label{constalgebra}\end{aligned}$$ All other brackets between the constraints vanish. Apparently all the primary constraints have non trivial brackets among themselves. However, we can make the following linear combinations of the primary constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Phi^{\prime}_{20} = \Phi_{20} + \frac{g}{2}\epsilon_{ij}\partial_{i}\Phi_{0j} \approx 0
\nonumber\\
\Phi^{\prime}_{2i} = \Phi_{2i} + \frac{g}{2}\epsilon_{ij}\partial_{j}\Phi_{00} \approx 0\end{aligned}$$ Using the algebra of the primary constraints (\[constalgebra\]) we find that the constraint algebra simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
%\nonumber\\
%\lbrace{ \Phi_{0\mu}(x), \Phi_{2\nu}(x^{\prime}) }\rbrace &=& -\delta_{\mu\nu}\delta^2( x-x^{\prime} )
\nonumber\\
\lbrace{ \Phi_{0\mu}(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{1\nu}(\textbf{x}^{\prime}) }\rbrace &=& - \delta_{\mu\nu} \delta^{2}( \textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime} )
\nonumber\\
\lbrace{ \Phi_{2 i}^{\prime}(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{2j}^{\prime}(\textbf{x}^{\prime}) }\rbrace &=& - g \epsilon_{ i j} \delta^{2}( \textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime} )\end{aligned}$$ It will thus be convenient to replace the original set of primary constraints {$ \Phi_{0\mu} $ , $ \Phi_{10} $, $ \Phi_{1i} $, $ \Phi_{20} $, $ \Phi_{2i} $} by {$ \Phi_{0\mu} $, $ \Phi_{10} $, $ \Phi_{1i} $, $ \Phi_{20}^{\prime} $, $\Phi_{2i}^{\prime} $}. Explicitly, the new set of primary constraints are $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\\
\Phi_{0\mu} &=& \Pi_{0\mu} \approx 0
\nonumber\\
\Phi_{1\mu} &=& \Pi_{1\mu} + \xi_{0\mu} \approx 0
\nonumber\\
\Phi_{20}^{\prime} &=& \Pi_{20}+ \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j }\partial_{i}\xi_{1j} + \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j }\partial_{i}\Pi_{0j} \approx 0
\nonumber\\
\Phi_{2i}^{\prime} &=& \Pi_{2i} - \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j }\xi_{2j} + \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j }\partial_{j}\xi_{10} + \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j }\partial_{j}\Pi_{00} \approx 0
%\nonumber\\
%\Phi_{3}^{\mu} &=& h^{\mu} \approx 0
\label{primarycons}\end{aligned}$$
The canonical Hamiltonian is obtained by Legendre transformation as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\\
H_{can} &=& \int \mathcal{H}_{can} d^{2}\textbf{x}\end{aligned}$$ Where $\mathcal{H}_{can}$ is the canonical Hamiltonian density, given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal{H}_{can}&=& -\frac{1}{2} ( \xi_{2i}\xi_{2i} + \partial_{i}\xi_{10}\partial_{i}\xi_{10} - \partial_{i}\xi_{1j}\partial_{i}\xi_{1j} -2 \xi_{2j}\partial_{j}\xi_{10} + \partial_{i}\xi_{1j}\partial_{j}\xi_{1i} )- \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j } \nabla^{2} \xi_{10} \partial_{i}\xi_{1j} \\
&&+ \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j } \nabla^{2} \xi_{1i} .\xi_{2j}- \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j } \nabla^{2} \xi_{1i} \partial_{j}\xi_{10} - \xi_{0\mu} \xi_{2\mu} \end{aligned}$$ The total Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
H_{T} &=& \int d^{2}\textbf{x}( \mathcal{H}_{can} + \Lambda_{0\mu} \Phi_{0\mu} + \Lambda_{1\mu} \Phi_{1\mu} + \Lambda_{20} \Phi_{20}^{\prime} +\Lambda_{2i} \Phi_{2i}^{\prime}) \end{aligned}$$ The multipliers $ \Lambda_{0\mu} $, $ \Lambda_{1\mu} $, and $ \Lambda_{2\mu} $ are arbitrary at this stage.\
The primary constraints (\[primarycons\]) should be conserved in time i.e. there Poisson bracket with $ H_{T} $ should vanish. Conserving $ \Phi_{0\mu}$, $ \Phi_{1\mu}$, $ \Phi_{2i}^{\prime}$ in time the following multipliers are fixed,\
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Lambda_{00} &=& \nabla^{2}\xi_{10} - \partial_{i}\xi_{2i} - g\epsilon_{ij}\nabla^{2}\partial_{i}\xi_{1j}
\nonumber \\
\Lambda_{0i} &=& -\nabla^{2}\xi_{1i} + \partial_{i}\partial_{j}\xi_{1j} - g\epsilon_{ij}\nabla^{2}\partial_{j}\xi_{10} + \frac{g}{2}\epsilon_{ij}\xi_{2j}
\nonumber\\
\Lambda_{1\mu} &=& \xi_{2\mu}
\nonumber\\
\Lambda_{2i} &=& \frac{1}{2}( \nabla^{2}\xi_{1i} + \partial_{i}\xi_{20} ) + \frac{1}{g}\epsilon_{ij}( \partial_{j}\xi_{10} - \xi_{0j} - \xi_{2j} )
%\Lambda_{2i} = \frac{1}{g}\left({ \epsilon_{ij}\partial_{j}\xi_{10} -\epsilon_{ij}\xi_{2j} + \frac{g}{2}\nabla^{2}\xi_{1i} -\epsilon_{ij}\xi_{0j} - \frac{g}{2}\partial_{i}\xi_{20}} \right)\\
%\dot{\Psi}_{2} &=& 0 \Rightarrow 0 = 0
\label{multilpliers}\end{aligned}$$ Only $ \Lambda_{20} $ remains arbitrary. Substituting these in the total Hamiltonian we find that it contains only one arbitrary multiplier $ \Lambda_{20} $. This shows that there is only one gauge degree of freedom, a result consistent with (\[gengaugeinv\]).\
Conserving $ \Phi_{20}^{\prime} $ in time, a secondary constraint emerges. $$\Psi_{1} = \xi_{00} + \frac{g}{2}\epsilon_{ij}\partial_{i}\xi_{2j} \approx 0$$ From $ \dot{\Psi}_{1} = 0 $ we get $$\left\lbrace{\Psi_{1}, H_{T}} \right\rbrace = 0$$ A straightforward calculation gives $$\Lambda_{00} - g \epsilon_{ij} \partial_{j} \Lambda_{2i} =0$$ Using the values of $ \Lambda_{00} $ and $ \Lambda_{2i} $ from (\[multilpliers\]) and simplifying we get $$\partial_{i}\xi_{0i} - \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ij} \nabla^{2}\partial_{i}\xi_{1j} = 0$$ which is a new secondary constraint $$\Psi_{2} = \partial_{i}\xi_{0i} - \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ij} \nabla^{2}\partial_{i}\xi_{1j} \approx 0$$ The condition $ \left\lbrace {\Psi_{2}, H_{T}}\right\rbrace = 0 $ gives $$\partial_{i} \Lambda_{0i} - \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ij} \nabla^{2} \partial_{i} \Lambda_{1j} = 0$$ Substituting the values of $ \Lambda_{0i}$ and $ \Lambda_{1j}$ the above equation reduces to the form 0 = 0. Hence the iterative process stops here giving no further constraints. The primary constraints of the theory are {$ \Phi_{0\mu} $, $ \Phi_{1\mu} $, $ \Phi_{20}^{\prime} $, $ \Phi_{2i}^{\prime} $} while the secondary constraints are $ \Psi_{1} $ and $ \Psi_{2} $.\
Using the Poisson brackets (\[basicpoisbarc\]) the complete algebra of constraints can be worked out as\
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace{\Phi_{0\mu}(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{1\nu}(\textbf{x}^{\prime})} \right\rbrace &=& -\delta_{\mu \nu}\delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime})
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace{\Phi_{2i}^{\prime}(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{2j}^{\prime}(\textbf{x}^{\prime})} \right\rbrace &=& -g \epsilon_{ij} \delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime})
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace{\Psi_{1}(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{0\nu}(\textbf{x}^{\prime})} \right\rbrace &=& \delta_{0\nu }\delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime})
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace{\Psi_{1}(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{2i}^{\prime}(\textbf{x}^{\prime})} \right\rbrace &=& -g \epsilon_{ij}\partial_{j}\delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime})
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace{\Psi_{2}(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{0\mu}(\textbf{x}^{\prime})} \right\rbrace &=& \delta_{\mu i}\partial_{i}\delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime})
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace{\Psi_{2}(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{1\mu}(\textbf{x}^{\prime})} \right\rbrace &=& -\frac{g}{2}\epsilon_{ij} \delta_{j \mu} \nabla^{2}\partial_{i}\delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime})
\label{brackets3}\end{aligned}$$ The constraint algebra appears to be complicated but new linear combinations will simplify the algebra. Before going into that discussion it is time to get rid of the unphysical variables $ \xi_{0\mu} $ and $ \Pi_{0\mu} $.
Calculation in reduced phase space
----------------------------------
The fields $ \xi_{0\mu} $ and $ \Pi_{0\mu} $ can be eliminated by strongly imposing the constraints $\Phi_{0\mu}$ and $\Phi_{1\mu}$[^6]. The remaining constraints of the theory can now be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\\
\Phi_{20} &=& \Pi_{20} + \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j }\partial_{i}\xi_{1j} \approx 0
\nonumber\\
\Phi_{2i} &=& \Pi_{2i} - \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j }( \xi_{2j} - \partial_{j}\xi_{10} ) \approx 0
\nonumber\\
\Psi_{1} &=& -\Pi_{10} + \frac{g}{2}\epsilon_{ij}\partial_{i}\xi_{2j} \approx 0
\nonumber\\
\Psi_{2} &=& -\partial_{i}\Pi_{1i} - \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ij} \nabla^{2}\partial_{i}\xi_{1j} \approx 0\end{aligned}$$ The Poisson brackets between these constraints can be read from (\[brackets3\]). The nontrivial brackets are $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace{\Phi_{2i}(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{2j}(\textbf{x})} \right\rbrace &=& -g \epsilon_{ij}\delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime})
\nonumber\\
\left\lbrace{\Psi_{1}(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{2i}(\textbf{x}^{\prime})} \right\rbrace &=& -g \epsilon_{ij}\partial_{j}\delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime})\end{aligned}$$ We can form the linear combination\
$$\Psi_{1}^{\prime} = \Psi_{1} + \partial_{i}\Phi_{2i}$$ It can be easily checked $\Psi_{1}^{\prime} $ has vanishing brackets with all other constraints. Replacing the set of constraints {$ \Phi_{20} $, $ \Phi_{2i} $ ,$ \Psi_{1} $, and $ \Psi_{2} $} by the new set {$ \Phi_{20} $, $ \Phi_{2i} $ , $ \Psi_{1}^{\prime} $, and $ \Psi_{2} $} we find that there are three first class constraints $ \Phi_{20} $, $ \Psi_{1}^{\prime} $, and $ \Psi_{2} $ and two second class constraints $ \Phi_{2i} $ . The classification of the constraints of the theory is tabulated in Table 1.\
\[table:constraints\]
-------------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------
\[0.5ex\]
\[-2ex\] First class Second class
\[0.5ex\]
\[-2ex\] Primary $\Phi_{20}$ $\Phi_{2i}$
\[0.5ex\]
\[-2ex\] Secondary $\Psi_1^{\prime}$, $ \Psi_{2} $
\[0.5ex\]
-------------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------
: Classification of Constraints of the model (\[mcslag\])
Before proceeding further a degrees of freedom count will be instructive. The total number of phase space variables is 12. There are three first class constraints and two second class constraints. Hence the no of degrees of freedom is $$\nonumber
12- (2 \times 3 + 2) = 4$$ We find that the number of degrees of freedom is doubled compared with the Maxwell theory, which is expected due to the higher derivative nature [@ostro].
Reduction of second class constraints $ \Phi_{2i} $
---------------------------------------------------
After the elimination of the unphysical sector ( $ \xi_{0\mu} $, $ \Pi_{0\mu} $ ), the total Hamiltonian becomes\
$$H_{T}(\textbf{x}) = \int d^{2}\textbf{x} ( \mathcal{H}_{can}(\textbf{x}) + \Lambda_{20}(\textbf{x}) \Phi_{20}(\textbf{x}) + \Lambda_{2i}(\textbf{x}) \Phi_{2i}(\textbf{x}))$$ Where $ \mathcal{H}_{can} $ is the canonical Hamiltonian density given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal{H}_{can} &=& -\frac{1}{2} ( \xi_{2i}\xi_{2i} + \partial_{i}\xi_{10}\partial_{i}\xi_{10} - \partial_{i}\xi_{1j}\partial_{i}\xi_{1j} -2 \xi_{2j}\partial_{j}\xi_{10} + \partial_{i}\xi_{1j}\partial_{j}\xi_{1i} )- \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j } \nabla^{2} \xi_{10} \partial_{i}\xi_{1j} \\
&& + \frac{g}{2} \epsilon_{ i j } \nabla^{2} \xi_{1i} ( \xi_{2j} - \partial_{j}\xi_{10}) + \Pi_{1\mu} \xi_{2\mu} \end{aligned}$$ And $$\nonumber
\Lambda_{2i} = \frac{1}{2}( \nabla^{2}\xi_{1i} + \partial_{i}\xi_{20} ) + \frac{1}{g}\epsilon_{ij}( \partial_{j}\xi_{10}+ \Pi_{1j} - \xi_{2j} )$$ $ \Lambda_{20} $ is arbitrary. It signifies that there is one continuous gauge degree of freedom.\
In the next section we will explicitly construct the gauge generator using the method given in [@bmp]. Since the method is directly applicable to theories with first class constraint only, we have to eliminate the second class constraints of our theory. Following Dirac’s method of constraint Hamiltonian analysis we can strongly put the second class constraints to be zero if the Poisson brackets are replaced by the corresponding Dirac brackets.\
The Dirac bracket between two phase space variables A and B is defined by $$\left[ {A(\textbf{x}), B(\textbf{x}^{\prime})}\right] = \left\lbrace {A(\textbf{x}), B(\textbf{x}^{\prime})}\right\rbrace - \int \left\lbrace {A(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{2i}(\textbf{y})} \right\rbrace \Delta_{ij}^{-1}(\textbf{y},\textbf{z})\left\lbrace {\Phi_{2j}(\textbf{z}), B(\textbf{x}^{\prime}) } \right\rbrace d^{2}\textbf{y} d^{2}\textbf{z}$$ Where $\Delta_{ij}^{-1}(\textbf{x} , \textbf{x}^{\prime})$ is the inverse of the matrix $$\Delta_{ij}(\textbf{x} , \textbf{x}^{\prime}) = \lbrace{ \Phi_{2 i}(\textbf{x}), \Phi_{2j}(\textbf{x}^{\prime}) }\rbrace %= - g \epsilon_{ i j} \delta^{2}( \textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime} )$$ The nontrivial Dirac brackets between the phase space variables are calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left[ {\xi_{1\mu}(\textbf{x}), \Pi_{1\nu}(\textbf{x}^{\prime})}\right] &=& \delta_{\mu\nu} \delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime})
\nonumber\\
\left[ {\xi_{2i}(\textbf{x}), \xi_{2j}(\textbf{x}^{\prime})}\right] &=& \frac{1}{g} \epsilon_{ij} \delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime})
\nonumber\\
\left[ {\xi_{2i}(\textbf{x}), \Pi_{2j}(\textbf{x}^{\prime})}\right] &=& \frac{1}{2} \delta_{ij} \delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime})
\nonumber\\
\left[ {\xi_{2i}(\textbf{x}), \Pi_{10}(\textbf{x}^{\prime})}\right] &=& -\frac{1}{2} \partial^{\prime}_{i} \delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime})
\nonumber\\
\left[ {\Pi_{2i}(\textbf{x}), \Pi_{10}(\textbf{x}^{\prime})}\right] &=& \frac{g}{4} \epsilon_{ij} \partial^{\prime}_{j} \delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime})
\nonumber\\
\left[ {\Pi_{2i}(\textbf{x}), \Pi_{2j}(\textbf{x}^{\prime})}\right] &=& \frac{g}{4} \epsilon_{ij} \delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^{\prime})
\label{basicdirac}\end{aligned}$$ All other Dirac brackets are the same as the corresponding Poisson brackets.
Construction of the Gauge generator
===================================
As has been mentioned earlier we will follow the method of [@bmp] to construct the gauge generator containing the exact number of independent gauge parameters. The essence of the method has been reviewed in Sec. 2. Accordingly, we rename the constraints as $ \Omega_{1}=\Phi_{20} $, $ \Omega_{2}=\Psi_{1}^{\prime} $ and $ \Omega_{3}=\Psi_{2} $. The gauge generator is\
$$G = \int\epsilon_{a} \Omega_{a} d^{2}\textbf{x}$$ which is a field theoretic extension of (\[217\]). These structure functions are now defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left[{H_{can}, \Omega_{a}(\textbf{x})} \right] &=& \int d^{2}\textbf{y} V_{ab}(\textbf{y}, \textbf{x}) \Omega_{b}(\textbf{y})
\nonumber\\
\left[{\Omega_{a}(\textbf{x}), \Omega_{b}(\textbf{y})} \right] &=& \int d^{2}\textbf{z} C_{abc}(\textbf{z}, \textbf{x}, \textbf{y}) \Omega_{c}(\textbf{z})
\label{fieldstruc} \end{aligned}$$ and the master equation (\[219\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
0 = \frac{d\epsilon_{a_{1}}(\textbf{x})}{dt} - \int d^{2}\textbf{y} \epsilon_{b}(\textbf{y}) V_{ba_{1}}(\textbf{x}, \textbf{y}) - \int d^{2}\textbf{y} d^{2}\textbf{z} \epsilon_{b}(\textbf{y}) \Lambda_{c_{1}}(\textbf{z}) C_{c_{1}ba_{1}}(\textbf{z}, \textbf{y}, \textbf{x})
\label{mastereqn3}\end{aligned}$$ Note that Dirac brackets appear on the left hand sides of equations (\[fieldstruc\]). This is because there were second class constraints in our theory which have been eliminated by the Dirac bracket formalism.\
Using the defining relations (\[fieldstruc\]) and the Dirac brackets (\[basicdirac\]) we find that the only nonvanishing $V_{ab}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
V_{12}(\textbf{x}, \textbf{y}) &=& - \delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{y})
\nonumber\\
V_{23}({\textbf{x}, \textbf{y}}) &=& - \delta^{2}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{y})\end{aligned}$$ Similarly from the algebra of the constraints we find all $C_{abc}=0$. Substituting these values in the equation (\[mastereqn3\]) we get the following conditions on the gauge parameters $\epsilon_{a}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\dot{\epsilon}_{2} + \epsilon_{1} &=& 0
\nonumber\\
\dot{\epsilon_{3}} + \epsilon_{2} &=& 0\end{aligned}$$ Solving these we find $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\epsilon_{1} &=& \ddot{\epsilon}_{3}
\nonumber\\
\epsilon_{2} &=& -\dot{\epsilon_{3}}\end{aligned}$$ Hence the desired gauge generator assumes the form $$G = \int d^{2}{x} (\ddot{\epsilon}_{3} \Omega_{1} - \dot{\epsilon}_{3} \Omega_{2} +\epsilon_{3}\Omega_{3})
\label{generator3}$$ It is immediately observed that G contains one arbitrary gauge parameter namely $ \epsilon_{3} $.\
We still have the additional restrictions (\[varsgauge\]). In our case this leads to the condition $$\delta\xi_{2\mu} = \frac{d}{dt} \delta \xi_{1\mu}
\label{addrestriction2}$$ where $ \delta \xi_{1\mu} $, $ \delta \xi_{2\mu} $ are the gauge variations of $ \xi_{1\mu} $ and $ \xi_{2\mu} $ respectively. Using the generator G (\[generator3\]) we get $$\delta \xi_{2\mu} = \left\lbrace {\xi_{2\mu}, G}\right\rbrace = \partial_{\mu} \dot{\epsilon}_{3}$$ Similarly $$\delta \xi_{1\mu} = \left\lbrace {\xi_{1\mu}, G}\right\rbrace = \partial_{\mu} \epsilon_{3}
\label{gaugevarxi1}$$ Clearly the additional restriction (\[addrestriction2\]) is identically satisfied. Thus no more restriction is imposed on the gauge parameters.\
Finally we look at the comparison of the transformations generated by the Hamiltonian gauge generator with Lagrangian gauge symmetry (\[gengaugeinv\]). Since $ \xi_{1\mu} = A_{\mu} $ we have $$\delta A_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} \epsilon_{3}$$ from (\[gaugevarxi1\]). This is the same transformation as (\[gengaugeinv\]) if we put $ \epsilon_{3} $ = $ \lambda $.
Conclusion
==========
Higher derivative systems were once invoked in field theory to account for the ultraviolet divergences [@podolsky1; @podolsky2; @podolsky3; @mont; @podolsky4]. Later the initiative was stalled partly because of various difficulties in their formulation [@Pais] and also due to emergence of the powerful techniques of renormalisation. In recent times interest in the higher derivative field theories has been rejuvenated due to there relevance in quantum gravity [@stelle; @fradkin; @odnit1; @soti; @odnit2]. In this context understanding the gauge invariances of these theories from the canonical approach becomes an urgent problem. Though there are a number of Hamiltonian analysis of higher derivative theories available in the literature [@ostro; @gitman1; @pl1; @N; @B; @gitman2; @morozov; @dunin; @AGMM; @MARTINEZ], certain important issues have been overlooked. One such issue is the abstraction of the independent gauge degrees of freedom. Indeed some confusion regarding this is evident. In the usual first order theories we can prove in general that the number of independent parameters in the Hamiltonian gauge generator is equal to the number of independent primary first class constraints(PFCs) of the theory [@cast; @BRR; @BRR1]. This connection seems to be violated in the case of the higher derivative theories [@bmp]. Thus in the Hamiltonian analysis of the relativistic particle model with curvature [@N] one observes two independent primary first class constraints though the number of gauge degrees of freedom is only one. The problem of gauge invariances in higher derivative theories contains peculiar surprises. If the action of the relativistic particle is given by the curvature term only[^7] the gauge transformations are found to satisfy the $ W_{3} $ algebra [@RR; @RR1; @RRO]. The independent gauge degrees of freedom is two which is equal to the number of independent PFCs. Thus there seems to be no regular connection between the number of independent gauge transformations with the number of independent PFCs for the higher derivative systems. A general approach of constructing the Hamiltonian gauge generator of higher derivative systems have very recently been proposed which clearly explains this apparent anomaly [@bmp]. It also provides a general method of constructing the gauge generator containing the right number of independent gauge parameters. The method is sufficiently general so as to be applicable to both mechanical and field theoretic model. However so far the method is applied to particle models only. In this paper we have for the first time applied the formalism developed in [@bmp] to field theories taking the extended Maxwell-Chern-Simons(M-C-S) model as example.\
The extended M-C-S model is a simple but interesting example of higher derivative field theory and has been investigated many times in the recent past [@kumar; @reyes]. The Lagrangian gauge symmetry of the model is the obvious U(1) gauge symmetry. The model thus provides a benchmark for the comparison of the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian gauge symmetries. Since the method of [@bmp] is based on an equivalent first order formalism we have given a detailed Hamiltonian analysis of the model from that approach. Note that this is a new calculation different from the earlier Hamiltonian analysis of the model [@kumar; @reyes]. This Hamiltonian analysis was then used to construct the independent gauge generator. Correspondence of the transformation generated by this has been established with the gauge symmetries of the action and an exact mapping was demonstrated between the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian gauge parameters.\
Though illustrated by a simple example, our analysis given in this paper provides a facility to analyze the independent gauge invariances of more intricate higher derivative models. From the connections of higher derivative theories with such modern contexts of anyon physics and non-commutative geometry [@pl5] and the relevance of higher derivative theories in the modern theories of gravity [@soti] this facility will indeed be welcome.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
P.M. and B.P. would like to thank R. Banerjee for useful discussion. P. M. acknowledges the facilities provided by IUCAA and SNBNCBS where parts of the work were done. B.P. thanks CSIR for financial support.
[999]{} R. Banerjee, P. Mukherjee, B. Paul, JHEP 1108:085,2011. arXiv : 1012.2969 . B. Podolsky, Phys. Rev. [**62**]{}, 68 (1942). B. Podolsky and C. Kikuchi, Phys. Rev. [**65**]{}, 228 (1944). B. Podolsky and C. Kikuchi, Phys. Rev., 184 (1945). D. J. Montgomery, Phys. Rev. [**69**]{}, 117 (1946) B. Podolsky and P. Schwed, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**20**]{}, 40 (1948). A. Pais and G. E. Uhlenbeck, Phys. Rev. [**79**]{}, 145 (1950).
A. V. Smilga, Nuclear Physics B **706** (2005) 598614. K. S. Stelle, Phys. Rev. [**D16**]{} (1977), 953. E. S. Fradkin, A.A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. [**B201**]{} (1982), 469. S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Int.J.Geom.Meth.Mod.Phys.**4**(2007), 115; arXiv:hep-th/0601213v5. T.P. Sotiriou,Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451-497 (2010); arXiv:0805.1726. S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Phys.Rept.**505**(2011),59. D. A. Eliezer and R. P. Woodard, Nucl. Phys. B **325**, 389 (1989). C. S. Chu, J. Lukierski and W. J. Zakrzewski, Nucl. Phys. B [**632**]{}, 219 (2002). J. A. Wheeler and R. P. Feynman, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**21**]{}, 425 (1949). G. W. Gibbons; arXiv:hep-th/0302199. S. M. Carroll, M. Hoffman and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 023509 (2003). R. P. Woodard, Lect. Notes Phys. [**720**]{}, 403 (2007). A. Anisimov, E. Babichev and A. Vikman, JCAP [**0506**]{}, 006 (2005). A. A. Slavnov, Teor. Mat. Fiz. [**13**]{}, 174 (1972). D. Evens,J. W. Moffat, G. Kleppe and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{}, 499 (1991). T. D. Bakeyev and A. A. Slavnov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**11**]{}, 1539 (1996). T. D. Lee and G. C. Wick, Nucl. Phys.B 9, 209 (1969). T. D. Lee and G. C. Wick, Phys. Rev. D 2, 033 (1970). Y. Michel, B. Pioline JHEP **2007**, 103 (2007). Y. Cai and D. A. Easson, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2010, 002 (2010) J. Polonyi and A. Siwek, Phys. Rev. D **84**, 085014 (2011). M. S. Plyuschay, J. Theor. Phys. 3N10:17-31, 2006, \[arXiv: math-ph/0604022\]. P.A.M. Dirac, Can. J. Math. [**2**]{} (1950) 129;[*Lectures on Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Yeshiva University, 1964. A. Hanson, T. Regge, C. Tietelboim, “*Constrained Hamiltonian System*”, (Accademia Nazionale Dei Lincei, Roma, 1976). H. J. Rothe, K. D. Rothe, “*Classical And Quantum Dynamics of Constrained Hamiltonian Systems*” .World Scientific Lecture Notes in Physics - Vol. 81. K. Sundermeyer, “*Lecture Notes in Physics 169, Constrained Dynamics*”, (Springer-Verlag, 1982). M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim, “ *Quantization of Gauge Systems*”, Princeton University Press. D. M. Gitman and I. V. Tyutin, “ *Quantization of Fields with Constraints*”, [*Springer – Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (1990) 291 p*]{}. L. Castellani, Ann. Phys. [**[143]{}**]{}, (1982) 357. M.E.V. Costa, H.O. Girotti and T.J.M. Simoes, Phys. Rev. [**D32**]{} (1985) 405.
X. Gracia and J. M. Pons, J. Phys. A:Math. Gen. [**[28]{}**]{} (1995), 7181.
R. Banerjee, H. J. Rothe and K. D. Rothe, Phys. Lett. [**[B 463]{}**]{} (1999) 248; arXiv : hep-th/9906072. R. Banerjee, H. J. Rothe and K. D. Rothe, Phys. Lett. [**[B 479]{}**]{} (2000) 429 arXiv : hep-th/9907217. R. Banerjee, H. J. Rothe, K. D. Rothe, J.Phys.**A33**(2000)2059; arXiv : hep-th/9909039. M. Ostrogradsky, *Mem. Ac. St. Petersbourg* [**V14**]{} (1850) 385. D. M. Gitman, S. L. Lyakovich and I. V. Tyutin, Sov. Phys. Journ., [**[26]{}**]{}, 730 (1983). M. S. Plyuschay, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A3**]{} (1988), 1299. M. S. Plyuschay, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A4: 3851-3865 (1989). M. S. Plyuschay, Mod. Phys. Lett. A4: 837-847, (1989). M. S. Plyuschay, Phys. Lett. B 243; 383-388, 1990.
V.V.Nesterenko,J. Phys. [**[A22]{}**]{} (1989) 1673. I. L. Buchbinder, S. L. Lyakhovich, V. A. Krykhtin, Class. Quant. Grav. **10**(1993)2083.
A. Morozov,Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, **157(2)**(2008): 1542, arXiv:0712.0946. P. Dunin – Barkowski and A. Sleptsov,Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, **158(1)**(2009): 61; arXiv : 0801.4293. K. Andrzejewski, J. Gonera, P. Machalski, P. Maslanka,Physical Review **D 82**(2010) , 045008; arXiv : 1005.3941. Pedro D. Prieto-Martinez, Narciso Roman-Roy, J.Phys.A4 4:**385203**,(2011). arXiv 1106.3261 .
R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D [**[34]{}**]{} (1986), 670.
E. Ramos and J. Roca, Nucl. Phys. [**[B436]{}**]{} (1995), 529. Nucl.Phys. [**[B452]{}**]{} (1995), 705. E. Ramos and J. Roca, Phys.Lett. B**366** (1996) 113; arXiv:hep-th/9506088.
R. Banerjee, P. Mukherjee, A. Saha, Phys. Rev. [**[D 70]{}**]{} (2004) 026006, arXiv : hep-th/0403065. R. Banerjee, P. Mukherjee, A. Saha, Phys. Rev. [**[D 72]{}**]{} (2005) 066015; arXiv : hep-th/0501030 . S. Gangopadhyay, A. Ghosh Hazra, A. Saha, Phys. Rev. [**[D 74]{}**]{} (2006) 125023,arXiv : hep-th/0701012. P. Mukherjee and A. Saha, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24, 4305 (2009). S. Samanta, Int.J.Theor.Phys.**48**(2009)1436; arXiv: 0708.3300. R. Banerjee, S. Gangopadhyay, P. Mukherjee, D. Roy, JHEP 1002:075, (2010); arXiv : 0912.1472. R. Banerjee, S. Gangopadhyay, D. Roy; arXiv : 1108.4591v3. S. Deser, R. Jackiw, Physics Letters B **451** (1999)73. S. Kumar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A **18**, 1613 (2003); arXiv : hep-th/0112121. C. M. Reyes, Physical Review D **80**, 105008 (2009).
[^1]: Also, Visiting Associate at S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, JD Block, Sector III, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700098, India.
[^2]: The model with the action (\[masparaction\]) has been shown to be rich in physical content in a series of seminal papers by Plyuschay [@pl1; @pl2]. The model has three different but related types of solutions, the massive, massless and tachyionic. On the other hand the $m=0$ analogue of (\[masparaction\]) was proposed and analysed in [@pl3] where it was shown that the model is consistent classically only under the assumption that the velocity of the particle is greater than the velocity of light. This gauge dependent velocity arises due to a classical analogue of Zitterbewegung phenomenon for a massless spinning particle while the gauge invariant velocity is equal to the velocity of light. For $m \ne 0$ the parameter $\alpha$ multiplying the curvature term may take arbitrary values, whereas in the corresponding model with $m=0$ this parameter is quantized [@pl4]
[^3]: for a related review on the subject see [@pl5]
[^4]: In [@reyes] a gauge fixed version of (\[mcslag\]) has been considered.
[^5]: for theories with first class constraints only, [,]{} denotes Poisson bracket otherwise they refer to the appropriate Dirac bracket
[^6]: Technically this should be done by replacing the Poisson brackets by the corresponding Dirac brackets. However, the Dirac brackets here are trivial i.e. the Dirac brackets between the remaining phase space variables are the same as the Poisson brackets .
[^7]: this model was introduced and its physical content clarified in [@pl3; @pl4]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $R$ be a ring and ${\mathcal{Q} }$ be a finite and acyclic quiver. We present an explicit formula for the injective envelopes and projective precovers in the category ${{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} },R)$ of representations of ${\mathcal{Q} }$ by left $R$-modules. We also extend our formula to all terms of the minimal injective resolution of $R{\mathcal{Q} }$. Using such descriptions, we study the Auslander-Gorenstein property of path algebras. In particular, we prove that the path algebra $R{\mathcal{Q} }$ is $k$-Gorenstein if and only if ${\mathcal{Q} }=\overrightarrow{A_{n}}$ and $R$ is a $k$-Gorenstein ring, where $n$ is the number of vertices of ${\mathcal{Q} }$.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Isfahan, P.O.Box: 81746-73441, Isfahan, Iran and School of Mathematics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Science (IPM), P.O.Box: 19395-5746, Tehran, Iran'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Isfahan, P.O.Box: 81746-73441, Isfahan, Iran'
- 'School of Mathematics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), P.O.Box: 19395-5746, Tehran, Iran '
author:
- 'J. Asadollahi, R. Hafezi and M. H. Keshavarz'
title: 'Minimal Injective Resolutions and Auslander-Gorenstein Property for Path Algebras'
---
[^1]
Introduction {#1}
============
The theory of representations of quivers was initiated with the purpose of classifying finite dimensional algebras of finite representation type. Gabriel in [@G1] and [@G2] gave an explicit construction of indecomposable modules over a finite dimensional algebra, and in his work, he found the connection between the Dynkin diagrams of semisimple Lie algebras and the representation theory of algebras. After this connection was found, many authors have started the study of this theory of representation of quivers.
The classical representation theory of quivers considers finite quivers and assume that the base ring is algebraically closed field and that all vector spaces involve are finite dimensional (cf. [@Le]). In the recent years there has been a growing interest in the study of representations of quivers over general rings (not just fields) and this paper contains some results in this direction. In fact, it should be considered as a continuation of the projects initiated in [@EH] and continued in [@EOT; @EE1; @EEG; @AEHS], to develop new techniques to study these more general representations.
In the first part of this paper, we recall the left and right adjoints of evaluation functors and their descriptions. We then apply them to describe injective envelopes and projective precovers of representations of finite acyclic quivers. Moreover, we describe explicitly, the terms of the minimal injective resolution of path algebra $R{\mathcal{Q} }$, whenever ${\mathcal{Q} }$ is a finite and acyclic quiver. Based on these descriptions, among other results, we study Auslander-Gorenstein property of path algebras. To see some results on Auslander-Gorenstein property of algebras see e.g. [@FGR; @AR1; @AR2].
Let us be more precise. Let $M$ be a representation of $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ by left $R$-modules. In Theorem \[Main I\], we provide an explicit formula for ${\mathbf{E}}(M)$, the injective envelope of $M$ and ${\mathbf{P}}(M)$, a projective precover of $M$. In Theorem \[Main II\] we extend our formula to all terms of the minimal injective resolution of $R{\mathcal{Q} }$.
Generalized Nakayama Conjecture, $\mathbf{GNC}$ for short, says that each indecomposable injective module is a summand of some terms in a minimal injective resolution of an artin algebra. As a corollary, we show that if $\mathbf{GNC}$ is true for $R$, then $\mathbf{GNC}$ is true for $R{\mathcal{Q} }$, where ${\mathcal{Q} }$ is a finite and acyclic quiver, see Corollary \[GNC\] below.
Auslander introduced the notion of $k$-Gorenstein algebras, see e.g. [@FGR]. Let $R$ be a two-sided Noetherian ring. $R$ is called $k$-Gorenstein if ${{\rm{fd}}}(I^i)\leq i$ for every $0 \leq i \leq k-1$, where $I^i$ denotes the $i$th term of the minimal injective resolution of $R$ considered as a left $R$-module. Note that the notion of a $k$-Gorenstein ring is left-right symmetric. In Section \[5\], we apply our formulas to show that if ${\mathcal{Q} }$ is a finite, connected and acyclic quiver with $n$ vertices, then the path algebra $R{\mathcal{Q} }$ is a $k$-Gorenstein ring if and only if ${\mathcal{Q} }=\overrightarrow{A_{n}}$ and $R$ is a $k$-Gorenstein ring, see Theorem \[Main III\]. Also as an interesting example, show that when we consider the category of representations of a quiver over a ring, not necessarily a field, we in fact are studying the category of representations of a quiver with relations over a field, see Example \[5.6\].
We also turn our attention to the tensor product of path algebras and show that if $ A=K{\mathcal{Q} }$ and $ B= K{\mathcal{Q} }'$ are path algebras with respect to finite, connected and acyclic quivers ${\mathcal{Q} }$ and $ {\mathcal{Q} }'$, where $ K $ is a field, then $A\otimes_{K} B$ is $k$-Gorenstein if and only if ${\mathcal{Q} }$ and ${\mathcal{Q} }'$ are linear quivers.
All rings considered in this paper are associative with identity. The letter $R$ will usually denote such ring. All modules are left unitary $R$-modules. ${R \text{-} {\rm{Mod}}}$ will denote the category of left $R$-modules.
Preliminaries {#2}
=============
In this section, for the convenience of the reader, we present definitions and results that will be used throughout the paper.
\[2.1\] A quiver $\mathcal{Q}$ is a directed graph. It will be denoted by a quadruple $\mathcal{Q} = (V, E, s, t)$, where $V$ and $E$ are respectively the sets of vertices and arrows of $\mathcal{Q}$ and $ s, t : E \rightarrow V$ are two maps which associate to every arrow $ \alpha \in E $ its source $ s(\alpha) $ and its target $ t(\alpha) $, respectively. We usually denote the quiver $\mathcal{Q} = (V, E, s, t)$ briefly by $\mathcal{Q} = (V, E)$ or even simply by $\mathcal{Q}$. A vertex $v \in V$ is called a sink if there is no arrow $ \alpha $ with $ s(\alpha)=v $. $v$ is called a source if there is no arrow $ \alpha $ with $ t(\alpha)=v $. A quiver $\mathcal{Q}$ is said to be finite if both $V$ and $E$ are finite sets. Throughout the paper we assume that $\mathcal{Q}$ is a finite quiver.
A path of length $ l\geqslant 1 $ with source $a$ and target $b$ (from $a$ to $b$) is a sequence of arrows $ \alpha_{l} \cdots \alpha_{2}\alpha_{1}$, where $\alpha_{i}\in E$, for all $ 1\leq i \leq l $, and we have $ s(\alpha_{1}) = a, s(\alpha_{i})=t(\alpha_{i-1})$ and $ t(\alpha_{l})=b $. If $ p=\alpha_{l} \cdots \alpha_{2}\alpha_{1} $ is a path of $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ we extend the notation and let $ {\mathbf{s}}(p)=s(\alpha_1) $ and $ {\mathbf{t}}(p)=t(\alpha_l) $. A path of length $ l\geqslant 1 $ is called a cycle if its source and target coincide. $\mathcal{Q}$ is called acyclic if it contains no cycles.
As Enochs et al. in [@EOT], we can exploit induction to build a partition for $ V, $ the set of vertices of acyclic quiver $ {\mathcal{Q} }$. Put $ V_0 = \{ v \in V : \nexists \ \alpha \in E {\rm \ such \ that} \ s(\alpha)=v \}. $ Suppose $ n\geq 0 $ and we have defined $ V_i $ for all $ i \leq n $. Let $ V_{n+1}= \{ v \in V\setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^{n}V_i : \nexists \ \alpha \in {\mathcal{E}}_n {\rm \ such \ that} \ s(\alpha)=v \}, $ where $ {\mathcal{E}}_n =E\setminus \{ \alpha : t(\alpha) \in \bigcup_{i=0}^{n}V_i \} $. Dually one can define $ V'_0 = \{ v \in V : \nexists \ \alpha \in E {\rm \ such \ that} \ t(\alpha)=v \}. $ And, if $ V'_i $ is defined for every $ i \leq n $, then put $ V'_{n+1}= \{ v \in V\setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^{n}V_i : \nexists \ \alpha \in {\mathcal{E}}'_n {\rm \ such \ that} \ t(\alpha)=v \}, $ where $ {\mathcal{E}}'_n =E \setminus \{ \alpha : s(\alpha) \in \bigcup_{i=0}^{n}V'_i \} $.
For a fixed vertex $ v \in V $, the set of all $ w \in V $ with an arrow $ v {\longrightarrow}w $ will be denoted by $V_{ {\mathbf{s}}(v)} $. Also, the set of all $ w \in V $ with an arrow $ w {\longrightarrow}v $ will be denoted by $V_{ {\mathbf{t}}(v)} $. Similarly, $ E_{{\mathbf{s}}(v)} $, resp. $ E_{{\mathbf{t}}(v)} $, denotes the set of all arrows with initial, resp. terminal, vertex $v$.
A quiver $\mathcal{Q}$ can be considered as a category whose objects are the vertices of $\mathcal{Q}$ and morphisms are all paths in $\mathcal{Q}$. Assume that $R$ is a ring. A representation $X$ of ${\mathcal{Q} }$ by $R$-modules is a covariant functor $X : {\mathcal{Q} }{\longrightarrow}{R \text{-} {\rm{Mod}}}$. Such a representation is determined by giving a module $X_{v}$ to each vertex $v$ of ${\mathcal{Q} }$ and a homomorphism $X_{\alpha} : X_{v} {\longrightarrow}X_{w}$ to each arrow $\alpha : v {\longrightarrow}w$ of ${\mathcal{Q} }$. And so, if $ p=\alpha_{l} \cdots \alpha_{2}\alpha_{1} $ is a path of $ {\mathcal{Q} }$, then $ X_{p}=X_{{\alpha}_{l}} \cdots X_{{\alpha}_{2}}X_{{\alpha}_{1}} $. A morphism between two representations $X$ and $Y$ is a natural transformation. Thus the representations of a quiver $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ by modules over a ring $R$ form a category, denoted by ${{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} },R)$ or $ ({\mathcal{Q} }, {R \text{-} {\rm{Mod}}})$. This is a Grothendieck category with enough projectives and injectives. It is known that the category $({\mathcal{Q} },{R \text{-} {\rm{Mod}}})$ is equivalent to the category of modules over the path ring $R{\mathcal{Q} }.$
\[2.3\] By the (left) path space of ${\mathcal{Q} },$ we mean the quiver $P({\mathcal{Q} })$ whose vertices are the paths $p$ of ${\mathcal{Q} }$ and whose arrows are the pairs $(p, \alpha p) : p {\longrightarrow}\alpha p,$ where $p$ is a path of ${\mathcal{Q} }$ and $\alpha$ is an arrow of ${\mathcal{Q} }$ such that $\alpha p$ is defined. It is clear then that $P({\mathcal{Q} })$ is a forest. If $v$ is a vertex of ${\mathcal{Q} }$ we let $P({\mathcal{Q} })_v$ denote the subtree of $P({\mathcal{Q} })$ containing all paths of ${\mathcal{Q} }$ with initial vertex $v$. If $p$ and $q$ are paths of ${\mathcal{Q} }$ such that $qp$ is defined, we extend the notation and let $(p, qp): p {\longrightarrow}qp$ denote a path of $P({\mathcal{Q} })$. If $v$ is a vertex of ${\mathcal{Q} }$ we let $P({\mathcal{Q} })_v$ denote the subquiver of $P({\mathcal{Q} })$ containing all paths of $ R{\mathcal{Q} }$ with initial vertex $v$. For simplicity, the set of vertices of $P({\mathcal{Q} })_v$ will be denoted by $ {\mathcal{Y} }_{v} $. Note that there is also an obvious definition of a right path space of ${\mathcal{Q} }$.
\[2.4\] Associated to $v$, there exists a functor $e^{v} : {{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }, R) \rightarrow {R \text{-} {\rm{Mod}}}$, called the evaluation functor, which assigns to every representation $X$ of $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ its module at vertex $v$, denoted $X_{v}$. It is proved in [@EH; @EGOP] that $ e^{v} $ possesses a right and also a left adjoint $ e^{v}_{\rho} $ and $ e^{v}_{\lambda} $, respectively. In fact, $ e^{v}_{\rho}: {R \text{-} {\rm{Mod}}}{\rightarrow}{{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }, R) $ is defined as follows: let $M$ be an arbitrary module in ${R \text{-} {\rm{Mod}}}$. Then $ e^{v}_{\rho}(M)_{w}=\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(w,v)} M $, where ${\mathcal{Q} }(w, v)$ denotes the set of paths starting in $w$ and terminating in $v$. The maps are natural projections. The left adjoint of $ e^{v} $ is defined similarly: for any $R$-module $M$, one defines $ {e^{v}_{\lambda}(M)}_{w}=\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v, w)}M $. The maps are natural injections.
Based on the properties of these adjoints, one may deduce that for any projective module $ P \in{{\rm Prj} }(R)$, the representation $ e^{v}_{\lambda}(P)$ is a projective representation of ${\mathcal{Q} }$, that is, belongs to ${{\rm Prj} }({{\rm Rep}}(Q, R))$. In fact, the set $$\{e^{v}_{\lambda}(P) : P \in {{\rm Prj} }(R)\ {\rm and} \ v \in V \},$$ is a set of projective generators for the category ${{\rm Rep}}(Q, R)$. On the other hand, for any injective module $E \in {{\rm Inj}}(R)$, the representation $ e^{v}_{\rho}(E)$ is an injective representation of ${\mathcal{Q} }$, that is, belongs to ${{\rm Inj}}({{\rm Rep}}(Q, R))$. In fact, the set $$\{e^{v}_{\rho}(E) : E \in {{\rm Inj}}(R) \ {\rm and}\ v \in V \},$$ is a set of injective cogenerators for the category ${{\rm Rep}}(Q, R)$. This, in particular, implies that every representation $M$ of ${\mathcal{Q} }$ can be embedded in a direct sum of elements of this set. The proof of these facts can be found in [@EE1] and [@EEG].
Minimal Injective Resolutions of Path Algebras {#4}
==============================================
In the classical representation theory of algebras over a field, to compute injective envelope and projective cover, one can use Lemma $ 3.2.2 $ in [@ASS]. Enochs et al. in [@EKP Proposition 3.1] described the injective envelopes of representations of the line quivers $\overrightarrow{A_n}$ for $n \geq 1$ over an arbitrary ring. In this section, we plan to give an explicit formula for the terms of the minimal injective resolutions of path algebras. Unless otherwise specified, all quivers are finite, connected and acyclic.
Our first theorem, describes injective envelopes and projective precovers in the category ${{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }, R) $ of representations of ${\mathcal{Q} }$ by left $R$-modules. This result also can be proved by modifying the argument used in the proof of Proposition 3.1 of [@EKP], where they obtained descriptions for the injective envelopes and projective precovers of representations, while ${\mathcal{Q} }= \overrightarrow{A_n}$ is the line quiver. We here present a new proof that is in line with the proof of the main theorem of this section. Throughout we use bold capital ${\mathbf{E}}$ to show the injective envelope.
\[Main I\] Let ${\mathcal{Q} }$ be an acyclic quiver and let $M$ be a representation of ${\mathcal{Q} }$ by left $R$-modules. For every $v\in V$, set $K_v := {{\rm{Ker}}}(M_v {\longrightarrow}\bigoplus_{s(\alpha)=v}M_{t(\alpha)})$ and $C_v := {{\rm{Coker}}}(\bigoplus_{t(\alpha)=v}M_{s(\alpha)}{\longrightarrow}M_v)$. Then ${\mathbf{E}}(M) = \bigoplus_{v \in V} e_{\rho}^{v}(E_{v}) $, where $ E_v = {\mathbf{E}}(K_v) $. Also $\bigoplus_{v\in V} e_{\lambda}^{v}(P_{v})$ is a projective precover of $ M $, where $ P_v $ is a projective precover of $ C_{v} $.
We only prove the first part, the proof of the second part is similar, or rather dual. To this end, we first prove that there is a monomorphism $ \psi : M {\rightarrow}\bigoplus_{v \in V} e_{\rho}^{v}(E_{v}) $. Let $ w $ be a vertex and the map $ \varphi_{w}: M_w {\rightarrow}E_w $ be the extension of embedding $ K_w \hookrightarrow E_w$. If for every $ p \in {\mathcal{Y} }_w $, we consider the composition map $ \varphi_{{\mathbf{t}}(p)} M_{p}:M_w{\rightarrow}M_{{\mathbf{t}}(p)}{\rightarrow}E_{{\mathbf{t}}(p)} $, then we get the induced map $ \psi_w=(\varphi_{{\mathbf{t}}(p)}M_{p})_{p \in {\mathcal{Y} }_w}:M_w {\rightarrow}( \bigoplus_{v \in V} e_{\rho}^{v}(E_{v}))_{w} =\bigoplus_{v \in V} \bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(w,v)} E_{v} = \bigoplus_{p\in {\mathcal{Y} }_w}E_{{\mathbf{t}}(p)} $. Now, we can show that the map $ \psi =(\psi_{w})_{w \in V}: M {\rightarrow}\bigoplus_{v \in V} e_{\rho}^{v}(E_{v}) $ is a morphism Let $ \alpha:w_1 {\rightarrow}w_2$ be an arrow in $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ and $ x \in M_{w_{1}} $. Clearly, $ \psi_{w_{2}}M_{\alpha}(x) = (\varphi_{{\mathbf{t}}(q)}M_{q\alpha}(x))_{q\in {\mathcal{Y} }_{w_{2}}} $. On the other hand, $ ( \bigoplus_{v \in V} e_{\rho}^{v}(E_{v}))_{\alpha} \psi_{w_{1}} (x) = ( \bigoplus_{v \in V} e_{\rho}^{v}(E_{v}))_{\alpha} (\varphi_{{\mathbf{t}}(p)}M_{p}(x))_{p\in {\mathcal{Y} }_{w_{1}}} = (y_{q})_{q\in {\mathcal{Y} }_{w_{2}}}$, where
$$\begin{array}{ll} y_{q}= \left \{\begin{array}{lll} \varphi_{{\mathbf{t}}(p)}M_{p}(x) & {} \ \ \ \ \ p= q\alpha, \\ \\ 0 & {} \ \ \ \ {\rm otherwise.} \end{array} \right. \end{array}$$
Thus we have the following commutative diagram for every $ \alpha:w_1{\longrightarrow}w_2$ in $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ and therefore the map $ \psi =(\psi_{w})_{w \in V}: M {\longrightarrow}\bigoplus_{v \in V} e_{\rho}^{v}(E_{v}) $ is a morphism.
$\xymatrix{x \ar[rr]^{M_{\alpha}} \ar[d]^{\psi_{w_{1}}} & &M_{\alpha}(x) \ar[d]^{\psi_{w_{2}}} \\
(\varphi_{{\mathbf{t}}(p)}M_{p}(x))_{p\in {\mathcal{Y} }_{w_{1}}}\ar[rr]^{ \bigoplus_{v \in V} (e_{\rho}^{v}(E_{v}))_{\alpha}} & & \ \ (\varphi_{{\mathbf{t}}(q)}M_{q\alpha}(x))_{q\in {\mathcal{Y} }_{w_{2}}} }$
Now, we show that $\psi$ is in fact a monomorphism. Let $x \in {{\rm{Ker}}}(\psi_{w})$. Thus $\varphi_{{\mathbf{t}}(p)} (M_{p}(x))=0,$ for every $ p \in {\mathcal{Y} }_w$. Assume that $\lbrace \mathcal{V}_0, {\mathcal{V}}_1, ... ,{\mathcal{V}}_m \rbrace$ is a partition of vertices of the subquiver $ P({\mathcal{Q} })_w $, that is defined in \[2.3\]. We show that $ M_{p}(x)=0 $ for every $ p\in {\mathcal{Y} }_w $, where $ w \in V $. If $ p \in {\mathcal{V}}_0 $, then the vertex $ {\mathbf{t}}(p) $ is a sink and so $ K_{{\mathbf{t}}(p)} = M_{{\mathbf{t}}(p)} $. Therefore $ M_{p}(x) \in K_{{\mathbf{t}}(p)}$ and then $ M_{p}(x)= \varphi_{{\mathbf{t}}(p)} (M_{p}(x))=0 $. Now assume that $ p \in {\mathcal{V}}_1 $. Then for every arrow $ \alpha $ with initial vertex $ {\mathbf{t}}(p) $, $ \alpha p \in {\mathcal{V}}_0$. Thus $ M_{\alpha}M_{p} (x)= 0$ and so $ M_{p}(x) \in K_{{\mathbf{t}}(p)}$. Therefore $ M_{p}(x)= \varphi_{{\mathbf{t}}(p)} (M_{p}(x))=0 $. By applying this argument, after finite steps, we deduce that $ M_{\alpha} (x)=0$ for every arrow $ \alpha $ with initial vertex $ w $. Therefore $ x \in K_w $ and then $ x=\varphi_{w}(x)=0 $.
Since there is a monomorphism from $ M $ to $ \bigoplus_{v \in V} e_{\rho}^{v}(E_{v}) $, the proof of this part will be completed, if we show that $ \bigoplus_{v \in V} e_{\rho}^{v}(E_{v}) $ is an injective envelope of $ K= \bigoplus_{v\in V}s^{v}(K_v) $, where
$$\begin{array}{ll} s^v(K_v)_w= \left \{\begin{array}{lll} K_v & {\rm if} \ \ w=v , \\ \\ 0 & {\rm if} \ \ w\neq v. \end{array} \right.\end{array}$$
To this end, it is enough to show that $ {\mathbf{E}}(s^{v}(K_v)) =e^{v}_{\rho}(E_v)$. Note that there is a monomorphism $ s^{v}(K_v) {\longrightarrow}e^{v}_{\rho}(E_v)$. To prove that we have an essential embedding, we need to show that $ s^{v}(K_v) \bigcap L \neq 0,$ for every nonzero subrepresentation $ L $ of $ e^{v}_{\rho}(E_v) $. We first show that $ L_v\neq 0 $. For this, suppose to the contrary that $ L_v = 0 $. Let $ w $ be a vertex of $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ such that $ w\neq v $ and $ L_w \neq 0 $. Also, assume that $ x = (x_{p})_{p \in {\mathcal{Q} }(w,v)} $ is a nonzero element of $ L_{w} $. Then, there is a path $ p \in {\mathcal{Q} }(w,v) $ such that $ x_{p}\neq 0 $. This means that the following diagram $$\xymatrix{L_w \ar[rr]^{L_{p}} \ar[d] & & L_v =0 \ar[d] \\
\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(w,v)}E_v \ar[rr]^{(e^{v}_{\rho}(E_v))_p} & & E_v }$$ is not commutative, which is a contradiction because $ L $ is a subrepresentation of $ e^{v}_{\rho}(E_v) $. Therefore, $\ L_v \neq 0$. Hence, since $ K_v $ is essential in $ E_v $, we have that $ L_v \bigcap K_v \neq 0$. So $ 0 \neq s^{v}(L_v \bigcap K_v ) \subseteq s^{v}(K_v) \bigcap L $ (Note that since $L_{t(\alpha)}=0 $, for every arrow $ \alpha $ with initial vertex $ v $, $s^{v}( L_v \bigcap K_v)$ is a subrepresentation of $ L $).
As an immediate corollary, we have the following result.
Let $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ be a finite acyclic quiver. Every injective representation of $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ by left $ R $-modules can be decompose into a coproduct of representations of the form $ e^{v}_{\rho}(E) $, where $ v \in V $ and $ E \in {{\rm Inj}}(R).$
Any injective representation is its own injective envelope. Hence, by the above theorem every injective envelope has this form.
We also need the following elementary lemma. Note that for an arrow $\alpha$ with initial vertex $w$, $\alpha {\mathcal{Q} }(v,w) = \lbrace \alpha p \vert p \in {\mathcal{Q} }(v,w) \rbrace$.
\[4.1\] Let $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ be a finite, connected and acyclic quiver. Also, assume that $ V_0 $ is the subset of $ V$ consisting of all sinks. For every $ v \in V $ and $ w \in V\setminus V_0 $ choose an arrow $ \alpha_{v,w} $ with initial vertex $ w $. Then $ {{\rm{Coker}}}((e^{v}_{\lambda}(R))_{w} {\longrightarrow}\bigoplus_{s(\alpha)=w}(e^{v}_{\lambda}(R))_{t(\alpha)}) = \bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }''(v,w)}R $, where $ {\mathcal{Q} }''(v,w) = {\mathcal{Q} }'(v,w) \setminus \alpha_{v,w} {\mathcal{Q} }(v,w)$ and $ {\mathcal{Q} }' (v,w)= \bigcup_{s(\alpha)=w} {\mathcal{Q} }(v,t(\alpha)) $.
As before, let $E_{{\mathbf{s}}(w)}$ denote the set of all arrows with initial vertex $w$. For every $\alpha \in E_{{\mathbf{s}}(w)}$, we denote an element of $ \bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v,t(\alpha))}R $ by the pair $ (z'''_\alpha , z_\alpha) $, where $ z_\alpha \in \bigoplus_{ \alpha {\mathcal{Q} }(v, w)}R $, $ z'''_\alpha \in \bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }'''(v, t(\alpha))}R $ and $ {\mathcal{Q} }'''(v, t(\alpha)) = {\mathcal{Q} }(v, t(\alpha)) \setminus \alpha {\mathcal{Q} }(v, w) $. Assume that the maps $ f: \bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v,w)} R {\rightarrow}\bigoplus_{ {\mathcal{Q} }'(v,w)} R $ and $ g: \bigoplus_{ {\mathcal{Q} }'(v,w)} R {\rightarrow}\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }''(v,w)}R $ are defined by $ f: (r_p)_{p \in {\mathcal{Q} }(v, w)} \longmapsto (0 ,(r_p)_{\alpha p \in \alpha{\mathcal{Q} }(v,w)} )_{s(\alpha)=w} $ and $ g: (z'''_\alpha, z_\alpha)_{s(\alpha)=w} \longmapsto (z'''_\alpha, z_\alpha - z_{\alpha_{v,w}})_{s(\alpha)=w} $. Now, the proof can be completed in view of the following short exact sequence $$0 {\longrightarrow}\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v,w)} R {\stackrel}{f}{{\longrightarrow}} \bigoplus_{ {\mathcal{Q} }'(v,w)} R {\stackrel}{g}{{\longrightarrow}} \bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }''(v,w)}R {\longrightarrow}0.$$
\[4.2\] Let $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ be a finite, connected and acyclic quiver. If $ 0 \longrightarrow R \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} I^{0}\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} I^{1}\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} I^{2} \longrightarrow \cdots $ is the minimal injective resolution of $R$, then, for every $ v \in V, $ $ 0 {\longrightarrow}e^{v}_{\lambda}(R) {\stackrel}{}{{\longrightarrow}} J^{v,o}{\stackrel}{}{ {\longrightarrow}} J^{v,1} {\stackrel}{}{{\longrightarrow}} J^{v,2} {\longrightarrow}\cdots $ is the minimal injective resolution of $e^{v}_{\lambda}(R)$, where for every $ i \geq 0, $ $ J^{v,i}=(\bigoplus_{x\in V_{0}}e^{x}_{\rho}(\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v,x)} I^{i})) \bigoplus (\bigoplus_{y\in V\setminus V_{0}}e^{y}_{\rho}(\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }''(v,y)}I^{i-1})) $ and $ I^{-1} = 0$.
Let $ \alpha : w {\longrightarrow}w' $ be an arrow in $ {\mathcal{Q} }$. Set $ P^v:=e^{v}_{\lambda}(R). $ The natural morphism $ P^{v}_{\alpha}:P^{v}_{w} = \bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v,w)}R {\longrightarrow}P^{v}_{w'}=\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v, w')} R$ is a momomorphism. Hence, for every vertex $ w \in V\setminus V_0 $, the morphism $ P^{v}_{w}{\longrightarrow}\bigoplus_{s(\alpha)=w} P^{v}_{t(\alpha)} $ has zero kernel. Therefore, by Theorem \[Main I\], $ J^{v,0}={\mathbf{E}}(P^v)= \bigoplus_{x\in V}e^{x}_{\rho}(E^{v}_{x})=\bigoplus_{x\in V_0}e^{x}_{\rho}(E^{v}_{x}) = \bigoplus_{x\in V_{0}}e^{x}_{\rho}(\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v,x)} I^{0})$. Note that for every $x\in V_{0}$, $ E^{v}_{x}={\mathbf{E}}(P^{v}_{x})= {\mathbf{E}}(\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v,x)}R)=\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v,x)}I^{0} $.
Now assume that $ K^{v,1} $ is the cokernel of the natural morphism $ P^{v}{\longrightarrow}J^{v,0} $. Let us first compute the kernel of the natural morphism $ h^{v,1}_{w}:K^{v,1}_{w}{\longrightarrow}\bigoplus_{s(\alpha)=w}K^{v,1}_{t(\alpha)} $ for every $ w\in V\setminus V_{0} $. To this end, consider the following commutative diagram with exact rows: $$\[email protected]@R-0.10pc{0 \ar[r]& P^{v}_{w} \ar[r] \ar[d]^{h^{v,0}_{w}} & J^{v,0}_{w} \ar[r] \ar[d]^{g^{v,0}_{w}} & K^{v,1}_{w} \ar[d]^{h^{v,1}_{w}} \ar[r] & 0\\
0 \ar[r] &\bigoplus_{s(\alpha)=w}P^{v}_{t(\alpha)} \ar[r] & \bigoplus_{s(\alpha)=w}J^{v,0}_{t(\alpha)} \ar[r] & \bigoplus_{s(\alpha)=w}K^{v,1}_{t(\alpha)} \ar[r] & 0.}$$
We know that for every path $ p $ from $ w $ to a sink $ x $, there is an arrow $ \alpha_p $ as a part of $ p $ with initial vertex $ w $; i.e., $ p=p'\alpha_p $ for some path $ p' $ from $ t(\alpha_p) $ to $ x $. Thus if $z= (z_p)_{p \in (\bigcup_{x\in V_0} {\mathcal{Q} }(w,x))} $ is an element of ${{\rm{Ker}}}(g^{v,0}_{w})$, then $ J^{v,0}_{\alpha_p}(z) = 0,$ for every $ p \in \bigcup_{x\in V_0} {\mathcal{Q} }(w,x) $ and so $ z_p=(J^{v,0}_{\alpha_{p}}(z))_{p'} =0$. Therefore, $ g^{v,0}_{w} $ has zero kernel. Also, by [@EEG Proposition 2.1] this map has zero cokernel. Hence, by the Snake lemma and Lemma \[4.1\], we have that $ {{\rm{Ker}}}( h^{v,1}_{w})\cong {{\rm{Coker}}}(h^{v,0}_{w}) \cong \bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }''(v,w)}R $. Thus, $ J^{v,1}={\mathbf{E}}(K^{v,1})=(\bigoplus_{x\in V_{0}}e^{x}_{\rho}(\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v,x)} I^{1})) \bigoplus (\bigoplus_{y\in V\setminus V_{0}}e^{y}_{\rho}(\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }''(v,y)}I^{0})) $.
Assume that $ J^{v,i}=(\bigoplus_{x\in V_{0}}e^{x}_{\rho}(\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v,x)} I^{i})) \bigoplus (\bigoplus_{y\in V\setminus V_{0}}e^{y}_{\rho}(\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }''(v,y)}I^{i-1})) $, $ K^{v,i+1} $ is the cokernel of the embedding $ K^{v,i} {\rightarrow}J^{v,i} $ and $ {{\rm{Ker}}}(h^{v,i}: K^{v,i}_{w}{\rightarrow}\bigoplus_{s(\alpha)=w}K^{v,i}_{t(\alpha)})= \bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }''(v,w)}K^{i-1} $ for every $ w \in V \setminus V_0 $, where $ i \geq 1 $ and $ K^{i-1} = {{\rm{Ker}}}(I^{i-1}{\rightarrow}I^{i}) $. Consider the following commutative diagram with the exact rows:
$$\[email protected]@R-0.10pc{0 \ar[r]& K^{v,i}_{w} \ar[r]^{\psi^{v,i}_{w}} \ar[d]^{h^{v,i}_{w}} & J^{v,i}_{w} \ar[r] \ar[d]^{g^{v,i}_{w}} & K^{v,i+1}_{w} \ar[d]^{h^{v,i+1}_{w}} \ar[r] & 0\\
0 \ar[r] &\bigoplus_{s(\alpha)=w}K^{v,i}_{t(\alpha)} \ar[r] & \bigoplus_{s(\alpha)=w}J^{v,i}_{t(\alpha)} \ar[r] & \bigoplus_{s(\alpha)=w}K^{v,i+1}_{t(\alpha)} \ar[r] & 0.}$$
The map $ h^{v,i}_{w} $ is onto. Thus, by the Snake lemma, we have the following short exact sequence $$0 {\longrightarrow}{{\rm{Ker}}}( h^{v,i}_{w}) {\stackrel}{\overline{{\psi}^{v,i}_{w}}}{{\longrightarrow}} {{\rm{Ker}}}( g^{v,i}_{w}) {\longrightarrow}{{\rm{Ker}}}( h^{v,i+1}_{w}) {\longrightarrow}0.$$
One can easily see that $ {{\rm{Ker}}}( g^{v,i}_{w})=\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }''(v,w)}I^{i-1} $. On the other hand, by the proof of the first part of Theorem \[Main I\], $\overline{\psi^{v,i}_{w}}(x)=x$, for every $ x \in {{\rm{Ker}}}(h^{v,i}_{w})=\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }''(v,w)}K^{i} $. Therefore, $ {{\rm{Ker}}}( h^{v,i+1}_{w})\cong {{\rm{Ker}}}( g^{v,i}_{w})/ {{\rm{Ker}}}( h^{v,i}_{w})\cong \bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }''(v,w)}K^{i} $, where $ K^i = {{\rm{Coker}}}( d^{i-1}) $. Hence, $ {\mathbf{E}}({{\rm{Ker}}}( h^{v,i+1}_{w}))= \bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }''(v,w)}I^{i} $ and $$J^{v,i+1}={\mathbf{E}}(K^{v,i+1})=(\bigoplus_{x\in V_{0}}e^{x}_{\rho}(\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v,x)} I^{i+1})) \bigoplus (\bigoplus_{y\in V\setminus V_{0}}e^{y}_{\rho}(\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }''(v,y)}I^{i})).$$
The proof can be now completed by induction.
\[Main II\] Let $ A=R{\mathcal{Q} }$ be the path algebra of a finite and acyclic quiver $ {\mathcal{Q} }$. If $ 0 \longrightarrow R \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} I^{0}\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} I^{1}\stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} I^{2} \longrightarrow \cdots $ is the minimal injective resolution of $R$, then the minimal injective resolution of $A$ becomes $ 0 {\longrightarrow}A {\stackrel}{}{{\longrightarrow}} \bigoplus_{v\in V} J^{v,o}{\stackrel}{}{ {\longrightarrow}} \bigoplus_{v \in V} J^{v,1} {\stackrel}{}{{\rightarrow}} \bigoplus_{v\in V} J^{v,2} {\rightarrow}\cdots, $ where $ J^{v,i}=(\bigoplus_{x\in V_{0}}e^{x}_{\rho}(\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v,x)} I^{i})) \bigoplus (\bigoplus_{y\in V\setminus V_{0}}e^{y}_{\rho}(\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }''(v,y)}I^{i-1})), $ for every $ i \geq 0 $ and $ I^{-1} = 0$.
We know that $ A=\bigoplus_{v\in V}e^{v}_{\lambda}(R) $. Thus the minimal injective resolution of $ A $ is the coproduct of the minimal injective resolutions of $ e^{v}_{\lambda}(R) $.
\[ex\] Let $0 \longrightarrow R \longrightarrow I^{0}\longrightarrow I^{1}\longrightarrow I^{2} \longrightarrow \cdots$ be a minimal injective resolution of $ R $ as a left $ R $-module and $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ be the line quiver $ \overrightarrow{A_n} $ with $ n \geq 1 $. In view of Proposition \[4.2\], we see that for every $ 1< i \leq n $, $ 0 {\longrightarrow}e^{i}_{\lambda}(R) {\longrightarrow}e^{n}_{\rho}(I^0) {\longrightarrow}e^{n}_{\rho}(I^1) \bigoplus e^{i-1}_{\rho}(I^0) {\longrightarrow}e^{n}_{\rho}(I^2) \bigoplus e^{i-1}_{\rho}(I^1) {\longrightarrow}\cdots $ is a minimal injective resolution of $ e^{i}_{\lambda}(R) $. Also $ 0 {\longrightarrow}e^{1}_{\lambda}(R) {\longrightarrow}e^{n}_{\rho}(I^0) {\longrightarrow}e^{n}_{\rho}(I^1) {\longrightarrow}e^{n}_{\rho}(I^2) {\longrightarrow}\cdots $ is a minimal injective resolution of $ e^{1}_{\lambda}(R) $. This, in particular, gives a minimal injective resolution for the lower triangular matrix ring of degree $n$ over $R$.
\[4.4\] Let $M$ be a representation of a quiver ${\mathcal{Q} }$. We know that there exists an exact sequence $$0 {\longrightarrow}\bigoplus_{\alpha\in E}e^{t(\alpha)}_{\lambda}(M_{s(\alpha)}){\longrightarrow}\bigoplus_{v \in V}e^{v}_{\lambda}(M_v){\longrightarrow}M {\longrightarrow}0$$ in ${{\rm Rep}}(Q,R)$, see [@Mi2 Corollary 28.3] and [@C The Standard Resolution]. On the other hand, one can easily rewrite Lemma \[4.1\] and Proposition \[4.2\] for every $ R $-module, instead of $R$ itself. Hence by [@Mi4 Corollary 1.3], we can compute injective resolution for $ M $.
Motivated by the theory of commutative Noetherian Gorenstein rings, Auslander introduced the notion of $ k $-Gorenstein algebras, see [@FGR]. Let $ k $ be a positive integer, $ R $ be a two-sided Noetherian ring and $0 \longrightarrow R \longrightarrow I^{0}\longrightarrow I^{1}\longrightarrow I^{2} \longrightarrow \cdots$ be a minimal injective resolution of $ R $ viewed as a left $ R $-module. Then $ R $ is said to be left $ k $-Gorenstein if $ {{\rm{fd}}}(I^i)\leq i $ for every $ 0 \leq i \leq k-1 $. Note that the notion of a $k$-Gorenstein ring is left-right symmetric [@FGR Auslander’s Theorem 3.7]; i.e, $ R $ is left $ k $-Gorenstein if and only if $ R $ is right $ k $-Gorenstein. Thus we just say that $R$ is $k$-Gorenstein if it is either left or right $ k $-Gorenstein. If $ R $ is $ k $-Gorenstein for all $ k $, then it is called an Auslander ring or sometimes an Auslander-Gorenstein ring. Furthermore $R$ is said to be left, resp. right, quasi $k$-Gorenstein if ${{\rm{fd}}}(I^i)\leq i +1$ for every $0 \leq i \leq k-1$, see [@Hu]. Note that the notion of quasi $k$-Gorenstein ring is not left-right symmetric, see [@AR2]. If $R$ is left and right quasi $k$-Gorenstein, we say that $R$ is quasi $k$-Gorenstein.
Let $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ be a finite and acyclic quiver. If $ R $ is $ k$-Gorenstein, then $ R{\mathcal{Q} }$ is quasi $ k $-Gorenstein.
Without loss of generality we can assume that $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ is a connected quiver. Let $0 \longrightarrow R \longrightarrow I^{0}\longrightarrow I^{1}\longrightarrow I^{2} \longrightarrow \cdots$ be a minimal injective resolution of $ R $ such that $ {{\rm{fd}}}(I^i) \leq i$ for every $ 0 \leq i \leq k-1 $. The Standard Resolution in \[4.4\] easily implies that if $ I \in {R \text{-} {\rm{Mod}}}$ is of flat dimension at most $n$, then $ e^{v}_{\rho}(I) $, as an object in $ {{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }, R) $, has flat dimension at most $n+1$. This result follows from the fact that the first two left terms of this sequence has flat dimension at most $n$. Now it follows easily from Theorem \[Main II\] that $ {{\rm{fd}}}(\bigoplus_{v \in V}J^{v,i})\leq i+1 $ for every $ v \in V $ and for all $ 0\leq i \leq k-1 $.
In [@N] Nakayama proposed a conjecture, which by results of Muller [@Mu] is equivalent to the following: Let $ R $ be a finite dimensional algebra over a field $ K $ and let $0 \longrightarrow R \longrightarrow I^{0}\longrightarrow I^{1}\longrightarrow I^{2} \longrightarrow \cdots$ be a minimal injective resolution of $ R $ as a left $ R $-module. If all the $ I^i $ are projective, then $ R $ is self-injective. Later Auslander and Reiten in [@AR] proposed a generalized version of this conjecture which is called Generalized Nakayama Conjecture or for simplicity $\mathbf{GNC}$. This conjecture says that each indecomposable injective module is a summand of some terms in a minimal injective resolution of an artin algebra. In the following corollary we show that If $ \mathbf{GNC} $ is true for $ R $, then $\mathbf{GNC}$ is true for $ R{\mathcal{Q} }$, where ${\mathcal{Q} }$ is a finite and acyclic quiver.
\[GNC\] Let $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ be a finite and acyclic quiver. If $ \mathbf{GNC} $ is true for $ R $, then $\mathbf{GNC}$ is true for $ R{\mathcal{Q} }$.
Without loss of generality we can assume that $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ is a connected quiver. Let $0 \longrightarrow R \longrightarrow I^{0}\longrightarrow I^{1}\longrightarrow I^{2} \longrightarrow \cdots$ be a minimal injective resolution of $ R $. By assumption, every indecomposable injective module appears as a summand of some $ I^{n}.$ Note that every indecomposable injective $ R{\mathcal{Q} }$-module is of the form $ e^{v}_{\rho}(I) $, where $ v $ is a vertex of $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ and $ I $ is an indecomposable injective $ R $-module. By Theorem \[Main II\], we know that for every $ v \in V $ and $ i \geq 0 $, $ e^{v}_{\rho}(I^i) $ appears in the minimal injective resolution of $ R{\mathcal{Q} }$ as a summand of some terms. If $ v \in V_0 $, then $ e^{v}_{\rho}(I^i) $ is a direct summand of $ J^{v,i} $ for every $ i\geq 0 $. If $ v \in V \setminus V_0 $, then there is a vertex $ w \in V_{{\mathbf{s}}(v)} $. A trivial verification shows that $ e^{v}_{\rho}(I^i) $ is a direct summand of $ J^{w,i+1} $ for every $ i \geq 0 $.
Auslander-Gorenstein Property of Path Algebras {#5}
==============================================
It was proved by Iwanaga and Wakamatsu in [@IW Theorem 8] that a left and right Artinian ring $ R $ is a $ k $-Gorenstein ring if and only if so is the lower triangular matrix ring $ T_{n}(R) $ of degree $ n $ over $ R $. Observe that this is a generalization of [@FGR Theorem 3.10], where the case $ n=2 $ was established. In this section, we study the $ k $-Gorensteiness of $ R{\mathcal{Q} }$, where $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ is a finite, connected and acyclic quiver. We know that when $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ is a linear quiver $ \overrightarrow{A_n} $, the algebra $ R{\mathcal{Q} }$ is isomorphic to the lower triangular matrix ring of degree $ n $ over $ R $.
Let $ {\mathcal{Q} }=\overrightarrow{A_{n}} $ and $ R $ be a $ k $-Gorenstein ring for some positive integer $ k $. Then $ R{\mathcal{Q} }$ is a $ k$-Gorenstein ring.
Let $0 \longrightarrow R \longrightarrow I^{0}\longrightarrow I^{1}\longrightarrow I^{2} \longrightarrow \cdots$ be a minimal injective resolution of $ R $ such that $ {{\rm{fd}}}(I^i) \leq i$ for every $ 0 \leq i \leq k-1 $. Consider $0 \longrightarrow R{\mathcal{Q} }\longrightarrow J^{0}\longrightarrow J^{1}\longrightarrow J^{2} \longrightarrow \cdots$ as a minimal injective resolution of $ R{\mathcal{Q} }$. On the other hand, by Example \[ex\], we know that $ J^i=(\bigoplus_{n}e^{n}_{\rho}(I^i)) \bigoplus (e^{1}_{\rho}(I^{i-1})\bigoplus \cdots \bigoplus e^{n-1}_{\rho}(I^{i-1}) )$ for every $ i\geq 0 $, where $ I^{-1}=0 $. Note that $ {{\rm{fd}}}(e^{n}_{\rho}( I^{i}))={{\rm{fd}}}(I^i) \leq i $. Also for every $1\leq j \leq n-1$, ${{\rm{fd}}}(e^{j}_{\rho}(I^{i-1}))\leq {{\rm{fd}}}(I^{i-1})+1\leq (i-1)+1=i $. Therefore, the path algebra $ R{\mathcal{Q} }$ is a $ k$-Gorenstein ring.
\[5.2\] Let ${\mathcal{Q} }$ be a finite, connected and acyclic quiver with $ n$ vertices. If the path algebra $ R{\mathcal{Q} }$ is a $ k $-Gorenstein ring, then $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ is the linear quiver $\overrightarrow{A_{n}}$ and $ R $ is $ k $-Gorenstein.
We first show that $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ is a linear quiver $ \overrightarrow{A_{n}} $. To this end, suppose to the contrary that $ {\mathcal{Q} }\neq \overrightarrow{A_n} $. Thus, there is a vertex $v$ in $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ such that $ \vert E_{{\mathbf{t}}(v)}\vert >1 $ or $ \vert E_{{\mathbf{s}}(v)}\vert >1 $; i.e., there exist more than one arrows ending at $ v $ or begining at $ v $. In the case $ \vert E_{{\mathbf{t}}(v)}\vert >1 $, assume that $ \alpha_{1}, \cdots, \alpha_{m} $ are all the arrows with terminal vertex $ v $, where $ m $ is an integer more than $ 1 $. Also suppose that $ s(\alpha_{i})=v_{i} $ for every $ i=1,... ,m $. Since $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ is a connected and acyclic quiver, there is a sink vertex $ w\in V_{0} $ such that $ {\mathcal{Q} }(v,w)\neq \emptyset $. Thus we can consider the following diagram as a part of quiver $ {\mathcal{Q} }$. $$\xymatrix{v_{1}\ar[rd]^{\alpha_{1}} & & & \\ \vdots & v \ar[r] &\ar[r] \cdots & w \\ v_{m}\ar[ru]_{\alpha_{m}} & & & }$$
We know that for a vertex $ x $, $ e^{w}_{\lambda}(R)_{x} = \bigoplus_{{\mathcal{Q} }(w,x)}R $ is $ R $ if $ x=w $ and is zero otherwise. Also, for every module $I$, $ e^{x}_{\rho}(I)_{w}= \prod_{{\mathcal{Q} }(w,x)}I $ is $ I $ if $ x=w $ and is zero otherwise. Thus, $ e^{w}_{\rho}(I^{0}) $ is a direct summand of $ {\mathbf{E}}(e^{w}_{\lambda}(R)) $, where $ I^0 = {\mathbf{E}}(R) $. See also Theorem \[Main II\]. Clearly, the natural morphism $ \bigoplus_{1\leq i \leq m}( \prod_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v_{i},w)}I^0) {\longrightarrow}\prod_{{\mathcal{Q} }(v,w)}I^0 $ is not injective. Therefore, by [@EOT Proposition 3.4], $ e^{w}_{\rho}(I^0) $ is not flat. Hence, $ {\mathbf{E}}(e^{w}_{\lambda}(R))$ is not flat. From this we can conclude that $R{\mathcal{Q} }$ is not $ k $-Gorenstein, a contradiction.
Now consider the case where $ \vert E_{{\mathbf{s}}(v)}\vert >1 $. In view of the above argument, we may assume that $ \vert E_{{\mathbf{t}}(w)}\vert \leq1 $ for every vertex $w$; i.e., for every vertex $ w $ in $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ there is at most one arrow with terminal vertex $ w $. We show that in this case, $ e^{x}_{\rho}(I) $ is not flat, for every non-zero $ R $-module $ I $ and every $ x \in V $. This contradicts the fact that $ R{\mathcal{Q} }$ is $ k $-Gorenstein. In this case, assume that $ \alpha_{1}, \cdots, \alpha_{m} $ are all the arrows with initial vertex $ v $, where $ m $ is an integer more than $ 1 $. Also, suppose that $ s(\alpha_{i})=v_{i} $ for every $ i=1,... ,m $. Thus, we can consider the following diagram as a part of quiver $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ $$\xymatrix{& v_{1}\\ v \ar[ur]^{\alpha_{1}} \ar[dr]_{\alpha_{m}} & \vdots \\ & v_{m} }$$
We need to consider the following two cases:
$(i) $ Let $ {\mathcal{Q} }(v,x) \neq \emptyset$. Since for every vertex $ w $ in $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ there is at most one arrow with terminal vertex $ w $, we can conclude that $\vert {\mathcal{Q} }(v,x ) \vert=1 $. Hence, we can assume that $ {\mathcal{Q} }(v,x )=\lbrace p \rbrace$ for some path $p$ with initial vertex $v$ and terminal vertex $x$. Therefore, there is an integer $ i $ such that $ 1\leq i \leq m $ and $ \alpha_{i} $ is a part of the path $ p $. Thus, for every $ j\neq i $ there is no path from $ v_{j} $ to $ x $. Clearly the natural morphism $ \bigoplus_{t(\alpha)=v_j}e^{x}_{\rho}(I)_{s(\alpha)}{\longrightarrow}e^{x}_{\rho}(I)_{v_j} $ is not injective, because $e^{x}_{\rho}(I)_{v_{j}}=0$ and $e^{x}_{\rho}(I)_{v}=I\neq 0$. Therefore $e^{x}_{\rho}(I)$ is not flat.
$(ii)$ Let ${\mathcal{Q} }(v,x) = \emptyset$. In this case the proof falls naturally into two parts:
$(1)$ Let ${\mathcal{Q} }(x,v)\neq\emptyset$. Hence, we can assume that $ {\mathcal{Q} }(x,v )=\lbrace p \rbrace$ for some path $ p $ beginning at vertex $ x $ and ending at vertex $ v $. If the arrow $ \beta $ is a part of the path $p$ with initial vertex $ x $, then we see that the natural morphism $ \bigoplus_{t(\alpha)=t(\beta)}e^{x}_{\rho}(I)_{s(\alpha)}{\longrightarrow}e^{x}_{\rho}(I)_{t(\beta)} $ is not injective, because $ e^{x}_{\rho}(I)_{t(\beta)}=0 $ and $ e^{x}_{\rho}(I)_{x}=I\neq 0 $.
$(2) $ Let $ {\mathcal{Q} }(x,v) = \emptyset$. Since $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ is connected, $ {\mathcal{Q} }(v,x)=\emptyset $ and $ {\mathcal{Q} }(x,v)=\emptyset $, there is a vertex $ w $ such that $ {\mathcal{Q} }(w,v) \neq \emptyset$ and $ {\mathcal{Q} }(w,x)\neq\emptyset $. We can assume that $ {\mathcal{Q} }(w,v )=\lbrace p \rbrace$ for some path $ p $ with initial vertex $ w $ and terminal vertex $ v $. If the arrow $ \beta $ is a part of the path $p$ such that $ {\mathcal{Q} }(s(\beta),x)\neq \emptyset $ and $ {\mathcal{Q} }(t(\beta),x)=\emptyset $, the natural morphism $ \bigoplus_{t(\alpha)=t(\beta)}e^{x}_{\rho}(I)_{s(\alpha)}{\longrightarrow}e^{x}_{\rho}(I)_{t(\beta)} $ is not injective, because $ e^{x}_{\rho}(I)_{t(\beta)}=0 $ and $ e^{x}_{\rho}(I)_{s(\beta)}=I\neq 0 $.
Now the proof is completed by showing that $ R $ is a $ k $-Gorenstein ring. By the above, we know that $ {\mathcal{Q} }=\overrightarrow{A_n} $. Let $ 0 \longrightarrow R \longrightarrow I^{0}\longrightarrow I^{1}\longrightarrow I^{2} \longrightarrow \cdots $ be the minimal injective resolution of $R$. Then $0 {\longrightarrow}e^{1}_{\lambda}(R){\longrightarrow}e^{n}_{\rho}(I^0){\longrightarrow}e^{n}_{\rho}(I^1){\longrightarrow}e^{n}_{\rho}(I^2){\longrightarrow}\cdots $ is the minimal injective resolution of $e^{1}_{\lambda}(R)$. Since $ R{\mathcal{Q} }$ is a $ k $-Gorenstein ring, we conclude that ${{\rm{fd}}}(I^i) \leq {{\rm{fd}}}(e^{n}_{\rho}(I^i))\leq i$ for every $ 0\leq i\leq k-1 $, and the proof is complete.
We summarize the above results in the following theorem.
\[Main III\] Let ${\mathcal{Q} }$ be a finite, connected and acyclic quiver with $n$ vertices. Then the path algebra $R{\mathcal{Q} }$ is a $k$-Gorenstein ring if and only if ${\mathcal{Q} }=\overrightarrow{A_{n}}$ and $ R $ is a $ k $-Gorenstein ring.
Let $M$ be an $R$-module. $M$ is said to have the dominant dimension at least $ n \in {\mathbb{N} }$, written $\rm{dom.dim}\ M\geq n$, if there exists a minimal injective resolution $0 \longrightarrow M \longrightarrow I^{0}\longrightarrow I^{1}\longrightarrow I^{2} \longrightarrow \cdots$ of $M$ such that all the modules $I^j$ with $0 \leq j \leq n-1$ are projective-injective. If the injective envelope $ I^{0} $ of M is not projective, we set $\rm{dom.dim}\ M = 0$. In the case $\rm{dom.dim}\ M\geq n$ and $\rm{dom.dim}\ M\ngeq n+1$, we say $\rm{dom.dim}\ M= n$. If no such $n$ exists, we write $\rm {dom.dim}\ M= \infty$ . Using our techniques, we can prove the following theorem as a generalization of Theorem 3.6 of [@A1].
Let $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ be a finite, connected and acyclic quiver with $ n > 1 $ vertices. Then $$\begin{array}{ll} \rm{dom.dim}\ R{\mathcal{Q} }= \left \{\begin{array}{lll} 1 & {\rm if} \ \ {\mathcal{Q} }=\overrightarrow{A_n}\ {\rm and} \ \rm{dom.dim}\ R\neq 0 , \\ \\ 0 & \rm{otherwise.} \end{array} \right.\end{array}$$
Let $0 \longrightarrow R \longrightarrow I^{0}\longrightarrow I^{1}\longrightarrow I^{2} \longrightarrow \cdots$ be a minimal injective resolution of $ R $ such that $ {{\rm{fd}}}(I^i) \leq i$ for every $ 0 \leq i \leq k-1 $. Consider $0 \longrightarrow R{\mathcal{Q} }\longrightarrow J^{0}\longrightarrow J^{1}\longrightarrow J^{2} \longrightarrow \cdots$ as a minimal injective resolution of $ R{\mathcal{Q} }$. We consider the following two cases: $ (i) $ $ {\mathcal{Q} }\neq\overrightarrow{A_n} $. By Lemma \[5.2\], $ J^0 $ is not projective and hence $ \rm{dom.dim}\ R{\mathcal{Q} }= 0 $. $ (ii) $ $ {\mathcal{Q} }= \overrightarrow{A_n} $. By Example \[ex\], we know that $ J^i=(\bigoplus_{n}e^{n}_{\rho}(I^i)) \bigoplus (e^{1}_{\rho}(I^{i-1})\bigoplus \cdots \bigoplus e^{n-1}_{\rho}(I^{i-1}) )$ for every $ i\geq 0 $, where $ I^{-1}=0 $. If $ \rm{dom.dim}\ R = 0 $, then $ J^0 $ is not projective and hence $ \rm{dom.dim}\ R{\mathcal{Q} }= 0 $. But if $ \rm{dom.dim}\ R{\mathcal{Q} }\neq 0 $, then $ J^0 $ is projective. Hence, $ \rm{dom.dim}\ R{\mathcal{Q} }\geq 1 $. On the other hand, $ J^1 $ is not projective. Thus, $ \rm{dom.dim}\ R{\mathcal{Q} }\ngeq 1 $. Therefore $ \rm{dom.dim}\ R{\mathcal{Q} }= 1 $.
Observe that one of the advantage of working in the the category of representations, with value in the category of $R$-modules when $R$ is an arbitrary ring (not only field) is to study the category of representations of a quiver ${\mathcal{Q} }$ with relations over a field. The following example is devoted to this and shows the power of Theorem \[Main III\].
Let us first recall briefly the notion of quivers with relations. Let ${\mathcal{Q} }$ be an arbitrary quiver. A relation in ${\mathcal{Q} }$ with coefficients in $R$ is an $R$-linear combination of paths of length at least two having the same source and target. A relation usually is denoted by $ \rho = \sum_{i=1}^{m} r_i\gamma_i $, where $ r_i \in R $ and $\gamma_i$ are paths of $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ of length at least $ 2 $ having a common source and a common target.
If $ I $ is a set of relations for a quiver $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ such that the ideal it generates $ \langle I \rangle$ contains all paths of length at least $ m $ for some positive integer $ m \geq 2 $, then $ \langle I \rangle $ is called admissible.
Let $ I $ be a set of relations such that the ideal $ \langle I \rangle$ is an admissible ideal. Then $ {{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }_I, R) $ denotes the full subcategory of $ {{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }, R) $ consisting of the representations of $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ bound by $ \langle I \rangle $; i.e., all representations $ M $ such that $ M_\rho= \sum_{i=1}^{m} r_i M_{\gamma_i} =0 $, for every relation $ \rho = \sum_{i=1}^{m} r_i\gamma_i $ in $ I $. Also, $ {{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }_I, R) $ is equivalent to $ {R{{\mathcal{Q} }/ \langle I \rangle} \text{-} {\rm{Mod}}}$.
\[5.6\] $ (i) $ Let $ K $ be a field and ${\mathcal{Q} }$ be the quiver $$\xymatrix{ & \cdot \ar@(l,u)[]^{\alpha} \ar[r]^{\beta} & \cdot \ar@(r,u)[]_{\gamma} }$$ Set $I=\{ {\alpha}^2,{\gamma}^2, \beta\alpha-\gamma\beta\}$. Then the category ${{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }_I, K)$ is equivalent to the category ${{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }',R)$, where ${\mathcal{Q} }'$ is the quiver $$\xymatrix{ \cdot \ar[r]& \cdot}$$ and $R=K[x]/(x^2)$. Now, by our results, it is easily seen that $R{\mathcal{Q} }'$ is an Auslander ring and $ \rm{dom.dim}\ R{\mathcal{Q} }'=1 $.
$ (ii) $ As another example, assume that $ R $ is the $ K $-algebra given by the quiver $$\xymatrix{ & \cdot \ar@(l,u)[]^{\lambda_{3}} \ar[r]_{\beta} & \cdot \ar@(r,u)[]_{\lambda_{1}} & \cdot \ar[l]^{\alpha}\ar@(r,u)[]_{\lambda_2} }$$ with relations ${ \lambda_{1}}^{2}, { \lambda_{2}}^{2}, { \lambda_{3}}^{2}, \alpha\lambda_2-\lambda_1\alpha, \beta\lambda_3-\lambda_1\beta $. Then the category $ {{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }_I, K)$ is equivalent to the category $ {{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }',R') $, where $ {\mathcal{Q} }' $ is a quiver $\cdot {\longrightarrow}\cdot \longleftarrow \cdot$ and $R'=K[x]/(x^2)$. Now, by our results, it is easily seen that $R'{\mathcal{Q} }'$ is not $ 1 $-Gorenstein and $ \rm{dom.dim}\ R'{\mathcal{Q} }'=0 $. Also one can easily get a minimal injective resolution for $R'{\mathcal{Q} }'$.
Auslander-Gorenstein Property of Tensor Product of Path Algebras {#6}
----------------------------------------------------------------
This subsection is devoted to tensor product of path algebras. For quivers $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ and $ {\mathcal{Q} }' $ we define the tensor product quiver ${\mathcal{Q} }\otimes {\mathcal{Q} }'$ by $({\mathcal{Q} }\otimes {\mathcal{Q} }')_0= {\mathcal{Q} }_0 \times {\mathcal{Q} }'_0$ and $({\mathcal{Q} }\otimes {\mathcal{Q} }')_1= ({\mathcal{Q} }_0 \times {\mathcal{Q} }'_1) \cup ({\mathcal{Q} }_1 \times {\mathcal{Q} }'_0)$, where the maps $ t,\ s: ({\mathcal{Q} }\otimes {\mathcal{Q} }')_1 {\longrightarrow}({\mathcal{Q} }\otimes {\mathcal{Q} }')_0 $ are defined by $ t(\alpha, \ b)= (t(\alpha), \ b), \ t( a, \ \beta)= (a , \ t(\beta)),\ s(\alpha, \ b)= (s(\alpha),\ b ),$ and $ s(a, \ \beta)=(a, \ s(\beta)) $ for all $ a \in {\mathcal{Q} }_0, \ b \in {\mathcal{Q} }'_0, \ \alpha \in {\mathcal{Q} }_1,$ and $ \beta \in {\mathcal{Q} }'_1$.
Now let $ K $ be a field and $ I $ (resp. $ I' $) be a set of relations in $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ (resp. $ {\mathcal{Q} }' $). It is proved in [@Les Lemma 1.3] that there is a $K$-algebra isomorphism $ K{\mathcal{Q} }/ {\mathcal{I} }\otimes_K K{\mathcal{Q} }'/ {\mathcal{I} }' \cong K({\mathcal{Q} }\otimes {\mathcal{Q} }') / {\mathcal{I} }\Box {\mathcal{I} }',$ where $ {\mathcal{I} }= \langle I \rangle$, ${\mathcal{I} }' = \langle I' \rangle $, and ${\mathcal{I} }\Box {\mathcal{I} }'$ is an ideal of $K({\mathcal{Q} }\otimes {\mathcal{Q} }')$ generated by the set $ I \Box I' $ consisting of $({\mathcal{Q} }_0 \times I') \cup (I \times {\mathcal{Q} }'_0)$ and all differences $(\alpha,w') \circ (v, \beta) - (w, \beta) \circ (\alpha, v')$ in which $\alpha:v{\rightarrow}w$ and $\beta:v'{\rightarrow}w'$ are arrows in ${\mathcal{Q} }_1$ and ${\mathcal{Q} }'_1$, respectively. Hence, there is an $K$-algebra isomorphism $K({\mathcal{Q} }\otimes {\mathcal{Q} }')/{\mathcal{I} }\Box {\mathcal{I} }' \cong K({\mathcal{Q} }' \otimes {\mathcal{Q} })/{\mathcal{I} }'\Box {\mathcal{I} }.$
By the above discussion we are able to prove a useful technical result.
\[tensor\] There exist the following equivalences of categories $$\begin{array}{ll}
{{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }\otimes {\mathcal{Q} }'_{I\Box I'}, K) & \simeq {{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }_I, K{\mathcal{Q} }'/{\mathcal{I} }')\\
& \simeq {{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }'_{I'}, K{\mathcal{Q} }/{\mathcal{I} }).
\end{array}$$
We prove the first equivalence, the second one follows in view of the remark above. To this end, we define two functors $F: {{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }\otimes {\mathcal{Q} }'_{I\Box I'}, K) {\longrightarrow}{{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }_I, K{\mathcal{Q} }'/{\mathcal{I} }')$ and $G: {{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }_I, K{\mathcal{Q} }'/{\mathcal{I} }') {\longrightarrow}{{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }\otimes {\mathcal{Q} }'_{I\Box I'}, K)$ that are quasi-inverse. First let us interpret the tensor product quiver ${\mathcal{Q} }\otimes {\mathcal{Q} }'$ with a set of relations $I\Box I'$. Replace each vertex of ${\mathcal{Q} }$ by a copy of quiver ${\mathcal{Q} }'$. Then, for the set of arrows, add arrows corresponding to the set $({\mathcal{Q} }_1 \times {\mathcal{Q} }'_0)$. In addition, the set of relations $I \Box I'$ consists of the set of relations $I$, $I'$ and the commutativity relations that induced from addition arrows corresponding to $({\mathcal{Q} }_1 \times {\mathcal{Q} }'_0)$.
Now, the functor $F: {{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }\otimes {\mathcal{Q} }'_{I\Box I'}, K) {\longrightarrow}{{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }_I, K{\mathcal{Q} }'/{\mathcal{I} }')$ is defined as follows. Given a representation ${\mathcal{M} }\in {{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }\otimes {\mathcal{Q} }'_{I\Box I'}, K)$, $F({\mathcal{M} })_v$ is a representation corresponding to a copy of quiver ${\mathcal{Q} }'$ in a vertex $v$. Moreover, for every arrow $\alpha: v{\longrightarrow}w$ of ${\mathcal{Q} }$, $F(\alpha): F({\mathcal{M} })_v {\longrightarrow}F({\mathcal{M} })_w$ is a morphism corresponding to the set $({\mathcal{Q} }_1 \times {\mathcal{Q} }'_0)$. Note that the commutativity relations that is introduced above, implies that $F(\alpha)$ is a morphism of $K{\mathcal{Q} }'/{\mathcal{I} }'$-modules. Indeed, for every arrow we have a natural transformation between bound quiver representations of $ {\mathcal{Q} }' $ by vector spaces. The same method as above can be applied to define a functor $ G: {{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }_I, K {\mathcal{Q} }'/{\mathcal{I} }') {\longrightarrow}{{\rm Rep}}({\mathcal{Q} }\otimes {\mathcal{Q} }'_{I\Box I'}, K) $ that will be a quasi-inverse of $F$.
Let $ A=K{\mathcal{Q} }$ and $ B= K{\mathcal{Q} }' $ be path algebras with respect to finite, connected and acyclic quivers ${\mathcal{Q} }$ and $ {\mathcal{Q} }'$, where $ K $ is a field. By Theorem \[tensor\] and [@Les Lemma 1.3], we can easily see that $ A\otimes_{K} B \cong (K{\mathcal{Q} })[{\mathcal{Q} }']$. Thus one can compute easily minimal injective resolution of the tensor product of path algebras $ A\otimes_{K} B$. Moreover, by Theorem \[Main III\], we have the following corollary.
\[tensorprod\] Let $ k $ be a positive integer and $ A=K{\mathcal{Q} }$ and $ B= K{\mathcal{Q} }' $ be path algebras of finite, connected and acyclic quivers ${\mathcal{Q} }$ and $ {\mathcal{Q} }'$, where $ K $ is a field. Then $ A\otimes_{K} B$ is $ k $-Gorenstein if and only if $ {\mathcal{Q} }$ and $ {\mathcal{Q} }' $ are linear quivers.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank the referee for useful comments and hints that improved our exposition. The authors also thank the Center of Excellence for Mathematics (University of Isfahan).
[9999]{} M. Abrar, Dominant dimensions of two classes of finite dimensional algebras, preprint (2012), available at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.0562v1.pdf.
J. Asadollahi, H. Eshraghi, R. Hafezi and Sh. Salarian, On the homotopy categories of projective and injective representations of quivers, J. Algebra [**346**]{} (2011), 101-115.
I. Assem, D. Simson and A. Skowronski, Elements of the representation theory of associative algebras. Vol. 1. Techniques of representation theory. London Mathematical Society Student Texts, [**65**]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
M. Auslander and I. Reiten, On a generalized version of the Nakayama conjecture, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**52**]{} (1975), 69-74.
M. Auslander and I. Reiten, k-Gorenstein algebras and syzygy modules, J. Pure Appl. Algebra. [**92(1)**]{} (1994), 1-27.
M. Auslander and I. Reiten, Syzygy modules for Noetherian rings, J. Algebra. 183 (1) (1996), 167-185.
W. Crawley-Boevey, Lectures on representations of quivers, A graduate course given in 1992 at Oxford University, available at http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/ pmtwc/quivlecs.pdf.
E. Enochs and S. Estrada, Projective representations of quivers, Comm. Algebra. [**33**]{} (2005), 3467-3478.
E. Enochs, S. Estrada and J. R. Garcia Rozas, Injective representations of infinite quivers. Applications, Canad. J. Math. [**61**]{} (2009), 315-335.
E. Enochs, J. R. Garcia Rozas, L. Oyonarte and S. Park, Noetherian Quivers, Quaest. Math. [**25(4)**]{} (2002), 531-538.
E. Enochs and I. Herzog, A homotopy of quiver morphisms with applications to representations, Canad. J. Math. [**51(2)**]{} (1999), 294-308.
E. Enochs, H. Kim and S. Park, Injective Covers and Envelopes of Representations of Linear Quivers, Comm. Algebra. [**37(2)**]{} (2009), 515-524.
E. Enochs, L. Oyonarte and B. Torrecillas, Flat covers and flat representations of quivers, Comm. Algebra. [**32(4)**]{} (2004), 1319-1338.
S. Estrada, Monomial algebras over infinite quivers, Applications to $N$-complexes of modules, Comm. Algebra. [**35(10)**]{} (2007), 3214-3225.
K. Erdmann, T. Holm, O. Iyama and J. Schröer, Radical embedding and representation dimension, Adv. Math. [**185**]{} (2004), 159-177.
R. M. Fossum, P. A. Griffith and I. Reiten, Trivial extensions of abelian categories, Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. [**456**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975.
P. Gabriel, Unzerlegbare Darstellungen I, Manuscripta Math. [**6**]{} (1972), 71-103.
P. Gabriel, Indecomposable representations II, Symposia Math. Inst. Naz. Alta Mat. [**11**]{} (1973), 81-104.
Z. Y. Huang, Syzygy modules for quasi k-Gorenstein rings, J. Algebra. [**299**]{} (2006), 21-32.
Y. Iwanaga and T. Wakamatsu, Auslander-Gorenstein property of triangular matrix rings, Comm. Algebra. [**23**]{} (1995), 3601-3614.
L. Le Bruyn and C. Procesi, Semisimple representations of quivers, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**317(2)**]{} (1990), 585-598.
Z. Leszczyński, On the representation type of tensor product algebras, Fund. Math. [**144**]{} (1994), 143-161.
S. Liu and J. P. Morin, The strong no loop conjecture for special biserial algebras, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**132**]{} (2004), 3513-3523.
B. Mitchell, On the dimension of objects and categories II, J. Algebra. [**9**]{} (1968), 341-368.
B. Mitchell, Rings with several objects, Adv. Math. [**8**]{} (1972), 1-161.
J. Miyachi, Injective resolutions of Noetherian rings and cogenerators, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**128**]{} (2000), 2233-2242.
B. J. Muller, The classification of algebras by dominant dimension, Canad. J. Math. [**20**]{} (1968), 398-409.
T. Nakayama, On algebras with complete homology, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg [**22**]{} (1958), 300-307.
[^1]: This research was in part supported by a grant from IPM (No. 93130216)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a new open-source torque-controlled legged robot system, with a low cost and low complexity actuator module at its core. It consists of a low-weight high torque brushless DC motor and a low gear ratio transmission suitable for impedance and force control. We also present a novel foot contact sensor suitable for legged locomotion with hard impacts. A 2.2 kg quadruped robot with a large range of motion is assembled from 8 identical actuator modules and 4 lower legs with foot contact sensors. To the best of our knowledge, it is the most lightest force-controlled quadruped robot. We leverage standard plastic 3D printing and off-the-shelf parts, resulting in light-weight and inexpensive robots, allowing for rapid distribution and duplication within the research community. In order to quantify the capabilities of our design, we systematically measure the achieved impedance at the foot in static and dynamic scenarios. We measured up to dimensionless leg stiffness without active damping, which is comparable to the leg stiffness of a running human. Finally, in order to demonstrate the capabilities of our quadruped robot, we propose a novel controller which combines feedforward contact forces computed from a kino-dynamic optimizer with impedance control of the robot center of mass and base orientation. The controller is capable of regulating complex motions which are robust to environmental uncertainty.'
author:
- |
Felix Grimminger$^{\ast}$, Avadesh Meduri$^{\ast,\dagger}$, Majid Khadiv$^{\ast}$, Julian Viereck$^{\ast,\dagger}$, Manuel Wüthrich$^{\ast}$\
Maximilien Naveau$^{\ast}$, Vincent Berenz$^{\ast}$ , Steve Heim$^{\ast\ast}$, Felix Widmaier$^{\ast}$, Jonathan Fiene$^{\ast\ast}$\
Alexander Badri-Spröwitz$^{\ast\ast}$ and Ludovic Righetti$^{\ast,\dagger}$[^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]
bibliography:
- 'literature2.bib'
title: |
**An Open Torque-Controlled Modular Robot Architecture for\
Legged Locomotion Research**
---
Introduction
============
Present-day robot hardware is often mechanically complex and costly, different robot systems are hard to compare to each other, and legged robots are seldom commercially available. As a consequence, it is often difficult to test advanced control and learning algorithms without significant hardware development efforts or maintenance costs.
![Quadruped robot Solo performing a vertical jump from its standing position. We assembled each leg from two identical brushless actuator modules, a lower leg segment, and a foot contact switch. (Picture by W. Scheible)[]{data-label="fig: solo quadruped"}](_figure_1_alternative.jpg){width="45.00000%"}
To support rapid and broad progress in academic research, we believe a change in strategy is required. Hardware, firmware, and middle-ware must become inexpensive and easy to reproduce and implement. **Open-source blueprints** of **low-cost legged robot platforms** like [@sprowitz_oncilla_2018; @kau2019stanford], and ours, will allow researchers to test and develop their ideas on a **wide variety of robotic platforms** with different morphologies. Performance and characteristics of legged robots reproduced from open-sourced blueprints can directly be compared with each other, anywhere in the world.
Open-source legged robotics can only become effective if little machining of parts is required to reproduce the blueprints, which is the endeavour of the presented work. This requirement excludes sophisticated actuator solutions with excessive, high-tolerance machining and it would be desirable to assemble the actuator modules from off-the-shelf parts only. To achieve this goal, we can benefit from inexpensive **plastic 3D printing** and high-performance brushless DC motors which became widely available lately, often as off-the-shelf hobbyist components. Furthermore, we can tap into the growing mobile device market for affordable sensors, low power and high-performance micro-controllers and increasing battery capacity. Low-weight, inexpensive yet robust robots are particularly relevant when testing advanced algorithms for dynamic locomotion [@carpentier2018multicontact; @ponton2018time; @mordatch2012discovery]. Indeed, simple robot operation and collaborative development through open-source initiatives can accelerate testing cycles. Low-weight robots require no cranes or complex guiding structures, can be operated by a single researcher and require less laboratory space. They can also significantly reduce the time and cost required for repair and maintenance. These features become especially important when testing learning algorithms directly on real hardware [@viereck2018learning; @Tan-RSS-18] where it is essential to have a safe platform to explore various control patterns.
Towards these goals, we present a novel, **fully open-source, modular force-controlled leg architecture** for dynamic legged robot research. This paper presents five main contributions: 1) a novel light-weight, low-complexity, torque-controlled actuator module suitable for impedance and force control, 2) a foot contact sensor suitable for legged robots withstanding hard impacts, 3) a complete characterization of the achieved impedance with one leg constructed with the actuator modules and foot sensor, demonstrating effective dimensionless impedance within the range of human running, 4) a quadruped robot, Solo, assembled from 4 legs, with a very large range of motion and which is, to the best of our knowledge, the lightest force-controlled quadruped and 5) a torque-controller tracking full-body motions computed with a kino-dynamic motion optimizer [@herzog2016structured; @ponton2018time], demonstrating for the first time that motions computed with this motion optimizer can be executed on real robots under moderate environmental uncertainty. The complete design requires mostly 3D printed parts and off-the-shelf components, except for three small machined parts, and is fully open-sourced, including mechanical drawings, electronic circuits and control software [@opensourcelink].
Related Work
============
Initial robot design choices often relate to form-factor and type of motor, its gear ratio, and gear type. Seok and colleagues [@seok_actuator_2012] demonstrate that flat brushless direct current (BLDC) motors lead to high performance and low weight actuators (’high torque density’). With low gear ratio, often between 5:1 and 25:1, proprioceptive actuation can be achieved [@seok_actuator_2012; @ding_design_2017; @ramos_facilitating_nodate]. Proprioceptive actuators do not require dedicated force sensors as joint torque is directly estimated from motor phase current measurement [@wensing_proprioceptive_2017].
Harmonic drive gear boxes are compact, relatively lightweight and have successfully been used for quadruped robot actuation [@hutter2016anymal; @lee2017development]. Unfortunately, their relatively high cost makes them unattractive for our project. Low-geared actuators have the advantage of low friction and stage losses. Fewer and smaller parts in the gear train will induce lower losses from reflected inertia at oscillating load types [@roos_optimal_2006]. ’Transparent’ actuator concepts became standard in haptic devices for direct force feedback [@gealy2019quasi]. However, haptic devices require much lower output power compared to dynamic legged robot systems [@wensing_proprioceptive_2017].
BLDC motors have higher output power to weight ratio, compared to previously used brushed motors. High power BLDC motors now offer the mechanically simpler solution to ’direct-drive’ robot legs, without gearing [@kenneally2016design]. With loads experienced by quadruped robots, calculations by [@roos_optimal_2006; @sprowitz_oncilla_2018; @ding_design_2017] show that energy consumption can be reduced, and actuators used more efficiently with a low-geared actuator.
Legged robots experience high peak torques from impacts, which can damage the gear train components. Hence, simple spur-gear trains with little contact surface between gears are rare in jumping robots or they are combined with mechanical compliance mounted in leg length- [@meyer_passive_2006; @sato2015development] or leg-angle direction [@eckert_towards_2019]. Planetary gears share loading among multiple teeth [@wensing_proprioceptive_2017]. Cable [@kitano_titan-xiii:_2016; @hwangbo2018cable], belt [@ramos_facilitating_nodate], and chain-driven [@hutter2011scarleth; @katz2019mini] actuators exhibit high robustness against external peak torque and can transmit power over a larger distance at low reflected inertia. Here, we use a low weight, dual-stage timing belt transmission with 9:1 gear reduction. The Oncilla robot [@sprowitz_oncilla_2018] and Stanford-doggo [@kau2019stanford] are notable open-source robot platforms. Robots like Oncilla or Cheetah-cub [@sprowitz_towards_2013] feature mechanical compliance in parallel to the leg actuation and react intrinsically and immediately to external perturbations [@sprowitz_towards_2013]. However, these mechanisms would require complicated mechanisms to alter the joint stiffness effectively [@hurst_physically_2005]. Stanford-doggo is torque controlled but, to the best of our knowledge, there is no report on the actual force control performance. These robots nevertheless require substantial machining, which is in contrast to our approach which require mostly off-the-shelf and 3D printed parts (except for the motor shaft and pulleys that need to be machines from stock material) and provides a torque-controlled platform which affords experimentation with state of the art controllers.
We designed our legged robot architecture for proprioceptive force-control. Such approaches require no additional sensing for locomotion on flat and level ground. But it becomes difficult in complex terrain to reliably estimate rapid, low-force contacts merely with proprioceptive control. Limited proprioceptive estimator accuracy has been compensated by appropriate filtering [@bledt_contact_2018]. Here we chose to combine proprioceptive control with traditional, robust sensing by a distally mounted touch sensor. Only a few sensing principles remain functional at harsh impact conditions, like high-speed leg touchdowns. Peak forces can exceed two times bodyweight when exerted onto a single foot [@wensing_proprioceptive_2017]. Light-weight force-sensing based on piezoresistive or optical sensing of deflecting elastic material has been demonstrated previously [@ramos_facilitating_nodate; @kim_note:_2013]. Other designs measure the deflection of rubber-like materials through embedded magnets [@ananthanarayanan2012compact] or measure impacts with inertial measurement units [@kaslin2018towards]. These sensing concepts are relatively complex. Here we propose a simple and inexpensive design based on a spring-loaded aperture, similar to the principle implemented by Hsieh [@hsieh_three-axis_2006].
PLATFORM AND ROBOT OVERVIEW
===========================
This section details the actuator and contact sensor concepts for our modular leg design leading to a 2 DOF leg, and the quadruped robot Solo.
Actuator Concept
----------------
#### Brushless Actuator Module
The actuator module is shown in Figure\[fig:2-dof-leg\]a. It consists of a brushless motor (T-Motor Antigravity 4004, 300kV), a 9:1 dual-stage timing belt transmission (Conti Synchroflex AT3 GEN III), a high-resolution optical encoder (Avago AEDM 5810) and a 5000 cpr code wheel mounted directly on the motor shaft. Everything is contained inside the light-weight, 3D printed shell, with no exposed wires. The low transmission ratio enables reasonable peak torques and high velocity at the joint. Importantly, it ensures sufficient transparency to enable accurate torque control through motor current measurements alone. The module weighs for a segment length of and can output joint torque at . The assembly of the module is simple and requires very few components, as can be seen in Figure \[fig:2-dof-leg\]b. All components are either available off-the-shelf or can be 3D printed except for the motor shaft and the pulleys, which need to be machined from stock material.
#### Electronics
We initially purchased off-the-shelf TI micro-controller evaluation boards equipped with two BLDC booster cards each (Fig.\[fig:electronics comparison\] ). This BLDC motor driver boards are capable of Field Oriented Control (FOC), and execute dual motor torque control at (Fig.\[fig: system\_overview\]). For a more compact design, we miniaturized the motor driver electronics, leading to a factor six reduction in weight, and a factor ten in volume reduction (Fig.\[fig:electronics comparison\]). The resulting MPI Micro-Driver electronics consist of a Texas Instruments micro-controller (TMS320F28069M) and two motor driver chips (DRV8305) on a single board. The MPI Micro-Driver board is equipped with a CAN port for communication and a JTAG port for programming. Each BLDC motor driver board is supplied with , by a dedicated power supply. Note that the TI micro-controller and our custom board provide the exact same functionality and can be used interchangeably, the custom electronics being smaller.
Foot Contact Sensor
-------------------
The foot contact sensor (Figure \[fig:foot sensor\]) was designed to withstand substantial impacts, for rapid contact detection at a low force threshold. Since the foot’s point-of-contact is often unpredictable in rough terrain, we designed the switch to activate with a sensing range of , which ensures proper contact detection for a wide range of robot configurations on complex terrains. We implemented a mechanism based on a light-emitting diode and a light sensor . Both are separated by a spring-loaded, mechanical aperture with diameter. The sensitivity of the contact switch can be adjusted by changing the diameter, length or number of elastic silicone elements utilized . External forces shift the aperture up to and generate an analog output signal between 0V and 3V that is evaluated by an A/D converter on the micro-controller. The foot structure is 3D printed from plastic (Fig.\[fig:2-dof-leg\]c). It weighs , triggers reliably at within of contact. The sensor is simple to assemble, has high sensitivity and low response time while it can also withstand high impacts with the environment. This makes it suitable to detect contacts during dynamic locomotion tasks. It is mounted on the lower leg, which itself is a passive 3d printed structure.
2-DOF Leg and Quadruped Robot Solo
----------------------------------
A single, 2-DOF leg (Fig. \[fig:brushless leg\]) is composed of two identical brushless actuator modules (hip , upper leg ), and a passive lower leg . The foot is mounted distally, at the end of the lower leg. All active joints are multi-turn capable. Cable routing between hollow segments limits rotations to about three turns in each direction.
We assembled the quadruped robot Solo from four identical legs and a 3D printed body structure (Figure \[fig:quadruped cad\]). The robot’s eight DOF are mounted to enable movements in the sagittal plane. The trunk houses the motor driver electronics for controlling 8 BLDC motors. Solo is tethered for CAN bus communication and external power supply. The robot weighs , at about standing hip height (maximum hip height of ), body length, and width. The robot can fold down to in height (Fig.\[fig:quadruped cad\]). It is also completely symmetric in all 3 axes of rotation.
Communication and Control Software
----------------------------------
Both the 2-DOF leg and the quadruped are CAN bus tether connected, to an off-board PC running Ubuntu patched with RT-Preempt for real-time capabilities. The computer sends control commands for each individual leg and receives position and velocity sensor data from each joint at . We implemented drivers to interface the electronics with the control PC. On the micro-controller, we use the TI-provided library for torque control and implemented custom software for sensor processing and communication over CAN. A C++ software package provides an API to interface with several motor boards from the PC, with basic functionalities for position and force control. The API also comes with Python bindings for rapid prototyping purposes. C++ functions enable the implementation of control loops necessary for force control. We provide several demo programs on the open-source repository [@opensourcelink], to e.g.rapidly test multi-actuator control.
Experiments and Results
=======================
In this section, we present experiments with the 2-DOF leg and the quadruped robot. First we quantify the impedance regulation properties of the system, then we present a controller to track motions optimized with a kino-dynamic optimizer and demonstrate dynamic behaviors on the quadruped robot.
Impedance control of the 2-DOF leg
----------------------------------
We characterize the effective impedance control capabilities of the leg by measuring the range of stiffness that can be regulated in quasi-static and hard impact conditions.
![ Leg test stand with linear guide . A 6-axis ATI Mini40 force sensor measured ground reaction forces. A string potentiometer measured leg height . []{data-label="fig:teststand"}](_figure_5.jpg){width="35.00000%"}
We built a test stand (Fig. \[fig:teststand\]) with instrumentation to characterize the leg’s stiffness profile. We use a simple Cartesian impedance controller (Fig. \[fig:impedance\]) to regulate the stiffness and damping of the foot with respect to the hip $\boldsymbol{\tau} {\,{=}\,}\mathbf{J}^T \left( \mathbf{K} (\mathbf{x}_d - \mathbf{x}) - \mathbf{D} \dot{\mathbf{x}} \right)$, where $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^2$ is the foot position with respect to the hip (leg length), $\mathbf{x}_d\in\mathbb{R}^2$ the spring setpoint, $\mathbf{J}$ the foot Jacobian, $\mathbf{K}$ and $\mathbf{D}$ the desired leg stiffness and damping matrices and $\boldsymbol{\tau}\in\mathbb{R}^2$ the vector of motor torques. Note that torque control is only based on the internal motor current and motor position measurements without any force feedback. We validate the force control quality of the leg using external reference sensors on the test stand.
#### Quasi-static experiment
We systematically characterized the range of stiffnesses that can be regulated at the foot for quasi-static motions. The robot initially stands in a rest position, and we slowly pushed on the leg to produce a deflection. We measured the ground reaction force and the leg length using external ground-truth sensors (force plate and string potentiometer). In this experiment, $\mathbf{D} = \mathbf{0}$, and we only use the desired stiffness. We found we could regulate the range of desired stiffness between and , for slow motion. For larger stiffness, without damping, the leg would get unstable. Note that with small amounts of damping, the maximum stiffness can be increased further while avoiding unstable controller behavior (not shown here).
Results of the experiment are shown in Figure \[fig:exp\_A\]. We observe a close-to-linear relationship between vertical ground reaction force and vertical leg displacement for all desired stiffness values until the controller reaches actuator limits (Fig. \[fig:f-limit\]). The maximum leg force (black line) is limited due to a combination of actuator torque limit (maximum applied current), and leg kinematics. The linear relationship is independent of leg compression, suggesting that the linear impedance law works for a broad range of displacements (up to for cases below torque saturation limits).
We computed the effective leg stiffness using linear regression, where we excluded data points in the saturation region. For commanded stiffness lower than , the measured leg stiffness matches the desired stiffness very well. At higher stiffness, we observe lower measured stiffness. Without damping, the maximum measured stiffness was $\simeq$ for a commanded stiffness of . Note that the identification presented in Figure \[fig:exp\_A\]b could also help choose a command that will realize a reference stiffness. These experiments demonstrate the ability of the robot to regulate leg stiffness with a simple control law and without the need for torque sensing. Experimental data shows the linearity of the force-displacement relationship. The difference in high stiffness regimes between actual and commanded stiffness is likely due to other dynamic effects including friction, the flexibility of the transmission and error in joint position measurements (i.e., the encoders measure motor displacement, not joint motion).
#### Drop experiment
The 2-DOF leg was dropped from a height of , with a desired leg stiffness of and low damping of . This experiment shows the leg’s impedance capabilities: producing simultaneous high torques and speeds. Fig.\[fig:dynamic\_drop\] (top) shows the time evolution of the contact force for a typical drop test. The impact response of unsprung mass is visible as large, oscillating forces, during the first of the impact. Frictional and deformation losses are visible by deviations from the ideal leg force: higher forces between touch-down and mid-stance, and lower forces between mid-stance and toe-off. Losses lead to a lower second peak amplitude, of . Leg forces settle at the system’s weight of (weight of 2-DOF leg, vertical slider, and electronics).
Fig.\[fig:dynamic\_drop\] (bottom) shows hysteresis in the work space, and indicates friction and losses in structural system deformation. The hysteresis can be explained by Coulomb friction shifting forces above and below the desired force, depending on the desired direction of motion. Hysteresis losses can be compensated with active control, however this was not the goal in this experiment. The low variance after impact shows very good repeatability of the system. The linear relationship between leg compression and ground reaction forces remained.
#### Jumping experiments
We have already demonstrated the jumping capabilities of a preliminary version of the leg in [@viereck2018learning]. Here we implement a simple periodic vertical motion using joint position controllers to generate jumping behavior. The leg is capable of jumping approximately , which is roughly twice its leg length and times its resting leg length. The robot lands without damage. This demonstrates the ability of our system to generate dynamic motions with force-control.
Dynamic behavior of the quadruped robot
---------------------------------------
In these experiments, we demonstrate the dexterity and capabilities of the quadruped robot. Moreover, we present the first real robot experiments using motions computed with a centroidal dynamics-based kino-dynamic planner [@herzog2016structured; @ponton2018time].
{width="80.00000%"}
#### Kino-dynamic motion optimizer and controller
The motions are planned using the full body kino-dynamic optimizer proposed in [@herzog2016structured]. The algorithm alternatively optimizes 1) the centroidal dynamics of the robot (i.e. its center of mass, linear and angular momentum) together with contact forces trajectories and 2) the kinematics of the full body. After several iterations, a consensus between both optimization problems is reached, leading to locally optimal trajectories consistent with the full robot dynamics. In our experiments, consensus was typically achieved after two iterations. The centroidal dynamics optimization problem is solved using the algorithm proposed in [@ponton2018time].
Our control strategy consists in computing contact forces for the feet in contact such that they generate a sufficient wrench at the CoM to regulate reference CoM, angular momentum and base orientation trajectories. A low impedance controller for the motion of each foot is then added. First an overall desired wrench $\mathbf{W}_{CoM}$ at the CoM is computed as $$\mathbf{W}_{CoM} = \mathbf{W}_{CoM}^{ref} + \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{K}_{c} (\mathbf{x}_{c}^{ref} - \mathbf{x}_{c}) + \mathbf{D}_{c} (\dot{\mathbf{x}}_{c}^{ref} - \dot{\mathbf{x}}_{c}) \\
\mathbf{K}_{b} (\mathbf{q}_{b}^{ref} \boxminus \mathbf{q}_{b}) + \mathbf{D}_{b}(\mathbf{k}^{ref} - \mathbf{k})
\end{bmatrix}\nonumber$$ where $\mathbf{x}_c$, $\mathbf{k}$ and $\mathbf{q}_b$ are the measured CoM position, angular momentum and base orientation (quaternion) respectively. $^{ref}$ denotes the reference trajectories from the motion optimizer, in particular $\mathbf{W}_{CoM}^{ref}$ is the reference wrench at the CoM. $\mathbf{K}_c$, $\mathbf{K}_b$, $\mathbf{D}_c$ and $\mathbf{D}_b$ are gain matrices. The operator $\boxminus$ is the operator that maps the rotation needed to correct for the orientation error between two quaternions into an angular velocity vector using the logarithm mapping between a Lie group and its Lie algebra. In this formulation, we assume that the CoM is located at the base frame origin (its location being therefore constant in this frame), which is a good approximation given that most of the robot mass is located in its base. We also assume that the locked inertia tensor is constant so we can mix orientation and angular momentum control meaningfully. These assumptions proved sufficient for good feedback control performance.
The force allocation for each foot in contact is then computed at each instant of time by solving the following simple quadratic program $$\begin{aligned}
\qquad&\min_{\mathbf{F}_i, \eta} \sum_i \mathbf{F}_i^2 + \alpha(\eta^2 + \zeta_1^2 + \zeta_2^2) \nonumber \\
\textrm{s.t.}\qquad & \mathbf{W}_{CoM} = \sum_{i\in \mathcal{C}} \left(\begin{matrix} \mathbf{F}_i \\ \mathbf{r}_i \times \mathbf{F}_i \end{matrix} \right) + \eta \nonumber\\
& \begin{matrix} F_{i,x} < \mu F_{i,z} + \zeta_1,\ \ F_{i,y} < \mu F_{i,z} + \zeta_2 \end{matrix} \qquad \forall i\in \mathcal{C} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{C}$ contains the indexes of the feet in contact with the ground (we tested the contact activation based on both the plan and the contact sensors feedback), $\eta$, $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ are slack variables that ensure that the QP has always a feasible solution, $\alpha$ is a large weight, $\mathbf{r}_i$ is the vector from foot $i$ to CoM, $\mu$ is the friction coefficient and $z$ is the direction orthogonal to the ground. Once an optimal foot force allocation is found, the actuation torques are computed as $$\boldsymbol{\tau_i} = \mathbf{J}_{i,a}^T \left( \mathbf{F}_i +
\mathbf{K} (\mathbf{l}_i^{ref} - \mathbf{l}_i) + \mathbf{D} (\dot{\mathbf{l}}_i^{ref} - \dot{\mathbf{l}}_i) \right) \nonumber$$ where $J_{i,a}$ is the actuated part of the foot Jacobian, $l$ is the vector between the foot and the base origin and the index $i$ corresponds to each leg.
#### Solo motion capabilities
Solo’s leg joints are multi-turn capable, up to three turns in each direction. Figure \[fig:dexterity\] illustrates how Solo can exploit these capabilities in various situations. Solo’s knee joints can be bent in both directions, and configure the robot into ‘X’, ‘O’-knee postures, or forward- and backward ‘C’ postures when required (Fig.\[fig:dexterity\]a). It bends its knee joint backward, to reach the obstacle from the top (Fig.\[fig:dexterity\]b). We designed a simple motion sequence (Fig. \[fig:dexterity\]c), allowing Solo to stand up after a turn-over. We note that the three demonstrated behaviors cannot be kinematically achieved by quadruped animals.
#### Tracking kino-dynamic plans
We first test the controller in different balancing scenarios that can be seen in the accompanying video. The results show that the robot is capable of balancing on moving platforms without any knowledge of the environment. Then we compute a jumping motion, a slow and a fast walk. Results show that the robot can follow the desired plans. It is interesting to note that the plans are rather long and that no re-planning is done in these experiments. Nevertheless, the robot is able to achieve the task. During the slow walk motion, we added a seesaw obstacle that is not taken into account in the planner nor the controller. The robot is able to traverse the terrain without any problems. These results suggest that the controller is robust the uncertain environments and can adequately stabilize long motion plans. Moreover, this demonstrates that the plans generated by the kino-dynamic optimizer can be transferred to a real robot despite the difference between the dynamic model of the robot and the real system and that they are robust to moderate disturbances. The accompanying video demonstrates all these behaviors. The robot was able to jump vertically, its base reaching with respect to the ground (Fig. \[fig: solo quadruped\]), and land without damage.
Discussion
==========
#### Design choices
Designing a low-weight quadruped robot, while maintaining effective impedance and force control capabilities required us to trade-off several design features. We mounted lower-cost hobbyist BLDC motors. These motors exhibit torque ripples at very low speed, which so far was not a problem during normal locomotion operation but might necessitate active compensation for certain slow precision tasks. We measure torque at the motor, through current measurement. For this, we directly use the data provided by the BLDC motor driver boards. The resulting output torque at the end effector differs due to gear losses, belt and leg structural flexibility, and inertial losses. Nevertheless, our experimental results show that very good impedance control is possible. The robot’s leg joints have multi-turn capability which allows the quadruped robot to switch between four knee configurations, and directly re-orient itself after falling on its back. The large range of motion simplifies motion planning when faced with obstacles along the path.
We have demonstrated legs assembled from the same actuator module but other configurations are also possible. Multiple legs modules can be used as manipulators when reconfigured into a large hand-like structure. We are also currently designing a 12-DOF quadruped with adduction/abduction degree of freedom at the hip joint. We also plan to replace current CAN-based wired communication with wireless, and add on-board battery power for full mobility.
#### Impedance control capabilities
The systematic characterization of leg stiffness suggests that the actuator module can serve as a basis to construct high performance force-controlled robots. As a comparison, reported human leg stiffness values at running [@farley_leg_1996] ranges from $k {\,{=}\,}\SI{7}{kN/m}$ to . For a , leg length human, this translates into a dimensionless leg stiffness, $\tilde{k} {\,{=}\,}k \cdot l_0/(mg)$ [@rummel_stable_2008], between $\tilde{k} {\,{=}\,}10$ and $\num{22}$. In our 2-DOF leg experiments we measured stiffness, corresponding to dimensionless leg stiffness of $10.8$, putting the capabilities of the robot within a range comparable to human leg stiffness. Comparison with other quadruped robots is difficult as impedance or force control performance is seldom characterised. Semini and colleagues characterized the , hydraulically driven HyQ leg and from their reported results [@semini_towards_2015 Fig 12] we estimate a dimensionless HyQ leg stiffness of $\tilde{k} {\,{=}\,}\SI{5250}{N/m} \cdot \SI{0.3}{m} / (\SI{10}{kg} \cdot \SI{9.81}{m/s^2}) {\,{=}\,}16$, which is slightly higher than the leg’s dimensionless stiffness of our quadruped.
#### Open Source and Outreach
Mechanical and electrical hardware blueprints and software required for this project are open-source under the BSD-3-clause license. All the sources are available at [@opensourcelink] and the robots can be easily reproduced and improved by other laboratories. At the moment, 3 other laboratories are in the process of producing their own copy of the quadruped. The actuator module is inexpensive, and the full quadruped was built for approximately of material cost. The low weight and simplicity of the robot allow for easy transportation and safe operation, significantly simplifying experimental environments. The platform can also be used as an educational tool. We use the leg, for example, to teach robotics to high school interns at New York University.
Conclusion and Future Work
==========================
We presented an open-source low-cost actuator module and a foot contact sensor used to build torque-controlled legged robots. We developed the system’s hardware, electronics, and firmware/software to support legged robot locomotion research with a rugged and durable, low-weight robot that can be handled safely by a single researcher. Experiments show the capabilities of the robots in generating very dynamic motions with excellent impedance regulation characteristics. In particular, we introduced a simple torque-controller capable of regulating motions generated with a state of the art kino-dynamic optimizer. We anticipate that the open-source aspect of the project will further benefit the robotics community by lowering the barrier to entry and lead to fruitful extensions of the robots.
[^1]: $^{\ast}$ Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, 72076 Tübingen, Germany. Email [email protected]
[^2]: $^{\ast\ast}$ Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany. Email [email protected]
[^3]: $^{\dagger}$ Tandon School of Engineering, New York University, Brooklyn, USA. Email [email protected]
[^4]: Part of this work was supported by the Max-Planck Society, New York University, the Max-Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems Grassroots projects, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement 780684 and European Research Council’s grant 637935), the National Science Foundation (CMMI-1825993) and a Google Faculty Research Award. We would like to thank Joel Bessekon Akpo for his help with the motor driver testing and Joshi Walzog for his help with the foot sensor circuit board layout.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Selected results of a classical simulation of $N$ bodies in strong interaction are presented. The static properties of such classical systems are qualitatively similar to the known properties of atomic nuclei. The simulations of collisions show that all observed reaction mechanisms in nucleus-nucleus collisions are present in this numerical simulation. The first studies of such collisions are in qualitative agreement with experimental observations. This simulation could shed a new light on energy deposit in heavy ion collisions: the excitation energy of each cluster is found lower than the energy of the less bound body in the cluster. Finally, the similarities of fragmentation pattern with those obtained with a statistical code indicate that an unambiguous link can be established between the statistical and the dynamical descriptions of reaction mechanisms.'
author:
- 'D. Cussol'
title: '**Selected aspects of the classical molecular dynamics of $N$ bodies in strong interaction.**'
---
During the last decades, heavy ions collisions have been widely used and intensively studied experimentally to determine the equation of state of nuclear matter. Many reaction mechanisms have been identified and a lot of theoretical works has been induced. Schematically, the incident energy domain has been divided in three parts: the low energy range, up to 10$\sim$20 A.MeV, where fusion and deep inelastic processes are dominant; the high energy range, above 100 A.MeV, where the nucleonic and sub-nucleonic degrees of freedom start to play a significant role; and the intermediate energy range, from 20 A.MeV to 100 A.MeV, where binary processes and multi-fragmentation take place. At each energy range, the reaction is schematically described as a two steps process: an entrance channel during which excited nuclei are formed, and a decay stage where the excited fragments cool down by particle or fragment emissions.
Theoretically, the entrance channel of the reaction is mainly described by dynamical models. At low energy, the attractive character of the interaction is dominant and the entrance channel is described mainly by mean-field approaches [@TDHF]. At high energies, the repulsive part of the interaction and its nucleon-nucleon character are dominant and cascade models are mainly used to describe the first moments of the collision [@cascadeCug]. At intermediate energies, the attractive part and the repulsive part of the interaction interfere. Transport models are widely used to describe the entrance channel at this energy range [@LV; @BNV; @BUU; @BLV; @QMD; @AMD; @FMD]. They contain a mean-field part through the one-body evolution of the system, and a nucleon-nucleon part through the collision term. At all energy ranges, the decay stage is mainly described by statistical decay models (GEMINI [@GEMINI], SIMON [@SIMON], SMM [@SMM], MMMC [@MMMC], QSM [@QSM], EES [@EES], etc.) which assume that the nuclei formed during the first dynamical step are equilibrated.
With this scheme, it is very hard to have a global and consistent description of nucleus-nucleus collisions. Although the nucleon-nucleon interaction is the same, whatever the incident energy and whatever the reaction time, different models are used depending on the energy range and the reaction time. The links between these different models are not obvious. For example how the liquid-drop parametrisation used in the statistical decay code can be deduced from the parameters of the interaction used in a transport code? What is the link between the incompressibility modulus of nuclear matter $K_\infty$ and the nucleon-nucleon cross section $\sigma_{nn}$? Is the statistical description still justified when the thermalisation time is close to or longer than the life time of excited nuclei?
The present status results mainly from the impossibility to solve the full nuclear many-body problem. To solve it, approximations are made, depending on the energy range and on the reaction time. Even after simplifications, the resulting equations do not have analytical solutions and they are often solved numerically. It seems hard nowadays to connect these different models to have a global description of the processes involved in nucleus-nucleus collisions.
Nevertheless, some attempts were made to describe globally nucleus-nucleus reactions at intermediate energies by using (semi-)classical molecular dynamics codes [@Pandhar87; @Dorso88; @Latora94; @Bondorf97; @Sator2001; @PlagnolBormio; @Dorso99]. The main advantage of these codes is that the classical many-body problem can be solved numerically with a high accuracy without any assumption. The main drawback is that the quantum character of the system is ignored. A lot of work has already been done with the help of such codes to study the mechanism of fragment formation in multi-fragmentation. Could these codes do better by describing the whole reaction process, from the very beginning of the reaction up to the decay stage? Are they able to make a link between the different energy ranges? Which processes are accessible with the simplest hypothesis?
This paper will show that classical molecular dynamics simulations are interesting tools to establish the links between the different approaches used in nucleus-nucleus collision. In the first section, the Classical N-Body Dynamics code will be briefly described. The static properties of stable N-body systems will be studied in the second section. Some examples of reaction mechanisms and some analyses of cluster-cluster collisions are given in the third section. Finally, conclusions will be drawn.
![*Shape of the interaction used in the CNBD simulation*[]{data-label="f:potentiel"}]({figure_1}.eps)
Description of the code.
========================
Let us start by describing the Classical N-Body Dynamics code (labeled CNBD) used in this article. The basic ingredients of such a code are very simple. The dynamical evolution of each body of the system is driven by the classical Newtonian equations of motion. The two-body potential used in the present work is a third degree polynomial whose derivatives are null at the range $r_1$ and at the distance of maximum depth $r_0$. The depth value is $V_{min}$ and the value at $r=0$ is finite and equal to $V_0$. The shape of the two-body potential is shown on figure \[f:potentiel\]. This potential has the basic properties of the Lennard-Jones potential used in other works [@PlagnolBormio; @Dorso99]: a finite range attractive part and a repulsive short range part. To follow the dynamical evolution of the system an adaptative stepsize fourth-order Runge-Kutta algorithm is used [@NumRec]. The main difference with other works is that the time step $\Delta t$ can vary: if the potential varies strongly, $\Delta t$ is small and when the potential varies gently, $\Delta t$ becomes larger. This allows a very high accuracy with shorter CPU time than for fixed time step algorithms. It requires an additional simulation parameter $\epsilon$ which is adjusted to ensure the verification of conservation laws (energy, momentum, angular momentum) with a reasonable simulation time. For an $\epsilon$ value of $10^{-5}$, typical CPU times for a collision of two clusters with 50 particles each with an ending time equal to 200 time simulations units on a Compaq DS20 computer under the UNIX True64 operating system ranges from $\approx 30$ to $\approx 400$ seconds, depending mainly on the impact parameter. The energy gap between the beginning and the the ending simulation time is lower than 0.001%. This simulation has five free parameters: four linked to the physics (the interaction) and one linked to the numerical algorithm ($\epsilon$).
Since one wants to study the simplest case, neither long range repulsive interaction nor quantum corrections like a Pauli potential have been introduced [@Dorso87]. Additionally, no statistical decay code is applied on the excited fragments formed during the collision. The final products have to be regarded as “primary” products which will decay afterwards.
In order to avoid any confusion with nuclear physics, the units used here are called Simulation Units and noted $S.U.$. The distance will then be in Distance Simulation Units ($D.S.U.$), the energies in Energy Simulation Units ($E.S.U.$), the velocities in Velocity Simulation Units ($V.S.U.$) and the reaction time in Time Simulation Unit ($T.S.U.$). We will be only interested in the relative evolutions of the observables and in their link to the properties of the stable systems. The main goal of the present work is not to reproduce the experimental data of nucleus-nucleus collisions, but rather to see to which extent this simple simulation is qualitatively similar, or not, to experimental data.
Static properties of “ground states”.
=====================================
Once the basic ingredients are defined, one can build stable systems. Since the two-body potential only depends on the distance between the two bodies, such systems are small crystals. The “ground states” of such systems are defined as the configuration in position space which minimizes their total energy. This is obtained by using a Metropolis simulated annealing method [@NumRec]. The locations of particles obtained this way are very close to those obtained by using a basin-hopping algorithm for Lennard-Jones clusters [@WALES97].
On top-left of figure \[f:static\_prop\] is displayed the energy per body $E_{Bind}/N$ of these “ground states” as a function of the number $N$ of bodies in the cluster (solid line). The dashed and dotted line corresponds to a fit using a liquid-drop formula. The dashed line corresponds to the energy of the less bound body $E_{LessBound}$ in the cluster. It will be seen that this energy seems to play a particular role in cluster-cluster collisions. The overall dependence of $E_{Bind}/N$ with $N$ is very similar to what is seen in nuclear physics. The main difference is seen for high values of $N$ because of the absence of a Coulomb-like interaction: $E_{Bind}/N$ continues to decrease with $N$ whereas it increases for nuclei. These values are close to those found by using the basin-hopping algorithm [@WALES97].
The dependence with $N$ of the root mean radius radius $r(N) = \sqrt{<r^2>}$ of N-body clusters is shown on the top-right panel of figure \[f:static\_prop\] (solid line). The dashed and dotted line corresponds to a fit using a $N^{\frac{1}{3}}$ term. Here again, this is similar to what is known for nuclei. The main difference is the $r_0$ term which is due to the large size of the “repulsive core” compared to the range of the attractive part of the interaction.
Since a size can be defined, an effective density can be calculated. One can stretch and squeeze the N-body cluster and build an effective “zero temperature equation of state”. This is displayed on the low-left panel on figure \[f:static\_prop\] for various system sizes. The density $\rho_{eff}$ on this abscissa is the density relative to the density for the “ground state”. The curvature of this “equation of state” can be computed and defined as the “compressibility modulus” $K(N)$ of the system. Its variations with $N$ are displayed on the low-right panel of figure \[f:static\_prop\]. One can see on these two plots that the “equation of state” and $K(N)$ are strongly dependent on $N$ for values of $N$ below 20$\sim$30 and then less dependent on $N$ above. One could be able to define an “equation of state of infinite matter” by computing the limit of these evolutions for huge values of $N$. Here again, the behavior of these classical N-body systems is very similar to that of nuclei.
This first study shows that the classical N-body clusters have strong similarities with atomic nuclei. This suggests that all the parametrisation used to describe nuclei (liquid drop parametrisation, radii, equation of state, etc...) could be directly deduced from the parameters of the two-body interaction. Since this interaction remains unchanged, the differences seen for different clusters has to be attributed only to $N$ and to the geometrical configuration of the bodies in the clusters.
Cluster-cluster collisions.
===========================
After studying the static properties of stable N-body systems, collisions between clusters can be investigated to see what kind of reaction can be obtained. Roughly 20,000 collisions have been generated for different system sizes, different entrance channel asymmetries and different impact parameters. For each collision, the orientation of the inertia axis of clusters are randomly chosen. This avoid to run twice the same collision if the impact parameter, the target and the projectile size and the incident energy are the same for two different collisions. The simulations have been performed for the following systems: 13 + 13, 34 + 34, 50 + 50, 100 + 100 and 18 + 50. The incident energies have been chosen in a way that the available energy in the center of mass frame ranges from an energy far below the binding energy of the fused system ($\approx 30 \> E.S.U$) to an energy well above the binding energy of the fused system ($\approx 120 \> E.S.U.$). As it will be shown, these collisions can be studied in the same way as the experimental data of nucleus-nucleus collisions are. These collisions can be seen as “numerical experiments”. Only few examples of such analyses will be shown. More detailed analyses will be done in forthcoming articles. Firstly, a small list of reaction mechanisms obtained will be done. Secondly, the excitation energy stored in excited clusters will be studied and a link to the static properties will be done. Finally, the question of the statistical description of this dynamical model will be briefly addressed.
Reaction mechanisms.
--------------------
On figure \[f:coll\] are displayed the pictures of cluster-cluster collisions obtained at a fixed time. The ending time of these collisions is $t=200 \> T.S.U.$. On each picture, the bodies which were originally belonging to the projectile are in dark grey and those which were belonging to the target are in light grey. The most striking observation is that all kinds of reaction mechanisms observed in nucleus-nucleus collisions seem to be present in this very simple simulation. One can see low energy processes like the fusion/evaporation process (first row left panel), pure binary collision (second row left panel), stripping/pick-up mechanism (second row right panel) and deep inelastic collisions (third row right panel). Intermediate energy processes, like neck formation and break-up (first row right panel) and multi-fragmentation (third row left panel), are seen. Finally, high energy processes like the participant/spectator process (lower-most panel) are also seen.
This similarity can also be seen on the so-called Wilczynski plots [@Wilczynski] shown on figure \[f:Wilczynski\]. These plots display the correlation between the flow angle $\theta_{flow}$ and the total kinetic energy of the clusters $E_{kin} =
\sum{E_k^i}$ where $E_k^i$ is the kinetic energy of cluster $i$ in the center of mass frame. Two bodies are assumed to belong to the same cluster if they are in interaction, i.e. if their relative distance is below the range $r_1$ of the interaction (see figure \[f:potentiel\]). This algorithm of cluster recognition is the simplest one and is called Minimum Spanning Tree algorithm in other works [@Dorso99; @Dorso93]. The most dissipative collisions correspond to the smallest $E_{kin}$ values: the available energy is converted in internal energy of clusters. These plots were built for a $N=34$ projectile colliding a $N=34$ target at four available energies $E_{cm}/N$ in the center of mass: $E_{cm}/N=60 \> E.S.U.$, $E_{cm}/N=90 \> E.S.U.$, $E_{cm}/N=120 \> E.S.U.$ and $E_{cm}/N=30 \> E.S.U.$ which corresponds respectively to the energy of the less bound body for the fused $N=68$ cluster, to the binding energy per body for $N=68$, to the energy of the most bound body for $N=68$ and to an energy below the energy of the less bound body for $N=68$. For each energy, 1,000 collisions have been computed assuming a flat impact parameter distribution ranging from $b=0 \> D.S.U.$ to the sum of the two cluster radii plus the range of the interaction ($b_{max}=r(N_{proj})+r(N_{targ})+r_1$, where $r_1$ is the range of the two-body interaction). In the analyses, each collision is weighted assuming a triangular impact parameter distribution between 0 and $b_{max}$ ($weight \propto b$).
At $E_{cm}/N=30 \> E.S.U.$ (upper left panel), the flow angle is always negative. This means that the projectile and the target like clusters are deflected to the opposite direction relative to their original one. At this energy, the attractive part of the interaction is dominant. For the lowest $E_{kin}$ values, all possible values of $\theta_{flow}$ are covered: this corresponds to the fusion/evaporation process. At $E_{cm}/N=60 \> E.S.U.$ (upper right panel), the picture is changed and the range of $\theta_{flow}$ values is smaller than for the previous energy: the repulsive part starts to act. The fusion/evaporation area (small $E_{kin}$ values, all $\theta_{flow}$ values) is still present. For the two highest energies (lower panels), the picture is roughly the same. For the less dissipative collisions, the attractive part is still dominant (negative $\theta_{flow}$ values). But when the dissipation increases, the repulsive part becomes dominant and the projectile and the target bounce on each other (positive $\theta_{flow}$ values). For the most dissipative collisions, only positive $\theta_{flow}$ values are seen which indicates the disappearance of the fusion/evaporation process. These evolutions are qualitatively similar to what is seen in nucleus-nucleus collisions (see for example [@Metivier2000]).
These two studies indicate that the description of the reaction mechanisms in terms of mean-field at low energies and in terms of nucleon-nucleon collision at high energies can be deduced from the properties of the nucleon-nucleon interaction only. The similarities of this classical N-body simulation with nucleus-nucleus collisions suggest that, apart for the quantum mechanics effects, an effective description of nucleus-nucleus collisions could be obtained with a reduced number of parameters. Providing the interaction has a finite range attractive part and a short range repulsive part, the overall behavior of the N-body systems seems to be independent of the values of the parameters of this interaction. For a more quantitative agreement with nucleus-nucleus collisions, additional physical ingredients (quantum mechanics, Coulomb interaction) have to be included.
Energy deposit in clusters.
---------------------------
Let us now focus our study of cluster-cluster collision on selected topics. Of particular interest is the excitation energy stored in clusters. How this energy can be linked to the available energy and how it is linked to the properties of the “ground state” characteristics of these clusters?
One can plot for example the evolution of the excitation energy $E^*/N$ of the cluster with its parallel velocity $V_{//}$ for $N=34$ + $N=34$ collisions (figure \[f:EvsV\]) for the whole impact parameter range. The excitation energy of each cluster is simply the difference between the total energy (potential plus kinetic) and the “ground state” energy of the cluster. It reads:
$$E^*=\sum_{i=1}^{N}{E_{kin}^i}+\sum_{i,j>i}{V(r_{ij})}-E_{Bind}(N)$$
where $E_{kin}^i$ is the kinetic energy of the body $i$ in the cluster center of mass frame, $r_{ij}$ the relative distance between the bodies $i$ and $j$, $V(r_{ij})$ the potential energy and $E_{Bind}(N)$ the binding energy of the “ground-state” of the cluster with $N$ bodies. This excitation energy is determined at the end of the calculation corresponding to $t=200 \> T.S.U.$. This energy is very close to the one obtained at the separation time of the clusters (the smallest time at which clusters can be identified), since in this time range the evaporation is very weak and the clusters have no time to cool down significantly [@Dorso99]. On each panel of figure \[f:EvsV\], the full line corresponds to the expected correlation between $E^*/N$ and $V_{//}$ for a pure binary scenario (the excitation energy is only due to the velocity damping of each partner), the horizontal dashed line to the energy of the less bound body for the fused system $N=68$ and the small circle is centered around the expected values of velocity and excitation energy for the fused system.
At $E_{cm}/N=30 \> E.S.U.$, the points are slightly below the full line. This means that the excitation energy is strongly linked to the velocity damping. The small shift is due to mass transfers between the projectile and the target, and to promptly emitted clusters. The area corresponding to the fused system is well populated showing that a complete fusion process occurs. At $E_{cm}/N=60 \> E.S.U.$, the distribution of points is roughly compatible with the pure binary process hypothesis, but the complete fusion process area is empty. The horizontal line seems to be an upper limit to the excitation energy which can be stored in clusters. Clusters with rather small excitation energies are found at velocities around the center of mass velocity. For the two highest energies, this trend is enhanced: a set of clusters are around the full line, and when the full line is above the horizontal line, one finds clusters at small excitation energies around the center of mass velocity. The energy of the less bound body seems to be a limit to the excitation energy which can be stored in these clusters.
This can be more clearly seen when the excitation energy $E^*/N$ is plotted as a function of $N$, as in figure \[f:EvsN\]. On each panel, the full line corresponds to the energy of the less bound body $E_{LessBound}$ in the cluster and the dashed line to the binding energy per body $E_{bind}/N$. As in figure \[f:EvsV\], the small circle corresponds to the expected values for the fused system. At $E_{cm}/N=30 \> E.S.U.$, the area corresponding to complete fusion is filled and all the available energy can be stored as excitation energy. But for higher energies, one can clearly see that for each fragment size, $E^*/N$ never overcomes $E_{LessBound}$. At $E_{cm}/N=60 \> E.S.U.$ clusters with sizes higher than the projectile size and the target size can be seen. This area corresponds to an incomplete fusion process. For the two highest energies ($E_{cm}/N=90 \> E.S.U.$ and $E_{cm}/N=120 \> E.S.U.$), the plots are almost identical: there is no more fusion and the clusters are smaller than the target and than the projectile. One can notice that $E^*/N$ never reaches the binding energy $E_{bind}/N$ except for small clusters where $E_{bind}/N$ and $E_{LessBound}$ are equal.
This limitation of excitation energy can be understood quite easily. The less bound body remains bound to the cluster only if its total energy is negative, i.e. its kinetic energy due to the excitation is below its potential one. If one assumes that the excitation energy is roughly equally shared over all bodies in the cluster, when the kinetic energy balances the potential energy of the less bound body, this body is no more bound to the cluster and can escape. To be observed for a long time, the excited cluster must have an excitation energy per body below the energy of the less bound body.
The mechanism of energy deposit in classical N-body clusters seems to be the following one: the excitation seems to be mainly driven by the velocity damping of the two partners and to a lesser extent by exchanges of bodies between them. Once the energy of the less bound body is reached, unbound bodies and/or clusters escape quickly and keep an excitation energy per body below the energy of the less bound one. As a consequence, the highest energy deposit per body can only be obtained at energies close to $E_{LessBound}$. For higher available energies, the system fragments quickly, leaving rather “cold” clusters around the center of mass velocity. This could be an explanation to the quite low excitation energies of clusters found in central collisions for the Xe + Sn system at 50 A.MeV [@Marie98]. This subject will be more completely covered in a forthcoming article.
Statistical description of collisions.
--------------------------------------
Let us end with fragment size analyses of cluster-cluster collisions. In nucleus-nucleus collisions studies, such analyses are very often used to fix the parameters of statistical models and to verify the compatibility of statistical decay models with experimental data (see for example [@Marie97; @DAgostino99a; @Bocage]). The so-called Dalitz plot for central ($0 \leq b/b_{max} <
0.1$) $N=34$ + $N=34$ collisions are shown on figure \[f:dalitz\_CNBD\]. Each panel corresponds to a fixed available energy in the center of mass ranging from $E_{cm}/N=30$ to $120 \> E.S.U.$. For this analysis, only the three heaviest clusters are taken into account. Each event is associated with a point in this plot. The distance of one point with respect to each edge of the triangle is proportional to the size of each of the three clusters. The corners correspond to events with a large size cluster and two small ones (fusion/evaporation process), an event in the middle of an edge corresponds to an event with two equal size clusters and a small one (fission process or binary collision) and the center of the triangle corresponds to three equal size clusters (multi-fragmentation process). One can see that when the available energy increases, the reaction mechanisms goes continuously from fusion/evaporation to binary collisions and finally to multi-fragmentation and/or vaporization.
This picture is qualitatively very similar to the one obtained in SMM calculations [@SMM], describing the decay of a single source, as shown on figure \[f:dalitz\_smm\]. In this case, each panel corresponds to an excitation energy. As in figure \[f:dalitz\_CNBD\], the lowest energies correspond to fusion/evaporation like processes, and goes with a continuous transition towards fission and multi-fragmentation when the excitation energy increases.
The strong qualitative similarity between these two pictures suggests that it could be possible to build a statistical decay code which would give the same results as the dynamical simulation. Of particular interest would be the study of the relations between the parameters of the statistical decay code (size of the source, excitation energy, deformation, radial flow, freeze-out volume, external constraints) with the parameters of the dynamical one (projectile and target sizes, impact parameter, parameters of the two-body interaction). This could also allow to check under which conditions the statistical decay code can be applied. This study could finally allow us to have a consistent description of cluster-cluster collisions, where the parameters of the statistical decay model are deduced from the parameters of the dynamical simulation. In this case, the cluster-cluster collisions could be described completely with a reduced number of parameters.
Conclusions
===========
As it has been seen in this brief overview of the characteristics and the reaction mechanisms of classical $N$ bodies in strong interaction, there are strong qualitative similarities between these systems and the atomic nuclei. The static properties and the reaction mechanisms observed for the atomic nuclei and for these classical clusters are found very close to each other. This could mean that the experimental observations made for nucleus-nucleus collisions are mainly governed by the N-body character of the system and by the overall shape of the two-body interaction (finite range attractive part and short range repulsive part). More physical ingredients (Coulomb interaction, quantum mechanics) are of course necessary if one wants to have a quantitative agreement with experimental data. But it is surprising to have such a qualitative agreement while essential physical ingredients are missing in the simulation.
Since all kind of reaction mechanisms are observed in these classical simulations, from the low energy fusion/evaporation processes to the high energy participant/spectator processes, they may also allow to connect in a consistent way the mean-field and the nucleon-nucleon approaches. One could for example study the relation between the incompressibility modulus and the size of the repulsive part of the interaction ($K_\infty$ and $\sigma_{nn}$ in the nuclear case). It is well known in transport calculations that one can “stiffen” the effective equation of state by just increasing the value of the nucleon-nucleon cross section $\sigma_{nn}$ [@DLM92].
Finally, such simulations may reconcile two approaches which were up to now opposed in nuclear physics: the dynamical description and the statistical description of fragment emissions. The dynamical models are unique tools to establish the link between the parameters of the interaction and those of the statistical models. Additionally, one can determine under which conditions the statistical models can be used, and what are the true meanings of the parameters used in statistical models (temperature, chemical potentials, freeze-out volumes, etc.). This study may allow to have a complete and consistent description of colliding N-body systems with a reduced number of free parameters. This could be not only useful for nuclear physics, but also for other fields of physics like for example the cluster physics.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank my colleagues of the INDRA collaboration and from the Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire de Caen for a careful reading of this article. I especially thanks Denis Lacroix for suggestions and fruitful discussions. I would like also to thank O.Lopez and A.Botvina for the SMM calculations.
[10]{}
S.E.Koonin, [ [ Prog. in Part and Nuc. Phys.]{}]{} [**Vol. 4**]{} , 283 (1979).
J.Cugnon [*et al.*]{}, [ [ Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [**A352**]{} , 505 (1981).
C.Grégoire [*et al.*]{}, [ [ Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [**A465**]{} , 317 (1987).
A.Bonasera [*et al.*]{}, [ [ Physics Report]{}]{} [**243**]{} , 1 (1994).
G.Bertsch, [ [ Phys. Rev.]{}]{} [**C29**]{} , 673 (1984).
S.Ayik and C.Grégoire, [ [ Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [**A513**]{} , 187 (1990).
J.Aichelin, [ [ Physics Report]{}]{} [**202**]{} , 233 (1991).
A.Ono [*et al.*]{}, [ [ Phys. Rev.]{}]{} [**C48**]{} , 2946 (1993).
H.Feldmeier, [ [ Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [**A428**]{} , 147 (1990).
R.Charity [*et al.*]{}, [ [ Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [**A511**]{} , 59 (1990).
D.Durand, [ [ Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [**A541**]{} , 266 (1992).
J.Bondorf [*et al.*]{}, [ [ Phys. Rep.]{}]{} [**257**]{} , 133 (1995).
D.H.E.Gross, [ [ Rep. Prog. Phys.]{}]{} [**53**]{} , 605 (1990).
J.Konopka [*et al.*]{}, [ [ Phys. Rev.]{}]{} [**C50**]{} , 2085 (1994).
W.Friedman, [ [ Phys. Rev.]{}]{} [**C42**]{} , 667 (1990).
T.J.Schlagel and V.R.Pandharipande, [ [ Phys. Rev.]{}]{} [**C36**]{} , 162 (1987).
C.Dorso and J.Randrup, [ [ Phys. Lett.]{}]{} [**B215**]{} , 611 (1988).
V.Latora [*et al.*]{}, [ [ Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [**A572**]{} , 477 (1994).
J.Bondorf [*et al.*]{}, [ [ Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [**A624**]{} , 706 (1997).
, [ [ Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [**A681**]{} , (2000).
E.Plagnol [*et al.*]{}, [*Proceedings of the XXXIX International Winter Meeting on Nuclear Physics*]{}, Edited by I.Iori, (2001).
A.Strachan and C.Dorso, [ [ Phys. Rev.]{}]{} [**C59**]{} , 285 (1999).
. . Cambridge University Press (1989).
, [ [ Phys. Lett.]{}]{} [**B188**]{} , 287 (1987).
D.J.Wales and J.P.K.Doye, [ [ J. Phys. Chem.]{}]{} [**A101**]{} , 5111 (1997).
J.Wilczynski, [ [ Phys. Lett.]{}]{} [**B47**]{} , 313 (1973).
C.Dorso and J.Randrup, [ [ Phys. Lett.]{}]{} [**B301**]{} , 328 (1993).
V.Métivier [*et al.*]{} (INDRA Collaboration), [ [ Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [**A672**]{} , 357 (2000).
N.Marie [*et al.*]{} (INDRA Collaboration), [ [ Phys. Rev.]{}]{} [**C58**]{} , 256 (1998).
N.Marie [*et al.*]{} (INDRA Collaboration), [ [ Phys. Lett.]{}]{} [**B391**]{} , 15 (1997).
M.D’Agostino [*et al.*]{}, [ [ Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [**A650**]{} , 329 (1999).
F.Bocage [*et al.*]{} (INDRA Collaboration), [ [ Nucl. Phys.]{}]{} [**A676**]{} , 391 (2000).
, [ [ Phys. Rev.]{}]{} [**C46**]{} , 677 (1992).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[Phenomenological–operator approach to introduce damping effects on radiation field states]{}$^{\dagger }$[ ]{}
N. G. de Almeida, P. B. Ramos, R. M. Serra, and M. H. Y. Moussa\*
[*Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, CP. 676, São Carlos 13565-905, SP, Brazil*]{}
[**Abstract**]{}
> In this work we propose an approach to deal with radiation field states which incorporates damping effects at zero temperature. By using some well known results on dissipation of a cavity field state, obtained by standard ab-initio methods, it was possible to infer through a phenomenological way the explicit form for the evolution of the state vector for the whole system: the cavity-field plus reservoir. This proposal turns out to be of extreme convenience to account for the influence of the reservoir over the cavity field. To illustrate the universal applicability of our approach we consider the attenuation effects on cavity-field states engineering. The main concern of the present phenomenological approach consists in furnishing a straightforward technique to estimate the fidelity resulting from processes in cavity QED phenomena. A proposal to maximize the fidelity of the process is presented.
PACS number(s): 32.80.-t, 42.50.Dv
[* E-mail: [email protected]*]{}
$\dagger $ [*to appear in Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics*]{}
Introduction
============
After more than half a century since their proposition by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) [@epr], entangled states have become the cornerstone of a set of striking proposals in theoretical physics. The advent of Bell’s theorem [@bell], which has permitted to test empirically the phenomenon of nonlocality, and more than a decade of experiments confirming such an astonishing character of quantum mechanics gave to entanglement the necessary credibility to motivate such proposals. Ranging from quantum communication [@zoller] and cryptography [@chau] to teleportation[@bennett; @zeilinger] and quantum computation [@shor], the nonlocal character of entangled states has let its original realm of quantum metaphysics to inaugurate the possibility of a new technology. In fact, inspired by these theoretical implications, the experimental setups, formerly designed to investigate fundamental physics such as quantum coherence and nonlocality, have recently been enhanced for the realization of teleportation [@zeilinger] and to demonstrate quantum-logic operations [@wineland].
However, the above-mentioned processes on quantum mechanics come up against a crucial problem intrinsic to quantum nature: the [*decoherence*]{} coming from the inevitable coupling between quantum systems and the surrounding environment. Such a decoherence process, transforming a pure state $\left|
\psi \right\rangle $ in a statistical mixture $\rho $, constitutes the main difficulty preventing the realization of the above mentioned quantum processes. Since the transformation $\left| \psi \right\rangle $ $%
\longrightarrow $ $\rho $ becomes faster as the excitation of the initial quantum state increases, the realization of massive computation, for example, turns out to be prohibitive and even the realization of a single logic gate operation [@wineland] leads to a degraded output. In this connection, the calculation of the fidelity of a given process becomes a crucial task when proposing its experimental realization. However, this task turns out to be as difficult to achieve as the implementation of the protocol for accomplishing a given quantum process. As an example, we cite the process of engineering a cavity-field state, which requires a series of steps to be pursued [@papers], since in most of these schemes the cavity-field is built up photon by photon.
To overcome the difficulty in estimating the fidelity in cavity QED processes, in this paper we propose a phenomenological way to handle with dissipation of a cavity-field state under the influence of a reservoir at absolute zero temperature. Our strategy is to incorporate, in an concise algebraic approach, the main results obtained by standard [*ab-initio*]{} techniques on dissipation of a cavity field. In short, we include the exponential decay law accounting for the damping of the cavity-field excitation explicitly in the evolution of the whole system comprehending the cavity field plus reservoir. Once we have calculated the evolved whole state vector, it is immediate to obtain the total density matrix, and by tracing out the reservoir variables we finally get the desired reduced density matrix for the cavity field, which is the same as the one obtained by standard methods. This approach resembles the Monte Carlo Wave Function method [@mcwf] in the sense that we work directly with the wave function, providing an efficient computational tool to account for dissipation in quantum optics.
It is worth mentioning that our result for the evolved state vector of the radiation field plus reservoir can be applied to calculate dissipation effects in any physical process based on cavity QED. Here, as an application, we consider damping effects in engineering a quantum field state and present an alternative method to maximize the fidelity of the engineered state. The process of generation of an arbitrary radiation field state, as will be here analyzed, is severely damaged due to the reservoir attenuation.
This paper is organized as follows. In section II we describe the essential features of the model here considered, a monochromatic cavity-field trapped in a lossy cavity. In section III we present an algebraic way to introduce damping explicitly on the evolution of the whole state vector for the cavity field plus reservoir. In section IV we apply the technique developed in section III to analyze the fidelity of an engineered cavity-field state. Section V is devoted to illustrate a technique to optimize the fidelity of the engineered field state and finally, in section VI we present our conclusions.
Model
=====
We are concerned with the standard model of a cavity field described by creation and annihilation central oscillator amplitude operators $a^{\dagger
}$, $a$, coupled to a reservoir consisting of a set of oscillators described by amplitude operators $b_{k}^{\dagger }$, $b_{k}$. The reservoir simulates the cavity damping mechanism: photon losses either at the mirrors or by leaking out of the cavity. The cavity field is coupled to the reservoir through the usual rotating wave approximation, so that the Hamiltonian for the system is written as $$H=\hbar \omega a^{\dagger }a+\sum_{k}\hbar \omega _{k}b_{k}^{\dagger
}b_{k}+\sum_{k}\hbar \left( g_{k}ab_{k}^{\dagger }+g_{k}^{\ast }a^{\dagger
}b_{k}\right) , \label{hamiltoniano}$$ where $g_{k}$ are coupling parameters. The Heisenberg equations for both amplitude operators $a$ and $b$ are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\stackrel{.}{a}(t) &=&-i\omega a-i\sum_{k}g_{k}b_{k}, \label{1a} \\
\stackrel{.}{b_{k}}(t) &=&-i\omega _{k}b_{k}-ig_{k}^{\ast }a. \label{1b}\end{aligned}$$
Considering the Wigner-Weisskopf approximation, in which the frequencies of the reservoir oscillators densely cover a range in the neighborhood of the field frequency, we obtain the solutions of the equations corresponding to the system (\[1a\],\[1b\]). The solution for the cavity field reads
$$a(t)=\mu (t)a(0)+\sum_{k}\vartheta _{k}(t)b_{k}(0). \label{heisenberg}$$
Introducing the damping factor $\gamma $ and the typical small frequency shift $\Delta \omega $, the function $\mu (t)$ is explicitly given by $$\mu (t)=\exp \left\{ -\left[ \frac{\gamma }{2}+i\left( \Delta \omega +\omega
\right) \right] t\right\} .$$ For the purpose at hands it is not necessary to specify the functions $%
\vartheta _{k}(t)$.
A convenient way to calculate the reduced density matrix for the cavity field consists in using the standard characteristic function technique [@livros]. For this intent, we must first calculate the characteristic function $\chi $, then the Glauber-Sudarshan $P$-representation, and finally the reduced density operator. The characteristic function can be written in terms of the operators $a$, $a^{\dagger }$ in the normal order form as
$$\begin{aligned}
\chi (\eta ,\eta ^{\ast },t) &=&\text{Tr}\left\{ \rho (t)\exp \left[ \eta
a^{\dagger }(0)\right] \exp \left[ -\eta ^{\ast }a(0)\right] \right\}
\label{funcao qui a} \\
&=&\text{Tr}\left\{ \rho (0)\exp \left[ \eta a^{\dagger }(t)\right] \exp %
\left[ -\eta ^{\ast }a(t)\right] \right\} . \label{funcao qui b}\end{aligned}$$
Eq.(\[funcao qui a\]) refers to the Schrödinger picture and the Eq. (\[funcao qui b\]) to the Heisenberg picture. Since the time evolution of operators $a,a^{\dagger }$ are known from Eq.(\[heisenberg\]) together with the initial state of the whole system, Eq.(\[funcao qui b\]) turns out to be more convenient to calculate the characteristic function. Considering that the cavity field is initially in an arbitrary superposition state $\sum_{n=0}^{N}C_{n}\left| n\right\rangle $, where $\left|
n\right\rangle $ is a $n$-photon Fock state, and the reservoir (assumed at absolute zero temperature) is in the vacuum state, the total density matrix at $t=0$ is given by
$$\rho (0)=\sum_{n,m=0}^{N}C_{n}C_{m}^{\ast }\left| n\right\rangle
\left\langle m\right| \otimes \left| \left\{ 0\right\} \right\rangle
\left\langle \left\{ 0\right\} \right| , \label{ro inicial}$$
where we have denoted $\prod_{k}\left| 0_{k}\right\rangle \equiv \left|
\left\{ 0\right\} \right\rangle $.
The Glauber-Sudarshan $P$-representation of the density matrix can be written as a two-dimensional Fourier transform of the characteristic function $\chi $, $$P(\alpha ,\alpha ^{\ast },t)=\int \frac{d^{2}\eta }{\pi ^{2}}\chi (\eta
,\eta ^{\ast },t)\exp \left( -\eta \alpha ^{\ast }+\eta ^{\ast }\alpha
\right) , \label{representacao p}$$ while the reduced density operator for the cavity field is given by, in the general form, $$\rho (t)=\int d^{2}\alpha P(\alpha ,\alpha ^{\ast },t)\left| \alpha
\right\rangle \left\langle \alpha \right| .$$
Considering all these definitions it is possible to obtain, after a little algebra, the explicit form for the reduced density operator of the cavity field $$\begin{aligned}
\rho (t) &=&\sum_{n,m=0}^{N}\sum_{j=0}^{m}\sum_{l=0}^{j}C_{n}C_{m}^{\ast
}\left( -1\right) ^{l}\frac{\left| \mu (t)\right| ^{2j}\mu (t)^{n-m}}{%
l!\left( m-j\right) !} \nonumber \\
&&\sqrt{\frac{n!m!}{\left( j+n-l-m\right) !\left( j-l\right) !}}\left|
j+n-l-m\right\rangle \left\langle j-l\right| . \label{ro final}\end{aligned}$$
Phenomenological approach
=========================
The aim of this section is to include explicitly the energy dissipation of the cavity field in the time evolution of the state vector for the whole system. In short, the exponential decay law accounting for the damping of the cavity-field excitation will be explicitly included into the evolution of the state vector for the whole system. Such a state vector must lead, naturally, to the result derived from formal techniques for the reduced density matrix Eq.(\[ro final\]). As usual, the reduced density matrix for the cavity field is obtained by tracing over the reservoir variables, i.e., $$\rho _{S}(t)=\text{Tr}_{R}\left[ \rho _{S+R}(t)\right] , \label{traco1}$$ where $\rho _{S+R}(t)$ is given, for pure states at time $t$, by $$\rho _{S+R}(t)=\left| \Psi _{S+R}\left( t\right) \right\rangle \left\langle
\Psi _{S+R}\left( t\right) \right| , \label{traco2}$$ and the subscripts $S$ and $R$ refer to the system and reservoir, respectively. What is thus necessary to be known is precisely the evolution of the whole state vector $\left| \Psi _{S+R}\left( t\right) \right\rangle $ . For this intent, we begin by considering first some examples which will guide us to the form of the evolution of the generalized $n-$photons cavity-field state in the presence of the reservoir. For the simplest case, a single photon in the cavity, the evolution of the whole state vector can be phenomenologically inferred as $$\left| 1\right\rangle \left| R\right\rangle \longrightarrow \exp \left( -%
\frac{\gamma }{2}t\right) \left| 1\right\rangle \left| R\right\rangle
+\left| 0\right\rangle \sum_{k}\alpha _{k}b_{k}^{\dagger }\left|
R\right\rangle , \label{primeiro}$$ where each $\alpha _{k}$ represents the probability amplitude that a photon have been absorbed by the $k$-th mode of the reservoir, and $\gamma $ is the damping rate for the one-photon state in the cavity. Under the normalization condition on state (\[primeiro\]), we arrive at the constraint $$\sum_{k}\left| \alpha _{k}\right| ^{2}=1-\exp \left( -\gamma t\right) .
\label{constraint}$$
For the next case of a two-photon state, we infer the evolution of the whole system by noting that the interaction between the cavity mode and the reservoir is always characterized by one-photon exchange. In this way, the final form of the evolution of the whole state vector can be guessed as $$\begin{aligned}
\left| 2\right\rangle \left| R\right\rangle &\longrightarrow &\exp \left( -2%
\frac{\gamma }{2}t\right) \left| 2\right\rangle \left| R\right\rangle +
\nonumber \\
&&\sqrt{2}\exp \left( -\frac{\gamma }{2}t\right) \left| 1\right\rangle
\sum_{k}\alpha _{k}b_{k}^{\dagger }\left| R\right\rangle + \nonumber \\
&&\left| 0\right\rangle \sum_{kk^{\prime }}\alpha _{k}\alpha _{k^{\prime
}}b_{k}^{\dagger }b_{k^{\prime }}^{\dagger }\left| R\right\rangle .
\label{segunda}\end{aligned}$$ The first term on the r.h.s of Eq.(\[segunda\]) is associated with the probability that the cavity field remains in its original two-photon state. It is worth noting the difference between the relaxation rates for one- and two-photon field states: the damping rate for a two-photon state is increased by a factor $2$ compared to that of the one-photon state. In the second term on the r.h.s of Eq.(\[segunda\]), we have included the probability that the one-photon state has originated from the decay of the two-photon state and also the probability that the one-photon state remains as such. The last term accounts for the probability that all photons have been absorbed by the reservoir. We stress that the imposition of the normalization condition on state Eq.(\[segunda\]) gives the same constraint Eq.(\[constraint\]).
We note that states Eqs.(\[primeiro\]) and (\[segunda\]), as it should be, recover the same result as given by Eq.(\[ro final\]). To verify this assertion, it is necessary to build up the density operator for the system plus reservoir and after that to get rid of the reservoir variables.
Finally it is possible, by induction, to generalize the above results to construct the evolution of an arbitrary $n$-photon state. This state vector for the whole system includes the ingredients discussed before and can be read as $$\begin{aligned}
\left| n\right\rangle \left| R\right\rangle &\longrightarrow &\exp \left( -n%
\frac{\gamma }{2}t\right) \left| n\right\rangle \left| R\right\rangle
\nonumber \\
&&+\sqrt{\frac{n!}{1!(n-1)!}}\exp \left[ -\left( n-1\right) \frac{\gamma }{2}%
t\right] \left| n-1\right\rangle \sum_{k_{1}}\alpha
_{k_{1}}b_{k_{1}}^{\dagger }\left| R\right\rangle \nonumber \\
&&+\sqrt{\frac{n!}{2!(n-2)!}}\exp \left[ -\left( n-2\right) \frac{\gamma }{2}%
t\right] \left| n-2\right\rangle \sum_{k_{1}k_{2}}\alpha _{k_{1}}\alpha
_{k_{2}}b_{k_{1}}^{\dagger }b_{k_{2}}^{\dagger }\left| R\right\rangle
\nonumber \\
&&+...+\left| 0\right\rangle \sum_{k_{1}...k_{n}}\alpha _{k_{1}}...\alpha
_{k_{n}}b_{k_{1}}^{\dagger }...b_{k_{n}}^{\dagger }\left| R\right\rangle ,
\label{geral}\end{aligned}$$ where each term appearing in Eq.(\[geral\]) includes the probability that a given state has originated from the initial $n$-photon state and also the probability that it will remain the same. Again, the desired reduced density matrix for the cavity field can be obtained from the time-dependent state vector Eq$.$(\[geral\]) by using Eqs.(\[traco1\]) and (\[traco2\]).
Noise effects on engineering quantum-field states
==================================================
To illustrate the applicability of the method developed in the previous section, we restrict our analysis to the damping effects in the engineering process of a cavity-field state. To do that, we choose Vogel et al.’s scheme to engineer an arbitrary cavity-field state[@vogel], which is based on successive resonant interactions of $M$ two-level atoms with an initially empty cavity. The experimental setup for this scheme is depicted in Fig.1. The Rydberg atoms are laser excited before entering into the Ramsey zone $R$, placed in the way of the atoms to the cavity $C$, preparing each atom in a particular superposition of excited $\left| e\right\rangle $ and ground $%
\left| g\right\rangle $ states, as is required to properly build up the cavity field, photon by photon. Each two-level atom , after interacting with a monochromatic field state in the cavity $C$, leaves its photon in the cavity, being necessarily detected in its ground state by detector chambers $%
D$ ($D_{e}$ and $D_{g}$ for ionizing the states $\left| e\right\rangle $ and $\left| g\right\rangle $, respectively).
To exemplify an application of the present phenomenological approach, we consider the first step of this process. Initially, the cavity field $C$ is in the vacuum state while the atom is in an arbitrary (unnormalized) superposition $\left| e\right\rangle $ $+i\epsilon _{1}$ $\left|
g\right\rangle $, where $\epsilon _{1}$ is a complex parameter controlled by the Ramsey zone $R$. Once we are considering the reservoir at absolute zero temperature, it will always be in the vacuum state $\left| R\right\rangle
=\left| \left\{ 0\right\} \right\rangle $.
To simplify the calculations, we assume a stable excited atomic state and just take into account the errors introduced by the cavity dissipation mechanism. This is a good approximation, since on average eight out of ten atoms are able to travel the distance of the whole setup without decaying. In fact, since a Rydberg-atom excited state has a lifetime $\left( 1/\gamma
_a\right) $ of the order of $10^{-2}$ s[@brune], the probability of staying in this state is about $0.8$ for an experiment duration of about $%
2\times 10^{-3}$s. For high-Q superconducting cavities, the lifetime $\left(
1/\gamma \right) $ is also of the order of $10^{-2}$s [@brune]. Finally, we neglect the field dissipation during the time that the atoms interact with the cavity field.
After the resonant atom-field interaction, when the atom has left the cavity and measured in the ground state, the state of the whole system can be written as $$\left| \Psi ^{(1)}\right\rangle =\sum_{n=0}^{1}\widehat{Q}_{n}^{(1)}\left|
n\right\rangle \left| R\right\rangle , \label{1}$$ where we have described the damping effects on the cavity field (given by Eq.(\[primeiro\])) through the operators $\widehat{Q}_{n}^{(1)}$ appearing above, which are explicitly given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{Q}_{0}^{(1)} &=&\varphi _{0}^{(1)}+\varphi _{1}^{(1)}\sum_{k}\alpha
_{k}^{\left( 1\right) }b_{k}^{\dagger }, \label{2a} \\
\widehat{Q}_{1}^{(1)} &=&\exp \left( -\frac{\gamma }{2}t^{\prime }\right)
\varphi _{1}^{(1)}, \label{2b}\end{aligned}$$
where $t^{\prime }$ is the time in which the relaxation process occurs, i.e., the time interval in which the first atom left the cavity and is detected. At this point it is useful to define the parameters $%
C_{n}^{(k)}=\cos (g\tau _{k}\sqrt{n+1})$ and $S_{n}^{(k)}=\sin (g\tau _{k}%
\sqrt{n+1})$, where $\tau _{k}$ is the interaction time of the $k$-th atom with the cavity field and $g$ is the atom-field coupling constant, assumed to be the same for all the atoms. The constants $\varphi _{i}^{(1)}$, $i=1,2$ in Eqs.(\[2a\],\[2b\]) are the same as those in Ref.[@vogel], i.e.,
$$\begin{aligned}
\varphi _{1}^{(1)} &=&S_{0}^{(1)}, \\
\varphi _{0}^{(1)} &=&-\epsilon _{1}.\end{aligned}$$
The next step consists in the analysis of the results after the passage of the second atom through the cavity and the subsequent relaxation of the radiation field then constructed. After the second atom (prepared in the superposition $\left| e\right\rangle $ $+i\epsilon _{2}$ $\left|
g\right\rangle $) has left the cavity and again been measured in the ground state, the two-photon cavity field-reservoir state becomes $$\left| \Psi ^{(2)}\right\rangle =\sum_{n=0}^{2}\widehat{Q}_{n}^{(2)}\left|
n\right\rangle \left| R\right\rangle , \label{fi}$$ where the operators $\widehat{Q}_{n}^{(2)}$ turns out to be more complicated then those in Eq.(\[1\]) due to entanglement between the states of each atom and the cavity field-reservoir states. These operators can be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{Q}_{0}^{(2)} &=&\widehat{T}_{0}^{(2)}+\widehat{T}%
_{1}^{(2)}\sum_{k}\alpha _{k}^{\left( 2\right) }b_{k}^{\dagger }+\widehat{T}%
_{2}^{(2)}\sum_{k_{1}k_{2}}\alpha _{k_{1}}^{\left( 2\right) }\alpha
_{k_{2}}^{\left( 2\right) }b_{k_{1}}^{\dagger }b_{k_{2}}^{\dagger },
\label{4a} \\
\widehat{Q}_{1}^{(2)} &=&\widehat{T}_{1}^{(2)}\exp \left( -\frac{\gamma }{2}%
t\right) +\sqrt{2}\widehat{T}_{2}^{(2)}\exp \left( -\frac{\gamma }{2}%
t^{\prime }\right) \sum_{k}\alpha _{k}^{\left( 2\right) }b_{k}^{\dagger },
\label{4b} \\
\widehat{Q}_{2}^{(2)} &=&\widehat{T}_{2}^{(2)}\exp \left( -2\frac{\gamma }{2}%
t\right) , \label{4c}\end{aligned}$$
where the operators $\widehat{T}_{n}^{(2)}$appearing above are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{T}_{0}^{(2)} &=&-\epsilon _{2}\widehat{Q}_{0}^{(1)}, \label{5a} \\
\widehat{T}_{1}^{(2)} &=&S_{0}^{(2)}\widehat{Q}_{0}^{(1)}-\epsilon
_{2}C_{0}^{(2)}\widehat{Q}_{1}^{(1)}, \label{5b} \\
\widehat{T}_{2}^{(2)} &=&S_{1}^{(2)}\widehat{Q}_{1}^{(1)}. \label{5c}\end{aligned}$$
Here $t$ is the time starting after the second atom left the cavity. For simplicity, we have assumed the time interval for the detections of the first and second atoms as equal, and that the second atom enters into the cavity immediately after the first atom being detected. Although here we are just concerned with the desired $\left| \psi _{d}\right\rangle
=\sum_{n=0}^{2}d_{n}\left| n\right\rangle $ cavity field state, the method described above can be generalized for generating an arbitrary cavity field state ( $\left| \psi _{d}\right\rangle =\sum_{n=0}^{M}d_{n}\left|
n\right\rangle $) in a straightforward (if rather tedious) manner. Naturally, all the informations we need are contained in $\left| \Psi
^{(2)}\right\rangle $ according to Eq. (\[fi\]). For instance, the reduced density operator can be obtained readily by using Eq. (\[fi\]) and definitions Eqs. (\[traco1\]) and (\[traco2\]) as
$$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\rho }_{S}(t) &=&{\cal N}\left[ a\left| 2\right\rangle \left\langle
2\right| +b\left| 1\right\rangle \left\langle 1\right| +c\left|
0\right\rangle \left\langle 0\right| +\right. \label{rosistema} \\
&&\left. +\left( d\left| 2\right\rangle \left\langle 1\right| +f\left|
2\right\rangle \left\langle 0\right| +g\left| 1\right\rangle \left\langle
0\right| +h.c.\right) \right] , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where the coefficients appearing above are given in appendix $A$, and ${\cal %
N}=1\left/ \left( a+b+c\right) \right. $ is the normalization constant.
From this reduced density operator, Eq. (\[rosistema\]), which includes the inevitable coupling between the system and the reservoir, it is possible to calculate, in principle, any physical quantity (observable) of interest.
[*Ideal case.* ]{}When damping effects are neglected, i.e., letting the damping constant $\gamma =0$, Eq. (\[rosistema\]) recovers the ideal case, and $\widehat{\rho }_{S}$ can be written in terms of a pure state $\left|
\Psi _{S}\right\rangle \left\langle \Psi _{S}\right| $, where $\left| \Psi
_{S}\right\rangle =\sum_{n=0}^{2}\psi _{n}^{(2)}\left| n\right\rangle $ and the coefficients $\psi _{n}^{(2)}$ are the same as those in Ref. [@vogel], as can be checked from Eqs.(\[2a\]) to (\[5c\]).
Optimizing the fidelity of an engineered cavity-field state
===========================================================
At this point this formulation is completely general, and can be applied to generate any arbitrary cavity field state. However, we stress that there is a crucial difference between the procedure described here and the one in Ref. [@vogel]. In fact, in the treatment proposed by Vogel et al., it is necessary to solve a polynomial equations for $\epsilon _{1\text{ }}$and $%
\epsilon _{2}$, which arise from the consistence of the recurrence equations relating the amplitudes $\varphi _{k}^{(n)}$. On the other hand, in the treatment described here, in virtue of the reservoir, the quantities $%
\widehat{Q}_{n}^{(2)}$ in Eq. (\[fi\]) are now operators, instead of simply being parameters. In this connection, there is no immediate way to extract useful information from the recurrence relation associated between the operators involved. Thus, a first question arising is, how to turn round this problem? We propose the following way to solve this problem: consider a specific desired cavity-field state to be engineered and calculate the fidelity of this ideal state (free from the reservoir effects) with respect to the state $\left| \Psi ^{(2)}\right\rangle $ in Eq. (\[fi\]). By doing this procedure, the only unknown variables are $\epsilon _{1}$ and $\epsilon
_{2}$, since all the others can be fixed. The trick here is to find numerically the values for $\epsilon _{1}$and $\epsilon _{2}$ which maximize the resulting expression for the fidelity. This process can be even more optimized by an adequate choice of the interaction parameters $g\tau _{k}$.
Another important ingredient in this discussion is concerned with the probability for successfully achieve the engineering process. In fact, the success of the engineering process depends on detecting all the required atoms in their ground states. The expression for the probability to detect each atom in the ground state can be obtained in an usual way. The distinguished feature here is given by the presence of the reservoir. To do that, we have to consider the internal atomic states as well as the constructed radiation-field states being taken normalized. We thus have to normalize the states given in Eqs. (\[1\],\[fi\]) by following the recipe$\left| \Psi ^{(k)}\right\rangle \rightarrow {\cal N}_{k}\left| \Psi
^{(k)}\right\rangle $, where the normalization constants read
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}_{1} &=&\left[ \frac{1}{1+\left| \epsilon _{1}\right| ^{2}}%
\left\langle R\right| \sum_{j=0}^{1}\left( \widehat{Q}_{j}^{(1)}\right)
^{\dagger }\widehat{Q}_{j}^{(1)}\left| R\right\rangle \right] ^{-\frac{1}{2}%
}, \label{norma} \\
{\cal N}_{2} &=&\left[ \frac{1}{1+\left| \epsilon _{2}\right| ^{2}}\frac{%
\left\langle R\right| \sum_{j}\left( \widehat{Q}_{j}^{(2)}\right) ^{\dagger }%
\widehat{Q}_{j}^{(2)}\left| R\right\rangle }{\left\langle R\right|
\sum_{j}\left( \widehat{Q}_{j}^{(1)}\right) ^{\dagger }\widehat{Q}%
_{j}^{(1)}\left| R\right\rangle }\right] ^{-\frac{1}{2}}. \label{normb}\end{aligned}$$
The total probability${\cal \ }$for successfully engineering the desired state reads ${\cal P=}\prod_{k=1}^{2}{\cal P}_{k}$, where ${\cal P}_{k}=$ $%
1/\left( {\cal N}_{k}\right) ^{2}$ accounts for the probability to detect the $k$-th atom in the ground state $\left| g\right\rangle $.
To exemplify the whole procedure, we restrict our analysis to the generation of the following radiation-field truncated phase-state,
$$\left| \Psi _{d}\right\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left( \left|
0\right\rangle +\left| 1\right\rangle +\left| 2\right\rangle \right) .$$ The fidelity${\cal \ }$of the density matrix $\rho _{s}(t)$ relative to $%
\left| \Psi _{d}\right\rangle $ is given by
$${\cal F}=\left\langle \Psi _d\right| \rho _s(t)\left| \Psi _d\right\rangle ,
\label{fidel}$$
where $\rho _s(t)$ is the normalized density matrix. The resulting expression is a little bit involved and must be numerically maximized regarding the variables $\epsilon _1$ and $\epsilon _2.$ To optimize the engineering process (\[fidel\]), we consider different interaction parameters $g\tau _k$ to each atom, which depend on experimental capabilities. In the present realistic scheme for engineering a cavity-field state two important features arise: the fidelity ${\cal F}$ of the engineered state and the probability ${\cal P}$ for successfully achieve the process. Fig.2(a,b,c) show the histogram of the probability ${\cal P}$, the fidelity ${\cal F}$ , and the rate ${\cal R\equiv PF}$, which serves as a cost-benefit estimate to choose the best parameters, in terms of the parameters $g\tau _1$ and $g\tau _2$. For a definite value of the interaction parameters $g\tau _k$, it is calculated the correspondent values $\epsilon _1$ and $\epsilon _2$ which maximize the fidelity. From this figure we note that a larger probability does not necessarily imply a better fidelity. This is an important point since the convenient probability ${\cal %
P}$ and the fidelity ${\cal F}$ to be chosen depend on the engineer necessities. In Table I some values of $g\tau _k$ and the solutions for $%
\epsilon _1$ and $\epsilon _2$ as well as the correspondent quantities $%
{\cal P}$, ${\cal F}$ , and ${\cal R}$ are exhibited. Fig.3(a-f) show both the histogram of the elements of the reduced density matrix and the associated Wigner functions. Fig.3(a,b) show the ideal case ($\gamma =0$); Fig.3(c,d) show the realistic engineered state by using the parameters $%
\epsilon _1$ and $\epsilon _2$ obtained from Vogel et. al scheme taking into account the reservoir; and Fig.3(e,f) show the engineered state obtained by our maximization procedure. As can be viewed in Fig.3(e,f), this procedure improve the quantum nature of the engineered state, which is revealed by the negative portions of the Wigner function. To plot the figures 2 and 3 we used the realistic experimental parameters $\gamma =10^2s^{-1}$ [@brune] for the decay rate and the estimated time interval $t=t^{\prime }=10/\gamma $ [@paulo] for the first and second atoms, respectively, to reache the detection chambers after leaving the cavity.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we have proposed an alternative way to treat damping effects at zero temperature in cavity QED processes. Our phenomenological approach consists in incorporate the main results obtained by standard [*ab-initio*]{} techniques on dissipation of a cavity field directly in the evolution of the state vector of the whole system: cavity field plus reservoir. In summary, we have included the exponential decay law accounting for the damping of the cavity-field excitation explicitly in the evolution of the whole state vector of the system.
By considering a standard model of a given mode of the radiation field coupled to a collection of $N$-modes representing the reservoir, it was possible to infer the time evolution for the whole state vector in a straightforward manner. We stress that this result is rather general, and in principle can be applied to whichever quantum process as, for instance, quantum communication, logic operations, teleportation, and cavity-field state engineering, among others.
The phenomenological-operator approach to dissipation in cavity quantum electrodynamics here presented considerably simplifies the introduction of the inevitable errors due to the environmental degrees of freedom when describing processes involving atom-field interactions. The development of this technique became possible due to the previous formal work in quantum dissipation, from which we have recovered the main results concerning energy loss of a trapped radiation field. So, such convenient approach precludes the necessity of performing the usually extensive ab initio calculations as the standard master equation, the characteristic functions, or even the path integral formalism. It is worth noting that the technique here developed at absolute zero can be extended for a thermal reservoir.
As an application of the present technique, we have considered the process of engineering a cavity-field state in a lossy cavity. In order to estimate how far the generated state deviates from the idealized, due to attenuation, we have analyzed the fidelity of the engineering process. Also, we have proposed an alternative way for engineering a cavity field state in the presence of a reservoir, which consists in maximizing the fidelity of the desired (ideal) state relative to the (damped) engineered state. A specific example has been given which takes into account realistic values for the parameters involved. To conclude, we should stress that damping effects seriously restrict such an engineering process. However, these noise effects can be minimized by the scheme proposed in this paper.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}
We wish to thank J.R.G. de Mendonça for useful comments on this manuscript and the support from Fapesp and CNPq, Brazil.
[Appendix A]{}
In this appendix we show explicitly the coefficients appearing in Eq. (\[rosistema\]),
$$a=\left( S_{0}^{(1)}S_{1}^{(2)}\right) ^{2}e^{-\gamma (t^{\prime }+2t)},$$
$$\begin{aligned}
b &=&2\left( S_{0}^{(1)}S_{1}^{\left( 2\right) }\right) ^{2}e^{-\gamma
(t^{\prime }+t)}\left( 1-e^{-\gamma t}\right) + \\
&&-\left| \epsilon _{2}\right| ^{2}\left( S_{0}^{\left( 1\right)
}C_{0}^{\left( 2\right) }\right) ^{2}e^{-\gamma (t^{\prime }+t)}+ \\
&&+\left( S_{0}^{\left( 1\right) }S_{0}^{\left( 2\right) }\right)
^{2}e^{-\gamma t^{\prime }}\left( 1-e^{-\gamma t}\right) + \\
&&-\left| \epsilon _{1}\right| ^{2}\left( S_{0}^{\left( 2\right) }\right)
^{2}e^{-\gamma t}+ \\
&&+\left( \epsilon _{1}\epsilon _{2}^{*}+\epsilon _{1}^{*}\epsilon
_{2}\right) S_{0}^{\left( 1\right) }C_{0}^{\left( 2\right) }S_{0}^{\left(
2\right) }e^{-1/2\gamma (t^{\prime }+2t)},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
c &=&-\left| \epsilon _{2}\right| ^{2}\left( S_{0}^{\left( 1\right) }\right)
^{2}\left( 1-e^{-\gamma t^{\prime }}\right) +\left| \epsilon _{1}\right|
^{2}\left| \epsilon _{2}\right| ^{2}+ \\
&&+\left( S_{0}^{\left( 1\right) }S_{1}^{\left( 2\right) }\right)
^{2}e^{-\gamma t^{\prime }}(1-e^{-\gamma t})^{2}+ \\
&&-\left| \epsilon _{2}\right| ^{2}\left( S_{0}^{\left( 1\right)
}C_{0}^{\left( 2\right) }\right) ^{2}e^{-\gamma t^{\prime }}\left(
1-e^{-\gamma t}\right) + \\
&&+\left( S_{0}^{(1)}S_{0}^{(2)}\right) ^{2}\left( 1-e^{-\gamma t^{\prime
}}\right) \left( 1-e^{-\gamma t}\right) + \\
&&-\left| \epsilon _{1}\right| ^{2}\left( S_{0}^{(2)}\right) ^{2}\left(
1-e^{-\gamma t}\right) + \\
&&+\left( \epsilon _{1}\epsilon _{2}^{*}+\epsilon _{1}^{*}\epsilon
_{2}\right) S_{0}^{(1)}S_{0}^{(2)}C_{0}^{(2)}e^{-1/2\gamma t^{\prime
}}\left( 1-e^{-\gamma t}\right) ,\end{aligned}$$
$$d=-\epsilon _{2}^{*}\left( S_{0}^{(1)}\right)
^{2}S_{1}^{(2)}C_{0}^{(2)}e^{-\gamma (t^{\prime }+3/2t)}-\epsilon
_{1}^{*}S_{0}^{(1)}S_{1}^{(2)}S_{0}^{(2)}e^{-\gamma /2(t^{\prime }+3t)},$$
$$f=\epsilon _{1}^{*}\epsilon _{2}^{*}S_{0}^{(1)}S_{1}^{(2)}e^{-\gamma
/2(t^{\prime }+2t)},$$
$$\begin{aligned}
g &=&-\epsilon _{2}^{\ast }\left( S_{0}^{(1)}\right)
^{2}S_{0}^{(2)}e^{-1/2\gamma t}\left( 1-e^{-\gamma t^{\prime }}\right) + \\
&&-\epsilon _{1}^{\ast }\left| \epsilon _{2}\right| ^{2}S_{0}^{\left(
1\right) }C_{0}^{\left( 2\right) }e^{-\gamma /2(t^{\prime }+t)}+ \\
&&-\epsilon _{2}^{\ast }\left| \epsilon _{1}\right| ^{2}S_{0}^{\left(
2\right) }e^{-1/2\gamma t}+ \\
&&-\sqrt{2}\epsilon _{2}^{\ast }\left( S_{0}^{(1)}\right)
^{2}S_{1}^{(2)}C_{0}^{(2)}e^{-\gamma /2(2t^{\prime }+t)}\left( 1-e^{-\gamma
t}\right) + \\
&&-\sqrt{2}\epsilon _{1}^{\ast }S_{0}^{(1)}S_{0}^{(2)}S_{1}^{(2)}e^{-\gamma
t^{\prime }}\left( 1-e^{-\gamma t}\right) .\end{aligned}$$
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen, Phys. Rev.[** 47**]{}, 777 (1935).
J. S. Bell, Physics (N.Y.) [**1**]{}, 195 (1964).
J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, H. J. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 3221 (1997); T. Pellizzari, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 5242 (1997).
H.-K. Lo and H. Chau, P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 3410 (1997). D. Mayers, quant-ph/9603015.
C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1895 (1993); M. H. Y. Moussa, Phys. Rev. A [**54**]{}, 4661 (1996); [*ibid.*]{} [**55**]{}, R3287 (1997); D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Nature [**390**]{}, 575 (1997); D. Boschi, S. Branca, F. De Martini, L. Hardy, and S. Popescu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1121 (1998); C. J. Villas-Bôas, N. G. de Almeida, and M. H. Y. Moussa, Phys. Rev. A [**60**]{}, 2759 (1999).
A. Furusawa, J. L. Sorensen, S. L. Braunstein, C. A. Fuchs, H. J. Kimble, and E. S. Polzik, Science [**282,** ]{}706 (1998), and references therein.
P. W. Shor, in [*Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on the Foundations of calculater Science*]{}, edited by S. Goldwasser (IEEE calculater Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, (1994), p. 124.
I. L. Chuang, L. M. K. Vandersypen, X. Zhou, D. W. Leung, and S. Lloyd, [*Nature*]{}, [**393**]{}, 143 (1998), and references therein.
J. Krause, M. O. Scully, H. Walther, Phys. Rev. A [**36** ]{}R4547 (1987); M. S. Brune, S. Haroche, J. M. Raimond, L. Davidovich, and N. Zagury, Phys. Rev. A [**45**]{}, 5193 (1992); A. S. Parkins, P. Marte, P. Zoller, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{} 3095 (1993); J. Janszky, P. Domokos, S. Szabó, and P. Adam, Phys. Rev. A [**51**]{}, 4191 (1995); S. Bose, K. Jacobs, and P. L. Knight Phys. Rev. A [**56**]{}, 4175 (1997); K. M. Gheri, C. Saavedra, P. Törmä, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A [**58**]{} R2627 (1998); M. H. Y. Moussa, B. Baseia, Phys. Lett. A [**238**]{} 223 (1998); Shi-Biao Zheng, Opt. Commun.[** 154**]{} 290 (1998); A. Vidiella-Barranco and J. A. Roversi, Phys. Rev. A [**58**]{}, 3349 (1998); D. T. Pegg, L. S. Phillips, and S. M. Barnett, Phys. Rev. Lett [**81**]{}, 1604 (1998); M. Dakna, J. Clausen, L. Knöll, and D. G. Welsch, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{} 1658 (1999); D. Branning, W. P. Grice, R. Erdmann, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 955 (1999).
J. Dalibard, Y. Castin, and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett [**68**]{}, 580 (1992); R. Dum, P. Zoller, and H. Ritsch, Phys. Rev. A [**45**]{}, 4879 (1992).
K. Vogel, V. M. Akulin, and W. P. Schleich, Phys. Rev. Lett [**71**]{}, 1816 (1993).
See for example, M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,[* in Quantum Optics*]{}, Cambridge University Press (1997); L. Mandel and E. Wolf, [*in Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics*]{}, Cambridge University Press (1995).
M. Weindinger, B. T. H. Varcoe, R. Heerlein, and H. Walther, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 3795 (1999); M. Brune, E. Hagley, J. Dreyer, X. Maître, A. Maali, C. Wunderlich, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 4887 (1996).
P. Nussenzveig, [*private communication.*]{}
[**Figure Caption**]{}
FIG. 1. Sketch of the experimental setup for engineering a cavity-field state.
FIG. 2(a,b,c). Histogram of the probability ${\cal P}$, fidelity ${\cal F}$, and rate ${\cal R}$, respectively, in the $g\tau _{1}\times $ $g\tau _{2}$ plane.
FIG. 3. Elements of the reduced density matrix and the correspondents Wigner distribution functions: (a,b) for the ideal state ; (c,d) for the realistic engineered state built with parameters $\epsilon _{1}$ and $\epsilon _{2}$ obtained from Vogel et al. scheme including the reservoir; and (e,f) for the optimized engineered state by the maximization procedure. The Wigner $%
W\left( \alpha ,\alpha ^{\ast }\right) $ distribution functions are plotted as a function of $q=%
%TCIMACRO{\func{Re}}%
%BeginExpansion
\mathop{\rm Re}%
%EndExpansion
(\alpha )$ and $p=%
%TCIMACRO{\func{Im}}%
%BeginExpansion
\mathop{\rm Im}%
%EndExpansion
(\alpha )$.
[**Table**]{}
Table 1. Some values of the interaction times $g\tau _{1}$ and $g\tau _{2}$, Ramsey zones parameters $\epsilon _{1}$ and $\epsilon _{2}$ (adjusted in order to maximize the fidelity), fidelity ${\cal F}$, probability ${\cal P}$, and rate ${\cal R}$.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$g\tau _{1}$ $g\tau _{2}$ $\quad \quad ~\quad \epsilon _{1}\quad ~~~~$ $\quad \quad \quad ~\quad \epsilon _{2}\quad ~~~~$ $\quad \quad ~{\cal F}% $\quad {\cal P}~~~~~$ $~{\cal R}~~$
~~~~$
-------------- -------------- ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------- ---------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- ------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
$0.6$ $3.0$ $2.7693$ $-0.1583$ $0.9253$ $0.0697$ $0.0645$
$1.3$ $1.2$ $-0.8508+i0.2874$ $-0.8838-i0.1600$ $0.8789$ $0.8831$ $0.7761$
$1.4$ $2.8$ $1.2349+i0.8632$ $-0.3583+i0.2427$ $0.9087$ $0.3637$ $0.3305$
------- ------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Preliminary results toward the analysis of the Hamiltonian structure of multifield theories describing complex materials are mustered: we involve the invariance under the action of a general Lie group of the balance of substructural interactions. Poisson brackets are also introduced in the material representation to account for general material substructures. A Hamilton-Jacobi equation suitable for multifield models is presented. Finally, a spatial version of all these topics is discussed without making use of the notion of paragon setting.'
author:
- |
${{}^\circ}$**Gianfranco Capriz** and \***Paolo Maria Mariano**\
${{}^\circ}$Dipartimento di Matematica,\
Università di Pisa,\
via Buonarroti 2, I-56127 Pisa (Italy)\
e-mail: [email protected] ;\
\*Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica,\
Università di Roma “La Sapienza”,\
via Eudossiana 18, I-00184 Roma (Italy)\
e-mail: [email protected]
title: '**Symmetries and Hamiltonian formalism for complex materials**'
---
Lagrangian and Hamiltonian descriptions of elastic bodies with substructure
===========================================================================
In standard continuum mechanics, each material element of a body is collapsed into the place occupied by its centre of mass; let $\mathbf{X}$ be that place in the reference placement; the set of all $\mathbf{X}$ is taken to be a fit region $\mathcal{B}_{0}$ of the Euclidean space.
Sometimes such simplicistic model of physical reality is insufficient; then, to render the picture adequate, the material element must be portrayed as a *system* and at least some coarse grained descriptor $\mathbf{\nu }$ (an order parameter) enters the picture.
Here, as in \[1\] (see for other details and additional results \[2-5\]), we take $\mathbf{\nu }$ as an element of some differentiable manifold $\mathcal{M}$, and presume that physical circumstances impose a single choice of metric and of connection for $\mathcal{M}$.
We also assume that the region occupied by the body in the current placement be obtained through a sufficiently smooth mapping $\mathbf{x:}\mathcal{B}_{0}\rightarrow \mathcal{E}$ ; so that the current place of a material element at $\mathbf{X}$ in $\mathcal{B}_{0}$ is given by $\mathbf{x}\left(
\mathbf{X}\right) $; and $\mathcal{B}=\mathbf{x}\left( \mathcal{B}_{0}\right) $ is also *fit*; we denote as usual with $\mathbf{F}$ the placement gradient. We presume also that another sufficiently smooth mapping $\mathbf{\nu :}\mathcal{B}_{0}\rightarrow \mathcal{M}$ shows the present value of the order parameter at $\mathbf{X}$. A *motion* is a pair of time-parametrized families $\mathbf{x}_{t}\left( \mathbf{X}\right) =\mathbf{x}\left( \mathbf{X},t\right) $ and $\mathbf{\nu }_{t}\left( \mathbf{X}\right)
=\mathbf{\nu }\left( \mathbf{X},t\right) $, twice differentiable with respect to time. Rates in the material representation are indicated with $\mathbf{\dot{x}}\left( \mathbf{X},t\right) $ and $\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}\left(
\mathbf{X},t\right) $.
We restrict here our attention to bodies for which a Lagrangian density $\mathcal{L}$ exists, so that the total Lagrangian $L$ of the body is given by $$L_{\mathcal{B}_{0}}=\int_{\mathcal{B}_{0}}\mathcal{L}\left( \mathbf{X,x,\dot{x},F,\nu ,\dot{\nu},}\nabla \mathbf{\nu }\right) . \label{1}$$the covariant gradient $\nabla \mathbf{\nu }$ being based on the mandatory connection. We presume that $\mathcal{L}$ be of the form$$\mathcal{L}\left( \mathbf{X,x,\dot{x},F,\nu ,\dot{\nu},}\nabla \mathbf{\nu }\right) =\frac{1}{2}\rho _{0}\left\Vert \mathbf{\dot{x}}\right\Vert
^{2}+\rho _{0}\chi \left( \mathbf{\nu ,\dot{\nu}}\right) -\rho _{0}e\left(
\mathbf{X,F,\nu ,}\nabla \mathbf{\nu }\right) -\rho _{0}w\left( \mathbf{x,\nu }\right) , \label{2}$$where $\rho _{0}$ is the referential mass density (conserved during the motion), $\chi $ the *kinetic co-energy* (see \[1\], p. 19) associated with the substructure, $e$ the elastic energy density and $w$ the density of the potential of external actions, all per unit mass. Below we use the notation $\mathbf{b=-\partial }_{\mathbf{x}}w$ for the density standard external actions and $\mathbf{\beta =-\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}}w$ for the substructural ones. The kinetic energy density $\rho _{0}\kappa \left(
\mathbf{\nu ,\dot{\nu}}\right) $ pertaining to the substructure is the partial Legendre transform of $\chi $ with respect to $\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}$.
If $\mathcal{L}$ is sufficiently smooth, we may apply standard procedures to derive Lagrange equations for the functional $L_{\mathcal{B}_{0}}$:$$\overset{\cdot }{\overline{\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{x}}}\mathcal{L}}}=\partial _{\mathbf{x}}\mathcal{L}-Div\partial _{\mathbf{F}}\mathcal{L},
\label{3}$$$$\overset{\cdot }{\overline{\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}}\mathcal{L}}}=\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}-Div\partial _{\nabla \mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}. \label{4}$$where $Div$ is the divergence calculated with respect to $\mathbf{X}$, i.e. $Div=tr\nabla $.
Put$$\mathfrak{H}=\mathbf{\dot{x}\cdot }\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{x}}}\mathcal{L}+\mathbf{\dot{\nu}\cdot }\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}}\mathcal{L}-\mathcal{L}. \label{5}$$Clearly, $\mathfrak{H}$ is the density of the total energy. In fact, since $\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}}\mathcal{L}=\rho _{0}\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}}\chi $, the term $\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}\cdot \partial _{\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}}\chi -\chi $ in (\[5\]) coincides with the substructural kinetic energy density $\kappa \left( \mathbf{\nu ,\dot{\nu}}\right) $ (hence the presence of $\chi \mathbf{\ }$rather than $\kappa $ in the expression of $\mathcal{L}$), then$$\mathfrak{H}=\frac{1}{2}\rho _{0}\left\Vert \mathbf{\dot{x}}\right\Vert
^{2}+\rho _{0}\kappa \left( \mathbf{\nu ,\dot{\nu}}\right) +\rho _{0}e\left(
\mathbf{X,F,\nu ,}\nabla \mathbf{\nu }\right) +\rho _{0}w\left( \mathbf{x},\mathbf{\nu }\right) , \label{6}$$as asserted.
The *balance of energy* can be expressed in terms of $\mathfrak{H}$ as follows$$\mathfrak{\dot{H}}-Div\left( \mathbf{\dot{x}P+\dot{\nu}}\mathcal{S}\right)
=0, \label{7}$$where $\mathbf{P}$ and $\mathcal{S}$ are respectively the *Piola-Kirchhoff stress* and the referential *microstress*$$\mathbf{P=-}\partial _{\mathbf{F}}\mathcal{L}\text{ \ \ , \ \ }\mathcal{S}=-\partial _{\nabla \mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}. \label{8}$$
That (\[7\]) is true follows from direct computation.
Equations (\[3\]) and (\[4\]) lead us to an appropriate version of Nöther theorem (see \[4\] p. 29); here we follow the program of \[6\] (p. 284). We consider some virtual motion of our system, by assigning two one-parameter families $\mathbf{f}_{s_{i}}^{i}$ of sufficiently smooth point valued diffeomorphisms, $i=1,2$, acting respectively on $\mathcal{B}_{0}$ and $\mathcal{E}$, and a Lie group $G$ of transformations of $\mathcal{M}$. We indicate with a prime the derivative with respect to the relevant $s$.
1. At each $s_{1}$, $\mathbf{f}_{s_{1}}^{1}$ acts on $\mathcal{B}_{0}$so that $\mathbf{X\longmapsto f}_{s_{1}}^{1}\left( \mathbf{X}\right) \in
\mathcal{E}$, and is isocoric (no virtual change of density), i.e. $Div\mathbf{f}_{s_{1}}^{1\prime }=0$; $\mathbf{f}_{0}^{1}$ is the identity. We put $\mathbf{f}_{0}^{1\prime }\left( \mathbf{X}\right) =\mathbf{w}\left(
\mathbf{X}\right) $, then $\mathbf{w}^{\prime }\mathbf{=0}$.
2. At each $s_{2}$, $\mathbf{f}_{s_{2}}^{2}$ is a diffeomorphism that transforms $\mathcal{E}$ into itself. We assume that $\mathbf{f}_{0}^{2}$ is the identity and put $\mathbf{f}_{0}^{2\prime }\left( \mathbf{x}\right) =\mathbf{v}\left( \mathbf{x}\right) $.
3. A Lie group $G$, containing $SO\left( 3\right) $, acts on $\mathcal{M}$ and the infinitesimal generator of this action at $\mathbf{\nu }$ is indicated with $\xi _{\mathcal{M}}\left( \mathbf{\nu }\right) $ (see \[7\], p. 256); $\mathbf{\nu }_{g}$ is the value of $\mathbf{\nu }$ after the action of $g\in G$. If we consider a one-parameter trajectory $s_{3}\mapsto
g_{s_{3}}\in G$ such that $g_{0}$ is the identity, we have also $s_{3}\mapsto \mathbf{\nu }_{g_{s_{3}}}$ and $\xi _{\mathcal{M}}\left(
\mathbf{\nu }\right) =\frac{d}{ds_{3}}\mathbf{\nu }_{g_{s_{3}}}\left\vert
_{s_{3}=0}\right. $. When $G$ coincides with the special orthogonal group $SO\left( 3\right) $, we identify $\xi _{\mathcal{M}}\left( \mathbf{\nu }\right) $ with $\mathcal{A}\mathbf{\dot{q}}$, being $\mathbf{\dot{q}}$ the characteristic vector of a rotational rigid velocity and $\mathcal{A}$ a linear operator mapping vectors into elements of the tangent space of $\mathcal{M}$, namely, if $\mathbf{\nu }_{\mathbf{q}}$ is the value of the order parameter measured by an observer after a rotation $\mathbf{q}$, then $\mathcal{A}=\frac{d\mathbf{\nu }_{\mathbf{q}}}{d\mathbf{q}}\left\vert _{\mathbf{q}=\mathbf{0}}\right. $.
Henceforth, to simplify notations, we use $\mathbf{f}^{1}$, $\mathbf{f}^{2}$ and $\mathbf{\nu }_{g}$ to indicate $\mathbf{f}_{s_{1}}^{1}\left( \mathbf{X}\right) $, $\mathbf{f}_{s_{2}}^{2}\left( \mathbf{x}\right) $, $\mathbf{\nu }_{g_{s_{3}}}\left( \mathbf{X}\right) $, and write $\left\vert _{0}\right. $ for $\left\vert _{s_{1}=0,s_{2}=0,s_{3}=0}\right. $. Moreover, $grad$ indicates the gradient with respect to $\mathbf{x}$.
We say that $\mathcal{L}$ is *invariant* with respect to $\mathbf{f}^{i} $’s and $G$ when$$\mathcal{L}\left( \mathbf{X,x,\dot{x},F,\nu ,\dot{\nu},}\nabla \mathbf{\nu }\right) =$$$$=\mathcal{L}\left( \mathbf{f}^{1}\mathbf{,f}^{2}\mathbf{,}\left( grad\mathbf{\mathbf{f}}^{2}\right) \mathbf{\dot{x},}\left( grad\mathbf{\mathbf{f}}^{2}\right) \mathbf{F}\left( \nabla \mathbf{f}^{1}\right) ^{-1}\mathbf{,\mathbf{\nu }_{g},\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}_{g},}\left( \nabla \mathbf{\nu }_{g}\right) \left( \nabla \mathbf{f}^{1}\right) ^{-1}\right) . \label{11}$$
Let us define$$\mathcal{Q}=\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{x}}}\mathcal{L\cdot }\left( \mathbf{v}-\mathbf{Fw}\right) +\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}}\mathcal{L\cdot }\left(
\xi _{\mathcal{M}}\left( \mathbf{\nu }\right) \mathbf{-}\left( \nabla
\mathbf{\nu }\right) \mathbf{w}\right) \label{12}$$$$\mathfrak{F}=\mathcal{L}\mathbf{w+}\left( \partial _{\mathbf{F}}\mathcal{L}\right) ^{T}\left( \mathbf{v}-\mathbf{Fw}\right) +\left( \partial _{\nabla
\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}\right) ^{T}\left( \xi _{\mathcal{M}}\left( \mathbf{\nu }\right) \mathbf{-}\left( \nabla \mathbf{\nu }\right) \mathbf{w}\right) ,
\label{13}$$where $\mathbf{v}$, $\mathbf{w}$ and $\xi _{\mathcal{M}}\left( \mathbf{\nu }\right) $ are as mentioned in items 1, 2, 3.
**Theorem 1** (Nöther-like theorem for complex materials). *If the Lagrangian density* $\mathcal{L}$ *is invariant under* $\mathbf{f}_{s_{1}}^{1}$, $\mathbf{f}_{s_{2}}^{2}$* and* $\emph{G}$*, then*$$\mathcal{\dot{Q}}+Div\mathfrak{F}=0\text{.} \label{14}$$
*Proof*. To prove the theorem, as a first step we note that (\[11\]) implies$$\frac{d}{ds_{1}}\mathcal{L}\left( \mathbf{f}^{1}\mathbf{,f}^{2}\mathbf{,}\left( grad\mathbf{\mathbf{f}}^{2}\right) \mathbf{\dot{x},}\left( grad\mathbf{\mathbf{f}}^{2}\right) \mathbf{F}\left( \nabla \mathbf{f}^{1}\right)
^{-1}\mathbf{,\nu }_{g},\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}_{g}\mathbf{,}\left( \nabla
\mathbf{\nu }_{g}\right) \left( \nabla \mathbf{f}^{1}\right) ^{-1}\right)
\left\vert _{0}\right. =0, \label{15}$$$$\frac{d}{ds_{2}}\mathcal{L}\left( \mathbf{f}^{1}\mathbf{,f}^{2}\mathbf{,}\left( grad\mathbf{\mathbf{f}}^{2}\right) \mathbf{\dot{x},}\left( grad\mathbf{\mathbf{f}}^{2}\right) \mathbf{F}\left( \nabla \mathbf{f}^{1}\right)
^{-1}\mathbf{,\nu }_{g},\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}_{g},\left( \nabla \mathbf{\nu }_{g}\right) \left( \nabla \mathbf{f}^{1}\right) ^{-1}\right) \left\vert
_{0}\right. =0, \label{15bis}$$$$\frac{d}{ds_{3}}\mathcal{L}\left( \mathbf{f}^{1}\mathbf{,f}^{2}\mathbf{,}\left( grad\mathbf{\mathbf{f}}^{2}\right) \mathbf{\dot{x},}\left( grad\mathbf{\mathbf{f}}^{2}\right) \mathbf{F}\left( \nabla \mathbf{f}^{1}\right)
^{-1}\mathbf{,\nu }_{g},\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}_{g}\mathbf{,}\left( \nabla
\mathbf{\nu }_{g}\right) \left( \nabla \mathbf{f}^{1}\right) ^{-1}\right)
\left\vert _{0}\right. =0, \label{15ter}$$which lead to$$\partial _{\mathbf{X}}\mathcal{L}\cdot \mathbf{w-\partial _{\mathbf{F}}}\mathcal{L}\mathbf{\cdot }\left( \mathbf{F}\nabla \mathbf{w}\right) \mathbf{-\partial _{\nabla \mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}\cdot }\left( \nabla \mathbf{\mathbf{\nu }}\nabla \mathbf{\mathbf{w}}\right) \mathbf{=}0, \label{16}$$$$\mathbf{\partial _{\mathbf{x}}}\mathcal{L}\cdot \mathbf{v}+\mathbf{\partial
_{\mathbf{\dot{x}}}}\mathcal{L}\mathbf{\cdot }\left( \left( grad\mathbf{v}\right) \mathbf{\dot{x}}\right) \mathbf{+\partial _{\mathbf{F}}}\mathcal{L}\mathbf{\cdot }\left( \left( grad\mathbf{v}\right) \mathbf{F}\right) \mathbf{=}0, \label{16bis}$$$$\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}\cdot \xi _{\mathcal{M}}\left( \mathbf{\nu }\right) +\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}}\mathcal{L}\cdot \xi _{\mathcal{M}}^{\prime }\left( \mathbf{\nu }\right) +\partial _{\nabla \mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}\cdot \nabla \xi _{\mathcal{M}}\left( \mathbf{\nu }\right) =0,
\label{16ter}$$as a consequence of the properties listed under items 1, 2 and 3 above. Then, we calculate the time rate of the scalar $\mathcal{Q}$, the divergence of the vector $\mathfrak{F}$ and, by using the equations (\[3\]) and ([4]{}), identifying $s_{3}$ with $t$, we recognize that$$\mathcal{\dot{Q}}+Div\mathfrak{F}=\frac{d}{ds_{1}}\mathcal{L}\left\vert
_{0}\right. +\frac{d}{ds_{2}}\mathcal{L}\left\vert _{0}\right. +\frac{d}{ds_{3}}\mathcal{L}\left\vert _{0}\right. , \label{17}$$which proves the theorem.$\square $
**Remark 1**. As a first special case, we require that $\mathbf{\mathbf{f}}^{2}$ alone acts on $\mathcal{L}$ leaving $\mathbf{v}$ *arbitrary*. By using (\[16bis\]) we obtain from (\[14\])$$\left( \frac{\partial }{\partial t}\mathbf{\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{x}}}}\mathcal{L}-\partial _{\mathbf{x}}\mathcal{L}+Div\partial _{\mathbf{F}}\mathcal{L}\right) \cdot \mathbf{v}=\mathbf{0}, \label{18}$$i.e.$$\rho _{0}\mathbf{\ddot{x}=}\rho _{0}\mathbf{b+}Div\mathbf{P}, \label{19}$$which is the standard equation of balance of momentum.
**Remark 2**. With $G$ *arbitrary*, we consider its action alone on $\mathcal{L}$; by using (\[16ter\]), with the identification $s_{3}=t$, we obtain from (\[14\]) that$$\left( \frac{\partial }{\partial t}\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}}\mathcal{L}-\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}+Div\partial _{\nabla \mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}\right) \cdot \xi _{\mathcal{M}}\left( \mathbf{\nu }\right) =0
\label{20}$$or$$\rho _{0}\left( \overset{\cdot }{\overline{\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}}\chi }}-\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}\chi \right) +\mathbf{z}-\rho _{0}\mathbf{\beta }-Div\mathcal{S}=0. \label{21}$$$\mathbf{z=-}\rho _{0}\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}e$ is called *self-force* in the terminology of \[1\]. This result assures the *covariance* of the balance of substructural interactions. When $G$ coincides with $SO\left(
3\right) $, the co-vector into parentheses in (\[20\]), namely the term multiplying $\xi _{\mathcal{M}}\left( \mathbf{\nu }\right) $, must be an element of the null space of $\mathcal{A}^{T}$ (see for details of this special case \[1-4\]).
**Remark 3**. As a second special choice, let $\mathbf{\mathbf{f}}^{2}$ be such that $\mathbf{v=\dot{q}}\times \left( \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0}\right) $ (with $\mathbf{\dot{q}}$ a rigid rotational velocity $\mathbf{x}_{0}$ a fixed point in space) and $G=SO\left( 3\right) $; $\mathbf{\dot{q}}\times $ is an element of its Lie algebra, thus $\xi _{\mathcal{M}}\left(
\mathbf{\nu }\right) =\mathcal{A}\mathbf{\dot{q}}$. If $\mathcal{L}$ is independent of $\mathbf{x}$ and we assume that only $\mathbf{\mathbf{f}}^{2}$ and $G$ (in the form just defined) act on $\mathcal{L}$, we have$$skw\left( \partial _{\mathbf{F}}\mathcal{L}\mathbf{F}^{T}\right) =\mathsf{e}\left( \mathcal{A}^{T}\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}+\left( \nabla
\mathcal{A}^{T}\right) ^{t}\partial _{\nabla \mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}\right) \mathbf{,} \label{22}$$where $\mathsf{e}$ is Ricci’s alternating tensor and $skw\left( \cdot
\right) $ extracts the skew-symmetric part of its argument.
**Remark 4**. If we require that $\mathbf{f}^{1}$ alone acts on $\mathcal{L}$, with $\mathbf{w}$ *arbitrary* (but satisfying 1), by using (\[16\]) we obtain from (\[14\]) that $$\overset{\cdot }{\overline{\left( \mathbf{F}^{T}\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{x}}}\mathcal{L}+\nabla \mathbf{\nu }^{T}\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}}\mathcal{L}\right) }}-Div\left( \mathbb{P-}\left( \frac{1}{2}\rho _{0}\left\Vert
\mathbf{\dot{x}}\right\Vert ^{2}+\chi \left( \mathbf{\nu ,\dot{\nu}}\right)
\right) \mathbf{I}\right) -\partial _{\mathbf{X}}\mathcal{L}=\mathbf{0.}
\label{23}$$where $\mathbb{P}=e\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{F}^{T}\mathbf{P}-\nabla \mathbf{\nu }^{T}\underline{\ast }\mathcal{S}$ is the modified Eshelby tensor for continua with substructure (see \[4\] for a similar result in a non-conservative setting, where the elastic potential $e$ is substituted by the free energy). $\mathbf{I}$ is the second-order unit tensor and the product $\underline{\ast }$ is defined by $\left( \nabla \mathbf{\nu }^{T}\underline{\ast }\mathcal{S}\right) \mathbf{n\cdot u=}$ $\mathcal{S}\mathbf{n\cdot }\left( \nabla \mathbf{\nu }\right) \mathbf{u}$ for any pair of vectors $\mathbf{n}$ and $\mathbf{u}$.
**Remark 5**. Let us assume as special choices that $\mathbf{\mathbf{f}}^{1}$ is such that $\mathbf{w=}\mathfrak{\dot{q}}\times \left( \mathbf{X}-\mathbf{X}_{0}\right) $ (with $\mathfrak{\dot{q}}$ a rigid rotational velocity $\mathbf{X}_{0}$ a fixed point in space) and that $G=SO\left(
3\right) $, being $\mathfrak{\dot{q}}\times $ an element of its Lie algebra, thus $\xi _{\mathcal{M}}\left( \mathbf{\nu }\right) =\mathcal{A}\mathfrak{\dot{q}}$. If the material is homogeneous, and we assume that $\mathbf{\mathbf{f}}^{1}$ and $G$ alone (in the form just defined) act on $\mathcal{L}
$, we have $skw\left( \mathbf{F}^{T}\partial _{\mathbf{F}}\mathcal{L}+\left(
\nabla \mathbf{\nu }\right) ^{T}\underline{\ast }\partial _{\nabla \mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}\right) =0$.
**Remark 6**. The action of $\mathbf{\mathbf{f}}^{1}$can be interpreted as a special virtual mutation of a possibly existing smooth distribution of inhomogeneities throughout the body, in the sense of \[8\]. In other words, we may say that (\[23\]) is the balance of interactions arising when the body mutates its inhomogeneous structure. This interpretation has been also suggested in \[9\] in non-conservative setting.
Hamilton equations
------------------
Define $\mathbf{p}$ and $\mathbf{\mu }$, respectively the *canonical momentum* and the *canonical substructural momentum*, by$$\mathbf{p=}\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{x}}}\mathcal{L}\text{ \ \ , \ \ }\mathbf{\mu =}\partial _{\mathbf{\dot{\nu}}}\mathcal{L}\mathbf{.} \label{24}$$The *Hamiltonian density* $\mathcal{H}$,$$\mathcal{H}\left( \mathbf{X,x,p,F,\nu ,\mu ,}\nabla \mathbf{\nu }\right) =\mathbf{p}\mathfrak{\cdot }\mathbf{\dot{x}}+\mathbf{\mu }\cdot \mathbf{\dot{\nu}}-\mathcal{L}\left( \mathbf{X,x,\dot{x},F,\nu ,\dot{\nu},}\nabla \mathbf{\nu }\right) . \label{27}$$has partial derivatives with respect to its entries; some of them are the opposite of the corresponding derivatives of $\mathcal{L}$ so that (\[3\]), (\[4\]) can be also written respectively as$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\dot{p}} &\mathbf{=}&\mathbf{-}\partial _{\mathbf{x}}\mathcal{H}+Div\partial _{\mathbf{F}}\mathcal{H}, \notag \\
\mathbf{\dot{x}} &\mathbf{=}&\partial _{\mathbf{p}}\mathcal{H}; \label{28}\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\dot{\mu}} &\mathbf{=}&-\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{H}+Div\partial _{\nabla \mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{H}, \notag \\
\mathbf{\dot{\nu}} &\mathbf{=}&\partial _{\mathbf{\mu }}\mathcal{H}.
\label{29}\end{aligned}$$
Canonical Poisson brackets in multifield theories
=================================================
We now consider a general boundary value problem where the following boundary conditions are associated with (\[28\]) and (\[29\])$$\mathbf{x}\left( \mathbf{X}\right) =\mathbf{\bar{x}}\text{ \ \ \ \ \ on }\partial ^{\left( 1\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}, \label{34}$$$$\partial _{\mathbf{F}}\mathcal{H}\mathbf{n=t}\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ on }\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}, \label{35}$$$$\mathbf{\nu }\left( \mathbf{X}\right) =\mathbf{\bar{\nu}}\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \
on }\partial ^{\left( 1\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}, \label{36}$$$$\partial _{\nabla \mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{H}\mathbf{n=}\mathfrak{t}\text{ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ on }\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0};
\label{37}$$$\mathbf{\bar{x}}$, $\mathbf{t}$, $\mathbf{\bar{\nu}}$ and $\mathfrak{t}$are prescribed on the relevant parts of the boundary and $Cl\left( \partial
\mathcal{B}_{0}\right) =Cl\left( \partial ^{\left( 1\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}\cup \partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}\right) $, with $\partial ^{\left( 1\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}\cap \partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}=\varnothing $, where $Cl$ indicates closure and $\mathbf{n}$ is the outward unit normal to $\partial \mathcal{B}_{0}$ at all points in which it is well defined.
We assume that there exist two surface densities $\bar{U}\left( \mathbf{x}\right) $ and $U\left( \mathbf{\nu }\right) $ such that$$t=\rho _{0}\partial _{\mathbf{x}}\bar{U}\text{ \ ,\ \ \ }\mathfrak{t}=\rho
_{0}\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}U, \label{38}$$where $\bar{U}$ and $U$ plays here the rôle of surface potentials.
Then the Hamiltonian $H$ of the whole body is given by$$H\left( \mathbf{X,x,p,\nu ,\mu }\right) =\int_{\mathcal{B}_{0}}\mathcal{H}\left( \mathbf{X,x,p,\nu ,\mu }\right) -\int_{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\left( \bar{U}\left( \mathbf{x}\right) -U\left( \mathbf{\nu }\right) \right) . \label{41}$$Notice that we write $\mathcal{H}\left( \mathbf{X,x,p,\nu ,\mu }\right) $ instead of $\mathcal{H}\left( \mathbf{X,x,p,F,\nu ,\mu ,}\nabla \mathbf{\nu }\right) $ because below we consider directly variational derivatives.
**Theorem 2**. *The canonical Hamilton equation*$$\dot{F}=\left\{ F,H\right\} \label{42}$$*is equivalent to the Hamiltonian system of balance equations* (\[28\])-(\[29\])* for a continuum with substructure where F is any functional of the type* $\int_{\mathcal{B}_{0}}f\left( \mathbf{X,x,p,\nu
,\mu }\right) $*, with f a sufficiently smooth scalar density, and the Poisson bracket* $\left\{ \cdot ,\cdot \right\} $* for a complex material is given by* $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ F,H\right\} &=&\int_{\mathcal{B}_{0}}\left( \frac{\delta f}{\delta
\mathbf{x}}\cdot \frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta \mathbf{p}}-\frac{\delta
\mathcal{H}}{\delta \mathbf{x}}\cdot \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{p}}\right) + \notag \\
&&+\int_{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\left( \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{x}}\cdot \frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta \mathbf{p}}\left\vert _{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\right. -\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta \mathbf{x}}\cdot \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{p}}\left\vert _{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\right. \right) +
\notag \\
&&+\int_{\mathcal{B}_{0}}\left( \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{\nu }}\cdot
\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta \mathbf{\mu }}-\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta \mathbf{\mu }}\cdot \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{\nu }}\right) +
\notag \\
&&+\int_{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\left( \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{\nu }}\cdot \frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta \mathbf{\mu }}\left\vert _{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\right. -\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta \mathbf{\nu }}\cdot \frac{\delta f}{\delta
\mathbf{\mu }}\left\vert _{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\right. \right) , \label{40}\end{aligned}$$*where the variational derivative* $\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta
\mathbf{x}}$ *is obtained fixing* $\mathbf{p}$* and allowing* $\mathbf{x}$* to vary[^1]; an analogous meaning is valid for the variational derivative with respect to the order parameter.*
The proof can be developed by direct calculation. Clearly, $\left\{ \cdot
,\cdot \right\} $ is *bilinear* and *skew-symmetric*, and one can check easily that it *satisfies the Jacobi’s identity*. We note that$$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ F,H\right\} &=&\int_{\mathcal{B}_{0}}\left( \frac{\delta f}{\delta
\mathbf{x}}\cdot \frac{\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial \mathbf{p}}-\frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{p}}\cdot \left( \partial _{\mathbf{x}}\mathcal{H}-Div\partial _{\mathbf{F}}\mathcal{H}\right) \right) + \notag \\
&&+\int_{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\left( \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{x}}\cdot \frac{\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial \mathbf{p}}\left\vert _{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\right. -\frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{p}}\cdot \left( \partial _{\mathbf{x}}\bar{U}\mathbf{-\partial _{\mathbf{F}}}\mathcal{H}\mathbf{n}\right) \left\vert
_{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\right. \right) + \notag \\
&&+\int_{\mathcal{B}_{0}}\left( \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{\nu }}\cdot
\frac{\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial \mathbf{\mu }}-\frac{\delta f}{\delta
\mathbf{\mu }}\cdot \left( \partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{H}-Div\partial
_{\nabla \mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{H}\right) \right) + \notag \\
&&+\int_{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\left( \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{\nu }}\cdot \frac{\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial \mathbf{\mu }}\left\vert _{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\right. -\frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{\mu }}\cdot \left( \mathbf{\partial }_{\mathbf{\nu }}U\mathbf{-\partial _{\nabla \mathbf{\nu }}}\mathcal{H}\mathbf{n}\right)
\left\vert _{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\right. \right) ,
\label{43}\end{aligned}$$and, in terms of functional partial derivatives,$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{F} &=&\int_{\mathcal{B}_{0}}\left( \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{x}}\cdot \mathbf{\dot{x}}+\frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{p}}\cdot \mathbf{\dot{p}+}\frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{\nu }}\cdot \mathbf{\dot{\nu}+}\frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{\mu }}\cdot \mathbf{\dot{\mu}}\right) + \notag \\
&&+\int_{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\frac{\delta f}{\delta
\mathbf{x}}\cdot \mathbf{\dot{x}}\left\vert _{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\right. \mathbf{+}\int_{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{p}}\cdot \mathbf{\dot{p}}\left\vert
_{\partial ^{\left( 2\right) }\mathcal{B}_{0}}\right. . \label{44}\end{aligned}$$By identifying analogous terms in (\[43\]) and (\[44\]), we obtain both the Hamiltonian system (\[28\])-(\[29\]) and the boundary conditions (\[34\])-(\[37\]).
When we put $F=H$, (\[42\]) coincides with the equation of *conservation of energy*. We have, in fact,$$\dot{H}=\left\{ H,H\right\} =0. \label{45}$$
Geometrical properties of the Poisson brackets for direct models of rods, plates and complex fluids have been discussed in \[10\], \[11\].
A formal approach toward an Hamilton-Jacoby theory with gradient effects
========================================================================
Let $h$ be a smooth diffeomorphism$$h:\left( \mathbf{X,x,p,F,\nu ,\mu ,}\nabla \mathbf{\nu }\right) \longmapsto
\left( \mathbf{X,x}_{\ast }\mathbf{,p}_{\ast }\mathbf{,F}_{\ast }\mathbf{,\nu }_{\ast }\mathbf{,\mu }_{\ast }\mathbf{,}\nabla \mathbf{\nu }_{\ast
}\right) . \label{46}$$The transformation $h$ generates a new Hamiltonian density$$\mathcal{H}_{\ast }\left( \mathbf{X,x}_{\ast }\mathbf{,p}_{\ast }\mathbf{,F}_{\ast }\mathbf{,\nu }_{\ast }\mathbf{,\mu }_{\ast }\mathbf{,}\nabla \mathbf{\nu }_{\ast }\right) , \label{47}$$with corresponding Lagrangian density$$\mathcal{L}_{\ast }=\mathbf{p}_{\ast }\cdot \mathbf{\dot{x}}_{\ast }+\mathbf{\mu }_{\ast }\cdot \mathbf{\dot{\nu}}_{\ast }-\mathcal{H}_{\ast }.
\label{48}$$If $h$ were such that $\mathcal{H}_{\ast }=0$, then an immediate integration of the system (\[28\]), (\[29\]) could be achieved. To this aim we choose $h$ to be such that the integral of the difference $\mathcal{L}-\mathcal{L}_{\ast }$ between two instants, say $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$, be equal to the time derivative of a generating function $S$ of the type $S=S\left( t,\mathbf{X,x,p}_{\ast }\mathbf{,\nu ,\mu }_{\ast }\right) $, i.e.$$\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}\mathcal{L}-\mathcal{L}_{\ast }=S\left\vert
_{t=t_{2}}\right. -S\left\vert _{t=t_{1}}\right. . \label{49}$$Then, from (\[49\]) we would have$$\left( \mathbf{p}\cdot \mathbf{\dot{x}}+\mathbf{\mu }\cdot \mathbf{\dot{\nu}}-\mathcal{H}\right) -\left( \mathbf{p}_{\ast }\cdot \mathbf{\dot{x}}_{\ast }+\mathbf{\mu }_{\ast }\cdot \mathbf{\dot{\nu}}_{\ast }-\mathcal{H}_{\ast
}\right) =$$$$=\dot{S}=\partial _{t}S+\partial _{\mathbf{x}}S\cdot \mathbf{\dot{x}+\partial }_{\mathbf{p}_{\ast }}S\cdot \mathbf{\dot{p}}_{\ast }+\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}S\cdot \mathbf{\dot{\nu}+\partial }_{\mathbf{\mu }_{\ast
}}S\cdot \mathbf{\dot{\mu}}_{\ast }, \label{50}$$and hence$$\mathbf{p=}\partial _{\mathbf{x}}S\text{ \ \ , \ \ }\mathbf{\mu =}\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}S\text{,} \label{51}$$$$\mathbf{x}_{\ast }-\mathbf{x}_{0}=\mathbf{\partial }_{\mathbf{p}_{\ast }}S\text{ \ \ , \ \ }\mathbf{\nu }=\mathbf{\partial }_{\mathbf{\mu }_{\ast }}S,
\label{52}$$$$\partial _{t}S+\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_{\ast }. \label{53}$$
To obtain (\[52\]) one makes use of the fact that $\delta
\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}\left( \mathbf{p\cdot }\left( \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0}\right) +\mathbf{\mu }\cdot \mathbf{\nu }\right) =0$ for variations vanishing at $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ (in the sense that $\delta \left( \mathbf{\mu }\cdot \mathbf{\nu }\right) \left\vert _{t=t_{1},t_{2}}=0\right. $ and $\delta \left( \mathbf{p\cdot }\left( \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0}\right)
\right) \left\vert _{t=t_{1},t_{2}}=0\right. $) so that $\mathbf{p}\cdot
\mathbf{\dot{x}=\dot{p}\cdot }\left( \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0}\right) $ and $\mathbf{\mu }\cdot \mathbf{\dot{\nu}=\dot{\mu}}\cdot \mathbf{\nu }$.
A necessary and sufficient condition to assure that $\mathcal{H}_{\ast }=0$is$$\partial _{t}S+\mathcal{H}\left( \mathbf{X,x,\partial _{\mathbf{x}}}S\mathbf{,F,\nu ,\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}}S\mathbf{,}\nabla \mathbf{\nu }\right) =0,
\label{54}$$which is a Hamiltonian-Jacobi like equation. Since $\mathcal{H}_{\ast }=0$, $\mathbf{p}_{\ast }\ $and $\mathbf{\mu }_{\ast }$ are constant in time, the time derivative of $S$ reduces to$$\dot{S}=\partial _{t}S+\partial _{\mathbf{x}}S\cdot \mathbf{\dot{x}+}\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}S\cdot \mathbf{\dot{\nu}=-}\mathcal{H}\mathbf{+p}\cdot \mathbf{\dot{x}}+\mathbf{\mu }\cdot \mathbf{\dot{\nu}=}\mathcal{L}.
\label{55}$$
The relation (\[55\]) allows us to determine $S$ to within a constant, namely$$S=\int \mathcal{L}dt+const. \label{56}$$
The spatial form
================
Circumstances in which the notion of reference placement is wanting, as in the case of fluids or granular flows, render the choice of a material or spatial representation not matter of form only (see, e.g., \[12\] for standard bodies). Here, having in mind the study of complex fluids, we provide a spatial variational derivation of the balance equations *free of any concept of reference place or paragon setting and without even formal recourse to an inverse motion*. So, in the present section $\mathbf{x}\in
\mathcal{B}$ is just a point in space. The notation $\mathbf{u}\left(
\mathbf{x},t\right) $ is used for the velocity field over $\mathcal{B}$. The order parameter is now $\mathbf{\nu }\left( \mathbf{x,}t\right) $ and we indicate with $\mathbf{\upsilon }\left( \mathbf{x,}t\right) $ its actual rate. The symmetric tensor $\mathbf{g}$ is the *spatial metric* characterizing the present state of the body; it plays a prominent rôle because in this case the counterpart of (\[2\]) of the Lagrangian density is of the form$$\mathcal{L}\left( \mathbf{x,u,g,\nu ,\upsilon ,}grad\mathbf{\nu }\right) =\frac{1}{2}\rho \left\Vert \mathbf{v}\right\Vert ^{2}+\rho \chi \left(
\mathbf{\nu ,\upsilon }\right) -\rho e\left( \mathbf{g,\nu ,}grad\mathbf{\nu
}\right) -\rho w\left( \mathbf{x,\nu }\right) , \label{57}$$with some slight abuse of notation. We then find balance equations as conditions verifying the relation$$\hat{\delta}\left( \int_{0}^{\bar{t}}d\tau \int_{\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{L}\left( \mathbf{x,u,g,\nu ,\upsilon ,}grad\mathbf{\nu }\right) \right) =0,
\label{58}$$where $\hat{\delta}$ denotes the total variation.
To define the variation of the relevant fields, we make use of $\mathbf{f}^{2}$ introduced at point 2 of Section 1 and identify $\delta \mathbf{x}$ with $\mathbf{v}$. We consider a special (though wide) subclass of possible vector fields $\mathbf{x\longmapsto v}\left( \mathbf{x}\right) $ characterized by the circumstance that they are *purely* deformative; in other words, we choose $\mathbf{v}$ such that $skewgrad\mathbf{v=0}$.
We then define$$\hat{\delta}\mathbf{g=}\frac{d}{ds_{2}}\mathbf{f}^{2\ast }\mathbf{g}\left\vert _{s_{2}=0}\right. =L_{\mathbf{v}}\mathbf{g}=2symgrad\mathbf{v}=2grad\mathbf{v}, \label{59}$$where $\mathbf{f}^{2\ast }$ means pull back and $L_{\mathbf{v}}$ is thus the autonomous Lie derivative following the flow $\mathbf{v}$. In analogous way, we put$$\hat{\delta}\mathbf{\nu }=\delta \mathbf{\nu }+\left( grad\mathbf{\nu }\right) \mathbf{v}, \label{60}$$$$grad\hat{\delta}\mathbf{\nu }=grad\hat{\delta}\mathbf{\nu }+\left( grad\mathbf{\nu }\right) grad\mathbf{v}. \label{61}$$
As an intermediate step we notice that$$\hat{\delta}\int_{\mathcal{B}}e\left( \mathbf{g,\nu ,}grad\mathbf{\nu }\right) =\int_{\mathcal{B}}\hat{\delta}e=$$$$=\int_{\mathcal{B}}\left( 2\partial _{\mathbf{g}}e\cdot grad\mathbf{v+\partial }_{\mathbf{\nu }}e\cdot \hat{\delta}\mathbf{\nu }+\partial _{grad\mathbf{\nu }}e\cdot \left( grad\hat{\delta}\mathbf{\nu }+\left( grad\mathbf{\nu }\right) grad\mathbf{v}\right) \right) . \label{62}$$
By developing the variation of (\[58\]), making use of (\[59\])-(\[62\]) and Gauss theorem, we recognize that appropriate balances in the bulk are$$\overset{\cdot }{\overline{\partial _{\mathbf{u}}\mathcal{L}}}-\partial _{\mathbf{x}}\mathcal{L}+div\left( 2\partial _{\mathbf{g}}\mathcal{L}-\left(
grad\mathbf{\nu }\right) ^{T}\partial _{grad\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}\right)
=0, \label{63}$$$$\overset{\cdot }{\overline{\partial _{\mathbf{\upsilon }}\mathcal{L}}}-\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}+div\left( \partial _{grad\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}\right) =0. \label{64}$$Cauchy stress $\mathbf{T}$ is then given by$$\mathbf{T=-}2\partial _{\mathbf{g}}\mathcal{L}-\left( grad\mathbf{\nu }\right) ^{T}\mathcal{S}_{a}, \label{65}$$where the *actual* microstress $\mathcal{S}_{a}$ is defined by$$\mathcal{S}_{a}=-\partial _{grad\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{L}. \label{66}$$
In the case of simple bodies, (\[65\]) reduces to the well known Doyle-Ericksen formula.
**Remark 7**. A requirement of invariance of $e$ under the action of $SO\left( 3\right) $ implies that$$skew\left( 2\partial _{\mathbf{g}}\mathcal{L}\right) =\mathsf{e}\left(
\mathcal{A}^{T}\mathbf{z}_{a}+\left( grad\mathcal{A}^{T}\right) \mathcal{S}_{a}\right) , \label{67}$$where $\mathbf{z}_{a}=-\rho \partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}e$ is the actual self-force and $\mathsf{e}$ Ricci’s alternating tensor.
Spatial Hamilton equations
--------------------------
To find appropriate spatial Hamilton equations, we follow the pattern of Section 1.1. To this end we define spatial canonical standard and substructural momenta ($\mathbf{\bar{p}}$ and $\mathbf{\bar{\mu}}$ respectively) through$$\mathbf{\bar{p}=}\partial _{\mathbf{u}}\mathcal{L}\text{ \ \ , \ \ }\mathbf{\bar{\mu}=}\partial _{\mathbf{\upsilon }}\mathcal{L}\mathbf{.} \label{68}$$
Consequently, the spatial Hamiltonian density is given by$$\mathcal{H}\left( \mathbf{x,\bar{p},g,\nu ,\bar{\mu},}grad\mathbf{\nu }\right) =\mathbf{\bar{p}\cdot u+\bar{\mu}\cdot \upsilon -}\mathcal{L}\left(
\mathbf{x,u,g,\nu ,\upsilon ,}grad\mathbf{\nu }\right) \label{69}$$(with some slight abuse of notation) and has partial derivatives with respect to its entries. By evaluating the variation of $\mathcal{H}$, taking into account (\[59\]) and (\[61\]), and comparing the result with the variation of $\mathcal{L}$, after making use of the balances (\[63\]) and (\[64\]), we obtain the spatial form of the Hamilton equations:$$\begin{aligned}
\overset{\cdot }{\mathbf{\bar{p}}} &=&\mathbf{-}\partial _{\mathbf{x}}\mathcal{H}+div\left( 2\partial _{\mathbf{g}}\mathcal{H}-\left( grad\mathbf{\nu }\right) ^{T}\partial _{grad\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{H}\right) , \notag \\
\mathbf{u} &=&\partial _{\mathbf{\bar{p}}}\mathcal{H}; \label{70}\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned}
\overset{\cdot }{\mathbf{\bar{\mu}}} &=&\mathbf{-}\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{H}+div\left( \partial _{grad\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{H}\right) ,
\notag \\
\mathbf{\upsilon } &=&\partial _{\mathbf{\bar{\mu}}}\mathcal{H}. \label{71}\end{aligned}$$
Spatial Hamilton-Jacobi form
----------------------------
We may obtain the spatial counterpart of (\[54\]) by considering a smooth diffeomorphism$$\bar{h}:\left( \mathbf{x,\bar{p},g,\nu ,\bar{\mu},}grad\mathbf{\nu }\right)
\longmapsto \left( \mathbf{x}_{\ast }\mathbf{,\bar{p}}_{\ast }\mathbf{,g}_{\ast }\mathbf{,\nu }_{\ast }\mathbf{,\bar{\mu}}_{\ast }\mathbf{,}grad\mathbf{\nu }_{\ast }\right) , \label{72}$$which generates a new Hamiltonian density$$\mathcal{H}_{\ast }\left( \mathbf{x}_{\ast }\mathbf{,\bar{p}}_{\ast }\mathbf{,g}_{\ast }\mathbf{,\nu }_{\ast }\mathbf{,\bar{\mu}}_{\ast }\mathbf{,}grad\mathbf{\nu }_{\ast }\right) . \label{73}$$
Now, we may use a generating function $S=S\left( t,\mathbf{x,\mathbf{\bar{p}}_{\ast },\nu ,\bar{\mu}}_{\ast }\right) $, and, following the same procedure of Section 3, we find that a necessary and sufficient condition to assure that $\mathcal{H}_{\ast }=0$ is$$\partial _{t}S+\mathcal{H}\left( \mathbf{x,\partial }_{\mathbf{x}}S\mathbf{,g,\nu ,\mathbf{\partial }_{\mathbf{\nu }}}S\mathbf{,}grad\mathbf{\nu }\right) =0. \label{74}$$
A spatial form of Poisson brackets
----------------------------------
For the spatial Hamiltonian in equations (\[70\])-(\[71\]), taking into account (\[59\])-(\[61\]), we define a new variational derivative $\overline{\frac{\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial \mathbf{x}}}$ through the relation$$\overline{\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta \mathbf{x}}}\left( \mathbf{x,\mathbf{\bar{p}},\nu ,\bar{\mu}}\right) \cdot \mathbf{v=}\left( \mathbf{-}\partial _{\mathbf{x}}\mathcal{H}+div\left( 2\partial _{\mathbf{g}}\mathcal{H}-\left( grad\mathbf{\nu }\right) ^{T}\partial _{grad\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{H}\right) \right) \cdot \mathbf{v,} \label{75}$$holding $\mathbf{\bar{p}}$ fixed and allowing $\mathbf{x}$ to vary, for any $\mathbf{v}$ of the kind used in (\[59\])-(\[61\]).
Consider a boundary value problem of the type$$\left( 2\partial _{\mathbf{g}}\mathcal{H}-\left( grad\mathbf{\nu }\right)
^{T}\partial _{grad\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{H}\right) \mathbf{n=\partial }_{\mathbf{x}}\bar{u}\left( \mathbf{x}\right) \text{ , }\left( \partial _{grad\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{H}\right) \mathbf{n=\partial }_{\mathbf{\nu }}u\left(
\mathbf{\nu }\right) \text{ , on }\partial \mathcal{B}, \label{76}$$(where $\bar{u}\left( \mathbf{x}\right) $ and $u\left( \mathbf{\nu }\right)
$ are the counterparts of the surface potentials $\bar{U}\left( \mathbf{x}\right) $ and $U\left( \mathbf{\nu }\right) $).
The total Hamiltonian is now given by $H\left( \mathbf{x,\mathbf{\bar{p}},\nu ,\bar{\mu}}\right) =\int_{\mathcal{B}}\mathcal{H}$ (with some slight abuse of notation) and we list only the entries $\left( \mathbf{x,\mathbf{\bar{p}},\nu ,\bar{\mu}}\right) $ because we consider the variational derivative (\[70\]) below. We consider also arbitrary functionals $F$ of the type $\int_{\mathcal{B}}f\left( \mathbf{x,\mathbf{\bar{p}},\nu ,\bar{\mu}}\right) $, with $f$ a sufficiently smooth scalar density.
**Theorem 3**. *The canonical Hamilton equation*$$\dot{F}=\left\{ F,H\right\} _{a} \label{77}$$*is equivalent to the Hamiltonian system of balance equations* (\[70\])-(\[71\])* with* $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ F,H\right\} _{a} &=&\int_{\mathcal{B}}\left( \overline{\frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{x}}}\cdot \frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta \mathbf{p}}-\overline{\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta \mathbf{x}}}\cdot \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{p}}\right) + \notag \\
&&+\int_{\partial \mathcal{B}}\left( \overline{\frac{\delta f}{\delta
\mathbf{x}}}\cdot \frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta \mathbf{p}}\left\vert
_{\partial \mathcal{B}}\right. -\overline{\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta
\mathbf{x}}}\cdot \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{p}}\left\vert _{\partial
\mathcal{B}}\right. \right) + \notag \\
&&+\int_{\mathcal{B}}\left( \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{\nu }}\cdot \frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta \mathbf{\mu }}-\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta
\mathbf{\mu }}\cdot \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{\nu }}\right) + \notag \\
&&+\int_{\partial \mathcal{B}}\left( \frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{\nu }}\cdot \frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta \mathbf{\mu }}\left\vert _{\partial
\mathcal{B}}\right. -\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta \mathbf{\nu }}\cdot
\frac{\delta f}{\delta \mathbf{\mu }}\left\vert _{\partial \mathcal{B}}\right. \right) , \label{78}\end{aligned}$$*where* $\left\{ \cdot ,\cdot \right\} _{a}$ *is bilinear, skew-symmetric and satisfies Jacobi’s identity*.
Final remarks
=============
To illustrate possible uses of Theorem 2, we list below some special cases. Analogous results accrue from Theorem 3.
**Remark 8**. If we choose $f=\mathbf{p\cdot v}$, with $\mathbf{v}$ an arbitrary vector, equation (\[28\]$_{a}$) and the boundary condition ([35]{}) follow immediately from (\[42\]).
**Remark 9**. Let $f=\mathbf{\mu \cdot }\xi _{\mathcal{M}}\left(
\mathbf{\nu }\right) $, then from (\[42\]) we get (\[29\]$_{a}$) and the boundary condition (\[37\]).
**Remark 10**. Let $f$ be of the form$$f=\mathbf{p\cdot }\left( \mathbf{\dot{q}}\times \left( \mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{0}\right) \right) +\mathbf{\mu \cdot }\mathcal{A}\mathbf{\dot{q},}
\label{81}$$with $\mathbf{\dot{q}}$ arbitrary as in previous sections. Consider also, for the sake of simplicity, absence of external bulk interactions (the ones accounted for $w\left( \mathbf{x,\nu }\right) $). By using (\[28\]) and (\[29\]), we obtain from (\[42\])$$\mathsf{e}\left( \partial _{\mathbf{F}}\mathcal{H}\mathbf{F}^{T}\right) =\mathcal{A}^{T}\partial _{\mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{H}+\left( \nabla \mathcal{A}^{T}\right) ^{t}\partial _{\nabla \mathbf{\nu }}\mathcal{H}. \label{82}$$
These remarks are the Hamiltonian counterparts of Remarks 1, 2, 3. Of course, Poisson parentheses not only allow one to write in a concise form balance equations, but generate articulated geometric structures over the infinite-dimensional manifold of mappings showing placements and order parameters, and properties of these structures depend also on the geometric properties of $\mathcal{M}$.
**Acknowledgement**. This paper is the extended version of the first part of a communication of PMM delivered at the Symposium honoring the memory of Clifford Ambrose Truesdell III, within the 14$^{th}$ US National Congress of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Blacksburg, June 2002. PMM acknowledges gratefully the support of the Department of Mathematics of the University of Kentucky (through C.-S. Man). We also thank Reuven Segev for valuable discussions. The support of the Italian National Group of Mathematical Physics (INDAM-GNFM) is acknowledged.
References
==========
1. Capriz, G., *Continua with microstructure*, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
2. Capriz, G. (2000), Continua with substructure, *Phys. Mesomech.*, **3**, 5-14, 37-50.
3. Capriz, G. and Mariano, P. M. (2002), Balance at a junction among coherent interfaces in materials with substructure, in *Advances in multifield theories of materials with substructure*, G. Capriz and P. M. Mariano edts, Birkhauser, in press.
4. Mariano, P. M. (2001), Multifield theories in mechanics of solids, *Adv. Appl. Mech.*, **38**, 1-93.
5. Segev, R. (1994), A geometrical framework for the statics of materials with microstructure, *Math. Mod. Meth. Appl. Sci.*, **4**, 871-897.
6. Marsden, J. E. and Hughes, T. J. R., *Mathematical foundations of elasticity*, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1983.
7. Abraham, R., Marsden, J. E., *Foundations of mechanics*, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1978.
8. Noll, W. (1967), Materially uniform simple bodies with inhomogeneities, *Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.*, **27**, 1-32.
9. Epstein, M. (2002), The Eshelby tensor and the theory of continuous distributions of inhomogeneities, *Mech. Res. Comm.*, **29**, 501-506.
10. Simo, J. C., Marsden, J. E. and Krishnaprasad, P. S. (1988), The Hamiltonian structure of nonlinear elasticity: The material and convective representation of solids, rods and plates, *Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.* **104**, 125-183.
11. Cendra, H., Marsden, J. E. and Ratiu, T. S. (2002), Cocycles, compatibility and Poisson brackets for complex fluids, in *Advances in multifield theories of materials with substructure*, G. Capriz and P. M. Mariano edts, Birkhauser, in press.
12. Capriz, G. (1984), Spatial variational principles in continuum mechanics, *Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.*, **85**, 99-109.
[^1]: See relevant remarks in \[10\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Electron spin filters that produce spin-polarized currents of high intensity have important applications in different branches of physics. In this work, we propose an efficient spin filter based upon scattering off a two-dimensional crystal made of aligned point magnets. We demonstrate that such crystal greatly increases polarization for specific ‘magic’ values of parameters. While polarization increase is accompanied by higher reflectivity of the crystal, higher output currents can be obtained in scattering off a quantum cavity made of two crystals. Besides being a spin filter, our setup gives some insight into collective scattering of electrons from aligned chiral molecules, and, thus, into the chiral induced spin selectivity effect.'
author:
- Areg Ghazaryan
- Mikhail Lemeshko
- 'Artem G. Volosniev'
bibliography:
- 'spinpolarizerbib.bib'
title: Spin Filtering in Multiple Scattering off Point Magnets
---
*Introduction*. The quest for spin filters started directly after the discovery of spin. It turns out that for electrons (in contrast to atoms), this problem is not trivial, since the Lorentz force and the uncertainty principle render it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve spin polarizarion using magnetic fields alone [@Mott1929; @batelaan1997; @garraway1999]. The quest continues even after a century of research and numerous proposals [@Gilbert2000; @koga2002; @Ciuti2002; @Zhou2004; @Karimi2012; @Grillo2013; @Dellweg2017; @Ahrens2017]. The applications of polarizers are quite diverse and span atomic, molecular, nuclear, and condensed-matter physics [@Kessler2013; @Prescott1978; @Subashiev1999; @heckel2008; @Gay2009]. They are used to study magnetization dynamics [@Vollmer2003; @Suzuki2010] and in spin and angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy of topological materials [@Dil2019], to give just a few examples.
At the present time, not only inorganic but also organic systems are being considered as possible spintronic devices [@Sanvito2011]. Recent experiments show that electrons become spin-polarized when passing through a molecular monolayer of chiral molecules (such as DNA, olgopeptides, helicine, etc.) [@Gohler2011; @Xie2011; @Kettner2015; @Mishra2013; @Dor2013; @Einati2015; @Kiran2016; @Kettner2018]. This property of chiral molecules is now called chiral induced spin selectivity (CISS), and its existence can lead to novel spin filters [@Naaman2015; @naaman2019_review]. The magnitude of polarization in CISS is quite high, yet the intensity of the outgoing flux is relatively low. Despite the seeming simplicity of the CISS experiments, the observed effect is an outstanding problem in theoretical physics. Several models that rely on scattering off a single molecule have been suggested [@Yeganeh2009; @Medina2012; @Varela2013; @Guo2012; @Gutierrez2012; @Gutierrez2013; @Guo2014; @Matityahu2016; @Michaeli2015; @Yang2019; @Dalum2019; @Geyer2019; @Gersten2013; @Dalum2019; @Ghazaryan2020]. However, it is still not clear whether the effect can be observed at a single-molecule level or CISS requires electron scattering off multiple molecules. In particular, strong dependence of the assymetry function on the doping level [@Ray1999] suggests that multiple scattering might be important.
In this Letter, we address the issues outlined above. First, we propose a spin filter made of point scatterers whose scattering length depends on the spin of incoming electrons. The filter has conceptual similarities with a layer of chiral molecules, thus, it gives insight into CISS as a collective-scattering phenomenon.
We investigate scattering off a two-dimensional (2D) layer of spatially arranged point scatterers (magnets), see Fig. \[fig:1\](a), which for ‘magic’ parameters acts as a perfect mirror. We show that the layer functions as a spin filter for low-energy electrons in the vicinity of the ‘magic’ point: while one spin component is perfectly reflected, the other one is transmitted. Although the intensity of the outgoing current is quite low for scattering off a single mirror, it can be substantially enhanced through scattering off two identical mirrors, Fig. \[fig:1\](b). This setup bears some similarity to a 1D spin filter with a spin-dependent energy profile [@Zhou2004]. A possible experimental realization of the suggested spin filter is to dope the outer layer of a GaAs superlattice with two layers of magnetic adatoms. This should be possible without considerable fine tuning, because current state-of-the-art polarizers for microscopy applications are based on negative electron affinity GaAs superlattice photocathodes [@pierce1975; @Kuwahara2012; @Liu2016; @Cultrera2020]. The observed spin polarization in those set-ups can be larger than 80% and the corresponding quantum efficiency is on the order of several percent.
![\[fig:PictorialFigure\] Schematics of the setup. Quantum interference in scattering of unpolarized electron current off one (a) and two (b) 2D sheets of point scatterers can result in a polarized outgoing beam. \[fig:1\] ](PictorialFigure.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
Our ideas do not employ fundamental properties of electrons, and can be used to implement spin filters in other systems as well. Our proposal could be tested with cold atoms – a tunable testground for studying quantum transport phenomena [@chien2015]. Layers of atoms created with optical lattices [@bloch2008] could simulate point magnets. Another type of atoms would then be used to simulate electrons, in particular, electron’s spin would be modelled by a hyperfine state of the atom [^1] Realization of our proposal with cold atoms would extend the existing one-dimensional family of cold-atom spin filters [@Micheli2004; @Marchukov2016; @Lebrat2019] to the three-dimensional world. Our findings are also connected to light scattering from an array of point dipoles [@Abajo2007; @Bordag2015] (although the latter has an additional complication due to the polarization of light). In particular, cooperative resonances in light scattering allow for a regime where a sheet acts a perfect mirror [@Bettles2016; @Shahmoon2017], which is similar to what we find in our model. Our work adds another degree of freedom (spin) to this discussion, and acknowledges spin-filtering capabilities of a layer of point scatterers.
*Single Layer*. First, we consider electrons impinging perpendicular to an infinite layer of spin-dependent contact potentials see Fig. \[fig:1\] (a). For the sake of discussion, the scatterers are placed in the nodes of a square lattice, i.e., at $\mathbf{a}_{lm}=lb\hat{\mathbf{x}}+mb\hat{\mathbf{y}}+0\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, where $l$ and $m$ are integers and $b$ is the lattice constant. We have checked that other geometries, e.g., a triangular lattice, lead to similar results. The electron wave function is an eigenstate of a translation operator that shifts the wave function by $\mathbf{a}_{lm}$, i.e., $\Psi\left(\mathbf{r}+\mathbf{a}_{lm}\right)=e^{i\mathbf{k}_i\mathbf{a}_{lm}}\Psi\left(\mathbf{r}\right)$, where $\mathbf{k}_i$ is the momentum of an incoming electron. We assume that $\mathbf{k}_i||\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ ($|\mathbf{k}_i|=k$), hence $\mathbf{k}_i\mathbf{a}_{lm}=0$. The corresponding scattering state reads $$\Psi\left(\mathbf{r}\right)=e^{ikz}+A\sum_{lm}\frac{e^{ik\left|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{a}_{lm}\right|}}{\left|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{a}_{lm}\right|},
\label{WaveFunc}$$ where the incoming flux is given by the plane wave, and the outgoing flux is made of spherical waves propagating away from the point scatterers. The last term in Eq. (\[WaveFunc\]) is defined as the limit: $\lim_{R\to\infty}A_{R}\sum_{lm}^{R}$, $R$ is a dimensionless cut-off parameter, see the discussion below. The constant $A_{R}$ is determined from the boundary conditions [@Demkov2013]: $$\Psi\left(\mathbf{r}\rightarrow\mathbf{a}_{lm}\right)=s_{lm}\left(\frac{1}{\left|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{a}_{lm}\right|}-\frac{1}{\alpha_{s}}\right),
\label{BoundaryConditions}$$ where $s_{lm}$ is the normalization constant, $\alpha_{s}$ is a spin-dependent scattering length that fully determines a zero-range potential. Note that our zero-range approach can model low-energy scattering off potentials that decay faster than $1/r^3$ at large interparticle distances, provided that $b$ is larger than the range associated with the potential. In particular, our model is appropriate for electron-atom interactions ($\sim 1/r^4$ as $r\to \infty$). We assume that $\alpha_{\uparrow}=a_0+a_1$ and $\alpha_{\downarrow}=a_0-a_1$, where $\uparrow (\downarrow)$ denotes a spin projection of incoming electrons on the desired quantization axis (for illustration purposes, we have chosen it as the $y$-axis in Fig. \[fig:1\]); $a_0$ ($a_1$) describes the spin-independent (spin-dependent) part of the potential. Imposing the boundary condition, we obtain $A_R$: $$A_R=-\alpha_s\left(1+\alpha_s\sum\limits_{\substack{lm \\ \mathbf{a}_{lm}\neq0}}^R\frac{e^{ik\left|\mathbf{a}_{lm}\right|}}{\left|\mathbf{a}_{lm}\right|}+ik\alpha_s\right)^{-1},
\label{AForm}$$ where $R$ is used to define an upper limit of the sum. Equations (\[WaveFunc\]) and (\[AForm\]) fully determine all properties of scattering.
[*Zero-Energy Limit.*]{} To gain analytical insight, we explore the zero-energy limit ($k\rightarrow0$). The layer of magnets appears to be homogeneous for a distant observer ($|z|\gg b$), allowing us to focus on $\mathbf{r}=z\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. To write the wave function, we should estimate the sums in Eqs. (\[WaveFunc\]) and (\[AForm\]) for large values of $R$. This can be done using the integral test: $\sum_{lm}^R\frac{1}{\left|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{a}_{lm}\right|}\approx\frac{2\pi}{b^2}\left(\sqrt{R^2b^2+z^2}-|z|\right)$ and $\sum_{lm, \mathbf{a}_{lm}\neq0}^R\frac{1}{\left|\mathbf{a}_{lm}\right|}\approx\frac{2\pi}{b}\left(R-\Delta_0\right)$, where $\Delta_0\ge0$ is a constant, which depends only on the geometry of the system; it can easily be determined numerically, $\Delta_0\approx0.635$. Both sums diverge linearly with $R$ as $R\to\infty$, leading to the wave function: $$\Psi\left(\mathbf{r}\right)=1+\frac{2\pi \alpha_s}{b^2}|z|-\frac{2\pi \alpha_s}{b}\Delta_0,
\label{WaveFuncZeroEnergy}$$ which is identical to the 1D wave function that describes zero-energy scattering off the Dirac delta potential, $g_s\delta(z)$: $\Psi_{1D}(z)=s\left(\frac{g_s}{2}|z|+1\right)$ [@Griffiths2018]. This observation allows us to map the 3D problem onto a 1D zero-range model with $$g_s=\frac{4\pi \alpha_s}{b(b-2\pi \alpha_s\Delta_0)}.
\label{PotAmplitude}$$ Considering finite-energy scattering off the potential $g_s\delta(z)$, we determine the transmission and reflection coefficients as $T_s=4k^2/\left(g_s^2+4k^2\right)$ and $R_s=g_s^2/\left(g_s^2+4k^2\right)$, respectively. The corresponding spin polarization is $P=\frac{T_\uparrow-T_\downarrow}{T_\uparrow+T_\downarrow}$. While Eq. (\[PotAmplitude\]) is accurate only for $k\to 0$, similar relations exist also for finite values of $k$ [^2]. It is clear from (\[PotAmplitude\]), that the 1D potential amplitude diverges when $b_c=2\pi \alpha_s\Delta_0$, and the layer of scatterers makes a perfect mirror. This quantum interference phenomenon is related to the perfect mirror regime observed in light scattering off a layer of point dipoles [@Abajo2007; @Bettles2016; @Shahmoon2017].
Let us analyze the polarization, $P$, in the two limiting cases: $a_0=0$ and $|a_1|\ll |a_0|$. Note that there can be no polarization in scattering off a single zero-range potential with either $a_0=0$ or $a_1=0$. Therefore, the limits address the importance of multiple scatterings. For $a_0=0$, we derive $$P=-\frac{16\pi^3a^3_1b\Delta_0}{k^2b^2\left(b^2-4\pi^2a^2_1\Delta_0^2\right)^2+4\pi^2a^2_1\left(b^2+4\pi^2a^2_1\Delta_0^2\right)}.
\label{Pola1}$$ We can further simplify this expression assuming low-energy scattering, $kb^2\ll a_1$, and $a_1\ll b$: $P\approx-4\pi a_1\Delta_0/b$. In this limit $P\propto\sqrt{n}$, where $n=1/b^2$ is the density of scatterers. This dependence is a manifestation of coherent scattering, since for incoherent scattering one expects observables to be proportional to $n$. We find that $P\rightarrow 0$ for $b\rightarrow\infty$, recovering the fact that a single scatterer with $a_0=0$ cannot act as a spin polarizer.
![\[fig:TransPolSingleSheet\] (a) Dependence of transmission (points connected by solid curves) and the absolute value of polarization (points connected by dotted curves) on the dimensionless scattering length, $a_1/b$, when $a_0=0$. Dependence of the polarization coefficient on $a_0/b$ when (b) $a_1/a_0=0.1$ and (c) $a_1/a_0=0.3$. The transmission coefficient, $T$, is defined as $T=\left(T_\uparrow+T_\downarrow\right)/2$. ](TransPolSingleSheetScatter.pdf){width="1.02\columnwidth"}
In the other limit, $|a_1|\ll |a_0|$, we derive $$P\approx-\frac{8\pi^2a_0a_1b}{k^2b^2\left(b-2\pi a_0\Delta_0\right)^3+4\pi^2a^2_0\left(b-2\pi a_0\Delta_0\right)}.
\label{Pola0a1}$$ Taking again the limit of $kb^2\ll |a_0|$ and $|a_0|\ll b$, we obtain $P\approx-2a_1/a_0-4\pi a_1\Delta_0/b$, which has the same density dependence as the previous case, although, a single scatterer can act as a spin polarizer if $|a_1|\neq 0$, the corresponding polarization is $P\approx-2a_1/a_0$. For electrons with $k\neq 0$, there is a competition between the two terms in the denominator of Eqs. (\[Pola1\]) and (\[Pola0a1\]), which makes the dependence on $n$ more complex. Finally, we note that the polarization (\[Pola0a1\]) diverges for the ‘magic’ lattice spacing, $b_c\approx2\pi a_0\Delta_0$; the transmission vanishes at the same time. This regime holds promise for constructing a spin filter, as we discuss below.
[*Full Solution*]{}. Having analyzed the zero-energy limit, we now consider finite energies in more detail. For low energies, we establish a 1D mapping similar to Eq. (\[WaveFuncZeroEnergy\]) [@Note2]. However, this mapping does not yield any qualitatively new results, and below we simply illustrate the finite-energy solution for certain values of parameters. Figure \[fig:TransPolSingleSheet\] (a) shows the dependence of transmission and polarization on the dimensionless scattering length $a_1/b$ for different values of electron momenta, assuming that $a_0=0$. As was described above, for the ‘magic’ ratio of $a_1/b$ the transmission $T_\uparrow$ goes to zero and the layer of magnets acts as a perfect mirror. The polarization is peaked for the same parameters. While our zero-energy results imply that the position of the peak does not depend on $k$, that is no longer the case for the full solution. We do observe a minor change of the peak position in Fig. \[fig:TransPolSingleSheet\] (a). For small momenta the transmission $T=\left(T_\uparrow+T_\downarrow\right)/2$ is vanishing everywhere in the region with noticeable polarization, however, the situation changes if $kb$ is increased. At $kb=1.0$ there is already a range of $a_1/b$ where both transmission and polarization are substantial. Note that a zero-range potential is useful only for small values of $k r_{\mathrm{eff}}$ [@Demkov2013], where $r_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is the effective range, because otherwise electrons start to resolve finer details of the interaction potential, beyond the zero-range treatment. In other words, our results for $kb=1$ are accurate as long as $b\gg r_{\mathrm{eff}}$. Figure \[fig:TransPolSingleSheet\] also shows the dependence of polarization on $a_0/b$ for $a_1/a_0=0.1$ (b) and $a_1/a_0=0.3$ (c). The polarization changes sign in this case at the ‘magic’ point and peaks on both sides of that point. The value of $kb$ does not have any important effect on the position of the peak. Still, working with larger momenta is beneficial, since it modifies transmission considerably (similar to Fig. \[fig:TransPolSingleSheet\] (a)). Note that the width of the resonance increases with $a_1/a_0$.
![\[fig:TransPolDoubleSheet\] The same as in Fig \[fig:TransPolSingleSheet\] but for scattering off two parallel crystals. The separation between the crystals is given by $L=100b$. ](TransPolDoubleSheetScatter.pdf){width="1.02\columnwidth"}
*Two Layers*. Figure \[fig:TransPolSingleSheet\] clearly shows the transmission-polarization tradeoff present in our set-up: large values of $P$ are possible only for small values of $T$. To overcome this problem, we consider two aligned identical 2D sheets, see Fig. \[fig:1\] (b). The sheets form a resonating cavity in the vicinity of the ‘magic’ point, which can be used to tune scattering properties. One could introduce some potential dependence in between the layers, either to reflect some material between layers or as an additional tuning parameter for quantum simulations [@Lebrat2019; @corman2019]. We leave this discussion to future studies, as we do not expect a slow-varying potential to qualitatively change the transmission of our setup (see, e.g., Ref. [@smith2019]). Similar to the single-layer case, we cast the 3D problem into a 1D one with two delta-function potentials of the strength (\[PotAmplitude\]). This approximation is accurate as long as $L\gg b$, where $L$ is the distance between the potentials (layers).
Since for a single layer the results were (almost) energy-independent, we consider below only the zero-energy solution, see [@Note2] for comparison. The transmission coefficient for scattering off two zero-range potentials is $T_s=\left|4k^2/\left[g_s^2e^{2ikL}+\left(ig_s+2k\right)^2\right]\right|^2$. We do not present the expression for polarization – it is cumbersome and does not provide us with any further insight. Instead, we analyze scattering for the parameters used to illustrate the single-layer case (see Fig. \[fig:TransPolSingleSheet\]). For the sake of discussion, we assume that $L=100b$. We have checked that the results do not vary qualitatively with $L$.
Figure \[fig:TransPolDoubleSheet\] presents the transmission and polarization coefficients for scattering off two layers. Interference inside the cavity leads to additional peaks for both transmission and polarization. These peaks can be used to engineer regions where both polarization and transmission are substantial for any energy of incoming electrons. Our conclusion is that two sheets of quantum scatterers have enough tunability to allow for an efficient spin filter. The fact that the inter-sheet separation can be several orders of magnitude larger than the spacing between quantum scatterers makes it feasible to engineer such a filter with GaAs superlattices as briefly outlined in the introduction.
*CISS*. The considered system is too simplistic to account for the complete physical picture of the CISS effect. Electron energies in the CISS experiments are typically in the range of $0-2\,\mathrm{eV}$ [@Gohler2011; @Ray2006], which cannot be fully described with a zero-range treatment. Indeed, $kb\approx 0-10$ is certainly beyond our zero-range model. We have assumed in this estimate that inter-molecular separation and low-energy scattering parameters are all of the order $1\,\mathrm{nm}$ [@Aqua2003; @Nguyen2019]. Still, our model is useful as it addresses the low-energy limit, which is an important reference point for theoretical analysis of chiral molecules [@Blum1998]. In particular, our model can estimate the importance of many-molecule scattering for CISS.
To model the CISS experiments, we consider a single layer of scatterers with $a_0\neq 0$ and $a_1\neq 0$. The parameter $a_0$ describes the spin-independent part of low-energy scattering off molecules. We choose this parameter to be about the molecular diameter, i.e., about $1-2\,\mathrm{nm}$ [@Aqua2003; @Nguyen2019]. The parameter $a_1$ describes the spin assymetry in low-energy scattering. The spin-orbit coupling is weak for organic molecules, therefore, we consider $|a_1|\ll |a_0|$. Two important corollaries follow from the analysis of this CISS model. First, the polarization depends weakly on the density of scatterers (it scales as $\sqrt{n}$), which shows that collective interference is important for CISS at low energies. This alignes nicely with the fact that the CISS effect is strong for a wide range of inter-molecular separations $b\sim 1-20\,\mathrm{nm}$ [@Aqua2003]. Second, one expects that $a_0$ is comparable to $b$, therefore, it is quite likely that the system operates close to the ‘magic’ parameter regime. The polarization reversal observed in: (i) molecules embedded in the membrane [@Mishra2013], and (ii) experiments with a variable temperature [@Eckshtain2016] can be a consequence of that. Indeed, both embedding and temperature denaturation of molecules modify scattering, and hence, the $a_0/b$ ratio, which determines the sign of the polarization coefficient (see Fig. \[fig:TransPolSingleSheet\] [(b)]{}).
*Conclusions*. We have considered a 2D sheet of point scatterers, and have shown that quantum interference in this system leads to spin filtering. Even though a single-layer spin filter suffers from a reflection-polarization tradeoff, we have demonstrated that two parallel sheets of scatterers can provide simultaneously high transmission and high polarization. In addition, we have investigated the importance of many-molecule scattering in the CISS effect. In particular, we have argued that the observed reversal of polarization could be explained from scattering close to the mirror regime.
Finally, we note that our work does not address the dependence of the results on the direction of the incoming flux and presence of disorder. These issues are important for experimental realization of the proposed setup, especially in solid-state settings, and will be studied in our upcoming works.
This work has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 754411 (A. G. V. and A. G.). M.L. acknowledges support by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), under project No. P29902-N27, and by the European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grant No. 801770 (ANGULON).
[^1]: For example, one could use $^{87}$Rb to simulate electrons, and an optical lattice loaded with $^{40}$K atoms to simulate the 2D crystal (cf. Ref. [@Thywissen2007]). Our work explores the regime $k_{th}b \simeq 0 - 1$, where the thermal de Broglie wave-vector reads $k_{th}=\sqrt{2\pi m(^{87}\mathrm{Rb})k_B T}/\hbar$ ($k_{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant). Assuming that $b\sim 1\mu$m, this regime maps onto temperatures from zero to a few $n$K, which is within reach of current experimental set-ups, see e.g. Ref [@Kasevich2015]. Note however that for cold-atom set-ups our model is accurate also for much higher values of $k_{th}b$, since the effective range of atom-atom interactions is much smaller than $\mu$m.
[^2]: See Supplementary Material for a detailed discussion of the finite-energy solution.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Ground-based exoplanet surveys such as SuperWASP, HATNet and KELT have discovered close to two hundred transiting extrasolar planets in the past several years. The strategy of these surveys is to look at a large field of view and measure the brightnesses of its bright stars to around half a percent per point precision, which is adequate for detecting hot Jupiters. Typically, these surveys use CCD detectors to achieve high precision photometry. These CCDs, however, are expensive relative to other consumer-grade optical imaging devices, such as digital single-lens reflex cameras (DSLRs).
We look at the possibility of using a digital single-lens reflex camera for precision photometry. Specifically, we used a Canon EOS 60D camera that records light in 3 colors simultaneously. The DSLR was integrated into the HATNet survey and collected observations for a month, after which photometry was extracted for 6600 stars in a selected stellar field.
We found that the DSLR achieves a best-case median absolute deviation (MAD) of 4.6mmag per 180s exposure when the DSLR color channels are combined, and 1000 stars are measured to better than 10mmag (1%). Also, we achieve 10mmag or better photometry in the individual colors. This is good enough to detect transiting hot Jupiters. We performed a candidate search on all stars and found four candidates, one of which is KELT-3b, the only known transiting hot Jupiter in our selected field. We conclude that the Canon 60D is a cheap, lightweight device capable of useful photometry in multiple colors.
author:
- 'M. Zhang, G. Á. Bakos, K. Penev, Z. Csubry, J. D. Hartman, W. Bhatti, M. de Val-Borro'
bibliography:
- 'dslr\_bib.bib'
title: 'Precision multi-band photometry with a DSLR camera'
---
Introduction
============
The last two decades have been very exciting for exoplanetary science. Since 1995, when 51 Pegasi b became the first planet discovered around a main-sequence star, over 1000 exoplanets have been discovered, and thousands of candidates are waiting to be confirmed.
So far, the two most common ways to detect exoplanets are the transit and radial velocity methods, respectively. The former looks for dips in a starlight due to planets passing in front of them. The latter uses spectroscopy to look for changes in the radial velocity of the star as it orbits around the barycenter of the planetary system. The most well-known project using the transit method is the *Kepler Space Mission*, which examined 100 square degrees of the sky, and measured the brightness of 150,000 stars to a precision high enough to detect Earth-size planets near the habitable-zones of Sun-like stars in the best cases. Most of the stars observed by *Kepler* are necessarily very faint, and therefore not easy targets for follow-up observations.
Ground-based transit searches have been operating before, during, and after *Kepler*, using the same principle, but not achieving the ultra-high-precision photometry possible from space. Their strategy is to take wide-field images of the night sky and measure the bright stars within using commercially available CCDs. With the exception of a few hot Neptunes, such as HAT-P-11b [@hat_p_11b], HAT-P-26b [@hat_p_26b] and HATS-8b [@hats_6b], this strategy is only precise enough to detect hot Jupiters. However, because the surveys monitor a large number of fields at multiple sites over many years, they routinely detect hot Jupiters around bright stars that are suitable for follow-up observations. Exames of ground-based transit searches include HATNet [@hatnet_2002; @hatnet], SuperWASP [@superwasp], KELT [@kelt], and HATSouth [@hatsouth], which have collectively discovered and characterized close to two hundred transiting exoplanets.
HATNet, in particular, was established in 2003, and consists of 6 fully automated observatories at two sites: Arizona and Hawaii. Each observatory has a 11cm f/1.8 lens in front of a front-illuminated CCD, giving a field of view. Every night, the mini-observatories use a weather sensor to measure wind speed, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and nearby lightning strikes. If the weather is appropriate, the domes open and the telescopes use their CCDs to take images of designated fields for the entire night. HATNet now monitors more than 100,000 stars at better than 1% precision every year, for a lifetime total of close to 1 million such stars, and has discovered more than 50 transiting exoplanets.
The CCDs that HATNet and other surveys use typically cost at least 10,000 USD, which is a significant obstacle against the creation of new exoplanet surveys, or the expansion of existing ones. For this reason, we investigate the possibility of using a mid-range, commercial digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera for precision photometry. These devices have excellent electronic characteristics for their price, which is around 1000 USD, and are more affordable for the public. Furthermore, they have improved drastically over the past several years, and consumer demand continues to force manufacturers to produce better products.
Several authors have already tested the use of DSLRs for photometry. [@hoot_2007] discusses the basic characteristics of DSLRs, then used a Canon EOS 350D to perform absolute photometry by transforming instrumental magnitudes to magnitudes in standard Landolt filters. They found RMS errors of 0.347, 0.134, and 0.236mag for the B, V, and R bands respectively. [@littlefield_2010] used the 12-bit Canon 20Da camera, and measured the transit of exoplanet HD 189733b, whose star is at V=7.67, to around 6 mmag accuracy. The author achieved this accuracy by using a high ISO setting and extreme defocusing, so that the star image was around 35 pixels in diameter. This defocusing improves photometry through reducing intra- and inter-pixel variations, but is not suitable for exoplanet surveys because of stellar crowding, and because when faint stars are defocused, photon noise from the sky background, read noise, and dark noise start to dominate.
[@kloppenborg_2012] took 500 DSLR images in groups of ten, 12-second exposures and measured the brightness of stars with $3.5 < V
< 7.5$ to a mean uncertainty of 0.01 mag, and stars with $7.5 < V <
8.0$ to a mean uncertainty of 0.02 mag or better. They used a Canon 450D and defocused so that stellar images were 10-15 pixels in diameter, and used the Tycho catalogue to account for stellar blending in aperture photometry. Unfortunately, there are two aspects of this process that are not ideal for the purposes of a wide-field photometric survey. One of them is defocusing, mentioned earlier; the other is the 12-second exposure time. Our 60D has a mean shutter lifetime of 100,000 exposures (according to the Canon website), and at 12 seconds a frame, it would last on the order of two months before failing.
Finally, [@guyon_2012] used a Canon 550D and 500D to observe the star HD 54743 without defocusing, by recombining the 4 color channels into a single image, and choosing comparison stars with a similar PSF as that of the target. This step implicitly selects a comparison star with similar color, optical aberrations, and position on the Bayer filter. With regular aperture photometry, they achieved a precision of around 10%. With the PSF selection technique, they achieved 2% in the green channel, 2.5% in the red, and 3.5% in the blue, which is close to the photon noise limit. However, it must be noted that they observed a relatively faint star during bright time, and in this work they did not test the accuracy of their system during better observing conditions.
DSLR vs CCD
-----------
There are a number of advantages and disadvantages of using DSLRs instead of CCDs. The disadvantages are severe. DSLRs have lower quantum efficiency and a smaller full well capacity—both of which increase the Poisson noise of detected starlight, thus imposing a strict upper limit on the photometric precision. DSLRs are generally not cooled, and dark current increases dramatically with temperature. This increases the dark noise at high ambient temperatures and makes dark frames a less accurate reflection of the dark-current signature of image frames. Additionally, DSLRs have a Bayer filter superimposed on top of their sensors. This makes aperture photometry difficult because as the star moves across the image due to tracking or pointing errors, a varying fraction of its light falls onto a pixel of a given color. Thus, the brightness of a constant star appears to vary by as much as 13%, as indicated by [@guyon_2012]. Finally, as we will show in this paper, cameras like the Canon EOS 60D perform post-processing on images even when writing in “RAW” format. There is no documentation of this post-processing, and frames exhibit a variety of disturbing behavior that we have no explanation for.
The primary *advantage* of a DSLR is its low cost. The Canon EOS 60D that we use is around 700 USD as of writing. By comparison, a CCD camera with a Kodak KAF16803 chip is $\sim$10,000 USD, and even a lower-end CCD is a few thousand dollars. Additionally, DSLRs require no external device for focusing; a DSLR setup is cheaper and more lightweight, making it more accessible for amateur astronomers. Finally, the Bayer filters of DSLRs allow for fully simultaneous photometry at three colors, which is very difficult for CCDs, though can be done through the use of expensive dichroic beam splitter systems [@grond].
Hardware setup
==============
Initial tests
-------------
We attached the Canon 60D camera to a Fornax F50 telescope mount on the roof of Peyton hall at Princeton University’s campus. We observed selected stellar fields by simple tracking of the mount, without autoguiding. Focusing was performed using a very rudimentary algorithm. Most features of the camera, such as USB connectivity, external power supply, communication from Linux, were all tested from Peyton hall’s roof. While the astro-climate from Princeton is sub-optimal (heavy light pollution, small fraction of clear skies), these tests on real stars over multiple nights helped prototype operations. Once we reached stable operations, we relocated the camera to the Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory in Arizona.
HAT10 {#subsec:hat10_hardware}
-----
HAT10 is a telescope unit from the HAT Network of Telescopes (HATNet), located at the Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory (FLWO) of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO). A HAT unit is a fully automated observatory using a CCD and a telephoto lens on a common mount, all within a small clamshell dome, which is equipped with a rain sensor and a photosensor that force the dome to close during rain or daytime. The unit is also connected to a weather sensor in a control building which measures clouds, lightning, and wind speed. All devices are controlled via a single Linux PC. Every night, if the sensors detect favorable conditions, the dome automatically opens, the mount tracks a certain field, and the camera continuously takes 3-minute frames of the field. At dawn, or when the weather deteriorates, the dome automatically closes, and the HAT goes to sleep.
The DSLR was attached to the HAT10 mount and was pointing in the same direction as the CCD. The mechanical installation was done in 2014 February with a ballhead and custom-made converters (). The DSLR camera is a Canon EOS 60D, a midrange DSLR often used for astrophotography. We used a Canon EF 135mm f/2L lens at the f/2 setting.
Canon 60D Camera Properties
---------------------------
A number of experiments were performed to characterize the DSLR camera. Additionally, we have tried to look for official documentation on these properties; unfortunately, none seems to be public. We have also searched for other measurements of camera properties, but the only measurements that exist were found on personal websites such as clarkvision[^1]. The information below is likely the most detailed publicly available description of the properties of the 60D.
### General Properties
At full resolution, the Canon EOS 60D takes $5184\times3456$ pixel images with its CMOS sensor, for a total of 18 megapixels. Each pixel has a physical size of 4.3 by 4.3 micrometers. With our Canon 135 f/2 lens, the camera has a field of view of $9.6\arcdeg\times6.4\arcdeg$, corresponding to a pixel scale of 13.3. The camera has a Bayer filter on top of the CMOS sensor, laid out in the pattern indicated in . Each square in the Figure represents one pixel.
![ Bayer filter of the 60D, as viewed by an observer on top of the lens looking downwards at the filter. The horizontal dimension in this figure represents the horizontal dimension of the sensor, and similarly for the vertical dimension. Each square represents a $4.3\mu$ pixel. The numbers represent the “color channels”, which is a convention we use in our data analysis, and in the text. []{data-label="fig:bayer_filter"}](bayer_filter){width="20.00000%"}
To break the ambiguity between the two green channels, we will refer to the channels by the numbers 0 (green), 1 (blue), 2 (red) and 3 (green), whose correspondence to the Bayer filter is shown in . These numbers are mostly arbitrary, and were originally chosen because they were the order in which [dcraw]{}, which we used to convert RAW files to FITS, writes the channels.
When shooting in RAW mode (as compared to producing compressed JPEG files), the camera outputs 4-channel data at 14 bits per pixel, each channel corresponding to a color. Pixel values have an offset of 2048, a value which represents zero light. This offset is non-zero to prevent clipping negative values to zero or dedicating an entire bit to indicate the sign of the value.
Not all of the chip pixels are sensitive to light. Based on our own measurements with this camera we produced the diagram shown in , describing the layout of the different regions on the chip. We have failed to find any public documentation describing this layout.
Significant effort was spent trying to determine the behavior of these dark regions in the hopes of exploiting them to remove offsets or fixed-pattern noise. We discovered that all regions except T1 are almost indistinguishable in bias frames. For dark frames, L2 and T2 are almost indistinguishable from the image region, while L1 and T1 are clearly distinct and less bright. For this reason we suspected that L1 is a bias region, where the pixels are exposed for 0 seconds, while L2 and T2 are dark regions, where the pixels are covered with a strip of metal and exposed for the same length as the image region. However, further research showed that this hypothesis is incorrect. Moreover, the non-image regions exhibit weird and unexplained behavior, such as channel-dependent mean intensity even though the region receives no light. The behavior of the image region is consistent and generally in accordance with expectations. Therefore, we simply crop out the image region in all of our processing and do not use the other regions. This is an area of further possible improvement.
Electronic properties
---------------------
$
\begin{array}{lr}
\hline
\text{Property} & \text{Value} \\
\hline
\text{Gain (e-/ADU)} & 2.10\\
\text{Saturation (ADU)} & 13,585\\
\text{Saturation (e-)} & 24,200\\
\text{Read noise (e-)} & 15.5\\
\hline
\end{array}
$
Table \[table:electronic\_properties\] shows the electronic properties of the 60D at ISO100, the setting we used. We measured all of these properties in our lab. Read noise, for example, was measured by taking pairs of very short exposures in a dark room. Gain was measured by taking pairs of exposures of a uniform white light at different exposure times and calculating the noise as a function of the mean intensity. Here we assumed that the noise consists of photon noise plus read noise. Saturation was measured by taking an image of a bright source.
### Linearity
The Canon EOS 60D exhibits almost perfect linearity all the way to the saturation value in all channels, as shown in . This plot was produced by putting 3 pieces of paper on top of the lens of the lab camera, with the lab lights turned on. This setup yielded $\sim$1000 ADU/s intensity. We then took exposures of increasing duration, ranging from 1 to 15 seconds. The two small kinks in the lines in , at 4s and 7s, could be due to actual changes in lighting rather than camera properties.
To characterize the linearity, linear regression was used to fit the mean ADU as a function of exposure time. Points with means at the saturation value were rejected. The resulting $1- r^2$ (the percentage of variance not explained by the best-fit line) is $1.1\times10^{-4}$ for channel 0, $3.3\times10^{-4}$ for channel 1, $1.9\times10^{-4}$ for channel 2, and $1.1\times10^{-4}$ for channel 3.
The linearity is less perfect at a few hundred ADUs from the saturation level, but as shown by the r values above, it is still nearly perfect for nearly the entire dynamic range.
### Dark current
Dark current is caused by thermal electrons that jump the bandgap from the valence to the conduction band of the semiconductor. The general formula describing dark current is $D_{ADU} = \alpha \cdot
exp(E_g/(kT))$, where $E_g=1.1 eV$ is the bandgap of silicon (the main material used in CMOS and CCD photodiodes) and $\alpha$ is a chip-dependent constant.
For a CCD, the dark current causes an increase in pixel values as exposure time is increased. This does not happen for this particular DSLR (and probably is a general feature of DSLR cameras). We took test frames at ISO800 setting using exposures times of 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 minutes, and saw only a 3 ADU increase in mean pixel values from 1 to 16 minutes. The increase is not linear. This is because the 60D have a built-in mechanism to suppress dark current, even when the “dark-noise suppression” option of the camera is turned off. We have not been able to find any documentation about how this suppression works.
To determine the dark current for the HAT10 camera, we look at the dark noise instead. We expect a Poisson noise characteristic. We plotted the image variance of every dark frame against the Boltzmann factor $e^{-\frac{E_g}{kT}}$, where T is from the sensor temperature, as read out by our control software. The expected variance is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
V_{ADU} = \frac{D_{ADU}}{g} + R_{ADU} = \frac{D_{e-}}{g^2} + R_{ADU}\end{aligned}$$ where g is the gain, $D_{ADU}$ is the dark current in ADU per 180 seconds, R is the readout variance, and V is the total variance.
shows the variance as a function of the Boltzmann factor. The best fit is: $$\begin{aligned}
D_{e-} &\approx 1.4 \times 10^{20} e^{-E_g/kT}\\
R_{ADU} &\approx\, 62\, ADU^2\end{aligned}$$ corresponding to around 0.1 electrons per second at $20^{\circ}C$. Note that the dark current depends on channel: channel 0 and 2 have much larger dispersion with respect to the best-fit line than the other channels, even though these are dark frames. This is not consistent with light leakage, because the two green channels (0 and 3) are significantly different. This figure also shows that the dark noise due to dark current is low compared to readout noise for temperatures around $20^{\circ}C$ and exposure times of a few minutes.
Observations
============
The hardware setup was described in more detail in Section \[subsec:hat10\_hardware\]. We carried out simultaneous observations with the Canon 60D plus Canon 135mm f/2 lens, and the Apogee U16m CCD plus its Canon 200mm f/1.8 FD lens with sloan $r$ filter (the default HATNet setup). The Canon 60D system was piggy-backed next to the Apogee CCD, and was taking simultaneous exposures of the same length. This allows a good comparison to be done between the CCD and the DSLR.
After a few days of debugging, the DSLR, under the control of a Linux computer, started taking useful data on February 22 and continued doing so until May 30. Shortly after sunset, if the weather was favorable, the dome opened and both the CCD and the DSLR began taking flat-fields. After the sky became dark, the mount pointed to a selected stellar field on the sky and the DSLR started taking three-minute exposures. Whenever the mount first points to a new field, it takes ‘pointing’ frames which are used to determine the true field center and correct for initial pointing errors. Following the pointing frames, the camera took 180-second science object frames. After every ninth exposure, it took a 30-second focus frame, and any deviations from the target focus were corrected. The focusing procedure is described in Section \[subsec:focusing\].
Once the field was near setting (below an altitude of 33 degrees, corresponding to an airmass of 1.8) or the Moon was too close to the field, the next highest-priority stellar field was chosen. Around sunrise, the camera took flat fields again before the dome closed and the HAT unit went to sleep for the day.
Camera settings
---------------
Certain camera settings are essential for scientific photometry. We shoot in RAW format to avoid additional noise due to the lossy compression to JPEG format. We set the image size to be the largest possible. We turn the long-exposure noise reduction feature of the camera off, since in this mode the camera would take a dark frame of the same length as our observation after each frame and would thus spend half the observing time without collecting photons. The camera is turned to Bulb mode and the lens is set to Autofocus, so that the computer can control both the exposure time and focus, respectively.
There are four camera parameters that can be changed to optimize photometry for a certain magnitude range: ISO (sensitivity), aperture, exposure time, and focus.
Increasing ISO decreases the gain. Since saturation ADU does not increase at ISOs higher than 100 (which is the lowest possible setting), this also decreases the number of electrons that can be represented before reaching the saturation limit, thus decreasing the magnitude range of stars whose brightness can be precisely measured. (Due to anti-blooming features implemented on the chip, charges are simply lost after saturation; they do not overflow to neighboring pixels, and thus can not be measured to provide precise photometry.) However, the electron-equivalent read noise is $Var_{e} = (gR_1)^2 + R_0^2$, where g is the gain, $R_1$ is the pre-amplifier noise component, and $R_0$ is the post-amplifier noise component. The read noise therefore *decreases* with the ISO setting and approaches $R_0 = 2.62 e^-$ at high ISO. Therefore, to optimize for any given star, it is always better to use the highest ISO possible without reaching saturation for a given exposure time. To survey the brightest stars optimally, it is best to use ISO100.
The considerations above indicate that ISO100 or 200 is probably the best ISO. The former is better for higher dynamic range, the latter is better for lower readout noise. While we were not fully aware of all of these considerations at the time of setup, the setting we have been using (ISO100) turned out to be the optimal choice.
Stellar Fields
--------------
The observed field during this test is named G180 in the HATNet nomenclature. It is centered at RA=144.6 degrees and Dec=37.4 deg. This field was selected because it is high above the horizon after sunset in February, and because it contains the transiting exoplanet KELT-3b. The field is in between the Lynx and Leo Minor constellations. G180 was also observed by the other HAT telescopes, and thus it is a good control field for comparing the results.
When field G180 was setting, the camera observed another field, called G113, until the dawn. This field was extremely dense in stars due to its proximity to the plane of the Milky Way, and is centered very close to the ‘head’ of Draco. Data for G113 have not been fully analyzed, and are not subject to this paper.
Calibration Frames
------------------
Astronomical CCDs can easily take dark frames, by simply exposing without opening the shutter. Usually, HATNet CCDs take dark frames at the end of every night. Unfortunately, the Canon 60D has no built-in ability to take frames without opening the shutter. We investigated whether firmware modifications such as Magic Lantern (<http://magiclantern.fm>) are capable of introducing this ability but found nothing relevant. For this reason, we only took 20 bias frames (on the night of March 6), by covering the lens, and taking very short exposures.
Darks were taken in two ways. First, whenever the weather was bad during night time, the dome remained closed, and the camera took 180-second exposures of the inside of the dome. Second, on the night of March 5, the lenscap was manually put on the lens, and the camera took dark frames the entire night. A total of 1040 darks were taken during bad weather, while 125 were taken on March 5 with the lens cap on.
Skyflats were taken during both evening and morning twilight, depending on weather. In the morning, flat-fields start with 180 s of exposure time and remain at that exposure until the average pixel value exceeds the target value of 2/3rd of the saturation value. After that, the exposure time is gradually reduced (based on the intensity values of all previous frames) in order to keep the image brightness constant, at 2/3rd of the saturation value. We stop taking flat fields when the sky becomes too bright, which corresponds to an exposure time of 1 second. In between flat fields, the mount points to slightly different areas of sky. This allows for stars to be removed from the master flat, which is derived by median averaging the individual skyflat frames.
Focusing {#subsec:focusing}
--------
To obtain high precision photometry with a DSLR, most authors choose to defocus the lens, with the exception of [@guyon_2012]. Defocusing increases the PSF width, thereby mitigating the effect of the subpixel structure and the Bayer filter on the results. However, defocusing has many problems that make it unsuitable for an automated photometric wide-field survey. Increasing the PSF makes stellar blending worse and increases the photon noise due to the sky background. It makes the PSF non-Gaussian, highly variable, and elongated at the edges, thus violating the assumptions made by most source finder and flux extractor software, including our own reduction pipeline of HATNet. If the PSF becomes donut-like, star detectors may spuriously detect multiple peaks and count them as multiple stars, which confuses autofocusing and astrometry algorithms. Instead of defocusing, we choose the opposite approach, i.e. to focus as perfectly as possible, and continuously monitor stellar PSFs to keep focus in the same position.
The Canon EF 135 mm lens has built-in focusing ability that can be controlled by a computer. We note that the built-in *autofocusing* capability of the Canon 60D camera does not work under low light conditions, and on stars. On February 18, shortly after the DSLR was installed, a focus series was taken during the night. Starting at focus position 45 (in arbitrary units), an image was taken at every other focus position until we reached 70. The focus position refers to the number of quanta of focus adjustments from the farthest possible focus, which is beyond infinity. The image taken at each focus position was split into the 4 channels, corresponding to the 4 colors. Each channel was, in turn, split into 9 regions: upper left, upper mid, upper right, middle left, center, etc. A star detector was run on every channel, and every star was fit with a four-parameter rotated elliptical Gaussian of the form: $$\begin{aligned}
f(x,y) = A\text{exp}(-\frac{1}{2}[S(x^2 + y^2) + D(x^2 - y^2) + K(2xy)])\end{aligned}$$ Here, the star is assumed to be centered on (0,0); in reality, the center of the star is estimated by computing the centroid of the light. $S$ is related to the inverse of the square of standard deviation, and represents “sharpness”. $D$ represents ellipticity in the $x$,$y$ direction, while $K$ represents the ellipticity in the diagonal directions.
The S, D, and K parameters were averaged over all stars in the same region and plotted against focus position. This process produces plots of S, D, and K for every region of every channel at every other focus position between 45 and 70. At perfect focus, S should be at its maximum while D and K should be at a zero crossing, meaning that stars are small and circular. In reality, due to optical aberrations and the imperfect perpendicularity of the detector to the optical axis, different regions of the image come into focus at different positions and D/K do not cross zero at exactly the same position as S reaches maximum. Additionally, due to chromatic aberration of the lens, optimal focus is different for the different channels. These effects can be seen in .
As a compromise between the different image regions and channels, we chose “58” as the target focus position. The actual focus position can change with time for a variety of reasons, including physical shrinking or expansion due to temperature changes or gravity pulling on the lens as it changes orientation. To compensate for these effects, an autofocus script monitors the incoming focus images every night. It detects stars in the images, finds the S, D, and K parameters for all regions and all channels, and determines the current focus position with respect to the focus series. The script then changes the focus by the appropriate amount to bring the actual focus close to that represented by position “58” on February 18.
Unfortunately, the autofocusing script had a software bug, and it did not run correctly during the first month. As a consequence, the focus position never changed between February 24 and April 20. Remarkably, the lens is so stable with respect to thermal changes that even a month and a half later, its full width at half maximum (FWHM) was still close to 2 pixels—the same value it had been since February 24. Even on the worst nights, it did not change by more than $\sim$0.3 pixels. Ellipticity is more variable from frame to frame and throughout the night, but seems to have remained around 0.1-0.2 across all nights of observation. This may be affected by tracking errors as well as focusing errors. The autofocus script was fixed on April 21. The fix did not seem to have a major impact on our results.
PSF broadening {#subsec:psf_broadening}
--------------
While the absolute pointing of the HAT mounts is relatively poor (tens of arcminutes), the precision of tracking and fine motion of the HAT mount are very good, usually better than the angular scale of one pixel of the DSLR and the Apogee CCD on HAT10. The mount is also capable of deliberately introducing tiny tracking errors in order to broaden the PSF. In this mode, called “PSF-broadening” or “Drizzle” [@hatnet], the sky around the field center is divided into a grid. The mount points to the center of one grid cell, lingers for a certain amount of time, moves to the center of the next grid cell, and repeats this process for the entire grid. The geometry of the grid, and the time that the mount spends at certain gridpoints is such that the stars are broadened into a wider, approximately Gaussian stellar profile.
This process enlarges the PSF by a tiny amount (by a factor of 1.5) close to homogeneously across the field, thus avoiding many of the problems associated with defocusing while decreasing the effects of subpixel structure and forcing the PSF to be more Gaussian than it would otherwise be. On HATNet CCDs, drizzle improves photometric precision substantially. As shown later, the same is true for the DSLR experiment.
Field G180 was observed in D (Drizzle mode) and T (Tracking, no drizzle) mode, alternating every frame. This is to determine the effect of drizzle on photometric precision, and whether high precision can be achieved without it.
Current data
------------
All frames were separated by night of observation on the HAT10 control computer, and downlinked to a Princeton-based server on a regular basis. From February 22 to May 30 inclusive, we took 4645 object frames of field G180, 1162 dark frames, 337 pointing frames, 2140 flatfields, 1445 focus frames, and 20 biases.
Software
========
The HAT10 hardware (mount, dome, cameras) is controlled by a PC running Linux. An observer daemon, written in TCL, is the master process that controls observations. It communicates with the CCD server, which is responsible for communicating with the CCD and DSLR through drivers. After each exposure, other components of the control software append metadata to the FITS header and record the exposure in a database. An autofocus script checks stellar PSFs on focus frames to correct focus, while another script solves images astrometrically and uses the solutions to correct pointing errors.
To communicate with the camera, our CCD server uses the [libgphoto2]{} library[^2]. This is an open-source C library, supporting a large number of DSLRs, that abstracts away the camera protocol to provide a simple API for camera control. Because the communication protocol with the Canon 60D DSLR is proprietary, and because Canon does not provide Linux drivers to control their cameras, [libgphoto2]{} drivers were developed by reverse engineering the protocol. To decode the raw “CR2” files, we invoke the [dcraw]{} program[^3] by David Coffin, which we modified to also extract the camera sensor temperature.
Focusing {#focusing}
--------
HATNet lenses are focused by adjusting their focusing ring via a belt and a stepper motor, controlled by the instrument control computer. For the DSLR, we exploited the focusing capability built in to the DSLR, and with top-level control incorporated into our camera control server.
The [libgphoto2]{} library does not allow retrieval of the actual focus position, nor does it allow focusing to an absolute position. Instead, it allows one to move the focus by a small, medium, or large amount in both directions. To overcome the limitations, we always move the lens by a small amount every time. Position 0 is defined as the farthest possible focus (hitting the end position), and position N is reached by moving the focusing nearer by N small steps from the farthest possible focus. The focus position was initialized by moving the focus outwards a large number of steps so as to hit the physical end position, then re-setting our internal counter to zero, and then keeping track of all the steps we moved. We assumed that there is no drift and backlash, e.g. moving -5 steps followed by +5 steps takes us back to the same exact position.
Image reduction
===============
The reduction pipeline mostly, but not entirely, follows the pipeline used for HATNet and HATSouth [see, e.g. @hat_p_11b].
Calibration of Images
---------------------
The first step in image reduction consists of bias subtraction, dark subtraction, and flat fielding.
To perform bias subtraction, we ignore overscan regions, reject outlier frames, and take a pixel-by-pixel median of the other frames.
To perform dark subtraction, we find groups of dark frames separated by less than 5 degrees centigrade. The largest such group is used to generate master dark 1, the second largest group is used to generate master dark 2, and so on, until no group exists with more than 10 frames. Each group of frames is then bias-subtracted and combined. As far as we can tell, the DSLR cannot take an exposure without opening the shutter. It therefore did not take nightly darks.
We produce master flats for every clear night by imaging the twilight sky. Cloudy frames are rejected, and the rest are median combined after smoothing (each color channel separately).
All science frames are then bias-subtracted, dark-subtracted, and divided by the master flat frame. We mark pixels above 13000 as saturated. Finally, the image is cropped, and we only keep the region of $X \in [71,2671]$ and $Y \in [0,1733]$, which excludes the border pixels (Fig. \[fig:sensor\_layout\]).
Astrometry
----------
A pre-requisite of precise photometry is astrometry, which consist of finding the sources, identifying them with an external catalogue, including deriving the transformation between the $X,Y$ pixel coordinates and the RA,DEC celestial coordinates. Optionally, the coordinates from the external catalogue are projected back on the frame to derive better centroid positions for the stars.
We did astrometry with [solve-field]{} from [astrometry.net]{}, an open-source and highly robust blind solver [@astrometry_net]. Before solving any field, one needs index files, which describe quadrangles of catalogue stars. We used pre-generated index files for the 2MASS catalogue [@two_mass].
We invoked [solve-field]{} twice. On the first pass, the program detects stars using the built-in star detector, [simplexy]{}, which assumes Gaussian PSFs. It finds a WCS transformation between image coordinates and RA/Dec, outputting several files, including an [.axy]{}, [.corr]{}, and [.wcs]{} file. The [.axy]{} file contains the measured positions and fluxes of detected stars. The [.corr]{} contains cross-matches between detected and catalogue stars, including the $x$ and $y$ positions for detected stars, RA and DEC coordinates, and the pixel positions, as transformed back from the RA and DEC coordinates of the external catalogue. Finally, the [.wcs]{} file contains polynomial coefficients for the transformation (and its inverse) from $X,Y$ pixel coordinates to RA,Dec celestial coordinates.
On the first run, [solve-field]{} only tries to find where the field is, and does not attempt to optimize the WCS transformation. It only matches as many quadrangles as necessary to confirm this location, yielding a rough transformation. To derive a better transformation, we run: [solve-field –continue -t 3 -q 0.01 -V filename.wcs filename.fits]{}
This “verification” stage tries to correlate all stars from all index files with detected stars, and use the result to derive a better third-order WCS transformation (-t 3). We use a minimum quadrangle size of $0.01 \arcmin$, as opposed to the default of $0.1 \arcmin$, so that every index file is examined.
To decide which polynomial order to use for the spatial transformation (between the pixel and celestial coordinates), we plotted the difference between the detected star positions and the catalogue star positions, transformed back into $X,Y$ using the derived fit. The standard deviation of this difference is 0.14pix for $X$, 0.18 for $Y$. There are a few extreme outliers, but when those are excluded, the standard deviation goes down to 0.12 pixels for both axes. We plotted $\delta x$ and $\delta y$ against $x$, $y$, $x \times y$, and $x^2 + y^2$, and found no dependence on any quantity for $t=3$, but a clear dependence for $t=2$, i.e. confirming that $t=3$ is adequate.
We then run [solve-field]{} on all object frames that were not aborted mid-exposure. Astrometry was run on each channel separately. Altogether, astrometry succeeded for more than 99% of the frames.
Those few frames where astrometry failed had extreme tracking errors due to temporary malfunctioning of the telescope mount.
Catalog projection
------------------
To decide which stars to do photometry on, we query the 2MASS catalogue down to an (extrapolated) V band magnitude of 14.
The celestial coordinates of the catalogue stars are transformed to pixel coordinates for every science frame using [wcs-rd2xy]{}, a tool provided by [astrometry.net]{}, and the [.wcs]{} file corresponding to the frame.
Aperture photometry
-------------------
We used the standard aperture photometry routines of HATNet. The precision of aperture photometry depends heavily on the aperture radius used to measure total flux. For HATNet CCDs, for example, the RMS values of light curves exhibit oscillatory behavior as a function of radius at small radii, and start decreasing slowly but monotonically at large radii. On an RMS vs. aperture graph, the peaks and troughs at small radii differ by as much as a factor of two. This is probably due to a combination of not accounting properly for the non-uniform distribution of light across each pixel and subpixel sensitivity variations.
We use 3 apertures to perform photometry, because the optimal aperture depends on the brightness of the star; large apertures for bright stars, and small apertures for faint stars, where the sky background is high compared to the flux of the star. After testing 10 apertures from 1.2 to 3 pixels, we chose 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8 pixels as the final apertures.
Magnitude fitting
-----------------
The raw magnitudes from aperture photometry for a selected star typically exhibit large variations, sometimes more than a magnitude as a function of time. This can be due to many factors, including atmospheric extinction and changing PSF shape.
Many other factors affect the raw magnitudes. For example, as a star drifts across the image, its center lands on different positions of the Bayer filter and changes the amount of light falling on the sensitive portion—an effect which our aperture photometry does not correct for. We employed ensemble magnitude fitting to correct for these effects.
To perform magnitude fitting, we chose a “reference” frame for each tracking mode (simple tracking and PSF broadening) and each channel. The “reference” frame is chosen to be extraordinarily good: low sky background, high S/N, field close to culmination, etc.
Every other frame is compared to the reference frame, and the difference in raw magnitudes is computed for every star. These differences, $\Delta m \equiv m_i - m_{i,ref}$ for each $i$ star, are fit by a polynomial that depends on position, catalog magnitude, catalog J-K color, and subpixel position. The contribution of the position to the polynomial is itself a fourth-order polynomial.
The contribution of catalog magnitude is of the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=0}^2\sum_{j=0}^2\sum_{k=0}^2c_{ijk}M^ix^jy^k\end{aligned}$$ In other words, it is the product of a second-order polynomial in position and a second-order polynomial in magnitude. This is purely empirically motivated. Similarly, the J-K and subpixel position contributions, also empirically motivated, are both the product of a first-order polynomial in J-K (or subpixel position) and a second-order polynomial in position. Since the four channels and two tracking modes produce different images, we run magnitude fitting separately on all eight combinations of channel and tracking mode. The ensemble magnitude fitting is performed in an iterative way, by replacing the weights for each star in the fit with the derived r.m.s. of the light curves, and the magnitude of the stars with mean magnitude of the light curves.
Light curves
------------
Light curves were derived from the magnitude-fitted photometry files. Light curves with fewer than 1000 measurements were discarded. These are usually stars very close to the border of the frame that accidentally wandered into the frame due to pointing jitter, esp. present at the first few exposures and initial pointing of the telescope.
Our light curves contain measurements for all 3 apertures used in aperture photometry. As expected, bright stars do better with larger apertures and dim stars do better with smaller apertures, with the lowest-deviation light curves having an optimal aperture of 1.8 pixels.
EPD, TFA
--------
The final stages of noise reduction are External Parameter Decorrelation [EPD; @hat_p_11b] and the Trend-Filtering Algorithm [TFA; @tfa_algorithm]. We use [vartools]{} [@vartools] to perform both tasks.
EPD involves finding correlations between the magnitude and so-called external parameters. These correlations are then modeled using a simple function, and once the parameters are fitted, the function is subtracted from the light curve. External parameters include subpixel position, zenith angle, PSF parameters, and hour angle.
We examined the dependence of magnitude on all 7 external parameters mentioned above by plotting magnitude against the parameter for sample light curves, as well as by fitting functions between these parameters and stellar magnitudes to see how much the RMS error decreases. Out of all external parameters, subpixel position had the strongest influence. Even though subpixel position was a parameter in ensemble magnitude fitting, the parameter was only fit to first order. We found that a sinusoidal function with a period of 1 pixel is a better fit for this relationship than any polynomial of $x$ and $y$ up until fourth order. However, after subtracting the sinusoidal fit, there still remains a slight linear relationship between magnitude and subpixel y position. We therefore also subtract off a linear term proportional to the subpixel y position. We stress that this is done for each star, i.e. each light curve, separately.
Out of the remaining parameters, only the zenith angle (Z), PSF S parameter, and hour angle (h) had any non-negligible correlation with magnitude. We simply fit them with linear functions. The improvement in RMS error after introducing a quadratic term in addition to the linear for any of these parameters was negligible.
The final function we fit for is: $$\begin{aligned}
mag = a_xsin(2\pi x)+b_xcos(2\pi x)+a_ysin(2\pi y) + \\
b_ycos(2\pi y) + a_{y2}(y-floor(y)) + a_zZ + a_sS + \\
a_hh + const\end{aligned}$$ For every light curve we first reject outliers that are more than 5 standard deviations away from the mean. This process is repeated 3 times, after which we fit the function above to the magnitude, subtract off that function for every data point, and apply a constant zero-point, to match the standard magnitude of the star in the catalogue. Besides de-correlating for external parameters, this also transforms raw instrumental magnitudes to the standard system.
{width="\textwidth"}
After EPD, we perform the trend-filtering algorithm [@tfa_algorithm] to remove remaining systematic variations. We use the [vartools]{} implementation for this task. For every light curve, [vartools]{} retrieves the magnitudes for the template stars and fits a linear function, modeling the light curve as a linear combination of the template light curves. Template stars less than 25 pixels away from the target star are excluded from the fit. This prevents an artificially good fit between stars whose PSFs are blended together, and also prevents template stars from being fit to their own light-curves.
The template stars were selected by hand. First, the image region was divided horizontally and vertically into 3 equal portions, for a total of 9 regions. From each image region, 11 stars were selected, roughly 2 for each magnitude bin between $r = 8\ldots13$. We picked the stars with the smallest median absolute deviations (MADs), and did not select any star that had a MAD of more than 5 percent for channel 0 in D20 mode.
For HATNet Apogee CCDs, TFA drastically reduces the RMS error, from a best-case accuracy of 8 mmag to 5 mmag. This is also true for the DSLR observations. shows the effect of EPD and TFA on DSLR images. Notice that TFA makes a large difference to the precision of results, whereas EPD makes a small difference.
Transiting planet candidate search
----------------------------------
All three months of data were searched for transit candidates, and four candidates were found in field G180. One of them is KELT-3b, the only known transiting exoplanet in the field, with a transit depth of 0.89%. Unfortunately, follow-up observations show that all three of the other candidates are false alarms. In two, the photometric signal (which was weak to begin with) proved to be an artifact; in the other, the star was a periodic variable.
Results
=======
At the end of the reduction pipeline, light curves were derived for every $V < 14$ catalogue star within the frame. To demonstrate the photometric precision we achieved, we plotted the MAD for every star against the appropriate catalogue magnitude for that star. MAD is the median of the absolute value of the difference from the median. This statistic is used because it is mostly insensitive to outliers, and we did not want the results to depend on which algorithm was used to detect and reject outliers. Note that MAD is smaller than the standard deviation by a factor of 1.48 for Gaussian distributions.
The results are shown in for D20 tracking mode and for T tracking mode. shows the precision of all four channels combined. The combining was done by weighting every channel by the inverse square of the channel’s MAD, and adding the results. We have also tried combining the channels in the simplest possible way: by adding the four individual channel magnitudes and dividing by four, which is equivalent to taking the geometric mean of the fluxes. Surprisingly, the results from simple addition and from weighted addition are almost exactly the same: in a deviation vs. magnitude graph there is almost no discernible difference between the two.
\
\
The shape of these graphs is very typical of photometric measurements. Faint stars have a high MAD because sky noise, photon noise, read noise, and dark noise all dominate over the signal. Very bright stars also have a high MAD because they saturate the sensor, making it impossible to precisely measure their flux. In between the two extremes is a minimum where photometric precision is the best.
As can be seen, D20 (PSF broadening) is far better than T (tracking) for all channels. In addition to having a lower minimum, the envelope is also narrower, resulting in more stars measured at a better precision.
The combined magnitudes for D20 tracking mode have a minimum med-med deviation of 4.6 mmag, and 1000 stars between magnitudes 9 and 11.5 are measured more accurately than 10 mmag. For T tracking mode, the combined magnitudes have a minimum deviation of 8 mmag, with far fewer stars lower than 10 mmag. For the individual channels, 0, 1, and 3 have a minimum deviation of 7-8 mmag for D20, and roughly 15 mmag for T mode. Channel 2 is substantially worse than the others, with a minimum deviation of 10 mmag for D20 and 17 mmag for T. This is not surprising, considering that the red channel has a lower quantum efficiency than the others.
Sample light curves
-------------------
To further demonstrate the precision of our photometry, we analyzed the light curves for selected variable stars.
In , we plot the magnitude difference from median magnitude against time for two variable stars. On the left is ZZ LMi, an RS Canum Venaticorum-type variable, characterized by strong chromospheric activity. Like solar activity, there is no strong periodicity to the light output of this variable. According to the General Catalog of Variable Stars, this star varies between magnitude 10.8 and 12.1. However, the amplitude of variations may change over the years, due to cycles similar to the solar cycles.
In the right panel of is U LMi, a semiregular late-type giant, similar to Mira but with smaller variations. This star varies between magnitude 10 and 13.3 with a 272.2-day period, but we only see a secular upwards trend over our observations.
![ Light curves for an eclipsing contact binary, HAT-180-0001149, phase-folded to the orbital period and binned into bins of one degree. The colors are arbitrarily offset by 0.2 mag. []{data-label="fig:RT_LMi"}](HAT-180-0001149_phasefolded.png){width="50.00000%"}
shows the light curve for RT LMi, an eclipsing contact binary with a period of 0.3749 days and a range of magnitude variation of 11.4–11.7.
Our automatic search pipeline detected KELT-3b, a known transiting extrasolar planet [@kelt3b]. KELT-3b has a period of 2.7 days, a transit duration of 189 minutes, and a transit depth of 8.8 mmag. The light curve is shown in , where it is phase-folded and phase-binned into one-degree bins. The transit signal can clearly be seen. Note that this result is still suboptimal because KELT-3b is only 20 pixels away from the image edge, leading to a distorted PSF shape.
Comparison with the CCD
=======================
To compare the DSLR with the CCD, we did a parallel reduction of the HAT10 CCD data for exactly the same time instances, i.e. under the same exact observing conditions. compares the MAD of both the DSLR and the CCD, and in the same figure, we also show the ratio of the deviations. The CCD achieves a minimum deviation of 3.4 mmag, with 3377 stars measured more accurately than 10 mmag. As mentioned before, these numbers are 4.6 mmag and 1000 stars for the DSLR, respectively. The spread of the magnitude-deviation relationship is very similar for both devices. Notice also that the CCD becomes imprecise very quickly at magnitudes lower than the saturation limit, whereas the DSLR becomes imprecise more gradually. This partially explains the knee in , the other part of the explanation being the difference in saturation magnitude between the devices.
Time-correlated (“red”) noise is also very important in the detection of signals. Notably, red noise decreases the transiting planet detection efficiency, and often leads to catching false signals. To estimate the variance due to time-correlated noise, we measured the autocorrelation of the light curves and modeled it using a function of the form:
$$\begin{aligned}
r = Ae^{-t/\tau}\end{aligned}$$
where t is the lag and A is the fraction of the variance caused by red noise, so that $RMS_\mathrm{red}/RMS = \sqrt{A}$. To compute A, we derived the auto-correlation function for all light curves in Drizzle mode, for lags between 0 and 0.1 days at intervals of 5 minutes. The sequence of autocorrelations for each light curve is normalized to 1 for lag 0. Autocorrelations are then divided into bins according to the V magnitude of the star, and merged. The bins are one magnitude wide and cover the magnitude range of 8 to 13.
shows the merged autocorrelations for magnitude 10-11, but the other autocorrelations look similar. At small lags, the correlation decreases rapidly in a relation very close to exponential. At around 0.025 days, the relation changes to one that decreases much more slowly, and is much farther from a perfect exponential. To calculate the red noise ($A$) we take the first 6 points (the ones with lag $<$ 0.025d) from the combined autocorrelation, and fit them to this exponential form. Table \[table:red\_noise\] shows the results, compared with the results of a similar analysis on the CCD. As expected, red noise is a greater proportion of total noise for brighter stars.
$A_{DSLR}$ $\tau_{DSLR}$(d) $A_{CCD}$ $\tau_{CCD}$(d)
------- ------------ ------------------ ----------- -----------------
8-9 0.38 0.089 0.60 0.24
9-10 0.17 0.033 0.12 0.38
10-11 0.12 0.028 0.068 0.32
11-12 0.11 0.024 0.057 0.33
12-13 0.08 0.022 0.045 0.42
: Red noise characteristics of the DSLR and CCD light curves. []{data-label="table:red_noise"}
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we demonstrated the capability of DSLRs for precision photometry. With D20 tracking mode and a 1.4-1.8 pixel aperture, we achieved a best-case median absolute deviation of 7-8 mmag for channels 0, 1, and 3 (representing green, blue, and green respectively) and 10 mmag for channel 2. When these channels are combined by weighted or simple addition, the deviation is around 4.6 mmag. Unfortunately, it is also true that this level of precision depends crucially on the PSF-broadening observing technique, whereby the stellar PSFs are broadened by a small fraction of the original PSF width. In tracking mode, it is only possible to achieve 10 mmag photometry or better for a tiny fraction of stars, even at the optimal magnitude and aperture. To our knowledge, this is the first time that a precision significantly better than 10 mmag has been achieved with a DSLR without extreme defocusing, over an extended duration, and over a large field-of-view, for a large number of stars.
This level of precision allows for DSLRs to be used in exoplanet detection, and certainly in studying variable stars. Our result of 4.6 mmag is not drastically worse than the 3-4 mmag of the Apogee CCDs that HATNet currently uses. This loss of precision is partly compensated by the low cost of the DSLR (it is over an order of magnitude cheaper than the CCDs), and its capability for simultaneous multiband photometry. Additionally, DSLRs, like most consumer electronics, are improving at a rapid pace. A newer DSLR may perform much better than the 60D, with the downside of being less tested and less well-supported by existing software.
#### Acknowledgements
HATNet operations have been funded by NASA grants NNG04GN74G and NNX13AJ15G. Follow-up of HATNet targets has been partially supported through NSF grant AST-1108686. K.P. acknowledges support from NASA grant NNX13AQ62G. Data presented in this paper are based on observations obtained at the HAT station at the Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory of SAO. We wish to thank M. Calkins, P. Berlind and G. Esquerdo at FLWO for their dedicated help in operating the HAT telescopes. We also thank Princeton University for coordinated turning off of the stadion lights next to Peyton hall to facilitate initial observations.
[^1]: <http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/evaluation-canon-7d/index.html>
[^2]: <http://www.gphoto.org/proj/libgphoto2/>
[^3]: <https://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Externally controllable band gap properties of a material is crucial in designing optoelectronic devices with desirable properties on-demand. Here, a possibility of single parameter tuning of trivial to non-trivial topological band gap by the introduction of linear gain in an otherwise trivial insulator is investigated. Gain is selectively injected into a one dimensional lattice of dimers such that the resulting non-Hermitian Hamiltonian is symmetric under space-inversion but not under time-reversal. Inversion-symmetry of the lattice renders to probe the bulk-boundary correspondence and topological invariance by the bi-orthogonal Zak phase associated with a bulk Hamiltonian. Topological trivial to nontrivial phase transition and emergence of protected edge states are analytically shown to occur when the gain parameter is tuned across a non-Hermitian degeneracy. Tuneability of edge state location both at the boundary and inside the bulk by altering the gain distribution is discussed. Confirmation of gain-controlled topological edge state is reported in a realistic design of InGaAsP semiconductor cavity array.'
author:
- Bikashkali Midya
title: 'Non-Hermitian tuned topological band gap'
---
Introduction
============
Topological materials, characterized by insulating bulk but unidirectionally conducting edge states appearing inside a topologically protected band gap, hold great promise for future technological applications ranging from dissipationless electronics and photonics to quantum computers [@Qi2011; @Kane2010; @Soljacic2014; @Ozawa2019]. The ability to artificially control the topology of band gaps would add a powerful degree of freedom in the design of new topological matters and devices whose properties can be tailored on demand. While the topology of a closed system is fixed because of its Hermitian character, engineered non-Hermitian interaction of energy gain and loss is an exceptional platform for manipulating intrinsic properties of topological bands [@Midya2018].
Recent search for topological states of matter in non-Hermitian systems has revealed fundamentally novel effects [@Zhao2019; @Schomerus2013; @Lieu2018; @Poli2015; @Weimann2017; @Esaki2011; @Yao2018; @Mingsen2018; @Parto2018; @Jin2019; @Jin2017; @Takata2018; @Weidemann2020; @Bahari2017; @Kunst2018; @Lee2019; @Yokomizo2019; @Yuce2018; @Yuce2019; @Longhi2019; @Longhi2020; @St-Jean2017; @Bandres2018; @Gong2018; @Alvarez2018; @Zhao2019; @Song2019; @Han2018; @Zeuner2015; @Leykam2017]. In particular, selective enhancement of topological interface state [@Schomerus2013; @Poli2015], lasing from topological edge states [@Bahari2017; @St-Jean2017; @Bandres2018], topological light steering inside the bulk [@Zhao2019], parity-time-symmetric topological interface states [@Weimann2017] is demonstrated. Spontaneous pumping [@Yuce2019], breakdown of conventional bulk-boundary correspondence and observations of non-Hermitian skin effect [@Yao2018; @Alvarez2018; @Lee2019; @Weidemann2020] have also been reported. While topological properties of most of these non-Hermitian systems stem from their Hermitian components, it has been recently suggested [@Takata2018] that non-Hermiticity can also trigger topological phase transition. Topologically nontrivial phase with protected edge states has been shown to be induced by onsite gain and loss distributed inhomogeneously in a gapless photonic lattice consists of homogeneously coupled cavities. Manipulation of both loss and gain in a heterogeneous manner, nevertheless, set new challenges in dynamic control of such non-Hermitian edge states. Contrary to acoustics [@Gao2020] or cold atoms in optical lattice [@Zoller2011; @Li2019], where loss can be tuned, in photonics loss usually accessible via material absorption [@Mingsen2018] or radiation due to bending [@Weimann2017], which are difficult to tune. Whereas, well developed experimental tool [@Zhao2019; @Parto2018] of externally controllable gain in active materials provides an ideal settings for dynamic manipulation of edge states. A theoretical model, where non-Hermitian topological phase transition can be observed and corresponding edge states can be dynamically monitored by just gain tuning, is therefore, conducive for innovative device designs leveraging a successful transition for practical applications.
{width="92.00000%"}
To this aim, here a possibility of topological band gap control by the introduction of non-Hermitian gain is investigated in an otherwise Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (SSH) lattice [@SSH; @Asboth2016] in its trivial phase. Linear gain is added into the system in terms of imaginary onsite potential such that gain contrast between two nearest-neighbor sites is either $\gamma$ ($\ne0$) or zero depending on whether the sites are coupled by a strong or weak bond, respectively. The resulting non-Hermitian Hamiltonian maintains space-inversion symmetry but breaks time-reversal symmetry. Inversion-symmetry of the lattice allows to investigate topological invariance and bulk-boundary correspondence by the non-Hermitian generalization of Zak phase [@Zak] calculated after incorporating the bi-orthogonality of eigenfunctions [@Lieu2018; @Kunst2018; @Brody2014]. Topological trivial to nontrivial phase transition and emergence of protected edge states are analytically shown to occur when the gain parameter $\gamma$ is tuned across a non-Hermitian degeneracy [@Miri2019]. A salient feature of the model is that gain-tuning not only allows one to generate a topological edge state, but also it provides a flexible way to alter the location of such edge state. Several possibilities of tuning the edge state location both at the boundary and inside the bulk by appropriately altering the gain distribution are shown. The proposed scheme of gain-controlled topological edge states can be experimentally verified in semiconductor laser array where linear gain can be activated either by optical illumination or carrier injection below gain saturation. Here, confirmation of gain-tuned topological edge state is reported after simulation in a realistic design of InGaAsP microring cavity array.
Gain-controlled topological band gap
====================================
We consider a semi-analytically solvable model of four band non-Hermitian Hamiltonian in momentum ($k$-space) representation (corresponding real space realization is discussed later) $$\mathcal{H}(k,\gamma)= \mathcal{H}_0(k) + i~ \mathcal{H}_{\rm{NH}}(\gamma), \label{Eq-1}$$ such that $$\mathcal{H}_0(k)= \begin{bmatrix}
\beta \sigma_x & \frac{\alpha}{2}(\sigma_-+ e^{-i k a} \sigma_+)\\
\frac{\alpha}{2}(\sigma_+ + e^{i k a} \sigma_-) & \beta \sigma_x
\end{bmatrix},$$ corresponds to the four-band generalization of Hermitian SSH model with real valued staggered coupling parameters $\beta$ and $\alpha$. When $\beta >\alpha$, the central two bands of $\mathcal{H}_0$ are trivially gapped with no edge state \[Fig. \[Fig-1\](a)\]. Henceforth, the ratio $\beta/\alpha$ is assumed to be greater than one, so that $\mathcal{H}_0$ is always a trivial insulator. In order to investigate the possibility of external control on closing and reopening of the central band gap, and thus inducing a topological phase transition, we introduce non-Hermitian gain into the system characterized by the parameter $\gamma>0$ such that $$\mathcal{H}_{\rm{NH}}(\gamma)=\frac{\gamma}{2}(\sigma_z\otimes\sigma_z+I).$$ Here, $\sigma_{\pm}=\sigma_x\pm i \sigma_y$, $\sigma_{x,y,z}$ are Pauli matrices, $k\in[-\pi/a,\pi/a]$ is the Bloch momentum, and $a$ is the lattice constant. Inclusion of non-Hermiticity, in Eq. , does not violate the inversion symmetry of the system i.e. the Hamiltonian satisfies $\Pi \mathcal{H}(k,\gamma) \Pi^{-1} = \mathcal{H}(-k,\gamma)$ with respect to the inversion operator $\Pi =\sigma_x \otimes \sigma_x$, but breaks time-reversal symmetry i.e. $\mathcal{H}^*(-k,\gamma) \ne \mathcal{H}(k,\gamma)$. In the absence of combined symmetry under parity and time-reversal, the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$ features complex spectrum in general [@Vladimir2016]. The complex band energy eigenvalues of $\mathcal{H}$ are analytically obtained as $$\begin{array}{ll}
\varepsilon_{1,4} = \pm \sqrt{\beta^2 +\alpha^2-\frac{\gamma^2}{4}+ 2\alpha\sqrt{\beta^2 \cos^2\frac{ka}{2}-\frac{\gamma^2}{4}}}+i\frac{\gamma}{2}\\\\
\varepsilon_{2,3} = \pm \sqrt{\beta^2 +\alpha^2-\frac{\gamma^2}{4}- 2\alpha\sqrt{\beta^2 \cos^2\frac{ka}{2}-\frac{\gamma^2}{4}}}+i\frac{\gamma}{2},
\end{array}$$ which are shown in Fig. \[Fig-1\](a) for specific values of $\gamma$, and in Fig. \[Fig-1\](b) when the parameter $\gamma$ was continuously varied near the physically interesting regime. Remarkably, initially opened central band gap is seen to be closed and reopened at $k=0$ when $\gamma$ attains a threshold value at which both the real and imaginary (not shown here) parts of the central two bands coalesce. The threshold value of $\gamma$ leading to such non-Hermitian degeneracy can be predicted from the analytical expression of the energy gap between second and third bands, which is given by $$\Delta\varepsilon (\gamma) = \left|\mbox{Re}\left(\sqrt{4 \beta^2-\gamma^2}\right)-2\alpha\right|
\label{Eq-gap}$$ at $k=0$. This shows that for fixed values of $\beta$ and $\alpha$, the band gap is a function of the gain parameter $\gamma$, and hence can be tuned by changing $\gamma$. Indeed, as shown in Fig. \[Fig-1\](c), $\Delta\varepsilon$ monotonically decreases as $\gamma$ is increased from zero, and eventually vanishes when $\gamma$ attains critical value $\gamma_*~=~2\sqrt{\beta^2-\alpha^2}$. The vanishing of band gap at $(k,\gamma)=(0,\gamma_*)$ is also associated with the exceptional point degeneracy at which two band energies $\varepsilon_{2}$ and $\varepsilon_{3}$ coalesce to a single value equal to $i\gamma_*/2$. For $\gamma_*<\gamma<2\beta$, the band gap increases monotonically and attains a maximum value equal to $2\alpha$ which remains unchanged for $\gamma\ge2\beta$. Note that a cusp like singularity is observed in the vicinity of gap closing point, $\gamma=\gamma_*$, which separates two distinct parameter regimes e.g. $\gamma<\gamma_*$ and $\gamma>\gamma_*$ \[Fig. \[Fig-1\](c)\].
The band gap given in Eq. (\[Eq-gap\]) can also be represented as $\Delta\varepsilon=2|\beta_{\rm{eff}}-\alpha|$ in terms of an effective parameter $$\beta_{\rm{eff}}(\gamma)=\rm{Re}\left(\sqrt{\beta^2-\gamma^2/4}\right).\label{Eq-effective-beta}$$ This effective representation resembles the well know band gap relation in a conventional two-band Hermitian SSH model [@Asboth2016], provided the strong coupling parameter $\beta$ is replaced by the effective one i.e. $\beta_{\rm eff}$. The relation (\[Eq-effective-beta\]) shows that $\beta_{\rm{eff}}$ reduces from its maximum value $\beta$ to a minimum value $0$, when the gain parameter increases from $\gamma=0$ to $\gamma=2\beta$. Whereas the band gap $\Delta\varepsilon$ vanishes when $\beta_{\rm{eff}}=\alpha$ is satisfied at $\gamma=\gamma_*$, and reopens again when $\beta_{\rm{eff}}<\alpha$ i.e. when $\gamma>\gamma_*$. A topological trivial or a nontrivial phase may therefore occurs depending on whether the effective coupling is greater or less than the weak coupling (i.e. $\beta_{\rm{eff}}>\alpha$ or $\beta_{\rm{eff}}<\alpha$), respectively. This, in turn, indicates to the intriguing possibility of triggering topological phase transition enabled by the effective control of one of the coupling parameters.
![Gain-induced topological edge states. (a) Shows the schematic of a non-Hermitian lattice with staggered coupling $\beta$ and $\alpha$. Distributed gain is introduced into the sites shown in red color, whereas empty circles denote sites with zero onsite potential. The unit cell is shown by the dashed rectangle. (b) Real and (c) imaginary parts of the spectrum are shown when gain parameter $\gamma$ is varied (in the units of $\alpha$) across the non-Hermitian degeneracy. The evolution of mid gap states are highlighted in red color. A pair of zero energy edge states emerges for $\gamma >\gamma_* =2.24\alpha$. Unnormalized intensity distribution $|\psi_j|^2$ corresponding to one of the mid gap states, before and after topological phase transition, are shown in the inset of lower panel. Here $4N=80$, $\beta=1.5\alpha$ and $\alpha=1$. []{data-label="Fig-2"}](Fig-2.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
These results are in stark contrast to the parity-time (PT) symmetric generalized two-band SSH model [@Lieu2018], where intrinsic topology of the corresponding Hermitian band remains unaltered by the introduction of onsite gain and loss. The PT-symmetric system usually becomes gapless, when gain/loss parameter exceeds the PT-breaking threshold; closing of bandgap, however, does not destroy the existing edge state. Contrary, in the four-band generalized non-hermitian SSH model, studied here, the energy gap of the system closes and reopens by non-Hermitian symmetry breaking at an exceptional point, which not only allows one to alters the topology of the system but also enables to create new edge states not existing in the Hermitian limit. This hallmark feature is used below to control the non-Hermiticity induced edge states.
Above mentioned non-Hermiticity enabled band-gap closing and re-opening phenomena is one of the signature of topological phase transition. In order to probe such phase transition, here we quantify the topological invariance of the center band gap by the Zak phases (mod $2\pi$) summed over for all occupied bands below the gap [@Xiao2014; @Midya2018a]: $$\varphi(\gamma)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^2 i \int_{-\pi/a}^{\pi/a} u_n(k,-\gamma)^* \frac{d}{dk} u_n(k,\gamma)~dk,$$ where bi-orthogonal scalar product [@Kunst2018; @Lieu2018] has been used. Here $u_n(k,\gamma)$ are the right-eigenvectors of $\mathcal{H}$ associated to the band energies $\varepsilon_n(k)$, and $u_n(k,-\gamma)$ are the corresponding left-eigenvectors of $\mathcal{H}$ which follows from the fact that $\mathcal{H}(k,\gamma)^\dag=\mathcal{H}(k,-\gamma)$. Indeed, numerically computed Zak phase, shown in Fig. \[Fig-1\](c), confirms the existence of two topologically distinct parameter regimes: trivial ($\varphi=0$) when $\gamma~<~\gamma_*$, and nontrivial ($\varphi=\pi$) for $\gamma~>~\gamma_*$. According to bulk-boundary correspondence, therefore, topologically protected localized states can emerge either at the open boundaries of a non-trivial lattice or at the interface between a trivial and a non-trivial lattices. Such possibilities are discussed below.
Gain-induced tunable edge states
================================
A specific realization of the above mentioned Bloch Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$ and the corresponding topology can be achieved by the real space Hamiltonian $H=H_0 + i~ H_{\rm{NH}}$ \[shown in Fig. \[Fig-2\](a)\], such that $$\begin{array}{ll}
H_0=\sum\limits_{n=1}^{N}&\left(\beta |n,1\rangle \langle n,2|+ \alpha |n,2\rangle \langle n,3| + \beta |n,3\rangle \langle n,4|\right.\\
&\left. + \alpha |n,4\rangle \langle n+1,1| + h.c. \right),
\end{array}$$ represents a conventional SSH model with four elements in a unit cell, and $$H_{\rm{NH}}= \gamma \sum\limits_{n=1}^{N} \left(|n,1\rangle \langle n,1|+ |n,4\rangle \langle n,4| \right)$$ represents onsite gain distribution. Here first and second indices in the position basis $\{|n,m\rangle\}$ enumerate unit cells and sites inside a unit cell, respectively. The lattice contains total $4N$ sites, $N$ unit cells and four sites in each of the unit cells. Gain is selectively introduced into the first and fourth lattice sites inside a unit cell such that gain contrast between two nearest-neighbor sites attached to a strong bond is $\gamma$, while that between weak bond is zero. The stationary solution of the corresponding Schrödinger equation $i\frac{\partial |\psi\rangle}{\partial t} = H |\psi\rangle$ can be sought in the form $|\psi\rangle = e^{-i \epsilon t} \sum\limits_{n,m} \psi_{n,m} |n,m\rangle$, such that the amplitudes $\psi_{n,m}$ and energy $\epsilon$ satisfy $$\begin{array}{lll}
\alpha \psi_{n-1,4} + \beta \psi_{n,2} +i \gamma \psi_{n,1} = \epsilon \psi_{n,1} \\
\beta \psi_{n,1} +\alpha \psi_{n,3} = \epsilon \psi_{n,2} \\
\alpha \psi_{n,2} +\beta \psi_{n,4} = \epsilon \psi_{n,3} \\
\beta \psi_{n,3} + \alpha \psi_{n+1,1} + i \gamma \psi_{n,4} = \epsilon \psi_{n,4},
\end{array}$$ where $n=1,2,\cdots, N$. Above set of equations has been solved for a finite number of lattice sites ($4N=80$) after imposing open boundary conditions. Real and imaginary parts of the corresponding discrete spectrum as well as the intensity distribution of the midgap state are shown in Fig. \[Fig-2\](b) and (c) for specific values of $\beta$ and $\alpha$ when $\gamma$ was varied (the site index $(n,m)$ has been reset to $j\equiv4(n-1)+m$ for convenient presentation). As predicted in previous section, two zero-energy degenerate edge states are seen to emerge for $\gamma >\gamma_*$ inside the topologically non-trivial band gap. On the other hand, the band gap is completely empty when $\gamma<\gamma_*$ i.e. the trivial phase. These results are in complete agreement with the bulk-boundary correspondence, which holds here although the system is not Hermitian.
![Spatially tunable edge states. (a) Edge state and corresponding spectrum of a lattice with $(4N+1)=81$ sites without gain in the system. (b) Switching of the edge state location to the left is shown when gain is introduced into the entire lattice. (c) When gain is applied into a part of the lattice, the topological state appears at the interface between two semi lattices, one with and other without gain. The real part of the corresponding spectrum with zero energy mode is shown in the inset of each panels. Here $\beta=1.5\alpha$, $\gamma_*=2.24\alpha$, $\gamma=3\alpha$, and $\alpha=1$. []{data-label="Fig-3"}](Fig-3.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
Few remarks on the gain-induced edge states are in order here. First remark is concerned with the robustness of the edge states against certain disorder. For fixed values of coupling constants $\beta$ and $\alpha$, the edge states created here are robust against random onsite gain disorders of strength $\Delta\gamma_{n,m}~=~\gamma-\gamma_{n,m}$ satisfying $\Delta\gamma_{n,m}\le\Delta\varepsilon$, for $m=1,4$ and $n=1,\cdots, N$. An example of such robustness against onsite non-Hermitian disorder is given in Fig. \[Fig-3\](b). Second remark is related to dynamical stability of the edge states at larger time. Unlike Hermitian edge states which are associated with real spectrum, the spectrum of non-Hermitian edge states is complex \[Fig. \[Fig-2\](b) and (c)\]. Here, the positive imaginary part of the energy is associated with the rate of amplification of the corresponding state. In a multi-state system, the state with largest gain grows rapidly relative to other states and becomes dominant at large times. In the present context, the edge state is not dominating at larger time because some of the bulk states have gain exceeding that of an edge state. This is clear from the imaginary part of the spectrum shown in Fig. [\[Fig-2\](b)]{}, where corresponding gain for the edge states are highlighted in red color. Nevertheless, the gain for an edge state can be made maximum by increasing onsite gain only at the edge of the lattice (this conclusion is verified in numerical simulation). As the bulk remains unaffected, such a gain bias, only at the edge, does not alter the underlying bulk topology. Further details regarding dynamical stability is not studied here.
{width="85.00000%"}
A fascinating feature of our model is that the edge state properties can flexibly be controlled solely by the gain parameter. By altering the gain distribution appropriately it is possible to induce an edge state at an arbitrary location in the lattice. To illustrate this possibility we consider a lattice of $4N+1$ sites, so that the lattice starts with a strong bond at the left and terminates with a weak bond at the right. In this case a single topological zero-energy state appears at the right edge even in the absence of gain \[as shown in the Fig. \[Fig-3\](a)\]. The edge state location can be switched to the left edge by the application of gain whose strength is greater than its threshold value. This situation is shown in Fig. \[Fig-3\](b). In this case, the nature of strong-weak-strong-weak coupling configuration of the Hermitian lattice is altered to effectively weak-strong-weak-strong configuration. As a consequence, a new zero-energy edge state appears at the left edge which starts with an effectively weaker bond. Note that, a random gain disorder $|\Delta\gamma_{n,m}|<0.2\gamma$ is introduced in numerical simulations to test the robustness of the edge state in Fig. \[Fig-3\](b). The edge state can also be created inside the bulk at an interface between two semi-lattices, one with gain and another without gain, as shown in Fig. \[Fig-3\](c). Here the semi-lattice without gain is topologically trivial whereas the one with gain is nontrivial. Edge state, therefore, appears at the interface of two different topological lattices. Thus, contrary to Hermitian topological system, where edge state location is fixed, here edge state can be dynamically controlled by gain tailoring.
Verification of tunable edge states in a microcavity array
==========================================================
Above mentioned theoretical prediction of tunable edge states have been confirmed by simulation in an array of $21$ InGaAsP semiconductor microring cavities placed in alternating distances on a SiO$_2$ (refractive index = 1.44) substrate. The simulation were performed in COMSOL multi-physics using the full-wave finite element method. Geometry of each ring have inner and outer radii of 2.5 $\mu$m and 3 $\mu$m, respectively, and a height of 220 nm. Imaginary part of the complex refractive index $n=n'+i n''$ of InGaAsP was tuned for controlling gain in the system. While the real part $n' =3.4$ is fixed around the wavelength $1508$ nm (which is equal to the resonant wavelength of an isolated cavity), the parameter $n''$ can be activated and changed flexibly in experiments by pumping the cavities either optically or electrically [@Miidya2019]. In order to verify the results presented in Fig. \[Fig-3\], the alternating 150 nm and 240 nm edge-to-edge separations between adjacent rings were set for the strong coupling $\beta=120$ GHz and the weak coupling $\alpha=80$ GHz, respectively. Furthermore, the parameter $n''=0.003$ (or $n''=0$) was considered to achieve required gain $\gamma=3\alpha$ (or $\gamma=0$) in respective cavities. The simulation result is shown in Fig. \[Fig-4\]. In the absence of gain in the entire array, a conventional localized state is observed at the right edge \[Fig. \[Fig-4\](c)\]. When gain is introduced into the system, the edge state shifted either to the left edge \[Fig. \[Fig-4\](d)\] or to the center \[Fig. \[Fig-4\](e)\] of the array, depending on the gain distributions. A gain offset $\Delta \gamma=40$ GHz (corresponding $\Delta n''=5\times10^{-4}$) was added into a randomly selected site in the bulk to verify the robustness of the edge state presented in Fig. \[Fig-4\](d). Finally, the ‘zero energy’ of edge states is verified by the fact that all the three edge supermodes have a wavelength equal to 1508 nm which is identical to the individual cavity resonance in isolation.
To conclude, in this paper a possibility of topological band gap tuning by the introduction of optical gain into a trivially gapped insulator is discussed. Trivial to non-trivial topological phase transition and emergence of topologically protected edge states are shown to occur when the gain parameter exceeds a threshold value at which central two bulk bands coalesce due to a non-Hermitian degeneracy. A notable feature of the model is that by simply changing the gain distribution it is possible to arbitrarily alter the spatial location of the edge state. Theoretical predictions is also confirmed here in a realistic design of InGaAsP microcavity array. The theory of gain-tailored edge state is thus promising for future experiments on active semiconductor materials where gain can be injected by optical illumination or electrical pumping, and offers novel possibilities for functional topological devices, particularly in tunable laser applications where signal can be amplified in desired channels. As a final remark, the theory is equally valid if one replaces gain by dissipation which can be tuned in other physical settings e.g. in acoustics or cold atoms in optical lattice.
[100]{}
X. L. Qi and S. C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83 (2011) 1057.
M.Z. Hasan, and C.L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 3045.
L. Lu, J. D. Joannopoulos and M. Soljacic, Nature Photonics 8 (2014) 821.
T. Ozawa et. al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 91 (2019) 015006.
B. Midya, H. Zhao, and L. Feng, Nature Communications 9 (2018) 2674.
H. Zhao, X. Qiao, T. Wu, B. Midya, S. Longhi, and L. Feng, Science 365 (2019) 1163.
S. Weidemann, M. Kremer, T. Helbig, T. Hofmann, A. Stegmaier, M. Greiter, R. Thomale, A. Szameit, Science 368 (2020) 311.
B. Bahari, A. Ndao, F. Vallini, A. El Amili, Y. Fainman, and B. Kanté, Science 358 (2017) 636.
P. St-Jean, V. Goblot, E. Galopin, A. Lemaitre, T. Ozawa, L. Le Gratiet, I. Sagnes, J. Bloch, and A. Amo, Nat. Photonics 11 (2017) 651.
M. A. Bandres, S. Wittek, G. Harari, M. Parto, J. Ren, M. Segev, D. Christodoulides, and M. Khajavikhan, Science 359 (2018) eaar4005.
H. Zhao, P. Miao, M. H. Teimourpour, S. Malzard, R. El-Ganainy, H. Schomerus and L. Feng, Nature Communications 9 (2018) 981.
M. Parto, S. Wittek et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 113901.
M. Pan, H. Zhao, P. Miao, S. Longhi and L. Feng, Nature Communications 9 (2018) 1308.
S. Weimann, M. Kremer, Y. Plotnik, Y. Lumer, S. Nolte, K. G. Makris, M. Segev, M. C. Rechtsman, and A. Szameit, Nature Materials 16 (2017) 433.
J. M. Zeuner, M. C. Rechtsman, Y. Plotnik, Y. Lumer, S. Nolte, M. S. Rudner, M. Segev, and A. Szameit Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 040402.
L. Jin and Z. Song, Phys. Rev. B 99 (2019) 081103.
K. Esaki, M. Sato, K. Hasebe, and M. Kohmoto, Phys. Rev. B 84 (2011) 205128.
Z. Gong, Y. Ashida, K. Kawabata, K. Takasan, S. Higashikawa, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. X 8 (2018) 031079.
S. Lieu, Phys. Rev. B 97 (2018) 045106.
H. Schomerus, Opt. Lett. 38 (2013) 1912.
C. Poli, M. Bellec, U. Kuhl, F. Mortessagne, and H. Schomerus, Nat. Commun. 6 (2015) 6710.
D. Leykam, K. Y. Bliokh, C. Huang, Y. D. Chong, and F. Nori, Edge Modes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 040401.
C. Yuce, Phys. Rev. A 99 (2019) 032109.
S. Yao and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 086803.
V. M. Martinez Alvarez, J. E. Barrios Vargas, and L. E. F. Foa Torres, Phys. Rev. B 97 (2018) 121401(R).
K. Yokomizo and S. Murakami, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 066404.
C. H. Lee and R. Thomale, Phys. Rev. B 99 (2019) 201103(R).
F. K. Kunst, E. Edvardsson, J. C. Budich, and E. J. Bergholtz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 026808.
K. Takata and M. Notomi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 213902.
S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 237601.
S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 066602.
W. Song, W. Sun, C. Chen, Q. Song, S. Xiao, S. Zhu, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 165701.
C. Yuce, Phys. Rev. A 98 (2018) 012111.
L. Jin, P. Wang and Z. Song, Sci. Rep. 7 (2017) 5903.
H. Gao, H. Xue, Q. Wang, Z. Gu, T. Liu, J. Zhu, and B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 101 (2020) 180303(R).
S. Diehl, E. Rico, M. A. Baranov, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics [**7**]{}, 971 (2011).
J. Li, A. K. Harter, J. Liu, L. de Melo, Y. N. Joglekar, and L. Luo, Nature Commun. [**10**]{}, 855 (2019).
W. P. Su, J. R. Schrieffer, and A. J. Heeger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 (1979) 1698.
J.K. Asbóth, L. Oroszlány, and A. Pályi, A Short Course on Topological Insulators, Lecture Notes in Physics 919 (2016).
J. Zak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 2747.
D. C. Brody, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47 (2014) 035305.
M. A. Miri, and A. Alú, Science 363 (2019) eaar7709.
V. V. Konotop, J. Yang, D. A. Zezyulin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88 (2016) 035002.
M. Xiao, Z. Q. Zhang, and C. T. Chan, Phys. Rev. X 4 (2014) 021017.
B. Midya, and L. Feng, Phys. Rev. A 98 (2018) 043838.
B. Midya, H. Zhao, X. Qiao, P. Miao, W. Walasik, Z. Zhang, N. M. Litchinitser, and L. Feng, Photonics Research 7 (2019) 363.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we consider a multi-cell multi-user MISO broadcast channel. The system operates according to the opportunistic beamforming framework in a multi-cell environment with variable number of transmit beams (may alternatively be referred as the transmission rank) at each base station. The maximum number of co-scheduled users in a cell is equal to its transmission rank, thus increasing it will have the effect of increasing the multiplexing gain. However, this will simultaneously increase the amount of interference in the network, which will decrease the rate of communication. This paper focuses on optimally setting the transmission rank at each base station such that a set of Quality of Service (QoS) constraints, that will ensure a guaranteed minimum rate per beam at each base station, is not violated. Expressions representing the achievable region of transmission ranks are obtained considering different network settings. The achievable transmission rank region consists of all achievable transmission rank tuples that satisfy the QoS constraints. Numerical results are also presented to provide further insights on the feasibility problem.'
author:
-
-
title: Transmission Rank Selection for Opportunistic Beamforming with Quality of Service Constraints
---
Introduction
============
Opportunistic beamforming (OBF) is a well known adaptive signaling scheme that has received a great deal of attention in the literature as it attains the sum-rate capacity with full channel state information (CSI) to a first order for large numbers of mobile users in the network, while operating on partial CSI feedback from the users. In this paper, we consider a cellular network which operates according to the OBF framework in a multi-cell environment with variable number of transmit beams at each BS. The number of transmit beams is also referred to as the transmission rank (TR) in the paper, and we focus on optimally setting the transmission rank at each BS in the network.
The earliest work of OBF appeared in the landmark paper [@Tse2002], where the authors have introduced a single-beam OBF scheme for the single-cell multiple-input single-output (MISO) broadcast channel. The concept was extended to $N_t$ random orthogonal beams in [@Hassibi2005], where $N_t$ is the number of transmit antennas. The downlink sum-rate of this scheme scales as $N_t\log\log(K)$, where $K$ is the number of users in the system [@Hassibi2005]. Recently, the authors in [@vtc2013] have considered using variable TRs at the BS, and they have showed that the downlink sum-rate scales as $\frac{L}{L-1}\log(K)$ in interference-limited networks, where $L$ is the TR employed by the BS. The gains of adapting variable TR compared to a fixed one is clearly demonstrated in [@vtc2013], however, how to select the TR for OBF is still an open question which has only been characterized in the asymptotic sense for the single-cell system in [@Wagner2006]-[@Vicario2008], and a two-transmit antenna single-cell system in [@Rocky2013].
In all of the above works, the users are assumed to be homogeneous with the large-scale fading gain (alternatively referred to as the path loss in this paper) equal to unity. OBF in heterogenous networks has been considered in [@Huang2012]-[@ausctw2014]. In [@Huang2012], the authors focused on the fairness of the network and obtained an expression for the ergodic capacity of this fair network. In [@Tharaka2013], the authors modeled the user locations using a spatial Poisson point process, and studied the outage capacity of the system. In [@ausctw2014], the authors considered an interference-limited network and derived the ergodic downlink sum-rate scaling law of this interference-limited network. The TRs in [@Huang2012]-[@ausctw2014] are considered to be fixed.
In this paper, we are interested in the Quality of Service (QoS) delivered to the users. More precisely, we focus on a set of QoS constraints that will ensure a guaranteed minimum rate per beam with a certain probability at each BS. Previous studies have shown that user’s satisfaction is a non-decreasing, concave function of the service rate [@Enderle2003]; this suggests that the user’s satisfaction is insignificantly increased by a service rate higher than what the user demands, but drastically decreased if the provided rate is below the requirement [@Zorba2008]. The network operator can promise a certain level of QoS to a subscribed user. To this end, the QoS is closely related to the TR of the BS. Increasing the TR will increase the number of co-scheduled users. However, increasing the TR will also increase interference levels in the network, which will decrease the rate of communication per beam. A practical question arises; what is a suitable TR to employ at each BS while achieving a certain level of QoS in multi-cell heterogeneous networks? The authors in [@Zorba2007] have performed a preliminary study of this problem for a single-cell system consisting of homogeneous users with identical path loss values of unity.
The main contributions of this paper are summarized as follows. We focus on finding the achievable TRs without violating the above mentioned set of QoS constraints. This can be formulated into a feasibility problem. For some specific cases, we derive analytical expressions of the achievable TR region, and for the more general cases, we derive expressions that can be easily used to find the achievable TR region. The achievable TR region consists of all the achievable TR tuples that satisfy the QoS constraints. Numerical results are presented for a two-cells scenario to provide further insights on the feasibility problem; our results show that the achievable TR region expands when the QoS constraints are relaxed, the SNR and the number of users in a cell are increased, and the size of the cells are decreased.
System Model {#sec:sys_model}
============
We consider a multi-cell multi-user MISO broadcast channel. The system consists of $M$ BSs (or cells), each equipped with $N_t$ transmit antennas. Each cell consists of $K$ users, each equipped with a single receive antenna. A BS will only communicate with users in its own cell. Let $\mathbf{h}_{j,i,k}$ denote the channel gain vector between BS $j$ and user $k$ in cell $i$. The elements in $\mathbf{h}_{j,i,k}$ are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables, each of which is drawn from a zero mean and unit variance [*circularly-symmetric complex Gaussian*]{} distribution $\mathcal{CN}(0,1)$. The large-scale fading gain (may alternatively referred to as path loss in this paper) between BS $j$ and user $k$ in cell $i$ is denoted by $g_{j,i,k}$. The path loss (PL) values of all the users are governed by the PL model $G(d)=d^{-\alpha}$ for $\alpha>2$, where $d$ represents the distance between the user and the BS of interest. Therefore, the random PL values are also i.i.d. among the users, where the randomness stems from the fact that users’ locations are random. Moreover, we assume a quasi-static block fading model over time [@tse_book].
The BSs operate according to the OBF scheduling and transmission scheme as follows. The BSs will first pre-determine the number of beams to be transmitted. BS $i$ generates $L_i$ random orthogonal beamforming vectors and transmits $L_i$ different symbols along the direction of these beams ($L_i$ is the TR employed by BS $i$). This process is simultaneously carried out at all BSs. For BS $i$, let $\mathbf{w}_{i,m}$ and ${s}_{i,m}$ denote the beamforming vector and the transmitted symbol on beam $m$, respectively. The received signal at user $k$ in cell $i$ can be written as
where ${n}_{i,k} \sim \mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma_n^2)$ is the additive complex Gaussian noise. We assume that $\mathbf{E}[|{s}_{i,k}|^2] = \rho_i$, where $\rho_i = P_t/L_i$ is a scaling parameter to satisfy the total power constraint $P_t$ at each BS. For conciseness, we assume $P_t=1$. Each user will measure the SINR values on the beams from its associated BS, and feed them back. For the beam generated using $\mathbf{w}_{i,m}$, the received SINR at user $k$ located in cell $i$ is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SINR_expression}
S_{i,k,m} &= \left[g_{i,i,k}|\mathbf{h}_{i,i,k}^\top \mathbf{w}_{i,m}|^2\right] \left\{\sigma_n^2 L_i + g_{i,i,k} \sum_{\substack{l\neq m \\ l=1}}^{L_i} |\mathbf{h}_{i,i,k}^\top \mathbf{w}_{i,l}|^2 \right. \nonumber \\ & \hspace{1.5cm} \left.
+ \sum_{j \neq i}^M g_{j,i,k} \frac{L_i}{L_j} \sum_{\substack{t=1}}^{L_j} |\mathbf{h}_{j,i,k}^\top \mathbf{w}_{j,t}|^2 \right\}^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$]{}
Once the BSs have received the feedback from the users, each BS will select a set of users for communication by assigning each beam to the in-cell user having the highest SINR on it[^1], *i.e.*, the user with SINR value $S^\star_{i,m} = \max_{1\leq k\leq K} S_{i,k,m}$. For cell $i$, let $F_{L_i}^k$ and $F^\star_{L_i}$ denote the distributions of the SINR on a beam at user $k$ and the maximum SINR on a beam, respectively. Since the maximum number of co-scheduled users in cell $i$ is equal to $L_i$, increasing $L_i$ will have the effect of increasing the number of co-scheduled users. However, increasing $L_i$ will also increase the amount of intra-cell and inter-cell interference, which will decrease the rate of communication per beam. Therefore, we focus on finding an achievable $(L_1,\ldots,L_M)$ TR M-tuple with a set of QoS constraints at all the BSs that will ensure a guaranteed minimum rate per beam with a certain probability. To this end, we consider that an outage probability of $p$ can be tolerated at each BS, where the outage event refers to the received SINR of the scheduled user on a beam being below a target SINR threshold value $\eta$, *i.e.*, $\Pr\{ S^\star_{i,m} \leq \eta \} \leq p \Rightarrow F^\star_{L_i}(\eta)\leq p$ for all $i$. There is also a natural constraint on $L_i$ due to the orthogonality requirement among the beams, *i.e.*, $L_i \leq N_t$ for all $i$. We focus on finding the achievable $L_i$s such that these constraints are not violated. This is a non-trivial problem for the system of interest due to the presence of intra-cell and inter-cell interferences, and the SINR values on a beam being not identically distributed among the users due to their different locations. We note that there is an implicit constraint that $L_i$ must be an integer. For the analysis, we will relax the integer constraint and assume that $N_t$ is sufficiently large such that the constraints $0 \leq L_i \leq N_t$ is always satisfied for all $i$. Denote $(\tilde{L}_1,\ldots,\tilde{L}_M)$ as an achievable TR M-tuple with the relaxed constraints; the corresponding achievable $(L_1,\ldots,L_M)$ M-tuple is given by $L_{i} = \min(N_t, \lfloor \tilde{L}_{i}\rfloor)$ for all $i$, where $\lfloor.\rfloor$ represents the floor function. Since the SINR on a beam is a strictly decreasing function of the TR, we have the following property; given an achievable M-tuple $(\hat{L}_1,\ldots,\hat{L}_M)$, another M-tuple $(\bar{L}_1,\ldots,\bar{L}_M)$ is achievable if $\bar{L}_i \leq \hat{L}_i$ for all $i=1,\ldots,M$. In the remaining parts of the paper, we will focus on finding the achievable TRs and the achievable TR region, where the achievable TR region is defined to consist all the achievable $(\tilde{L}_1,\ldots,\tilde{L}_M)$ M-tuples. We will call the constraints on $F^\star_{L_i}(\eta)$ the QoS constraints.
Analysis for a Single Cell Scenario {#sec:L}
===================================
We will start our analysis with a simple single-cell scenario. We drop the cell index $i$ for brevity. For a single cell, the SINR expression in (\[eq:SINR\_expression\]) reduces to [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SINR_expression_single_cell}
S_{k,m} = \frac{g_k |\mathbf{h}_k^\top \mathbf{w}_m|^2}{\sigma_n^2 L+ g_k \sum_{\substack{l\neq m \\ l=1}}^{L} |\mathbf{h}_k^\top \mathbf{w}_l|^2}.\end{aligned}$$]{}For a given PL value $g_k$, by using techniques similar to those used in [@Hassibi2005], it is not hard to show that $F_{L}^k$ is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
F^k_{L}(x|g_k) = 1 - \frac{\exp\left(-x\sigma_n^2 L/g_k\right)}{(x+1)^{L-1}}.\end{aligned}$$]{} Therefore, by conditioning on $\mathbf{g}=\{g_1,\ldots,g_K\}$, the CDF of $S_{m}^\star$ is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cdf_sc_noniid}
F_{L}^{\star}(x|\mathbf{g})= \prod_{k=1}^K \left[1 - \frac{\exp\left(-x\sigma_n^2 L/g_k\right)}{(x+1)^{L-1}}\right].\end{aligned}$$]{}
Homogeneous Users with Identical PL Values
------------------------------------------
First we consider the simplest case where the user’s are located equidistant to the BS, *i.e.*, the user’s PL values are identical and deterministic, and given by $g_1 = \ldots = g_K = g$. For this simplest case, a closed-form expression for the achievable TR can be obtained, and it is formally presented through the following theorem.
\[thm:single\_homo\_iid\] For the system in consideration with $M=1$ and $g_1=\ldots=g_K=g$, the achievable TRs are given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:feasible_soln_iid2}
\tilde{L} \leq \frac{\log(1+\eta) - \log(1-p^{1/K})}{\eta\sigma_n^2/g + \log(1+\eta)},\end{aligned}$$]{}where $\eta$ is the target SINR threshold value.
With equal PL values $g_1 = \ldots = g_K = g$, the QoS constraint is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\left[1 - \frac{\exp\left(-\eta\sigma_n^2 L/g\right)}{(\eta+1)^{L-1}} \right]^K \leq p.\end{aligned}$$]{}Solving for $L$ completes the proof.
Setting $g=1$ makes the result in Theorem \[thm:single\_homo\_iid\] consistent with [@Zorba2007].
Heterogeneous Users with Random PL Values
-----------------------------------------
Now, we will consider the users to be heterogenous as in Section \[sec:sys\_model\]. We model the cell as a disk with radius $D$. Given the non-identical PL values, $F_L^{\star}$ is given by (\[eq:cdf\_sc\_noniid\]) for this setup, and the QoS constraint can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:single_cell_convexity}
\prod_{k=1}^{K} \left[1 - \frac{\exp(-(\eta\sigma_n^2/g_k)L)}{(\eta+1)^{L-1}} \right] \leq p.\end{aligned}$$ Since the user locations are random in our setup, removing the conditioning of $F_L^\star$ by averaging over the PL values gives us the QoS constraint of interest. This idea is formally presented in the following lemma.
\[lem:unbounded\_path\_model\] For the system in consideration with $M=1$ and the random PL values governed by the PL model $G(d)=d^{-\alpha}$ for $\alpha>2$, the QoS constraint is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:qos_constraint_unbounded_pathloss_model}
\left[1 - \frac{2\gamma(\frac{2}{\alpha}, \eta \sigma_n^2L D^\alpha)}{\alpha D^2 (\eta+1)^{L-1} (\eta \sigma_n^2L)^{2/\alpha}} \right]^K \leq p,\end{aligned}$$]{}where $\eta$ is the target SINR threshold value and $\gamma(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the lower incomplete gamma function.
Since the users are located uniformly over the plane, the CDF of the distance from the user to its associated BS is given by $\Phi_D(d)=(d/D)^2$. Let $\Phi_G(g)$ denote the CDF of the PL value, which is given by $\Phi_G(g) = 1 - \frac{g^{-2/\alpha}}{D^2}$. Since the PL values are i.i.d. among the users, we have [$$\begin{aligned}
F_{L}^{\star}(x) &= \int_{g_1=G(D)}^{G(0)} \cdots \int_{g_K=G(D)}^{G(0)} \prod_{k=1}^K F^k_{L}(x|g_k) d\Phi_G(g_1) \ldots d\Phi_G(g_K)\\
&=\left[\int_{G(D)}^{G(0)} F_{L}(x|g) d\Phi_G(g)\right]^K.\end{aligned}$$]{}Substituting for the CDFs and setting $t = g^{-2/\alpha}$ gives us [$$\begin{aligned}
F_{L}^{\star}(\eta) = \left[1 - \frac{1}{D^2 (\eta+1)^{L-1}} \int_{0}^{D^2} \exp\left(-\eta\sigma_n^2L t^{\alpha/2}\right) dt \right]^K.\end{aligned}$$]{}Evaluating the integral completes the proof [@table_of_integral].
The achievable TR region consists of all the achievable $\tilde{L}$s that satisfy (\[eq:qos\_constraint\_unbounded\_pathloss\_model\]). Next, we will focus on the general multi-cell scenario.
Analysis for the Multi-Cell Scenario {#sec:L2}
====================================
Similar to what we have done in the previous section, we will start the analysis by obtaining an expression for the conditional distribution of the SINR on a beam at a user. This result is formally presented in the following lemma.
\[lem:sinr\_cdf\] Consider user $k$ in cell $i$. Given the PL values from all the BSs to user $k$, [*i.e.*]{}, given $\mathbf{g}_{i,k} = \{g_{1,i,k},\ldots,g_{M,i,k}\}$, the conditional distribution of the SINR on a beam is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
F^k_{L_i}(x|\mathbf{g}_{i,k}) = 1 - \frac{\exp\left(-\frac{x{\sigma}_n^2 L_i}{g_{i,i,k}}\right)} {(x+1)^{L_i-1}\prod_{\substack{j\neq i \\ j=1}}^{M} \left(x \frac{g_{j,i,k}}{g_{i,i,k}} \frac{L_i}{L_j} +1 \right)^{L_j}}. \label{eq:sinr_distribution}\end{aligned}$$]{}
The conditional distribution of the SINR can be obtained using a result in [@Boyd2002], which is summarized as follows. Suppose $Z_i$, $i=1,\ldots,n$ are independent exponentially distributed random variables (RVs) with parameters $\lambda_i$. Then [$$\begin{aligned}
\Pr\left(Z_1 \leq c+\sum_{i=2}^{n} Z_i \right) = 1 - \exp(-\lambda_1 c)\prod_{i=2}^{n} \left(\frac{1}{1+\frac{\lambda_1}{\lambda_i}} \right),\end{aligned}$$]{} where $c$ is a constant. Given all the PL values $\mathbf{g}_{i,k}$, $F_{L_i}^k$ can be re-written as [$$\begin{aligned}
F_{L_i}^k(x|\mathbf{g}_{i,k}) &= \Pr \left\{S_{i,k,m} \leq x |\mathbf{g}_{i,k} \right\} \\
&= \Pr \left\{Z_{i,m} \leq c + \sum_{l\neq m}^{L_i} A_{i,l} + \sum_{j\neq i}^{M} \sum_{t=1}^{L_j} B_{j,t} \right\}, \end{aligned}$$]{}where $c= x \sigma_n^2 L_i/g_{i,i,k}$ is a constant, and $Z_{i,m}, A_{i,l}$ and $B_{j,t}$ are independent exponentially distributed RVs with parameters $1, \frac{1}{x}$ and $\frac{g_{i,i,k}L_j}{x g_{j,i,k}L_i}$, respectively. Therefore, directly using the result in [@Boyd2002] completes the proof.
Using the above lemma, given all PL values, the conditional CDF of the maximum SINR on a beam can be written as [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cdf_mc_noniid}
F_{L_i}^\star (x|\mathbf{g}_{1,i},\ldots,\mathbf{g}_{K,i}) = \prod_{k=1}^{K} F_{L_i}^k(x|\mathbf{g}_{i,k}).\end{aligned}$$]{}Next, we will use this expression to find the achievable TR region considering different scenarios, similar to what we have done in Section \[sec:L\]. For the clarity of presentation and the ease of explanation, we present the analysis for the two-cells scenario; the analysis of the $M$-cells scenario can be easily extended using the same techniques.
The Wyner Model
---------------
First we consider the classical Wyner model [@Wyner_model] for the two-cells scenario. The users’ PL values are deterministic as follows; the PL value between all the users to their associated BS is unity, and the PL value between all the users to the interfering BS is $g$. For this setup, the QoS constraint for cell one is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:QoS_mc_IID_Unequal}
\left[1 - \frac{\exp\left(-\eta \sigma_n^2 L_1\right)}{(\eta +1)^{L_1-1} \left(\frac{L_1}{L_2}g\eta +1 \right)^{L_2}}\right]^K \leq p,\end{aligned}$$]{}where $\eta$ is the target SINR threshold. The QoS constraint for cell two can be easily obtained by interchanging $1$ and $2$ in the indices. Analytical expressions that characterize the achievable TR region for this setup are formally presented through the following theorem.
\[thm:wyner\_model\] For the Wyner model, given a fixed $L_2$, the achievable TRs for cell one is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:wyner_model_closed_form_soln}
\tilde{L}_1 \leq -\frac{1}{c}+\frac{b}{a} \mathcal{W} \left(\frac{a}{bc}+\frac{d}{b} \right),\end{aligned}$$]{}where $\mathcal{W}$ is the Lambert-W function given by the defining equation $\mathcal{W}(x)\exp(\mathcal{W}(x))=x$, $a=\eta \sigma_n^2+\log(1+\eta)$, $b=L_2$, $c = g \eta/L_2$, $d = \log(1+\eta)-\log(1-p^{1/K})$, and $\eta$ is the target SINR threshold.
With some simple manipulations, we can re-write the QoS constraint in (\[eq:QoS\_mc\_IID\_Unequal\]) [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:two_cell_simplified_closed_form_qos}
aL_1 + b\log(1+cL_1) \leq d.\end{aligned}$$]{}The following chain of inequalities holds which completes the proof. [$$\begin{aligned}
& aL_1 + b \log(1+cL_1) \leq d \\
&\Rightarrow \frac{aL_1}{b} + \log(1+cL_1) + \frac{a}{bc} \leq \frac{d}{b} + \frac{a}{bc} \\
&\Rightarrow \exp\left(\frac{aL_1}{b}+\frac{a}{bc}\right) \left(\frac{aL_1}{b}+\frac{a}{bc}\right) \leq \frac{a}{bc}\exp\left(\frac{d}{b}+\frac{a}{bc}\right) \\
&\Rightarrow L_1 \leq -\frac{1}{c} + \frac{b}{a}\mathcal{W}\left(\frac{a}{bc}+\frac{d}{b}\right).\end{aligned}$$]{}
Given a fixed $L_1$, the achievable TRs for cell two can be easily obtained by interchanging $1$ and $2$ in the indices. The achievable TR region consists of all the achievable $(\tilde{L}_1,\tilde{L}_2)$ tuples. When $L_1 = L_2 = L$, the result in Theorem \[thm:wyner\_model\] can be further simplified, and the result is presented in the following corollary.
\[cor:Wyner\_model\] For the Wyner model, if $L_1 = L_2 = L$, the achievable TRs are given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:feasible_soln_iid1}
\tilde{L} \leq \frac{\log(1+\eta) - \log(1-p^{1/K})}{\eta\sigma_n^2 + \log(1+\eta) + \log(1+g\eta)}.\end{aligned}$$]{}
Next, we consider the users to be heterogeneous as in Section \[sec:sys\_model\].
Heterogeneous Users with Random PL Values
-----------------------------------------
For this scenario, if all the path loss values are given, the QoS constraint for cell one can be written using as [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:noniid_constraint}
\prod_{k=1}^{K} \left[1 - \frac{\exp\left(-\eta\sigma_n^2 L_1/g_{1,1,k}\right)}{(\eta+1)^{L_1-1} \left(\frac{L_1}{L_2} \frac{g_{2,1,k}}{g_{1,1,k}} \eta +1 \right)^{L_2}}\right] \leq p.\end{aligned}$$]{}The QoS constraint for cell two can be easily obtained by interchanging $1$ and $2$ in the indices. Since the user locations are random, we need to remove the conditioning on $F_{L_i}^\star$ by averaging over the PL values. With multiple BSs, the PL values between the user and each BS are correlated. Hence, it is difficult to average over the PL values directly as in the single cell case because it is difficult to obtain the CDF of the path loss value. Nonetheless, since the PL values are directly related to the distance between the user and each of the BSs, we can perform a change of variables by writing each PL as a function of the user and BS locations, and then average over the location process by making use of the fact that the users are located uniformly over the plane.
For the purpose of illustrating the idea, consider a user $k$ in cell one and let $(x_{1,k},y_{1,k})$ denote its exact location coordinate on the two dimensional plane. For convenience, we assume that a user is always connected to the closest BS geographically, *i.e.*, the two cells are arranged in a rectangular grid on the two dimensional plane. Hence $x_{1,k}$ and $y_{1,k}$ are independent and uniformly distributed within the cell for all $k$. Let $(X_i,0)$ denote the location coordinate of BS $i$. Figure \[fig:two\_cell\_model\] illustrates the setup.
![Two Cells Model[]{data-label="fig:two_cell_model"}](two_cells_model.pdf){width="3.2in"}
The distance from the user to BS one and two is therefore $d_{1,1,k}=\sqrt{(x_{1,k}-X_1)^2+(y_{1,k})^2}$ and $d_{2,1,k}=\sqrt{(x_{1,k}-X_2)^2+(y_{1,k})^2}$, respectively. Thus the PL values are given by $g_{1,1,k} =d_{1,1,k}^{-\alpha}$ and $g_{2,1,k}=d_{2,1,k}^{-\alpha}$, respectively. The following lemma presents the QoS constraints for a two-cells scenario consisting of heterogeneous users with random PL values.
\[lem:multi\_cell\_hetero\] For the system in consideration with BS $i$ being located at $(X_i,0)$, given a fixed $L_2$, the QoS constraint of cell one is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:QoS_multi_cell_last}
\frac{\Omega_{L_1}(\eta)}{\mathcal{A}_1 (\eta+1)^{L_1-1}} \geq 1-p^{1/K}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\eta$ is the target SINR, $\mathcal{A}_1$ is the area of cell one, and $\Omega_{L_1}(\eta)$ is defined by the following integral [$$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{L_1}(\eta) = \int_{y} \int_{x} \frac{\exp\left(-\eta\sigma_n^2 L_1[(x-X_1)^2+y^2]^{\alpha/2}\right)}{\left[ \left(\frac{(x-X_1)^2+y^2}{(x-X_2)^2+y^2}\right)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} \frac{L_1}{L_2}\eta+1\right]^{L_2}} dx dy,\end{aligned}$$]{}and the integration is over the area of cell one.
First we substitute $g_{1,1,k}$ and $g_{2,1,k}$ to (\[eq:sinr\_distribution\]) to get $F^k_{L_1}$. Given a user’s location coordinate $(x_{1,k},y_{1,k})$, $F^k_{L_1}$ is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
&F^k_{L_1}(s|x_{1,k},y_{1,k}) = 1 - \exp\left(-\frac{s\sigma_n^2 L_1}{[(x_{1,k}-X_1)^2+(y_{1,k})^2]^{-\alpha/2}} \right) \\ & \left[(s+1)^{L_1-1} \left( \left(\frac{(x_{1,k}-X_1)^2+(y_{1,k})^2}{(x_{1,k}-X_2)^2+(y_{1,k})^2}\right)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} \frac{L_1}{L_2}s+1\right)^{L_2}\right]^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$]{}Averaging (\[eq:cdf\_mc\_noniid\]) over cell one gives us [$$\begin{gathered}
F_{L_1}^\star(\eta) = \int_{x_{1,K}} \int_{y_{1,K}} \cdots \int_{x_{1,1}} \int_{y_{1,1}} \prod_{k=1}^{K} F_{L_1}^k(\eta|x_{1,k},y_{1,k}) \\ f(x_{1,k},y_{1,k}) dx_{1,k} dy_{1,k}, \nonumber\end{gathered}$$]{}where $f(x_{1,k},y_{1,k}) = f(x_{1,k})f(y_{1,k}) = \frac{1}{\mathcal{A}_1}$ is the joint PDF of $x_{1,k}$ and $y_{1,k}$. Since the location coordinates are i.i.d. among the users, we have [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mc_ub_given_K}
F_{L_1}^\star(\eta)&=\left[ \int_{y} \int_{x} F^k_{L_1}(\eta|x,y) f(x,y) dx dy \right]^K.\end{aligned}$$]{}Substituting for $F^k_{L_1}(\eta|x,y)$ completes the proof.
Given a fixed $L_1$, the QoS constraint for cell two can be easily obtained by interchanging $1$ and $2$ in the indices. The achievable TR region is given by all the $(\tilde{L}_1,\tilde{L}_2)$ tuples that satisfy the QoS constraints for both cells.
Numerical Results {#sec:results}
=================
In this section, we present our numerical results for the single cell and two-cell scenarios. In all the simulations, the cell is modeled as a disk with radius $D$ for the single cell scenario, and each cell is modeled as a square with cell area $\mathcal{A}_1=\mathcal{A}_2=(2D)^2$ for the two-cell scenario.
In Figures \[fig:region\_homo1\]-\[fig:region\_hetero\], we show the achievable TR regions for the two-cells scenario. Figures \[fig:region\_homo1\] and \[fig:region\_homo2\] show the achievable TR regions for the Wyner model with $g=0.1$ and $g=1$, respectively. The dotted line connecting the origin and the corner point in each region represents the achievable TR set given in Corollary \[cor:Wyner\_model\]. Figure \[fig:region\_hetero\] shows the achievable TR regions for heterogeneous users, using the result of Lemma \[lem:multi\_cell\_hetero\]. For a given ${L}_1$, any ${L}_2$ below the boundary can be achieved, whereas any ${L}_2$ above the boundary will violate the QoS constraints. Moreover, if the system wants to maximize the multiplexing gain at each BS, operating at $(L_1,L_2)$ strictly below the boundary is sub-optimal in a sense that we can further increase the TRs without violating the QoS constraints. Therefore, the boundary curve can be considered as the Pareto optimal boundary between the achievable and un-achievable TR pairs. As can be observed from the figures, TR region expands when the QoS constraints are relaxed, *i.e.*, $p$ is increased and/or $\eta$ is decreased. Relaxing the QoS constraints allows more interference in the network, thus expanding the achievable TR Region. Moreover, the achievable TR region also expands when $K$ is increased. The achievable rate on a beam increases due to multi-user diversity, therefore, more beams/interference can be tolerated without violating the constraints. The achievable TR region will also change with $D$ and $\sigma_n^2$ and will be discussed further in Figures \[fig:vsK\]-\[fig:vsSNR\].
![Achievable TR Region for the Two-Cells Scenario with Wyner Model, $D=2, \sigma_n^2=0.01, g=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:region_homo1"}](region_homo1.pdf){width="2.7in"}
![Achievable TR Region for the Two-Cells Scenario with Wyner Model, $D=2, \sigma_n^2=0.01, g=1$.[]{data-label="fig:region_homo2"}](region_homo2.pdf){width="2.7in"}
![Achievable TR Region for the Two-Cells Scenario with Heterogeneous Users, $D=2, \alpha=3, \sigma_n^2=0.01$. []{data-label="fig:region_hetero"}](region_hetero.pdf){width="2.7in"}
Let $\tilde{L}^*$ denote the maximum achievable TR with the relaxed constraints on $L$. Figure \[fig:vsK\] shows $\tilde{L}^*$ vs. $K$, for the single-cell scenario and two-cells scenario with equal TRs. As can be observed from the figure, for a fixed $K$, $\tilde{L}^*$ decreases as the cell size increases. This is because the users are uniformly located in the cell and as the cell size increases, the users’ locations will be more spread out. As a consequence, the SINR on each beam will decrease and we must compensate this by decreasing the TR (to decrease the interferences). Figure \[fig:vsSNR\] shows $\tilde{L}^*$ vs. SNR for fixed number of users, where SNR is defined as $\frac{1}{\sigma_n^2}$. As can be observed from the figure, $\tilde{L}^*$ increases with SNR. Intuitively, when $\sigma_n^2$ decreases, we can increase the TR (effectively introduces additional interferences) while still satisfying the QoS constraints. Therefore, the achievable TR region will expand with decreased cell size or increased SNR. Finally, $\tilde{L}^*$ decreases as $M$, the number of cells, increases. This is because the SINR on each beam decreases with $M$.
![Maximum Achievable TR vs. $K$ for Single Cell and Two-Cell Scenarios with $p=0.1, \eta=4, \alpha=3$.[]{data-label="fig:vsK"}](vs_K.pdf){width="3in"}
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
In this paper, we considered a multi-cell multi-user MISO broadcast channel. Each cell employs the OBF scheme with variable TRs. We focused on finding the achievable TRs for the BSs to employ with a set of QoS constraints that ensures a guaranteed minimum rate per beam with a certain probability at each BS. We formulated this into a feasibility problem for the single-cell and multi-cell scenarios consisting of homogeneous users and heterogeneous users. Analytical expressions of the achievable TRs were derived for systems consisting of homogeneous users and for systems consisting of heterogeneous users, expressions were derived which can be easily used to find the achievable TRs. An achievable TR region was obtained, which consists of all the achievable TR tuples for all the cells to satisfy the QoS constraints. Numerical results showed that the achievable TR region expands when the QoS constraints are relaxed, the SNR and the number of users in a cell are increased, and the size of the cells are decreased.
![Maximum Achievable TR vs. SNR for Single Cell and Two-Cell Scenarios with $p=0.1, \eta=4, \alpha=3$.[]{data-label="fig:vsSNR"}](vs_SNR.pdf){width="3in"}
[99]{} P. Viswanath, D. N. C. Tse and R. Laroia, “Opportunistic beamforming using dumb antennas,” *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1277-1294, Jun. 2002. M. Sharif and B. Hassibi, “On the capacity of MIMO broadcast channels with partial side information,” *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 506-522, Feb. 2005. M. Wang, F. Li and J. S. Evans, “Opportunistic beamforming with precoder diversity in Multi-user MIMO systems,” in *Proc. IEEE Vehicular Technol. Conf., Dresden, Germany*, Jun. 2-5, 2013.
J. Wagner, Y.-C. Liang and R. Zhang, “Random beamforming with systematic beam selection,” in *Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Commun., Helsinki, Finland*, pp. 1-5, Sept. 11-14, 2006. J. L. Vicario *et al.*, “Beam selection strategies for orthogonal random beamforming in sparse networks,” *IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 3385-3396, Sept. 2008. J. Liang *et al.*, “Transmission mode selection in a heterogeneous network using opportunistic beamforming,” in Proc. *IEEE Global Commun. Conf., Atlanta, GA*, Dec. 9-13, 2013. Y. Huang and B. Rao, “Performance analysis of random beamforming with heterogeneous users,” in *Proc. Annual Conf. on Inf. Sciences and Systems, Princeton, NJ*, pp. 1-5, Mar. 21-23, 2012. T. Samarasinghe, H. Inaltekin and J. S. Evans, “Outage capacity of opportunistic beamforming with random user locations,” in *Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf., Atlanta, GA*, Dec. 9-13, 2013. M. Wang, T. Samarasinghe and J. S. Evans, “Multi-cell opportunistic beamforming in interference-limited networks,” in *Proc. Australian Commun. Theory Workshop, Sydney, Australia*, Feb. 3-5, 2014.
N. Enderlé and X. Lagrange, “User satisfaction models and scheduling algorithms for packet-switched services in UMTS,” in *Proc. IEEE Vehicular Technol. Conf., Jeju, Korea*, pp. 1704-1709, Apr. 22-25, 2003. N. Zorba and A. I. Pérez-Niera, “Robust power allocation scheme for multibeam opportunistic transmission strategies under quality of service constraints,” *IEEE J. on Sel. Areas Commun.*, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1025-1034, Aug. 2008. N. Zorba and A. I. Pérez-Neira, “Optimum number of beams in multiuser opportunistic scheme under QoS constraints,” in *Proc. IEEE Workshop on Smart Antennas, Vienna, Austria*, Feb. 26-27, 2007. D. N. C. Tse and P. Viswanath, *Fundamentals of Wireless Communications*. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005. T. Samarasinghe, H. Inaltekin and J. S. Evans, “The feedback-capacity tradeoff for opportunistic beamforming under optimal user selection,” *Performance Evaluation*, vol. 70, issues 7-8, pp. 472-492, Jul. 2013. Y. Huang and B. Rao, “Multicell random beamforming with CDF-based scheduling: exact rate and scaling laws,” in *Proc. IEEE Vehicular Technol. Conf., Las Vegas, NV*, Sept. 2-5, 2013. I. Gradshteyn and I. Ryzhik, *Table of Integrals, Series, and Products Seventh Edition.* Academic Press, 2007. S. Kandukuri and S. Boyd, “Optimal power control in interference-limited fading wireless channels with outage-probability specifications,” *IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*, vol. 1, p. 4655, Jan. 2002. A. D. Wyner, “Shannon-theoretic approach to a Gaussian cellular multiple-access channel,” *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1713-1727, Nov. 1994.
[^1]: In this paper, we focus on rate maximization in the network. Interested readers are referred to [@Tse2002], [@Rocky2013], [@TharakaPE] and [@Huang2013] for techniques that can be used to achieve fairness in such a network.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Bardeen’s transfer-hamiltonian method is applied to magnetic tunnel junctions having a general degree of atomic disorder. The results reveal a close relationship between magneto-conduction and voltage-driven pseudo-torque, and also provide a means of predicting the thickness dependence of tunnel-polarization factors. Among the results: 1) The torque generally varies with moment direction as $\sin\theta$ at constant applied voltage. 2) Whenever polarization factors are well defined, the voltage-driven torque on each moment is uniquely proportional to the polarization factor of the other magnet. 3) At finite applied voltage, this relation implies significant voltage-asymmetry in the torque. For one sign of voltage the torque remains substantial even if the magnetoconductance is greatly diminished. 4) A broadly defined junction model, called *ideal middle*, allows for atomic disorder within the magnets and F/I interface regions. In this model, the spin- ($\sigma$) dependence of a basis-state weighting factor proportional to the sum over general state index $p$ of $(\smallint\smallint dydz\Psi_{p,\sigma})^{2}$ evaluated within the (e.g. vacuum) barrier generalizes the local state density in previous theories of the tunnel-polarization factor. 5) For small applied voltage, tunnel-polarization factors remain legitimate up to first order in the inverse thickness of the ideal middle. An algebraic formula describes the first-order corrections to polarization factors in terms of newly defined lateral auto-correllation scales.
PACS: 85.75.-d
author:
- |
J. C. Slonczewski$^{1}$\
IBM Watson Research Center, Box 218, Yorktown Heights,\
NY 10598 USA\
\
Received by Phys. Rev. B on April 7, 2004. Revised on
title: 'Currents, Torques, and Polarization Factors in Magnetic Tunnel Junctions'
---
Introduction
============
When first predicted, voltage-driven pseudo-torque in magnetic tunnel junctions (MTJs) appeared to be a marginal effect [@'89]. (Sec. 2 explains our use of the prefix pseudo- in the term pseudo-torque.) The lithographic scales and resistances available in early experimental MTJs appeared too large to permit anything more than a very small torque term in the Landau-Lifshitz equation. Resistive heating of the MTJ would have limited its possible consequences to only a small voltage-driven decrease of linewidth of narrowly-focussed Brillouin scattering. (This prediction was never tested.) As a result, one could not yet predict anything as remarkable as the now well-established magnetic reversal and high-frequency precession observed when the resistive barrier is replaced by a *metallic* spacer. For recent experimental work and earlier references dealing with switching and current-driven oscillations involving metallic spacers, see Refs. [@Nature; @AC] and [@RipOsc].
But in recent years, experimental activity in tunneling magnetoresistance has expanded vastly. It is fueled in great part by the experimental discovery of substantial tunneling magnetoresistance [@Mood] at room-temperature and the resulting intensive exploration of non-volatile magnetic memory reviewed recently [@mram]. A part of this activity is the search for junction compositions and deposition techniques which lower the resistance to values more suitable for integrated-circuit application. Indeed, there now exist very recent experimental reports of current-driven switching in MTJs [@Nguyen; @Fuchs]. This development may make possible two-terminal memory elements avoiding resort to three-terminal devices using both a metallic spacer for switching and a tunnel barrier for reading [@FIM99].
According to recent reviews of tunneling magneto-resistance [@MoodMatRev; @MiyazakiReview; @MTIRev; @TsymbRev], empirical ferromagnet polarization coefficients $P_{i}$ \[$i=$L,R refer to left and right magnets F$_{i}$ in Fig. 1(a).\] measured with F$_{i}$IS junctions having a superconducting counter electrode [@TedMes] account well for magneto-resistance in FIF junctions. Let the formula$$J(V,\theta)=-J_{0}(V)[1+\mathit{\iota}\mathcal{(}V)\cos\theta],\text{
\ with\ \ }J_{0}>0\text{ \ for \ }V>0 \label{magcur}$$ for current density at constant applied voltage* *$V$* *define the dimensionless coefficient $\mathit{\iota}$ of magneto-conduction. Here $\theta$ is the angle between the moments. (The $-$ sign occurs in Eq. (\[magcur\]) because of the convention in Fig. 1 where particle-number current is positive for $V>0$.) In this article, the coefficient $\iota$ is more convenient than the experimentally preferred low-voltage tunneling-magnetoresistance ratio$$\text{TMR}=(R_{\text{AP}}-R_{\text{P}})/R_{\text{P}}=2\mathit{\iota
}/(1-\mathit{\iota}). \label{TMR}$$
The original equation due to Julliere [@Jul], expressed in our notation by the formula$$\mathit{\iota}=P_{\text{L}}P_{\text{R}},\label{J=PLPR}$$ enjoys considerable success in interpreting experiments [@MoodMatRev]. We find below that whenever $\iota$ separates this way into two polarization factors characteristic of the respective electrode-and-barrier compositions, pseudo-torque expressions having dimensionless coefficients $\tau_{\text{L}}$ and $\tau_{\text{R}}$ \[See Eqs. (\[TR=sin\]), (\[TR=PL\]), and (\[TL=sin\]) below.\]$,$ whose simplicity parallels that of Eqs.(\[magcur\]) and (\[J=PLPR\]), hold also. The presence of the same average current density $J_{0}(V)$ in equations both for magneto-current and torque represents a strong connection between these two phenomena.
After the commonalities in Secs. 2 and 3, these mutual relations (Secs. 4 and 5) between magneto-conductance and pseudo-torques constitute the first of two parts of the present article. The second part (Secs. 6 and 7) is stimulated by the fact that theory does not *generally* support the separability of spin-channel currents into the left-dependent and right-dependent factors needed to justify polarization factors in the first place. Previous theories attack the question of polarization coefficients within the context of real electron structure by considering the transmission of electrons initially occupying well-defined crystalline-momentum states [@TsymPet; @MathUmer; @Belash]. They posit either complete absence of disorder or special types of disorder only within the barrier to legitimize tunnel-polarization factors. The present approach, detailed below, complements those works by *excluding disorder only from a subregion of the barrier.*
\[t\]
[Figr1.eps]{}
Electron scattering, which causes metallic resistivity, abounds within experimental MTJ electrodes. A new feature of the present work is to forego altogether crystal-momentum quantization within the electrodes. This feature is particularly appropriate to contemporaneous experiments relying for electrodes on evaporated or sputtered magnetic elements and alloys having high defect concentration [@Nature; @AC; @RipOsc; @Nguyen; @Fuchs]. Both alloying and structural defects may cause an electron to scatter many times within the electrodes before and after it tunnels across the barrier so that initial and final crystal momenta are undefined.
Our elastic-tunneling theory rests on Bardeen’s transfer-hamiltonian method (BTM) [@Bard; @Duke], which is applicable to tunneling transitions between thermal baths of electron states without any spatially conserved observables. Bardeen defines two sets of basis states $-$ one for the left electrode-and-barrier and one for the right electrode-and-barrier. Fermi’s “golden rule” for transition rates gives the tunneling current. Thus our theory of MTJs has broader application than many others, previously reviewed [@MoodMatRev; @MTIRev; @TsymbRev], which rely on scattering of Bloch electrons. Although more modern than Bardeen’s method, they must assume defined initial and final momenta.
Our model of the junction, called *ideal middle,* excludes disorder only from a central geometric slab of uniform thickness $w$, which may consist of vacuum or periodic crystal lying somewhere within the barrier. We find that exact factorization of channel-to-channel current, which leads to Eqs.(\[J=PLPR\]) and (\[TR=PL\]) below, occurs in the limit $w\rightarrow\infty,$ just as in the case of complete absence of disorder. Further, our parametrization of lateral *auto-corellation* (See Sec. 7) of the Bardeen basis-function sets predicts well-defined tunneling-polarization factors for finite barriers to first order in $w^{-1},$ which enhances their legitimacy for interpretation of experiments involving any degree of disorder. Computations and measurements of the new corellation-scale parameters $\xi_{\sigma}$ could shed quantitative light on the genesis of polarization factors.
By way of organization, Section 1 is this Introduction and Section 2 shows how spin-channel tunnel currents generally determine voltage-driven torque. Section 3 uses the BTM to derive the resulting fully general expressions for the magneto-conduction, the torques, and the relevant dimensionless coefficients $\iota$, $\tau_{\text{L}},$ and $\tau_{\text{R}}$. Section 4 shows how tunneling-polarization factors and the resulting simple expressions for $\iota$, $\tau_{\text{L}},$ and $\tau_{\text{R}}$ arise from a formal separability condition. Section 5 addresses the expressions for voltage-unsymmetric torque arising from voltage dependences of polarization factors. Section 6 demonstrates the separation condition and derives the tunnel-polarization factors which arise in the ideal-middle model at $w\rightarrow\infty.$ Section 7 expands the magnetic tunneling properties for finite $w$ and derives a formula for the first-order $w^{-1}$-dependence of tunnel-polarization factors. Section 8 summarizes and discusses the results.
First currents, then pseudo-torques
===================================
Whenever two ferromagnets are separated by a nonmagnetic spacer, whether a tunneling barrier or a metal, exchange-generated pseudo-torques acting on the magnetic moments are attributable to the flow of spin-polarized current. For a fuller discussion of the genesis of pseudo(or effective)-torque from the principle of spin continuity, see Appendix B of Ref. [@'02]. Essential is the interpretation of magnetization dynamics $(\overset{\mathbf{\bullet}}{\mathbf{M}}\equiv d\mathbf{M}/dt)$ governed by the additive terms in the macroscopic Landau-Lifshitz equation. Ordinarily $\overset{\bullet
}{\mathbf{M}}$ represents the *precession* in place of electron-spin momentum localized to a volume element $dV$ due to local causes like magnetic field, spin-orbit coupling, etc. But the term describing externally driven spin transfer is transparently different. It reflects directly the *flow* of spin momentum *directly* into $dV$.
Indeed, the same may be said about the phenomenological exchange stiffness described commonly by the effective field 2$A\nabla^{2}\mathbf{m,}$ with $\mathbf{M\equiv}\mathit{M}_{\text{s}}\mathbf{m.}$ This truth is masked by the derivability of ordinary exchange torque from variation of the stored energy density $A\Sigma_{i,j}(\partial m_{i}/\partial x_{j})^{2}.$ Because spin transfer is driven by an externally supplied current or voltage, its effect cannot be derived from a stored energy. Therefore, its calculation requires direct recourse to spin currents as detailed below. Since this distinction between torque and divergence of polarization makes no difference in the subsequent application of the Landau-Lifshitz equation, the prefix “pseudo-” will be omitted in the remainder of this article.
Return now to our problem of spin-transfer torque created by external voltage applied to the MTJ. Consider particularly the series electric circuit in Fig. 1 (a) in which an external voltage $V$ causes electric-current density $J$ to flow in series through a left metallic ferromagnetic film F$_{\text{L}}$, a thin insulator I serving as a tunnel barrier, and finally a grounded right metallic ferromagnetic film F$_{\text{R}}$. By assumption, F$_{\text{L}}$ is sufficiently thin for the *direction* of spontaneous magnetization $\mathbf{M}_{\text{L}}(x)=$ $-M_{\text{L}}(x)\mathbf{l}$ within F$_{\text{L}}$ not to depend on the plane-perpendicular coordinate $x$; similarly$\ \mathbf{M}_{\text{R}}(x)=$ $-M_{\text{R}}(x)\mathbf{r}$ within F$_{\text{R}}.$ But the spontaneous magnetizations $M_{\text{L}}$and $M_{\text{R}}$ may vary with $x$*.* (Here the three-dimensional unit vectors **l** and **r** include the angle $\theta=\cos
^{-1}\mathbf{r\cdot l.}$) Thus we lay aside those possibilities of forward spin-wave excitation [@Berger96] and volume-intensive torque [@BJZ], arising from dependence of magnetization direction on** **$x,$ which become significant for larger film thickness and current density.
One goal is to calculate the component $T_{\text{R}}$ of interfacial torque vector $\mathbf{T}_{\text{R}}$ per unit area, acting on $\mathbf{M}_{\text{R}},$ which lies orthogonal to **r** *within the instantaneous plane* common to $\mathbf{l}$ and **r** as indicated in Fig. 1a$.$ (The orientation of the magnetic space spanned by $\mathbf{l}$ or **r** is completely disconnected from that of position space $x,y,z.)$ A general expression for $T_{\text{R}}$ [@'02; @'99] reads thus:$$T_{\text{R}}=\hbar\lbrack J_{\text{L,}+}-J_{\text{L,}-}+(J_{\text{R,}-}-J_{\text{R,}+})\cos\theta]/2e\sin\theta\label{LRgen}$$ Here the left spin-channel electric current densities **J**$_{\text{L,}\pm}=J_{\text{L,}\pm}\mathbf{l}$ flow through plane A (See below) in direction $x$ and the right **J**$_{\text{R,}\pm}=J_{\text{R,}\pm
}\mathbf{r}$ flow through plane B. The factor $-\hbar/2e$ converts any electric channel current to one of spin momentum. A similar expression holds for the pseudo-torque $T_{\text{L}}$ on the left moment. The torques $T_{\text{R}}$ and $T_{\text{L}}$ must generally be included in the dynamic Landau-Lifshitz equations for the two magnetic films.
Although previously applied only to all-metallic multilayers, Eq. (\[LRgen\]) may also be used when the spacer is an insulator. For its derivation, one posits the non-relativistic n-electron hamiltonian including, besides kinetic energy, coulomb terms due to external voltage and electron-nuclear and electron-electron interactions. In addition, one accepts the microscopically-based approximation, defensible in the case of Co, that the transverse (to local **M**) components of conduction-electron spin polarization created at the two internal I/F interfaces decay to zero well within a characteristic distance $d_{\perp}\approx1$nm [@'02], which was estimated explicitly for Co/Cu and other interfacial compositions by scattering computations [@SZ]. Moreover, in one experiment the threshold current for switching of Co by polarized current flowing through a *metallic* spacer is simply proportional to film thickness down to 1 nm, confirming that the transverse polarization inside the ferromagnetic film vanishes at this scale [@Cornthik]. Therefore the currents in the left and right magnets must be polarized along instantaneous left (**l)** and right (**r)** moment axes at depths greater than $d_{\perp}$ from the F/I interfaces. Thus our work excludes thicknesses $<$ 1 nm, which require special treatment sensitive to atomic layering [@Edwards; @Mathon].
In the extensive literature on tunneling magnetoresistance involving Fe, Co, Ni and magnetically concentrated alloys of these elements with others of lower atomic number, there is little indication of spin relaxation at I/F interfaces. Moreover experiments at cryogenic temperatures reveal that the distance $\lambda_{||}$ of spin relaxation due to spin-orbit coupling for the polarization component along the axis **M** is about 50 nm for Co and about 5.5 nm for Ni-Fe [@BasSpRel]. Thus it follows that, at least in the case of Co where $\lambda_{||}>>d_{\perp}$, the channel currents $J_{\text{L,}\pm}$ and $J_{\text{R,}\pm}$ should be evaluated at the planes A and B lying at the distance $d_{\perp}$ from the respective F/I interfaces. For within the space between these planes one may neglect spin-orbit effects and embrace the well-known spin-continuity relation which equates the sum of equivalent interfacial pseudo-torques with the net inflow of spin current [@'02; @'99], having polarization directions **l** on the L side and **r** on the R side. In the notation of Fig. 1 (a), the statistical average of this equality becomes$$\mathbf{T}_{\text{L}}+\mathbf{T}_{\text{R}}=\frac{\hbar}{2e}\left[
(J_{\text{L,}-}-J_{\text{L,+}})\mathbf{l}+(J_{\text{R,}+}-J_{\text{R,}-})\mathbf{r}\right] .\label{spincont}$$ By our assumed neglect of changes in $M_{\text{L}},$ we write $\mathbf{l\cdot
T}_{\text{L}}=0.$ Therefore the scalar product of Eq. (\[spincont\]) with **l** eliminates $\mathbf{T}_{\text{L}}$ and** **gives Eq. (\[LRgen\]) for the magnitude $T_{\text{R}}.$ A similar equation holds for $T_{\text{L}}$.
The above argument neglects a *decaying and spatially oscillating* transverse current, calculated in certain FNF cases to lie between 0 and $\simeq$10% of the incident spin current (See Fig. 7 of Ref. [@SZ]). It is likely due to specular interference created at the perfect interface assumed in the calculation. Studies of FMF exchange coupling in vogue 10 years ago suggest that extremals in the Fermi surface determine the wavelength and cause the amplitude to decay with distance. The amplitude will be decreased by irregularities at real imperfect interfaces.
Even in the *absence of applied electric voltage* ($V=0)$* *an additional *perpendicular* component of exchange pseudo-torque $\mathbf{T}_{\text{R}\perp}=K\mathbf{l\times r=-\mathbf{T}_{\text{L}\perp}}$ predicted for MTJs [@'89] is generally related to phenomenological coupling energy $-K\mathbf{l\bullet r=-}K\cos\theta$. It must also be included in the Landau-Lifshitz equation for the dynamics of magnet F$_{\text{R. \ }}$However, in that toy rectangular-barrier MTJ model [@'89], the (uncalculated) dependence of $\mathbf{T}_{\text{R}\perp}$ and $\mathbf{\mathbf{T}_{\text{L}\perp}}$ on applied voltage occurred only in higher order $(\varpropto V^{2})$ than the torque given by Eq. (\[LRgen\]) $(\varpropto V)$. Moreover, its dynamic effect is relatively weaker in structures with coincident easy anisotropy axes and low magnetic damping, such as the pillars using metallic spacers experimentally favored for efficient current-driven switching [@Nature; @AC]. Indeed, steady oscillation excited by a steady electric current, such as that observed [@Nature; @AC; @RipOsc], is possible with $\mathbf{T}_{\text{R}\perp}=0,$ but not in the absence of in-plane $\mathbf{T}_{\text{R}}.$ In addition, the BTM used here does not readily provide this out-of-plane torque. For these reasons, we do not attempt to predict the perpendicular torque component in this work.
Magneto-conduction and torques
==============================
Equation (\[LRgen\]) effectively reduces the interacting-electron problem of voltage-driven torque to the customarily independent-electron problem of spin-channel currents. One recently reviewed BTM-based theory of collinear MTJ magnetoresistance [@MTIRev] extends naturally to tunneling between spin channels for general $\theta.$ For adaptation of the BTM [@Bard; @Duke] to the MTJ of Fig. 1a, a stationary basis state $|p,\sigma\rangle$ within the electron reservoir F$_{\text{L}}$ is assigned orbital index *p* and majority/minority spin $\sigma=\pm$ quantized along axis **l**. It satisfies $(H+eV-\epsilon_{p,\sigma})|p,\sigma
\rangle=0,$ and decays exponentially within the barrier, considered semi-infinite in width when defining the basis states. Here, $H=p^{2}/2m+\Sigma_{\sigma}|\sigma\rangle U_{\sigma}(x,y,z)\langle\sigma|,$ where the potential $U_{\sigma}$ depends on spin within the ferromagnets according to intinerant-electron magnetism theory [@Kubler], but not within the barrier. Within F$_{\text{R}},$ a similar state satisfies $(H-\epsilon
_{q,\sigma^{\prime}})|q,\sigma^{\prime}\rangle=0$ with quantization axis **r**. Because the barrier is assumed to dominate all other resistances of this circuit, the spin channels are shown in Fig. 1 (b) as shorted in each magnet and/or external-contact region by spin lattice relaxation due to spin-orbit coupling. One may disregard *spin accumulation* and the related distinction between electric and electrochemical potentials which are important when a non-magnetic metallic spacer substitutes for the barrier [@ValetFert]. $U_{\sigma}$ includes all elastic terms arising from atomic disorder due to alloying, defects, interfacial atomic interdiffusion, etc. The state indices $p,q$ simply enumerate the exact eigenstates $|p,\sigma\rangle,|q,\sigma^{\prime}\rangle$ of $H$ in the Bardeen basis. Each such state incorporates effects of all multiple elastic scatterings without limit.
Employing the spinor transformation connecting quantization axes **l** and **r**, the transfer matrix element takes the form$$\langle p,\sigma|H-\varepsilon|q,\sigma^{\prime}\rangle=\begin{bmatrix}
\gamma_{p,+;q,+}\cos\frac{\theta}{2} & \gamma_{p,+;q,-}\sin\frac{\theta}{2}\\
-\gamma_{p,-;q,+}\sin\frac{\theta}{2} & \gamma_{p,-;q,-}\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\end{bmatrix}
. \label{tunmat}$$ Direct extension of BTM [@Duke18.34] to our spin-dependent case gives the expression$$\gamma_{p,\sigma;q,\sigma^{\prime}}(x)=\frac{-\hbar^{2}}{2m}{\textstyle\int}
dydz(\psi_{p,\sigma}\partial_{x}\varphi_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}-\varphi
_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}\partial_{x}\psi_{p,\sigma}), \label{orbmat}$$ where the integral is over unit area for coordinate $x$ lying appropriately (see below) inside the barrier. The energies $\epsilon_{p,\sigma}\ $and $\epsilon_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}$ may differ only infinitesimally from the Fermi value $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_{\text{F}}.$ The hamiltonian $H,$ the left ($\psi_{p,\sigma})$ and right $(\varphi_{q,\sigma^{\prime}})$ orbital wave functions, and these matrix elements (\[orbmat\]) are real.
Only the neglect of cross-barrier overlaps $\langle p,\sigma|q,\sigma^{\prime
}\rangle$ allows use of the Fermi golden rule of perturbation theory which is strictly valid for an orthonormal basis. Substitution of the perturbation (\[tunmat\]) into this rule is followed by summation over the initial states in an infinitessimal energy band of width $eV.$ Thus the partial electric current density flowing between channel $\sigma$ in F$_{\text{L}}$ and channel $\sigma^{\prime}$ in F$_{\text{R}}$ becomes $$J_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}=\frac{-2\pi e^{2}V}{\hbar}{\textstyle\sum\nolimits_{p,q}^{^{\prime}}}
\langle p,\sigma|H-\varepsilon_{\text{F}}|q,\sigma^{\prime}\rangle
^{2}\label{tuncur}$$ at $T=0$ K. The $^{\prime}$ in ${\textstyle\sum\nolimits_{p,q}^{^{\prime}}}
$ imposes the conditions $\varepsilon_{\text{F}}<(\varepsilon_{p,\sigma
},\varepsilon_{q,\sigma^{\prime}})<\varepsilon_{\text{F}}+eV.$
Notations in the equivalent circuit shown in Fig. 1 (b) make plain the relations$$J_{\text{L}\sigma}=J_{\sigma,+}+J_{\sigma,-}\text{ },\text{ \ \ \ }J_{\text{R}\sigma^{\prime}}=J_{+,\sigma^{\prime}}+J_{-,\sigma^{\prime}},\text{
\ \ }(\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}=\pm)\label{circt}$$ needed in Eq. (\[LRgen\]). The right hand sides of these equations are evaluated from Eqs. (\[tunmat\]-\[tuncur\]).
Next we write the total electric current density $J=J_{\text{L,}+}+J_{\text{L,}-}.$ With the notation $$\Gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}=\frac{2\pi eV}{\hbar}{\textstyle\sum\nolimits_{p,q}^{^{\prime}}}
\gamma_{p,\sigma;q,\sigma^{\prime}}^{2} \label{Gamsum}$$ for interchannel particle-number tunneling conduction with the angular factor omitted, the above equations combine to give Eq. (\[magcur\]) with$$J_{0}=e(\Gamma_{+,+}+\Gamma_{-,-}+\Gamma_{+,-}+\Gamma_{-,+})/2 \label{J0}$$ and the electric magneto-conduction coefficient$$\mathcal{\iota}=e(\Gamma_{+,+}+\Gamma_{-,-}-\Gamma_{+,-}-\Gamma_{-,+})/2J_{0}.
\label{Jgen}$$ Eq.(\[LRgen\]) becomes$$T_{\text{R}}=-(\hslash\tau_{\text{R}}J_{0}/2e)\sin\theta\label{TR=sin}$$ or, in coordinate-free form$$\mathbf{T}_{\text{R}}=(\hslash\tau_{\text{R}}J_{0}/2e)\mathbf{r\times(l\times
r),} \label{TRvec}$$ with the torque coefficient $$\tau_{\text{R}}=e(\Gamma_{+,+}+\Gamma_{+,-}-\Gamma_{-,-}-\Gamma_{-,+})/2J_{0}.
\label{TRgen}$$ The fact that the linear combination of the parameters $\Gamma_{\sigma
,\sigma^{\prime}}$ appearing in Eq. (\[Jgen\]) differs from that in Eq. (\[TRgen\]) and a similar one for $\mathbf{T}_{\text{L}}$ precludes any fully general connection between torques and electrical current.
Left-right separability and polarization factors
================================================
Particularly interesting relations arise if the summation in Eq. (\[Gamsum\]) for the inter-channel particle current happens to separate into left- and right-dependent factors in the form$$\Gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}=f\Omega_{\text{L},\sigma}\Omega_{\text{R,}\sigma^{\prime}}.\label{factoring}$$ Here the coefficient $f$ , which we make no attempt to evaluate, is independent of $\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}$. (Sections 6 and 7 address conditions for this separability.) For then Eq. (\[J0\]) gives$$J_{0}=\frac{ef}{2}(\Omega_{\text{L},+}+\Omega_{\text{L},-})(\Omega
_{\text{R},+}+\Omega_{\text{R},-})\label{meanj}$$ and Eq. (\[Jgen\]) gives Eq. (\[J=PLPR\]) with the *tunneling polarization* parameters $$\text{\ }P_{i}=\frac{\Omega_{i,+}-\Omega_{i,-}}{\Omega_{i,+}+\Omega_{i,-}}\text{ \ \ \ (}i=\text{L,R)}\label{polfac}$$ which are directly measurable using FIS junctions [@MoodMatRev]. In these terms, Eqs. (\[magcur\]) and (\[J=PLPR\]) give the magneto-conduction and Eq. (\[TRvec\]) the torque with $$\tau_{\text{R}}=P_{\text{L}}.\label{TR=PL}$$ Similarly, the torque on the left magnet is$$T_{\text{L}}=-(\hslash\tau_{\text{L}}J_{0}/2e)\sin\theta\mathbf{,}\text{
\ }\tau_{\text{L}}=P_{\text{R}}\label{TL=sin}$$ or, in coordinate-free form$$\mathbf{T}_{\text{L}}=\frac{\hbar\tau_{\text{L}}}{2e}J_{0}\mathbf{l\times
(r\times l)}.\label{TL=PR}$$ The Eqs.(\[J=PLPR\]), (\[TR=PL\]), and (\[TL=PR\]) show the very close relation between current-driven torques and magneto-conduction at the same voltage, summarized by $\iota=\tau_{\text{L}}\tau_{\text{R}},$ if the separability condition (\[factoring\]) is satisfied$.$
The ground-breaking paper of Julliere [@Jul] gave equations equivalent to (\[J=PLPR\]) and (\[polfac\]) taking $\Omega_{\text{L}\sigma}$ and $\Omega_{\text{R}\sigma^{\prime}}$ to be spin-dependent basis-state densities at $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_{\text{F}}$. It appeared to attribute the dimensionless magneto-current coefficient $\iota=P_{\text{L}}P_{\text{R}}$ to bulk properties of the two magnetic compositions involved. But the analytically solved free-electron rectangular-potential model [@'89] shows that an interface-dependent factor must be included in $\Omega_{i,\sigma}$ as well. The transfer-hamiltonian treatment of this toy model follows immediately from the spinless treatment [@Duke18.34] giving $$\Omega_{i,\sigma}=k_{i,\sigma}/(\kappa_{0}^{2}+k_{i,\sigma}^{2})\label{rectP}$$ where$$k_{i,\sigma}^{2}=2mE_{i,\sigma}/\hslash^{2}\text{ \ and \ }\kappa_{0}^{2}=2mB/\hslash^{2}.\label{k and kap}$$ Here, $E_{i,\sigma}$ is the kinetic energy at the Fermi level and $B$ is the barrier potential measured from the Fermi level. Equation (\[polfac\]) now gives$$P_{i}=\frac{k_{i,+}-k_{i,-}}{k_{i,+}+k_{i,-}}\cdot\frac{\kappa_{0}^{2}-k_{i,+}k_{i,-}}{\kappa_{0}^{2}+k_{i,+}k_{i,-}}\label{polfree}$$ in agreement with Ref. [@'89]. In this formula, the first factor depends purely on basis-state densities in the magnet, while the second mixes magnet and barrier properties. The results of the toy model [@'89] satisfy the general magneto-conduction relations (\[magcur\]), (\[J=PLPR\]) and torque relations (\[TRvec\]),(\[TR=PL\]),(\[TL=PR\]) with this substitution.
We note in passing that experimental variation of barrier height $B$ shows considerable support for the zero of $\iota$ at the barrier potential satisfying $\kappa_{0}^{2}-k_{i,+}k_{i,-}=0$ expected from Eq. (\[polfree\]) [@MiyazZero] (for small $V$)$.$ Therefore, in spite of its fundamental naivete, this toy model enjoys some degree of credibility. It illustrates the general fact that, even when separability holds, each polarization factor is a property of the electron structure of the magnet and barrier *combination* as demonstrated by many experiments and calculations*.* Section 7 will discuss how tunnel polarization may vary with barrier thickness.
Finite bias and torque asymmetry
================================
In experiments, TMR typically decreases significantly with increasing finite $V$ [@MoodMatRev]. Voltage-dependence of interfacial transmission, special state density distributions, extrinsic impurity effects, and inelastic tunneling contribute to this decrease [@MoodMatRev; @TsymbRev]. This is important because large voltages will be required to read and write in a 2-terminal memory element.
The toy polarizations of Eq. (\[polfree\]) will serve to illustrate qualitatively the very unsymmetric effect of finite $V$ on voltage-driven pseudo-torque. One calculation of TMR uses the WKB approximation for the free-electron wave function within the constant-slope barrier potential sketched in Fig. 2 [@Nanjing]. The interfacial transmissions are approximated by those of the flat-potential polarizations (\[polfree\]). The authors cite some experimental support for their results.
It is the decrease of $P_{i}$ in the particular electrode which *collects* the tunneled electrons that primarily accounts for the decrease of $\iota$ in the calculated result [@Nanjing]. In Fig. 2, for $V>0,$ the collecting electrode lies on the right. Note that the electrons whose energy lies in a narrow band (shaded in Fig. 2) just below the Fermi level of the emitting electrode on the left of the barrier dominate the tunneling current because of the strong energy dependence of the WKB factor $\exp[-2\int\kappa(x)dx]$ in the transmission coefficient. Since these hot electrons lie an amount well above the Fermi level on the right, this energy shift $eV$ must be taken into account when estimating $P_{\text{R}}.$
\[th\]
[Figr2.eps]{}
We simplify this model one step further and neglect the width of the shaded current band in Fig. 2. It is then clear that Eqs. (\[k and kap\]) and (\[polfree\]) with $i=$L are still correct for $P_{\text{L}},$ neglecting correction for the finite slope of the barrier potential$.$ However, the equations $$k_{\text{R}\sigma}^{2}=2m(E_{\text{R}\sigma}+eV)/\hslash^{2}\text{ \ and
\ }\kappa_{0}^{2}=2m(B-eV)/\hslash^{2},\label{Vshift}$$ obtained by adding $eV$ to each electron energy on the right, must replace Eqs.(\[k and kap\]) for $i=$R.
Figure 3 plots the curves $\tau_{\text{L}}=P_{\text{R}}$ and $\tau_{\text{R}}=P_{\text{L}}$ evaluated from the preceding three equations as well as TMR$\ $from Eqs. (\[TMR\]) and (\[J=PLPR\]) versus $V$ for the special example of a symmetric junction with the parameters $k_{\text{L}-}=k_{\text{R}-}\equiv k_{-},$ $k_{\text{L}+}=k_{\text{R}+}\equiv10k_{-},$ and $\kappa_{0}=6.4k_{-,}$ whereby each electrode has the $V=0$ polarization $P_{\text{L}}$=$P_{\text{R}}=0.5.$ In this illustration, TMR$(V)$ is symmetric because it involves both $P_{\text{L}}$ and $P_{\text{R}}$ but $P_{\text{L,R}}(V)$ and the torque coefficients $\tau_{\text{L,R}}(V)$ are not. Although the theory preceding this section assumed small $V,$ the present discussion makes reasonable the application of the results to finite $V$ with the understanding that the polarization of the collecting electrode generally depends more strongly on $V.$ Of course, this toy calculation cannot make quantitative predictions of the $V$-dependence which must rest on details of electron structure [@MoodMatRev; @TsymbRev].
\[th\]
[Fig3.eps]{}
Note that while critical *current density* for magnetic excitation* *is appropriate to junctions with metallic spacers, the high resistance of a MTJ makes critical voltage more appropriate. (Indeed, strictly speaking, the critical current of a *constant-current* generator will generally *differ* from the current density flowing at threshold in the presence of constant external voltage.) Another significant difference between metallic and insulating spacers lies in the angular symmetry of the torque. The fixed $\sin\theta$-dependence at constant $V$ in the tunneling case has no counterpart in the metallic case where more general torque expressions typically contribute to asymmetry of excitation threshold [@'02]. Now we see that the non-ohmic resistance of a tunneling barrier gives rise to the torque asymmetry of $\tau_{\text{R}}(V)$ exhibited in Fig. 3, which naturally reflects in yet another origin for asymmetry of voltage threshold.
Ideal-middle model for separability
===================================
A recent publication compares existing theoretical arguments supporting the existence of tunnel-polarization factors [@Belash]. Each of them assumes incident states with definite crystalline momentum. One common type of argument assumes complete absence of disorder so that the tunneling through a thick barrier is dominated by a single value of lateral momentum. A different model of Tsymbal and Pettifor [@TsymPet] recovers factorization and therefore the Julliere formula in a tight-binding single-band model *disordered only within the barrier*. Similarly, the model of Mathon and Umerski attributes the factorization to phase decoherence due to disorder within the barrier [@MoodMatRev; @MathUmer]. These treatments are augmented with arguments based on the Feynman path integral in a disordered barrier [@Belash]. Our treatment below complements these arguments with the contrary tack of foregoing lateral momentum quantization completely within the electrodes and I/F interfaces while preserving ideal crystalline ordering or vacuum within the middle of the barrier.
\[th\]
[Figure4.eps]{}
Figure 4 indicates the structural scheme. The left ($\psi_{p,\sigma})$ and right $(\varphi_{q,\sigma^{\prime}})$ orbital basis functions for the transfer matrix, introduced in Sec. 3, are governed in detail by the general potential $U_{\sigma\text{ or }\sigma^{\prime}}$ depending on crystal structure, alloy composition, defects, F/I interface roughness and atomic interdiffusion, etc. The quantum numbers $p$ and $q$ do not refer to any diagonal operator. Exceptionally, the *ideal-middle* $\mathcal{B}$ of the barrier consists of an ideal crystalline slab or vacuum region defined by $a\leq x\leq
b$ where the planes $x\mathit{=}a,b$ are dubbed *portals* of the ideal middle. In order to define the left and right basis-state sets of the Bardeen theory, the barrier potential extends into alternative semi-infinite spaces $(a\leq x)$ and ($x\leq b)$ , where it is greater than $\varepsilon
_{\text{F}},$ independent of or periodically dependent on $y,z$ and independent of $\sigma$ and $\sigma^{\prime}.$ The respective conditions $\psi_{p,\sigma}\rightarrow0$ for $x\rightarrow\infty$ and $\varphi
_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}\rightarrow0$ for $x\rightarrow-\infty$ complete the definitions of $\psi_{p,\sigma}$ and $\varphi_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}$.
The effective-mass theorem [@SJA] is valid when $\varepsilon$ is near the bottom $\mathbf{k=k}_{0}$ of the conduction band within region $\mathcal{B}$. Then the evanescent portion of a left-magnet basis function within this region is approximated by$$\psi_{p,\sigma}=\Psi_{p,\sigma}(x,y,z)u_{\text{cb,}\mathbf{k}_{0}}(x,y,z)\label{evanwav}$$ where $\Psi_{p,\sigma}$ satisfies ($\mathcal{H}_{\text{bar}}-\varepsilon
_{p,\sigma})\Psi_{p,\sigma}\mathcal{=}0$ and $\Psi_{p,\sigma}\rightarrow0$ for $x\rightarrow\infty,$ and $u_{\text{cb,}\mathbf{k}_{0}}$ is the Bloch function for the bottom of the conduction band. The effective barrier hamiltonian is $\mathcal{H}_{\text{bar}}=-\hbar^{2}\nabla^{2}/2m_{\text{cb}}+\mathcal{U}(x)$ where $m_{\text{cb}}$ is the effective mass and $\mathcal{U(}x)$ $(>\varepsilon_{\text{F}})$ is the spin-independent atomically smoothed effective barrier potential. Similarly for F$_{\text{R}},$ $\varphi
_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}=\Phi_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}u_{\text{cb,}\mathbf{k}_{0}}$ with $\Phi_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}\rightarrow0$ for $x\rightarrow-\infty.$ In case of vacuum, ($\Psi,\Phi)$ are indistinguishable from ($\psi,\varphi).$ (Note however that this treatment fails if both ** $V$ is finite *and *the FI interfaces are disordered, ** for then $\mathcal{U}$ depends on $y$ and $z$ as well as $x$.)
Assuming periodic boundary conditions in the **s**$\mathbf{=(}y,z)$ sub-space, the evanescent portions of left and right basis states within $\mathcal{B}$ are conveniently fourier-expanded in space **s** with the WKB approximation giving $$\Psi_{p,\sigma}=\sum\nolimits_{\text{\textbf{k}}}\lambda_{p,\sigma}(\mathbf{k})[\kappa(k,a)/\kappa(k,x)]^{1/2}\exp\left[ -\int_{a}^{x}\kappa(k,x^{\prime})dx^{\prime}+i\mathbf{k}\bullet\mathbf{s}\right]
\label{lpsi}$$ and$$\Phi_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}=\sum\nolimits_{\text{\textbf{k}}}\mu_{q,\sigma
^{\prime}}(\mathbf{k})[\kappa(k,b)/\kappa(k,x)]^{1/2}\exp\left[ -\int_{x}^{b}\kappa(k,x^{\prime})dx^{\prime}+i\mathbf{k}\bullet\mathbf{s}\right]
\label{rphi}$$ where the sums $\Sigma_{\text{\textbf{k}}}$ are carried over a 2-dimensional reduced Brillouin zone. These formulas employ the function $$\kappa(k,x)\emph{\ }=\left[ \kappa_{0}^{2}(x)+k^{2}\right] ^{1/2},\text{
\ \ \ with\ }\kappa_{0}^{2}=2m_{\text{cb}}[\mathcal{U}\left( x\right)
-\varepsilon_{\text{F}}]/\hbar^{2},\label{kap}$$ where $i\kappa$ is the imaginary component of the wave-vector in region $\mathcal{B}$. Note that Eqs. (\[lpsi\]) and (\[rphi\]) reduce to expansions of $\psi_{p,\sigma}$ and $\varphi_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}$ with coefficients $\lambda_{p,\sigma}(\mathbf{k})$ and $\mu_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{k})$ on the portal planes $x=a$ and $x=b$ respectively.
The transfer-hamiltonian matrix element of Eq. (\[orbmat\]) is evaluated at any $x$ lying within the interval $a\leq x\leq b$. Consequently $\Psi,$ $\Phi$ , and *m*$_{\text{cb}}$ may replace $\psi$, $\varphi,$ and *m* respectively in this formula. One convenient choice to evaluate Eq. (\[orbmat\]) is $x=x_{\text{max}},$ satisfying $\mathcal{U(}x)\leq$ $U(x_{\text{max}})$ for all $x,$ because the resulting condition $\partial\kappa_{0}/\partial x(x_{\text{max}})=0$ simplifies the mathematics. (Inclusion in $\mathcal{U}$ of the image potential due to electron-electron correlation will often insure the presence of a maximum, even if $|V|$ is large.) Substitution of Eqs. (\[lpsi\]) and(\[rphi\]) followed by integration over $y$ and $z$, with the assistance of the identity $\int
d$**s**$^{2}\exp[i(\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{k}^{\prime})\cdot$**s**$\mathbf{]=\delta}_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{k}^{\prime}},$ reduces Eq. (\[orbmat\]) to$$\gamma_{p,\sigma;q,\sigma^{\prime}}=\Sigma_{\mathbf{k}}F(w,\mathbf{k)}\lambda_{p,\sigma}^{\ast}(\mathbf{k})\mu_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{k})\label{nugam}$$ where$$F(w,\mathbf{k)=}\frac{-4\pi^{2}\hbar^{2}}{m_{\text{cb}}}\kappa^{1/2}(\mathbf{k},a)\kappa^{1/2}(\mathbf{k},b)\exp[-\int_{a}^{b}dx\kappa
(k,x)].\label{F(k)}$$ Here we use the barrier-middle thickness $w=b-a,$ and note $\lambda_{p,\sigma
}^{\ast}(\mathbf{k})=\lambda_{p,\sigma}(-\mathbf{k})$ and $\mu_{q,\sigma
^{\prime}}^{\ast}(\mathbf{k})=\mu_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}(-\mathbf{k})$ because $\Psi_{p,\sigma}$ and $\Phi_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}$ are real. \[When $w$ varies in our discussion below, $\lambda_{p,\sigma}(\mathbf{k})$ and $\mu
_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{k})$ remain unchanged because they pertain to the semi-infinite barrier independent of $w.$ We merely expand or contract the ideal middle of the barrier in Eq. (\[F(k)\]).\] After rearranging the order of sums, Eq. (\[Gamsum\]) with substitution of (\[nugam\]) and (\[F(k)\]) becomes$$\Gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}=\frac{2\pi eV}{\hslash}\sum
\nolimits_{\text{\textbf{k}}}F(w,\mathbf{k})\sum\nolimits_{\text{\textbf{k}}^{\prime}}F(w,\mathbf{k}^{\prime})\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}(\mathbf{k,k}^{\prime
})\mathcal{M}_{\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{k,k}^{\prime})\label{Gam}$$ where each of the two functions $$\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}=\Sigma_{p}^{^{\prime}}\lambda_{p,\sigma}^{\ast
}(\mathbf{k})\lambda_{p,\sigma}(\mathbf{k}^{\prime}),\text{ }\mathcal{M}_{\sigma^{\prime}}=\Sigma_{q}^{^{\prime}}\mu_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{k})\mu_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}^{\ast}(\mathbf{k}^{\prime})\label{LM}$$ depends only on parameters of the left and right magnet-and-barrier combinations respectively. The $^{\prime}$ on $\Sigma^{\prime}$ signifies the conditions given previously for Eq. (\[tuncur\]).
In the presence of atomic disorder, the sums in Eqs. (\[LM\]) are carried over many states of randomized character. Therefore they have the nature of statistical auto-correlations in $y,z$-space which should depend smoothly on **k** and $\mathbf{k}^{\prime}$ and are Taylor-expandable about $\mathbf{k=k}^{\prime}=0$. (See Sec. 5 for the very different toy free-electron case of vanishing disorder [@'89], in which one may formally replace $p\rightarrow$**k**$^{\prime\prime},$ $q\rightarrow$**k**$^{\prime\prime\prime}$ so that $\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{\sigma^{\prime}}$ become proportional to $\delta_{\mathbf{k,k}^{\prime}}$.) In addition, with increasing thickness $w=b-a$ of region $\mathcal{B}$, the exponential in Eq.(\[F(k)\]) becomes ever more sharply peaked at $\mathbf{k}=0.$ Summation over $\mathbf{k}$ and $\mathbf{k}^{\prime}$ of the terms in these Taylor series’ for finite $w$ gives the corresponding terms$$\Gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}(w)=\Gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}^{(0)}(w)+\Gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}^{(1)}(w)+\text{ }\cdot\cdot
\cdot\label{Gamser}$$ The initial constants in both Taylor expansions yield$$\Gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}^{(0)}(w)=f(w)\Omega_{\text{L,}\sigma}^{(0)}\Omega_{\text{R,}\sigma}^{(0)}\label{G0fact}$$ with $\Omega_{\text{L,}\sigma}^{(0)}\equiv\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}(0,0)$ and $\Omega_{\text{R,}\sigma^{\prime}}^{(0)}\equiv\mathcal{M}_{\sigma^{\prime}}(0,0).$ Here factors independent of $\sigma$ and $\sigma^{\prime}$ are absorbed into $f.$ Therefore, to leading order in this expansion, the integrations in Eq. (\[Gam\]) tend to the left-right separation of the form (\[factoring\]).
Written in full, the parameters needed in the general polarization formula (\[polfac\]) are, to lowest order in the Taylor expansions of Eqs. (33), the basis-*state weights*$$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{\text{L},\sigma}^{(0)} & =\sum_{p}\left( \int\int dydz\Psi
_{p,\sigma}(a,y,z)\right) ^{2}\label{OmegL}\\
\Omega_{\text{R},\sigma^{\prime}}^{(0)} & =\sum_{q}\left( \int\int
dydz\Phi_{q,\sigma^{\prime}}(b,y,z)\right) ^{2}\label{OmegR}$$ where $\int\int dydz$ is carried over unit junction area at the portal positions $a$ and $b.$ \[See the next section for development of $\Gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}^{(1)}(w).]$ *Note that the latter two equations differ generally from the* *local state (or charge) density* often cited in connection with tunneling. (LSD $\varpropto\int\int
dydz\Psi_{p,\sigma}^{2})$ They reduce to the LSD in the complete absence of disorder when each of the two sums reduces to a single term $\Psi
_{\mathbf{k}=0,\sigma}^{2}$ and $\Phi_{\mathbf{k}=0,\sigma^{\prime}}^{2}$ independent of *y* and *z*.
Correction of polarization at finite thickness
==============================================
The non-orthogonality between left and right basis functions constitutes a basic weakness of the BTM. Even though the validity of golden-rule transition rates in BTM is not generally assured, it has an enormous acceptance in the literature. The toy free-electron MTJ theory, though founded directly on a solution of the wave equation in the entire ideal non-disordered FIF system having a flat barrier potential, was evaluated only to leading order in the *exponential* parameter $e^{-\kappa w}$ [@'89]. The BTM calculation for the same model agrees exactly with its results, as one knew it should from previous non-spin dependent tunneling theory [@Duke].
Let us assume that BTM is correct to the same exponential degree for our ideal-middle model as for the toy model. The previous section showed that the BTM supports tunnel-polarization phenomenology in lowest order. Continuing with BTM, we derive here a correction to the formulas (\[polfac\]), (\[OmegL\]), and (\[OmegR\]) for polarization which we find below varies *algebraically*, not exponentially, with $w^{-1}$. Therefore these corrections should be reliable in spite of this general weakness of the BTM.
Further progress requires parametrization of the autocorellation functions defined by Eq. (\[LM\]). Note first the consequence of assuming that the possibly disordered atomic configuration in F$_{\text{L}}$ produces no electrostatic potential in F$_{\text{R}}$ and *vice versa*. From Eqs. (\[lpsi\]), (\[rphi\]), and (\[LM\]), in-plane translation of the (disordered) microscopic potential of only the *left electrode* according to $\mathbf{s}\rightarrow\mathbf{s}+(B,C),$ where $(B,C)$ is a periodic-lattice translation of the barrier middle, has the effects, from Eq. (\[LM\]), $\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}\rightarrow\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}\exp[i(\mathbf{k}^{\prime}\mathbf{-k})\cdot(B,C)]$ and $\mathcal{M}_{\sigma^{\prime}}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}_{\sigma^{\prime}}.$ Averaging over all possible such phase changes makes $\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{\sigma^{\prime}}$ diagonal and eliminates all terms with $\mathbf{k\neq k}^{\prime}$ from the double sum in Eq. (\[Gam\]). This equation now becomes$$\Gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}=\frac{2\pi eV}{\hslash}\sum
\nolimits_{\text{\textbf{k}}}F^{2}(\mathbf{k})\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}(\mathbf{k})\mathcal{M}_{\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{k})\label{Gamdiag}$$ using the now diagonal forms of $\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{\sigma^{\prime}}.$
Parenthetically, note that *in the special case of vanishing disorder*, the state indices $p$ and $q$ become $m,\mathbf{k}$ and $n,\mathbf{k}$ respectively, with $m,n$ the respective band indices and **k** the lateral crystalline momentum. Let the basis states be normalized to unity. Then the diagonal elements of formulas (\[LM\]) reduce to$$\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}=\Sigma_{m}|\lambda_{m,\sigma}(\mathbf{k})|^{2}/v_{x,m,\sigma}(\mathbf{k)}\text{ , \ }\mathcal{M}_{\sigma^{\prime}}=\Sigma_{n,\sigma^{\prime}}|\mu_{n,\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{k})|^{2}/v_{x,n,\sigma}(\mathbf{k)}\label{nodisord}$$ with factors independent of $\sigma$ and $\sigma^{\prime}$ omitted. Here $v_{x,m,\sigma}=\partial\varepsilon_{m,\sigma}(\mathbf{k})/\partial k_{x}$ and $v_{x,n,\sigma^{\prime}}=\partial\varepsilon_{n,\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{k})/\partial k_{x}$ are velocity components normal to the junction plane. Their presence in these formulas follows from the restriction on $\Sigma^{\prime}$ in the basic formula (\[tuncur\]).
To evaluate Eq. (\[Gamdiag\]) *for finite disorder*, specialize to small $V$ and constant $\mathcal{U}$ inside $\mathcal{B}.$ After evaluation of the integral in Eq. (\[F(k)\]), it reduces to the form$$\Gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}=f_{1}\sum\nolimits_{\text{\textbf{k}}}\kappa^{2}(\mathbf{k})e^{-2w\kappa(\mathbf{k})}\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}(\mathbf{k})\mathcal{M}_{\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{k})$$ where $f_{1}$ does not depend on $\sigma$ or $\sigma^{\prime}.$ For large $w,$ this sum weights small $k$ heavily, as mentioned above. Therefore parametrize $\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}$ and $\mathcal{M}_{\sigma^{\prime}}$ for small $k$ with the lateral spatial *correlation scales* ($\xi_{\sigma}$,$\eta_{\sigma^{\prime}})$ defined by the formulas$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}(\mathbf{k}) & =\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}(0)[1-\xi_{\sigma
}^{2}k^{2}+\mathcal{O}(k^{4})],\text{ }\label{corscal}\\
\text{\ }\mathcal{M}_{\sigma^{\prime}}(\mathbf{k}) & =\mathcal{M}_{\sigma^{\prime}}(0)[1-\eta_{\sigma^{\prime}}^{2}k^{2}+\mathcal{O}(k^{4})]\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and approximate Eq. (\[kap\]) with $\kappa\approx\kappa_{0}+(k^{2}/2\kappa_{0})$ in the exponent of Eq. (\[F(k)\]). After approximating $\sum_{\text{k}}$ (over one BZ) with an infinite integral, one finds by elementary integration a result equivalent, to first order in $w^{-1},$ to$$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}(w) & \approx\Gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}^{(0)}(w)+\Gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}^{(1)}(w)\\
& \approx f_{2}(w)\mathcal{L}_{\sigma}(0)\left( 1-\frac{\kappa_{0}\xi_{\sigma}^{2}}{w+\kappa_{0}^{-1}}\right) \mathcal{M}_{\sigma^{\prime}}(0)\left( 1-\frac{\kappa_{0}\eta_{\sigma^{\prime}}^{2}}{w+\kappa_{0}^{-1}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where once again factors independent of both $\sigma$ and $\sigma^{\prime}$ are absorbed into $f_{2}.$ Thus to this approximation, $\Gamma_{\sigma
,\sigma^{\prime}}$ once again has the factored form (\[factoring\]). (It appears that in order $w^{-2},$ $\Gamma_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}$ does not separate this way into left- and right-dependent factors.) The corrected left polarization factor, according to Eq.(\[polfac\]) reduces upon expansion to$$\begin{aligned}
P_{\text{L}} & =P_{\text{L}}^{(0)}+\frac{1}{2}\left( 1-P_{\text{L}}^{(0)\text{ }2}\right) \frac{\kappa_{0}(\xi_{-}^{2}-\xi_{+}^{2})}{w+\kappa_{0}^{-1}}+...\text{ \ \ with}\label{Pcorr}\\
P_{\text{L}}^{(0)} & =\frac{\mathcal{L}_{+}(0)-\mathcal{L}_{-}(0)}{\mathcal{L}_{+}(0)+\mathcal{L}_{-}(0)},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and similarly for $P_{\text{R}}.$ Thus, from given Bardeen basis functions one can obtain polarization factors, correctly to order $w^{-1},$ in a disordered electrode-barrier combination.
Discussion
==========
Although it is valid only in the limit of weak transmission, predictions from Bardeen’s tunneling theory [@Bard] are interesting because it does not require electron momentum within the electrodes to be conserved. Our application to elastic tunneling through ordered or disordered magnetic tunneling junctions yields these new conclusions:
- In Section 3 we found that the torque at constant external *voltage* is generally proportional to $\sin\theta$ \[Eq.(\[TR=sin\])\] *. *This result is a direct consequence of the single-transition nature of tunneling and the simple form of the spinor transformation (\[tunmat\]). It contrasts with the more general angular dependence conditioned on electron structure and spin-channel resistance parameters in the case of a metallic spacer [@'02].
- In general, polarization factors do not exist in the absence of special assumptions, in agreement with previous theory [@MoodMatRev; @TsymbRev].
- In Section 4 we found that if the polarization factors *are* well defined, then at constant applied voltage the electric current and in-plane torque obey the relations (\[magcur\]), (\[TR=sin\]), and (\[TL=sin\]). These similar relations are inter-connected by the presence of the common factor $J_{0}(V)$ which we do not attempt to calculate. The dimensionless coefficients in these relations are expressed in terms of the polarizations by $\tau_{\text{R}}=P_{\text{L}},$ $\tau_{\text{L}}=P_{\text{R}}$, $\iota
=P_{\text{L}}P_{\text{R}},$ implying $\iota=\tau_{\text{L}}\tau_{\text{R}}.$ In particular, these general relations are satisfied by the special results of a direct solution of the Schroedinger equation for the toy model of parabolic bands and ideal rectangular potential barrier [@'89].
- Experimentally, TMR is known to usually diminish with increasing external voltage $V$ [@MoodMatRev; @MiyazakiReview]. In Section 5 we considered that it is the polarizing factor of the collector electrode which decreases more strongly with $V$, resulting in the unsymmetric schematic pattern of voltage dependence of torque indicated in Fig. 3. This lack of symmetry due to the relations $\tau_{\text{R}}=P_{\text{L}}$ and $\tau
_{\text{L}}=P_{\text{R}}$ implies that the threshold voltage for initiation of dynamic excitation will be increasingly asymmetric at the higher values ($>$100 mV) likely needed for writing in memory. Cases may well arise in which voltage-driven switching works in only one direction. For selected experimental junctions, switching is observed at a voltage sufficiently high for TMR to become negligible [@Fuchs]. Our Fig. 3 indicates how this may happen for switching in but one direction, from AP to P. However, our theory would *not* explain any *symmetric* persistence of switching at voltages great enough to destroy TMR, if this is observed.
- Our approach to the validation of polarization factors complements previous studies which accounted for atomic disorder in the barrier assuming electrode states with well-defined crystalline momentum [@TsymPet; @MathUmer; @Belash]. We assume that the barrier is thick and includes an ideal crystalline or vacuum middle region of thickness $w$ as in Fig. 4. Then a newly derived polarization factor, given by Eq. (\[Pcorr\]), is valid to first order in $w^{-1}$ even in the presence of disorder in the electrodes and interfaces sufficient to destroy the conservation of lateral crystalline momentum throughout the electrode and interface regions. The key basis-state weight factors (\[OmegL\]) and (\[OmegR\]) are more general than the conventional local state density.
- Our conclusion that the validity of polarization factors increases with increasing $w$ tends to undermine our predictions of voltage asymmetry of torque shown schematically in Fig. 3. For, experimental spin-transfer effects such as switching will require very thin barriers, making the separability condition assumed in Fig. 3 less valid. Previous proposals [@TsymbRev; @Belash] that validity of polarization factors is attributable to unique defect states or amorphicity in the barrier are more promising in this respect.
- Belashenko and co-authors [@Belash] find that certain first-principle TMR computations for realistic barrier thickness may be poorly approximated by proportionality to $e^{-\kappa w}$. This casts additional doubt on the applicability of the ideal middle to the very thin junctions needed for spin-momentum transfer experiments. However, our conclusions from this model may bear significantly on magneto-resistance experiments carried out with greater thickness, as suggested below.
- Our parametrized expression (\[Pcorr\]) for dependence of tunnel polarization on ideal-middle thickness *w* is without precedent. A strong dependence is expected from certain compositions, like Co, Ni, and certain alloys, such as FeCo, lying on the negative-slope region of the Slater-Pauling curve [@SPCurv]; for, their strong contrast between heavily 4sp-weighted density of majority-spin and heavily 3d-weighted density of minority-spin bands may be reflected in strongly contrasting magnitudes of left lateral autocorellation scales $\xi_{+}$ and $\xi_{-}.$ Theoretical estimation of the left polarization factor will require prior first-principle computation of the Bardeen basis functions $\psi_{p,\sigma}$ for the disordered electrode-barrier system. From these, one must invert the series (\[lpsi\]) to evaluate the diagonal elements of the Fourier coefficients $\lambda_{p,\sigma}.$ Then Taylor expansion of the diagonal element in the first Eq. (\[LM\]) for substitution into the first Eq. (\[corscal\]) provides the coefficients $\mathcal{L}_{\pm}(0)$ and $\xi_{\pm}.$ These parameters must then be substituted into Eqs. (\[Pcorr\]) to obtain the left polarization factor.
- In fact, experimental junctions having composition Fe/Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$/FeCo show dependence of TMR on barrier thickness ** [@MiyazakiReview] at T=2 K where our assumption of elastic tunneling should be valid. A monotonic dependence on thickness, expected from Eq. (42), is observed for two crystallographic orientations on single-crystal Fe, but not on the third. Although the (say) right electrode (FeCo) lies on the negative-slope side, the left electrode (Fe) lies on the positive-slope side of the Slater-Pauling curve where high 3d density exists for both signs of spin so that there may be little difference between $\xi_{+}$ and $\xi_{-}$. Junctions with both electrodes taken from the negative-slope side may yield a more pronounced thickness dependence of TMR on barrier thickness according to the present theory.
**Acknowledgments. **The author is grateful to G. Mathon for a related preprint, and for helpful discussions with W. Butler, E. Tsymbal, K. Belashchenko, M. Stiles, Y. Bazaliy, J. Sun, S. S. P. Parkin, P. Nguyen, G. Fuchs, D. Worledge, and P. Visscher.
[99]{}
J. C. Slonczewski, Phys. Rev. B, **39**, 6995 (1989).
S. I. Kiselev *et al*, Nature , **425**, 380 (2003).
W. H. Rippard, M. R. Pufall, S. Kaka, S. E. Russek, and T. J. Silva, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92,** 027201(2004).
J. S. Moodera, L. R. Kinder, T. M. Wong, and R. Meservey, Phys. Rev. Lett. **74**, 3273 (1995).
S. S. P. Parkin, in *Spin Dependent Transport in Magnetic Nanostructures* (Taylor & Francis, 2002), p. 237.
Y. Huai, F. Albert, P. Nguyen, M. Pakala, and T. Valet, Appl. Phys. Lett. **84**, 3118 (2004).
G. D. Fuchs, N. C. Emley, I. N. Krivorotov, P. M. Braganca, E. M. Ryan, S. I. Kiselev, J. C. Sankey, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, and J. A. Katine, Appl. Phys. Lett. **85**, 1205 (2004).
J. Slonczewski, Frontiers in Magnetism 99. Stockholm, 12-15 August 1999, arXiv: cond-mat/0205055.
J. S. Moodera and G. Mathon, J. Mag. Mag. Mats. **200**, 248 (1999).
T. Miyazaki, Chapter 3 in *Spin Dependent Transport in Magnetic Nanostructures,* edited by S. Maekawa and T. Shinjo* *(Taylor & Francis, 2002).
S. Maekawa, S. Takahashi, and H. Imamura, Chapter 4 in *Spin Dependent Transport in Magnetic Nanostructures* (Taylor & Francis, 2002).
E. Y. Tsymbal, O. N. Mryasov, and P. R. LeClair, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **15**, R109 (2003).
R. Meservey and P. M. Tedrow, Physics Reports **238**, 173 (1994).
M. Julliere, Phys. Lett. **54A**, 225 (1975).
E. Y. Tsymbal and D. G. Pettifor, Phys. Rev. B **58**, 432 (1998).
J. Mathon and A. Umerski, Phys. Rev. B **60**, 1117(1999).
K. D. Belashchenko, E. Y. Tsymbal, M. van Schilfgaarde, D. A. Stewart, I. I. Oleynik, and S. S. Jaswal, Phys. Rev. B 69, 174408 (2004).
J. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. Letts. **6**, 57 (1961).
C. B. Duke, *Tunneling in Solids,* (Academic Press, New York, 1969), Sec. 18a, Eqs. (8.11-8.14)
J. Slonczewski, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. **247,** 324 (2002).
L. Berger, Phys. Rev. B **54,** 9353 **** (1996).
Y. B. Bazaliy, B. A. Jones, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B **57**, R3213 (1998).
J. Slonczewski, J. Magn. Magn. Mats. **195**, L261 (1999).
M. D. Stiles and A. Zangwill, Phys. Rev. B **66**, 014407 (2002).
F. J. Albert, N. C. Emley, E. B. Myers, D. C. Ralph, and R. A. Buhrman,Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 226802 (2002).
D. M. Edwards, F. Federici, J. Mathon, and A. Umerski, preprint.
J. Bass and W. P. Pratt, Jr., J. Magn. Magn.Mats. **200,** 274 (1999).
J. Kübler, *Theory of Itinerant Electron Magnetism* (Oxford Science Publications, 2000).
T. Valet and A. Fert, Phys. Rev. B **48,** 7099 (1993).
Eq. (18.34) in Ref. [@Duke].
N. Tezuka and T. Miyazaki, J. Magn. and Magn. Mats. **177-181**, 1283 (1998).
Fei-fei Li, Zheng-zhong Li, Ming-wen Xiao, Jun Du, Wang Xu, An Hu, and John Q. Xiao, J. Appl. Phys. **95** 7243 (2004).
See, for example, A. C. Smith, J. F. Janak, and R. S. Adler, *Electronic Conduction in Solids* (McGraw-Hill 1967) p. 125.
Ref. [@Kubler], p. 234.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Yuki <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fuseya</span>[^1], Masahisa <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tsuchiizu</span>, Yoshikazu <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Suzumura</span> and Claude <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Bourbonnais</span>$^{1}$'
title: ' Effect of Inter-Site Repulsions on Magnetic Susceptibility of One-Dimensional Electron Systems at Quarter-Filling '
---
In low dimensional conductors, the influence of long-range Coulomb interactions, or the off-site interaction $V$’s are known to lead to various interesting ordered states, such as charge ordering[@SHF] and spin-density wave (SDW) state coexisting with charge-density wave (CDW)[@PR; @KOY]. At the present stage, however, the effect of $V$’s is not clearly understood compared with that of the on-site repulsion $U$. The purpose of this letter is to analyze the effect of $V$’s on the quasi-one-dimensional conductor in the normal state by calculating the temperature dependence of the magnetic susceptibility $\chi (T)$ for the one-dimensional system at quarter-filling. The results shed some light on the magnetic properties of both normal and ordered states in these kinds of materials.
A lot of studies of $\chi (T)$ were devoted to the one-dimensional (1D) Hubbard model, i.e., for $V$’s $=0$. The Bethe ansatz gives us an exact solution, but $\chi$ only at $T=0$ is available for the 1D Hubbard model[@Shiba]. The temperature dependence of $\chi$ can be extracted from numerical simulations but only at high temperatures[@NBTVT]. For $U$ smaller than the bandwidth, the renormalization-group (RG) approach gives results that quantitatively agree with both the exact solution at $T=0$ and the numerical solutions at high temperatures[@NBTVT]. In the presence of $V$’s, however, there is no exact solution, and the size of numerical simulations becomes exceedingly large. These techniques are then of limited use to investigate the effect of $V$’s. In this letter, we use the RG technique to calculate $\chi (T)$ for the full temperature range from zero to the bandwidth $E_0$ in the presence of $V$’s ($>0$). Considering the possible interactions for branches of right and left going electrons in the continuum limit, we take into account the forward scattering on the same branch (SB), denoted as the $g_4$-process, with the backward ($g_1$) and forward ($g_2$) scattering processes on opposite branches. This is the first derivation of the RG flows of the sets of coupling constants and $\chi (T)$ at the one-loop level including the non-logarithmic channels for particles on the SB, which become important at finite-temperatures. Our main results are: 1) $\chi (T)$ is noticeably enhanced at finite temperature by the nearest-neighbor repulsion ($V_1$) compared with the next-nearest-neighbor repulsion ($V_2$); 2) $\chi (T=0)$ is not simply proportional to the inverse of the ordinary spin-velocity $v_\sigma$; 3) $\chi (T)$ is reduced by a moderately large $V_2$ due to the CDW fluctuations.
We consider the quarter-filled extended-Hubbard model in 1D with the Hamiltonian $H=H_0 + H_{\rm I}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
H_0 &= -t\sum_{i, \sigma}
\left[ c_{i+1, \sigma}^\dagger c_{i, \sigma}^{} + {\rm h. c.}
\right],
\label{H0}
\\
H_{\rm I}
&=\sum_{i}\left[
U n_{i \uparrow} n_{i \downarrow}
+V_1 n_{i} n_{i+1}
+V_2 n_{i} n_{i+2}
\right].
\label{HIHub}\end{aligned}$$ Here $t$ denotes the intrachain hopping integral, $c_{i, \sigma}^{(\dagger)}$ as an annihilation (a creation) operator on the $i$-th site with spin $\sigma$ $(=\uparrow, \downarrow)$. The density operators are $n_{i, \sigma}=c_{i, \sigma}^\dagger c_{i, \sigma}$ and $n_i=n_{i \uparrow}+n_{i \downarrow}$. In weak-coupling regions, Eq. (\[H0\]) can be safely expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
H_0 &= \sum_{p, k, \sigma} \epsilon_p (k)
c_{p, k, \sigma}^\dagger c_{p, k, \sigma}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_p (k) =v_F (pk-k_F )$ is the linearized 1D dispersion and $v_F$ being the Fermi velocity. The operator $c_{p, k, \sigma}^{(\dagger)}$ annihilates (creates) an electron of spin $\sigma$ close to the Fermi point of the right $k=+k_F$ ($p=+1$) and left $k=-k_F$ ($p=-1$) branches. We focus on the scattering processes between electrons near the Fermi points and express the Hamiltonian in terms of the charge- and spin-couplings in the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm I}
=&\frac{1}{L} \sum_{q, p}
\bigl[
g_{\rho}
\rho_p (q) \rho_{-p} (-q)
+g_{\sigma}
\bm{S}_p (q)\cdot \bm{S}_{-p} (-q)
\nonumber\\&
+g_{4 \rho}
\rho_p (q) \rho_p (-q)
+g_{4\sigma}
S^z_p (q)\cdot S^z_{p} (-q)
\bigr] ,
\label{HIrs}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_p (q)
&\equiv \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k, \sigma}
c_{p,k+q,\sigma}^\dagger
c_{p,k,\sigma}^{}, \\
\bm{S}_p (q)
&\equiv \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k, \alpha, \beta}
c_{p,k+q,\alpha}^\dagger
\pmb{\sigma}^{\alpha \beta}
c_{p,k\beta}^{},\end{aligned}$$ are the charge and spin-density of the branch $p$, respectively. Here $\pmb{\sigma}$ is the vector of the Pauli matrices. The $g_{4\sigma}$-term is equivalent to $(g_{4\sigma}/3)\bm{S}_p (q)\cdot \bm{S}_p (q)$ due to the spin-rotational SU(2) symmetry of the original extended-Hubbard Hamiltonian. The coupling constants at 1/4 filling ($k_F =\pi /4, v_F =\sqrt{2}t$) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\rho}&=U + 4V_1 + 6V_2 ,\\
g_{\sigma}&=-U + 2V_2 , \\
g_{4\rho}&= U + 4V_1 + 4V_2 , \\
g_{4\sigma}&= -U.
\label{g4sUV}\end{aligned}$$ The lattice constant is taken as unity.
![ Diagrams at one-loop level for (a) Cooper and (b) Peierls channels, and (c) pp and (d) ph channels on the same branch (SB); (e) perturbative expansion of the pair vertex part $z_\sigma$ \[see eq. (\[dz\])\]. The solid (dashed) line indicates electrons for right (left) going state, and the shaded square denotes respective coupling constants. []{data-label="CPL"}](fig1.eps){width="8cm"}
Following the Kadanoff-Wilson RG technique[@BC], each RG step consists of the partial integrations of the fermion degrees of freedom in the outer band-momentum shell, $E_0 (\ell) /2 \geqq \epsilon_p (k) > E_0 (\ell +d\ell)/2 $ for electrons and $-E_0 (\ell) /2 \leqq \epsilon_p (k) < -E_0 (\ell +d\ell)/2 $ for holes. Here, $E_0 (\ell )$ is the renormalized bandwidth $E_0 (\ell )=E_0 e^{-\ell}$ with the initial bandwidth $E_0 =2v_F k_F \simeq 2t$. At the one-loop level (Fig.\[CPL\]), RG equations for coupling constants at finite temperature are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\ell}G_\rho(\ell) &=
-\frac{1}{4}G_\rho(\ell)
\left[G_{4\rho}(\ell)-G_{4\sigma}(\ell)\right]
I_{{\rm SB}}(\ell), \label{dl1}
\\
\frac{d}{d\ell}G_\sigma(\ell)
&=G_\sigma^2 (\ell)I_{{\rm CP}}(\ell)
\nonumber\\&
+\frac{1}{4}G_\sigma(\ell)
\left[ G_{4\rho}(\ell )-G_{4\sigma}(\ell)\right]
I_{{\rm SB}}(\ell),\label{dl2}
\\
\frac{d}{d\ell}G_{4\rho}(\ell)&=-\frac{1}{2}
\left[G_\rho^2(\ell) -
G_{4\rho}(\ell)G_{4\sigma}(\ell)\right]I_{{\rm SB}}(\ell),\label{dl3}
\\
\frac{d}{d\ell}G_{4\sigma}(\ell)&=-\frac{1}{2}
\left[3G_\sigma^2(\ell) -
G_{4\rho}(\ell)G_{4\sigma}(\ell)\right]I_{{\rm SB}}(\ell),
\label{dl4}\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{\nu}(\ell)$’s are dimensionless couplings with the initial conditions $G_{\nu}(0)= g_{\nu}/\pi v_F$. The quantities $I_{{\rm CP}}(\ell)= \tanh [E_0 (\ell)/4T]$ are the Cooper/Peierls outer shell contractions \[Fig. \[CPL\] (a), (b)\], which are cut off by the temperature, namely $ I_{{\rm CP}}(\ell) \simeq 1 $ for $E_0 (\ell)/4 \gtrsim T$ and $ I_{{\rm CP}}(\ell) \simeq 0$ otherwise. The function $I_{{\rm SB}}(\ell)$ is the coefficient of the particle-particle (pp) and particle-hole (ph) contractions on the SB \[Fig. \[CPL\] (c) and (d), respectively\] given by $$\begin{aligned}
I_{{\rm SB}}(\ell) d\ell &= -\lim_{q\to 0}\frac{2\pi v_F T}{L}
\sum_{\omega_n}\sum_{k}^{\rm shell}
\mathfrak{G}_p^0(k, \omega_n )\mathfrak{G}_p^0 (k+q, \omega_n)
\nonumber\\&
=\frac{E_0 (\ell )}{4T}
\cosh^{-2}\frac{E_0 (\ell )}{4T} d\ell.
\label{IL}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak{G}_p^0 (k, \omega_n )=\left[ {\rm i}\omega_n - \epsilon_p (k) \right] ^{-1}$ is the non-interacting Green’s function with a Matsubara frequency $\omega_n$ . The SB channels become finite due to thermal particle-hole excitations, i.e., $E_0 (\ell)/4 \sim T$. By setting $I_{{\rm SB}}(\ell )=0$ and $I_{{\rm CP}}(\ell)=1$, Eqs. (\[dl1\])-(\[dl4\]) reproduce the previous RG equations which treat only the Cooper and Peierls contractions.[@Solyom; @BC] Equations (\[dl1\])-(\[dl4\]) are the full RG equations at the one-loop level. Here, “full" means they include not only the logarithmic (Cooper and Peierls) channels, but also the non-logarithmic (SB) channel. By considering the contribution of $I_{\rm SB}$, the renormalization of $g_{4\rho, 4\sigma}$ and their influence on the charge- and magnetic-susceptibility is obtained. In Eqs. (\[dl1\])-(\[dl4\]), they apparently imply that the spin- and charge-part are coupled together. However, the contribution of the SB channel, $I_{{\rm SB}}(\ell )$, is small compared to that of the logarithmic term, $I_{{\rm CP}}(\ell)$, so that the coupling of spin- and charge-part is very weak. Further, at the ground state, the present flow equations exhibit the spin-charge decoupling since $I_{{\rm SB}}(\ell)=0$ at $T=0$. The uniform magnetic susceptibility $\chi(T)$ can be calculated by introducing a Zeeman coupling between a source field $h_p(q)$ and the spin-density variable $\bm{S}_p(q)$. By adding $H_h = \sum_{q,p} z_\sigma h_p(q) \bm{S}_p(q)$ to the Hamiltonian, the uniform magnetic susceptibility can be obtained and which leads, $$\begin{aligned}
\chi (T) = \frac{2}{\pi v_F}\int_{0}^\infty
\left[
z_\sigma (\ell )
\right] ^2 I_{{\rm SB}}(\ell)
d\ell ,
\label{magsusRG}\end{aligned}$$ where $z_{\sigma}(\ell)$ is the pair vertex part and is calculated from $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\ell}z_{\sigma}(\ell)
=\frac{1}{2}z_{\sigma}(\ell )
\left[
-G_\sigma (\ell) +G_{4\perp}(\ell)
\right] I_{{\rm SB}}(\ell),
\label{dz}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
G_{4\perp}(\ell) \equiv \frac{1}{2}
[G_{4\rho}(\ell)-G_{4\sigma}(\ell)],\end{aligned}$$ and the initial condition $z_{\sigma}(0)=1$ \[see Fig. \[CPL\] (e)\].
![Energy flow of the couplings at $T=0.01t$. (The SB channel becomes effective around $E_0 (\ell ) \sim 4T =0.018E_0$.) $G_\sigma$ and $G_{4\perp} (\equiv (G_{4\rho}-G_{4\sigma})/2)$ are shown by lines (i) and (i’) for $(U, V_1, V_2 )=(2t, 0, 0)$, by lines (ii) and (ii’) for $(U, V_1 , V_2 )=(2t, t, 0)$ and by lines (iii) and (iii’) for $(U, V_1 , V_2)=(2t, 0, t)$. []{data-label="gflow"}](fig2c.eps){width="8cm"}
The flows of the couplings as a function of energy at $T=0.01t$ are shown in Fig. \[gflow\]. We show results for the following different sets of parameters; (i) $(U, V_1, V_2 )=(2t, 0, 0)$, (ii) $(U, V_1 , V_2 )=(2t, t, 0)$ and (iii) $(U, V_1 , V_2)=(2t, 0, t)$. Note that for the cases (i) and (ii), the SDW becomes dominant, while both the SDW and CDW are enhanced for the case (iii). Generally, for $E_0 (\ell )/4 \gtrsim T$, $G_\sigma(\ell)$ follows $G_\sigma(\ell) = G_\sigma(0) / \left[ 1+G_\sigma(0) \ln (E_0 (\ell)/E_0 )\right]$, as found in the conventional RG. With decreasing $E_0 (\ell )$, $|G_\sigma |$’s \[plots (i) & (ii)\] are gradually suppressed due to the irrelevance of $G_\sigma (<0)$ in the limit of $T=0$. However, the $G_{4\perp}$’s \[plots (i’), (ii’) & (iii’)\] keep their initial values until $E_0 (\ell )$ decreases to $E_0 (\ell )/4 \sim T$. Around $E_0 (\ell )/4 \sim T$, the SB channel becomes effective while the contributions of the Cooper and Peierls channels to the flow are strongly suppressed. As a result, the SB channel slightly enhances $|G_\sigma |$ and remarkably reduces $G_{4\perp}$ \[plots (ii) & (ii’)\] for finite $V_1$. For finite $V_2$, $G_{4\perp}$ \[plot (iii’)\] is reduced further. The contribution of the SB channel is relatively small for the Hubbard model ($V_{1,2}=0$) \[plots (i) & (i’)\]. As shown later, the properties of $\chi (T)$ are directly affected by the temperature dependence of $G_\sigma $ and $G_{4\perp}$.
![ Magnetic susceptibility $\chi (T)$ for (i) $(U, V_1, V_2)$=$(2t, 0, 0)$, (ii) $(2t, t, 0)$, (iii) $(2t, 0, t)$ and (iv) $(2t, 0, 2t)$, where $\chi_0 =2/\pi v_F (\simeq 0.45/t)$ denotes the magnetic susceptibility without interactions at $T=0$. []{data-label="magsus"}](fig3c.eps){width="8cm"}
The temperature dependence of the magnetic susceptibility $\chi (T)$ is shown in Fig. \[magsus\]. The result for the Hubbard model ($U=2t$) given by the plot (i) is quantitatively consistent with $\chi (T)$ calculated by the quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations[@NBTVT]. The value at $T=0$, $\chi (0)t=0.58$, agrees well with the exact solution, $\chi_{\rm exact} (0)t= 0.57$, for $U=2t$.[@Shiba] Near zero temperature, $\chi (T)$ decreases as $d\chi /d T \to \infty$ for plots (i) and (ii), which has also been pointed out in the context of the Heisenberg spin chain[@EAT]. This logarithmic decrease of $\chi (T\sim 0)$ is due to the logarithmic decrease of $|G_\sigma|$.[@NBTVT] Note that for large $U$, e.g., $U\gtrsim 4t$, there was a sizable difference between the previous $\chi (T)$ of the RG approach [@NBTVT] and the $\chi(T)$ of the QMC calculation at high temperatures. The difference is much reduced by the present RG calculation due to taking account of the non-logarithmic terms (the SB channels), which become important at high temperatures. It is expected that such a difference is further reduced by the modified-Kanamori approach[@NBTVT], which is not applicable at low temperatures but gives better agreement with $\chi_{\rm QMC}(T)$ at high temperatures. In the present calculation, we take the linearized (continuum) dispersion, in which lattice effects, coming from the use of the full tight binding spectrum $\epsilon_{p}(k) = -2t \left[\cos (k) - \cos (k_F ) \right]$, are neglected. When the lattice effects are considered in the calculation of $I_{\rm SB} (\ell )$, there appears a slight dip around $T\sim 0.1 t$[@NBTVT]. For $U=2V_2$ \[plot (iii)\] corresponding to the boundary between SDW and CDW, $G_\sigma$ is invariant due to $G_{\sigma}(0)=0$, so that $d\chi /d T$ is constant at low temperatures as for an ordinary paramagnetic metal. For $U < 2V_2$ \[plot (iv)\], $\chi$ is reduced to zero at $ T \ll t$ due to the CDW state. It is noticed that $\chi (T)$ is much enhanced by $V_1$ compared with $V_2$ at finite temperatures. This difference originates from the degree of the renormalization of $G_{4\perp}$. As seen in Fig. \[gflow\], in the presence of $V_1$ , the reduction of $G_{4\perp}$ \[plot (ii’)\] due to the SB channel is smaller than that in the presence of $V_2$ \[plot (iii’)\]. Consequently, the enhancement of $\chi (T)$ by $V_1$ is much larger than by $V_2$ at finite temperatures. This superiority of $V_1$ is seen only at finite temperature. Such an effect of $V_1$ is surprising since $V_1$ was considered to be irrelevant whereas $V_2$ to be relevant[@Yoshioka]. The origin of this enhancement can be further analyzed by considering the following random phase approximation (RPA) for $\chi(T)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\chi (T) =\frac{2}{\pi v_F}\frac{\chi_p^0 (T)}
{1+\left[ G_\sigma (T) -G_{4\perp} (T)
\right] \chi_p^0 (T)/2},
\label{RPA}\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_p^0 (T)=\tanh (E_0 /4T) $ is the magnetic susceptibility of the non-interacting case per branch. In Eq.(\[RPA\]), $G_{\sigma (4\perp)}(T)$ denotes the renormalized coupling at $T$, i.e., $G_\sigma (T) = G_\sigma (0 ) /[1+G_\sigma (0)\ln (2T/E_0 )]$ and $G_{4\perp}(T)=[G_{4\rho}(\ell =0)-G_{4\sigma}(\ell =0)]/2$. Note that this formula includes the fluctuation beyond the simple RPA due to the renormalization of the Cooper and Peierls channel above $T$. The result of Eq. (\[RPA\]) qualitatively agrees with that of Eq. (\[magsusRG\]) except that it does not consider transients due to the interplay between the Cooper (or Peierls) and SB channel for $E_0 (\ell ) \sim 4T$. At $T=0$, Eq. (\[RPA\]) yields $\chi (0) =2(\pi v_\sigma^*)^{-1}$ where $v_\sigma^*$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
v_\sigma^* &\equiv
v_F \left[ 1 -G_{4\perp}/2\right] \nonumber\\
&= v_F \left[
1-(\pi v_F )^{-1}(U/2+V_1 +V_2 )
\right].
\label{spinvelo}\end{aligned}$$ As is clear from this form, $\chi (T)$ depends not only on $U$ but also on $V_1$ and $V_2$. In earlier studies, $\chi (0)$ is given merely by the inverse of $v_\sigma$, where the spin velocity $v_\sigma$ is expressed as $v_\sigma =v_F [1-U/(2\pi v_F )]$ and is independent of $V_1$ and $V_2$[@Solyom]. The present results reveal that $\chi (0)$ is not given by the ordinary spin-velocity $v_\sigma$, but by $v_\sigma^*$. Such a difference originates from a careful treatment of $H_{\rm I}$ \[Eq. (\[HIrs\])\] (especially the $g_4$-process) and the accurate derivation of the flow of $z_\sigma$ \[Eq. (\[dz\])\]. It is worth remarking that in the rotationally invariant Hartree-Fock theory, the $V_1$ interaction does contribute to the magnetic susceptibility. The corrections to the spin velocity obtained in this work are consistent with those of the Hartree-Fock theory. We note that a recent result obtained by the numerical diagonalization also indicates the enhancement of $\chi(0)$ by $V_1$.[@TO]
![ Contour plot of $\chi(T)/\chi_0$ at $T=0.001t$ as a function of $V_1$ and $V_2$. The plot at $V_2 /t = U/2t=1$ corresponds to the phase boundary between SDW and CDW. []{data-label="cont"}](fig4c.eps){width="7cm"}
Figure \[cont\] shows the contour plot of $\chi$ in the $V_1$-$V_2$ plane at $T=0.001t$ and $U=2t$. It exhibits $\chi (T)$ is monotonically enhanced by increasing $V_1$. For large $V_2$, $\chi (T)$ decreases exponentially to zero with increasing $V_2$ indicating the formation of CDW state.[@Solyom; @Yoshioka] The $V_1$-$V_2$ dependence of $\chi (T)$ is approximately proportional to $V_1 + V_2 $ for small $V_2/t$. The magnitude of $V_2/t (\simeq 1.3)$ for vanishing of $\chi$ is larger than that of $T=0$, i.e., $V_2 = U/2 (=t)$, due to the effect of finite temperature.
The role of $V_1$ and $V_2$ on $\chi$ can be intuitively understood as follows. First, consider the Hubbard model ($U>0, V_1 =V_2 =0 )$, where the dominant state is the $2k_F$-SDW with a periodicity of four lattice spacing. The enhancement of $\chi (T)$ by $U (> 0)$ occurs due to the reduction of double occupancy of up spin and down spin. On the other hand, at low temperatures $\chi (T)$ is reduced due to irrelevance of the backward scattering.[@Solyom] Next, the addition of $V_1$, which prevents electrons from coming to the nearest-neighbor site, enhances the $2k_F$-SDW and the local moment of spin. This explains the enhancement of $\chi (T)$ in the presence of $V_1$ as seen from plots (1) and (2) in Fig. \[magsus\]. When $V_2$ is added, electrons become less located at next-nearest-neighbor sites leading to the coexistence of $2k_F$-CDW and $2k_F$-SDW. The CDW fluctuations reduce $\chi (T)$. Finally, the present results can be discussed in connection with the experimental situation for the series of quasi-one-dimensional organic conductors (TMT$C$F)$_2 X$ ($C$=S, Se; $X$=PF$_6$, Br)[@Dumm]. In (TMTTF)$_2 X$ for example, $\chi (T)$ exhibits a maximum and $d\chi /dT$ is large at low temperatures. The present results suggest that besides the effect of $U$, a moderate $V_1$ leads to a clear maximum in $\chi(T)$ and to large $d\chi /dT$. Considering that a charge ordered state exists in (TMTTF)$_2 X$[@SHF], these compounds should be characterized by a large $V_1$. Therefore the previous determinations of $U$ from $\chi (T)$ in (TMTTF)$_2 X$ might be considered as overestimations [@Dumm; @Wzietek]. As for the Bechgaard salts, no charge ordered state is found in (TMTSF)$_2$PF$_6$ and a much less pronounced maximum of $\chi (T)$ and smaller $d\chi /d T$ are observed. Besides the role of $U$, the present results would indicate that (TMTSF)$_2$PF$_6$ has a relatively large $V_2$ (and not small $U$ and $V_1$). A large $V_2$ is consistent with a $2k_F$-SDW state coexisting with $2k_F$-CDW.[@PR; @KOY]
In conclusion, we calculated the magnetic susceptibility, $\chi (T)$, by considering the renormalization of the forward scattering in the same branch, the $g_4$-process, using the Kadanoff-Wilson RG technique. With the careful treatment of the $g_4$-process, we found that $\chi (T)$ is enhanced by the nearest-neighbor interaction $V_1$, but is less enhanced by $V_2$. It is also found that $\chi (0)$ is given by $v_\sigma^*$ \[Eq. (\[spinvelo\])\], which is different from the ordinary spin-velocity $v_\sigma$. A comparison with the experimental situation of the quasi-one-dimensional organic compounds suggests that (TMTTF)$_2 X$ has a large $V_1$ ($\lesssim U$) but small $V_2$, while (TMTSF)$_2 X$ has a large $V_2$ ($\lesssim V_1 \lesssim U$).
The authors thank K. Kuroki, M. Ogata and Y. Tanaka for valuable discussions. The present work has been financially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas of Molecular Conductors (No. 15073103 and 15073213) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.
[99]{} H. Seo, C. Hotta and H. Fukuyama: Chem. Rev. [**104**]{} (2004) 5005.
J. P. Pouget and S. Ravy: J. Phys. I [**6**]{} (1996) 1501; S. Kagoshima, Y. Saso, M. Maesato, R. Kondo and T. Hasegawa: Solid State Comm. [**110**]{} (1999) 479.
N. Kobayashi, M. Ogata and K. Yonemitsu: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**67**]{} (1998) 1098.
H. Shiba: Phys. Rev. B [**6**]{} (1972) 930.
H. Nélisse, C. Bourbonnais, H. Touchette, Y. M. Vilk and A. -M. S. Tremblay: Eur. Phys. J. B [**12**]{} (1999) 351, and references therein. J. Solyom: Adv. Phys. [**28**]{} (1979) 201; V. J. Emery: [*Highly Conducting One-Dimensional Solids*]{}, ed. J. T. Devreese, R. P. Evrard and V. E. van Doren (Plenum Press, New York, 1979) p. 247.
C. Bourbonnais, B. Guay and R. Wortis: [*Theoretical Methods for Strongly Correlated Electrons*]{}, ed. D. Sénéchal, A. -M. Tremblay and C. Bourbonnais (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2004) p. 77.
H. Yoshioka, M. Tsuchiizu and Y. Suzumura: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**70**]{} (2001) 762.
S. Eggert, I. Affleck and M. Takahashi: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{} (1994) 332.
Y. Tanaka and M. Ogata: in preparation. M. Dumm, A. Loidl, B. W. Fravel, K. P. Starkey, L. K. Montgomery and M. Dressel: Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{} (2000) 511.
P. Wzietek, F. Creuzet, C. Bourbonnais, D. Jerome, K. Bechgaard and P. Batail: J. Phys. I (France) [**3**]{} (1993) 170.
[^1]: E-mail address: [email protected].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we bring together two trends that have recently emerged in sparse signal recovery: the problem of sparse signals that stem from finite alphabets and the techniques that introduce concave penalties. Specifically, we show that using a minimax concave penalty (MCP) the recovery of finite-valued sparse signals is enhanced with respect to Lasso, in terms of estimation accuracy, number of necessary measurements, and run time. We start by proposing a Lasso-kind functional with MCP, whose minimum is the desired signal in the noise-free case, under null space conditions. We analyze its robustness to noise as well. We then propose an efficient ADMM-based algorithm to search the minimum. The algorithm is proven to converge to the set of stationary points, and its performance is evaluated through numerical experiments, both on randomly generated data and on a real localization problem. Furthermore, in the noise-free case, it is possible to check the exactness of the solution, and we test a version of the algorithm that exploits this fact to look for the right signal.'
author:
- 'Sophie M. Fosson'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'Non-convex Lasso-kind approach to compressed sensing for finite-valued signals'
---
Introduction
============
In the last decade, the development of compressed sensing (CS, [@don06; @fou11]) has brought a novel interest on sparse signals, that is, signals that have few non-zero components or that can be represented by few non-zero components in certain bases. Sparse signals are ubiquitous in diverse applications. CS has established a new paradigm by stating that sparse signals can be recovered from few non-adaptive linear measurements. In this setting, a $k$-sparse signal $x\in\R^n$ can be recovered from the compressed measurements $y=Ax$ (possibly corrupted by noise) with $A\in\R^{m,n}$, $m<n$, under the assumptions on $A$ analyzed in the CS theory.
Finite-valued sparse signals
----------------------------
In the extensive CS literature, some recent work is dedicated to the subcase of *finite-valued* signals, *i.e.*, $x\in\alf^n$ where $\alf$ is a . This is a problem encountered in a number of sparse/CS applications, such as digital image recovery [@bio14], security [@bio14sec], digital communications [@spa15; @ili12], and discrete control signal design [@bem99]. In many localization problems [@fen09; @bay15], the localization area is split into cells and the goal is to verify which cells are occupied or not, the number of occupied cells being generally much smaller than the total: this can be interpreted as the recovery of a binary sparse signal in $\{0,1\}^n$. A binary framework is also present in spectrum sensing in cognitive radio networks and wideband spectrum sensing [@baz10; @zen11; @axe12; @rom13], where the goal is to detect if users are active or not in a given spectrum band. Furthermore, in many other applications, ranging from opinion polls to sensors data, intrinsically discrete or quantized data are envisaged [@das13].
Even though the sub-problem of finite-valued signals can be approached by classical CS, it makes more sense to try to exploit the prior knowledge of $\alf$ to improve the recovery performance. In some works, the parallel between this problem and the coding/decoding paradigm is highlighted, and information theory tools are used to tackle the recovery, assuming a field structure for the alphabet [@das13; @bio14sec]. In other works, CS techniques are rearranged for the finite-valued problem, for example, greedy pursuit algorithms [@bio14; @spa15; @fli18] or Bayesian methods [@tia09]. A particular focus is dedicated to binary signals, due also to their relevance in digital communications problems [@tia09; @sto10; @spa15; @lee16; @fox18asi].
This gap has been recently filled by [@kei17; @fli18]. [@kei17] provides a CS theory for finite-valued signals: starting from the Basis Pursuit formulation (BP, [@fou11]), the authors propose to impose the (convex) constraint $x\in \text{conv}(\alf^n)$ (where conv indicates the convex hull) and theoretically analyze the problem in terms of null space properties, robustness to noise, and phase transitions.
Concave penalization
--------------------
At the same time, in (not finite-valued) CS and sparse signal processing, the use of *concave* penalties has become increasingly popular in the last years, as it has been observed to be more efficient with respect to the convex formulation [@can08rew; @gas09; @woo16]. In many practical applications (such as X-ray CT [@cha13] and MRI [@cha09]) concave penalties provide lower computation complexity and more accurate recovery, with less measurements with respect to the convex formulation. We notice that the enhancement thanks to concave penalties is not limited to linear acquisition problem, but has been observed in other machine learning frameworks: for example, in [@lap12], a support vector machine with concave penalty is shown to produce a more parsimonious model without affecting the accuracy. For what concerns CS, in [@woo16] some fundamental theoretical results are proven about BP and Basis Pursuit Denoising (BPDN) with concave penalty, in terms of properties of the minimum and robustness to noise.
Our contribution
----------------
The aim of this paper is to prove that the finite-valued sparse signal recovery problem (with special focus on CS) can be efficiently approached using a concave penalty. In particular, we obtain an enhancement with respect to the state-of-the-are [@kei17; @fli18]. We provide both theoretical and experimental results. Our main contributions can be summarized in four points.
1\) *Definition and analysis of a cost functional*: we define a non-convex Lasso-kind functional, formed by a least squares term plus a concave penalty, and we prove that its global minimum is the desired finite-valued sparse signal. As a difference from classical Lasso, our system is then unbiased. The analysis is based on null space properties.
2\) *Robustness to noise*: we analyze the proposed model in the presence of noise, both on the signal and on the measurements. We remark that we use the same model for the noise-free and the noisy cases, which is suitable for systems where both exact and noisy measurements are expected.
3\) *Development of a recovery algorithm*: we derive an ADMM-based algorithm to search the desired minimum and we prove its convergence to the set of stationary points.
4\) *Validation via numerical experiments*: we conduct numerical experiments that highlight the efficiency of the proposed algorithm, in terms of estimation accuracy, number of measurements, and convergence speed.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:problem\], we define our model, and we put it into perspective with respect to prior literature. We start describing the bipolar ternary case $\alf=d\{0,\pm 1\}$, for some fixed $d>0$, and then extend to generic bipolar alphabets $\alf=d\{0,\pm 1,\dots, \pm q\}$, $q\in\N$ (for simplicity, we assume that the symbols in $\alf$ are equidistant). In sections \[sec:ternary\]-\[sec:generic\] we prove theoretical results on the proposed model, for ternary and generic alphabets. In Section \[sec:algorithm\], we develop and analyze a recovery algorithm, which is further implemented and tested via numerical experiments in Section \[sec:numerical\]. Finally, we draw some conclusions in the last section.
Notation
--------
Throughout this paper, we use $I$ for the identity matrix (dimension is not specified when evident). $n$ and $S\subseteq \{1,\dots,n\}$ respectively are the length of the sparse signal and its support, while $k=|S|$ is the sparsity level (*i.e.*, the number of non-zero components). $S^c$ is the complementary of $S$. For any $v\in\R^n$, $v_S$ is the restriction of $v$ on the components in $S$. $\R$ and $\R_+$ are the sets of real numbers and real non-negative numbers; $\Z$ and $\N$ are the sets of the integers and of the natural numbers. $B\succ 0$ means that $B$ is a positive definite matrix. Given a vector of weights $\zeta\in\R_+^n$, we define the weighted $\ell_1$-norm as $\|x\|_{1,\zeta}:=\sum_{i=1}^n \zeta_i |x_i|$.
Problem statement {#sec:problem}
=================
The problem of sparse signal recovery from linear measurements can be conceived as an $\ell_1$ convex minimization problem, known as Lasso [@tib96]: $$\label{lasso}
\min_{x\in\R^n}\frac{1}{2}\left\|y-A x \right\|_2^2+\lambda \| x\|_1,~~~\lambda>0$$ where $A\in\R^{m\times n}$ is the sensing matrix, and $\lambda>0$ is a parameter to set; in CS, $m<n$. The $\ell_1$-norm is known to well approximate the $\ell_0$-norm [@fou11] and has the important advantage of transforming the problem from combinatorial to convex, which makes it solvable in polynomial time. Iterative algorithms are often used to solve Lasso, *e.g.*, Iterative Soft Thresholding (IST, [@dau04; @for10]) and Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM, [@boy10]). Both converge to the minimum of the Lasso functional. ADMM is known to require a significantly smaller number of iterations with respect to IST, keeping similar low complexity per iteration. This makes ADMM more attractive, along with its predisposition to distributed and parallel systems [@boy10; @mata15; @fia18].
We remark that the parameter $\lambda$ in Lasso has to be designed based on the noise: a larger $\lambda$ may tolerate a larger noise. Nevertheless, this has a drawback: Lasso has always a bias (proportional to $\lambda$) [@zha10MCP], therefore the signal of interest is never exactly recovered in absence of noise. In classical sparse signal recovery and CS, the noise-free and noisy cases are then tackled using different models (in the convex setting, BP for the noise-free case, and BPDN or Lasso in the noisy case). This distinction is clearly not optimal for systems where acquisition is sometimes corrupted by noise and sometimes not. In this work, we instead show that a suitable concave penalization can remove this drawback for finite-valued signals.
We now reformulate Lasso using a concave penalty [@woo16]: $$\label{concave_penalization}
\begin{split}
&\min_{x\in\R^n}\frac{1}{2}\left\|y-A x \right\|_2^2+\lambda \sum_{i=1}^n g(|x_i|)\\&g:\R_+\to \R_+ \text{ concave, nondecreasing in } |x_i|.
\end{split}$$ The intuition behind the success of concave penalization is that concave functions approximate the $\ell_0$-norm better than $\ell_1$, as one can see in Figure \[fig:penalty\]. In the overdetermined setting, concave penalization has been largely studied within the statistical community [@fan01_pioneer; @fan11; @fan14; @zou08_LLA; @zha10MCP; @zha12; @gas09]. In these papers, conditions to have the oracle property and to reduce the Lasso bias are studied, mainly in the asymptotic case $n\to\infty$ [@fan01_pioneer; @fan11]. In the concave CS literature, instead, the following BP/BPDN formulations are commonly used: $$\label{eq:concave_bp}
\begin{split}
&\text{Concave BP: }\min \sum_{i=1}^n g(|x_i|)\text{ s.t. }Ax=y\\
&\text{Concave BPDN: }\min \sum_{i=1}^n g(|x_i|)\text{ s.t. } \left\|Ax-y\right\|<\eta,~\eta>0\\
&g:\R_+\to \R_+ \text{ concave, nondecreasing in } |x_i|.
\end{split}$$ The most popular $g$’s belong to these families:
- $\ell_p$, with $p\in (0,1)$ [@irls; @rav15irls; @woo16];
- log-sum: $\log |x_i|+\varepsilon$, $\varepsilon>0$ [@can08rew; @faz03; @cal16];
- smoothly clipped absolute deviations (SCAD) [@fan01_pioneer];
- minimax concave penalty (MCP) [@zha10MCP; @woo16; @fox16; @hua18].
We remark that in some works the concave penalization arises from iterative re-weighting strategies [@can08; @irls; @rav15irls], which have been largely studied in the last years. Others works, instead, consider algorithms based on difference of convex (DC) functions programming [@gas09]. Both re-weighting and DC approaches, however, imply the solution of a convex problem (typically a Lasso) during each iteration, which makes them more complex than the proposed approach (see Section \[sec:algorithm\]).
In this paper, . The literature on MCP in sparse signal recovery is widespread. In [@woo16], concave BP/BDN with MCP is studied and shown to perform better than $\ell_p$, $p\in (0,1)$. In [@cha09; @cha13], numerical experiments support its good performance. In [@fox16], MCP is shown to well adapt to a distributed recovery setting. In [@zha10MCP], MCP is exploited to build an Lasso-kind estimator with reduced bias. In machine learning, [@lap12] uses MCP to build a concave support vector machine for parsimonious feature selection.
Our use of MCP is now described, starting from the ternary alphabet $\{0,\pm d\}$, $d>0$, and then extending to generic alphabets.
Ternary finite-valued signals
-----------------------------
Let $\xtrue\in\{0,\pm d\}^n$, where $d>0$ is known. MCP is defined as follows: for any $z\in\R$, $$\label{my_g}
g(|z|):=\left\{\begin{array}{lr}
d |z|-\frac{1}{2}z^2&\text{ if } z\in[-d,d]\\
\frac{1}{2}d^2 &\text{ otherwise.}\\
\end{array}\right.$$ Let us consider the following cost functional in the convex hull $[-d,d]^n$: $$\label{mcplasso}
\begin{split}
\fun(x)&:=\frac{1}{2}\left\|y-A x \right\|_2^2+\lambda d \left\|x\right\|_1-\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|x \right\|_2^2\\
&\lambda>0,~x\in[-d,d]^n.
\end{split}$$ In the following, we sometimes use the notation $G(x):=d \left\|x\right\|_1-\frac{1}{2}\left\|x \right\|_2^2$, and we refer to $\fun(x)$ as MCP-Lasso.
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (axis cs:0,0) circle (2.3pt);
Generic finite-valued signals
-----------------------------
Let $\xtrue \in \mathcal{A}^m$ where $\mathcal{A}=d\{0,\pm 1, \pm 2,\dots, \pm q\}$. We propose to reformulate MCP-Lasso as follows: $$\label{mcplasso_gen}
\begin{split}
&\gun(x):=\frac{1}{2}\left\|y-A x \right\|_2^2+\lambda \sum_{i=1}^n \beta_i(x_i)~|x_i|-\lambda\frac{1}{2}\left\|x \right\|_2^2\\
&~\lambda>0,~x\in [-dq,dq]^n,~\beta_i(x_i):=\min\{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}~ \text{s.t. } |x_i|\leq \alpha \}.
\end{split}$$
\[marginally\] If $A^T A -\lambda I \succ 0$, $\fun$ and $\gun$ are convex. However, this condition does not match with CS, which is our main focus. We then discuss it only marginally.
Relation to prior literature
----------------------------
In this paper, the main works that we refer to are [@woo16] for what concerns concave penalization, and [@kei17] for what concerns finite-valued sparse signal recovery.
As already mentioned, in [@woo16], BP and BPDN are recast to using $\ell_p$, $p\in(0,1)$, and MCP. The authors prove that (a) under technical conditions, the true signal is the minimum of concave BP in the noise-free case; (b) concave BPDN is robust to noise. Their analysis is mainly based on null space properties [@fou11 Chapter 4]. They also derive an IST procedure, which is convergent for $\ell_p$ penalty, under the condition $A^T A -\lambda I \succ 0$. The problems of the convergence in the MCP case and in the CS setting are then open. No numerical results are shown in [@woo16].
In [@kei17], instead, the problem of CS with finite-valued sparse signals is theoretically analyzed, and recast to a convex formulation by considering the convex hull of the alphabet. Null space properties, robustness, and phase transitions are discussed. Some numerical results are shown, where recovery is performed via convex programming.
As in [@woo16; @kei17], our analysis is based on null space conditions and robustness bound are provided. Similarly to [@woo16], we prove that in the noise-free setting the global minimum is the true signal. As a difference from [@woo16], we use a unique model/functional for the noise-free and noisy settings, and we provide an efficient recovery algorithm. On the other hand, we improve the performance with respect to [@kei17] by exploiting the concavity.
Theoretical analysis: ternary alphabet {#sec:ternary}
======================================
In this section, we characterize the minimum of $\fun(x)$ defined in and we prove its robustness to noise. Let us state a preliminary lemma.
\[doublereg\] Let $\xtrue\in\{0,\pm d\}^n$ be $k$-sparse with support $S$, and let $y=A\xtrue$. Let $\xmin$ be the global minimum of $\fun(x)$ defined in over $[-d,d]^n$. Then, $$\begin{split}
&\text{(a)}~~\left\|\xmin\right\|_2 \leq \left\|\xtrue\right\|_2;~~~~\text{(b)}~~\left\|\xmin\right\|_1 \leq \left\|\xtrue\right\|_1.\\
\end{split}$$
Let us notice that $$\label{ternary_property}
G(\xtrue)=\frac{1}{2}kd^2=\frac{1}{2}\left\|\xtrue\right\|_2^2=\frac{1}{2}d\left\|\xtrue\right\|_1=\frac{1}{\lambda} \fun(\xtrue).$$ Since $\fun(\xmin)\leq \fun(\xtrue)$ and $\lambda G(z)\leq \fun(z)$ for any $z\in\R^n$, then $\lambda G(\xmin)\leq \fun(\xmin) \leq \fun(\xtrue) = \lambda G(\xtrue)$.
We apply this to state that $G(\xmin)\geq \frac{1}{2}\left\|\xmin\right\|_2^2$, which in turn can be substituted into the previous inequality $G(\xmin)\leq G(\xtrue)$ to finally obtain (a). To obtain (b), it suffices to write explicitly $G(\xmin)\leq G(\xtrue)$ and apply (a).
Global minimum of $\fun$
------------------------
We now prove that the minimum of $\fun(x)$ corresponds to the desired signal in the ternary case under null space conditions, commonly used in CS [@fou13 Chapter 4]. Let us recall the following definition.
\[RNSP\][@fou13 Definition 4.21] A matrix $A\in\R^{m,n}$ is said to satisfy the $\ell_2$-robust null space property (*RNSP*) of order $k$ with parameters $\rho\in(0,1)$, $\tau>0$ if $$\left\|v_S\right\|_2 \leq \frac{\rho}{\sqrt{k}} \left\|v_{S^c}\right\|_1+\tau \left\|Av\right\|_2$$ for any $v\in\R^n$ and for any $S\subset \{1,\dots,n\}$ with $|S|\leq k$.
\[theo:globalminimum\] Let us consider $y=A\xtrue$, where $\xtrue$ is a $k$-sparse signal in $\{0,\pm d\}^n$, and $A\in\R^{m,n}$ with $m<n$. If $A$ satisfies the *RNSP* of order $k$ with parameters $\tau>0$ and $\rho\in\left(0,\sqrt{1-\lambda\tau^2}\right)$ (provided that $\lambda<\tau^{-2}$), then $\xtrue$ is the global minimum of $\fun$ defined in over $[-d,d]^n$.
Let $\xtrue_i\in\{0,\pm d\}$ with support $S$. Consider any $h_i\in\R$ such that $\xtrue_i+h_i\in [-d,d]$. $$\begin{split}
&\fun(\xtrue+h) = \frac{1}{2}\left\|A h \right\|_2^2+\lambda d \left\|\xtrue +h\right\|_1-\lambda\frac{1}{2}\left\|\xtrue +h\right\|_2^2\\
& = \frac{1}{2}\left\|A h \right\|_2^2+\lambda d \left\|\xtrue +h\right\|_1 -\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|\xtrue\right\|_2^2-\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|h\right\|_2^2-\lambda\langle \xtrue,h \rangle.
\end{split}$$ Let us focus on the term $ d \left\|\xtrue +h\right\|_1-\langle \xtrue,h \rangle=\sum_{i=1}^n d |\xtrue_i+h_i|-\xtrue_i h_i$. We distinguish the following cases:
- if $\xtrue_i= d$ and $h_i\in[- d,0]$, then $ d |\xtrue_i+h_i|-\xtrue_i h_i = d^2$;
- if $\xtrue_i= d$ and $h_i\in[-2 d,- d]$, then $ d |\xtrue_i+h_i|-\xtrue_i h_i =- d^2-2 d h_i\geq d^2$;
- if $\xtrue_i=- d$ and $h_i\in[0, d]$, then $ d |\xtrue_i+h_i|-\xtrue_i h_i = d^2$;
- if $\xtrue_i=- d$ and $h_i\in[ d,2 d]$, then $ d |\xtrue_i+h_i|-\xtrue_i h_i =- d^2+2 d h_i\geq d^2$;
- if $\xtrue_i=0$ and $h_i\in[- d, d]$, then $ d |\xtrue_i+h_i|-\xtrue_i h_i = d|h_i|$.
Therefore, $$\begin{split}
\fun(\xtrue+h) & \geq \frac{1}{2}\left\|A h \right\|_2^2-\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|\xtrue\right\|_2^2-\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|h\right\|_2^2\hspace{-0.1cm}+\hspace{-0.1cm}\lambda k d^2\hspace{-0.1cm} +\hspace{-0.1cm} \lambda d\left\|h_{S^c}\right\|_1 \\
& =\fun(\xtrue) +\frac{1}{2}\left\|A h \right\|_2^2-\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|h\right\|_2^2+\lambda d \left\|h_{S^c}\right\|_1 \\
\end{split}$$ where we use the fact that $\fun(\xtrue)=\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|\xtrue\right\|_2^2=\frac{\lambda}{2}k d^2$. In order to prove the thesis, it is then sufficient to prove that, for any $h\in[-d,d]^n\setminus\{0\}$, $$\label{ineedpos}
\frac{1}{2}\left\|A h \right\|_2^2-\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|h\right\|_2^2+\lambda d \left\|h_{S^c}\right\|_1>0.$$ For any $h\in[-d,d]^n$, it is straightforward to prove the following inequality: $$\label{usefulobs}
d \left\|h_{S^c}\right\|_1-\frac{1}{2}\left\|h_{S^c}\right\|_2^2\geq \frac{d}{2} \left\|h_{S^c}\right\|_1.$$
\[cor:noncs\] If $A^T A -\lambda I \succ 0$, $\fun$ is convex and $\xtrue$ is its global minimum.
Theorem \[theo:globalminimum\] and Corollary \[cor:noncs\] highlight a substantial difference between Lasso and MCP-Lasso. In the noise-free case, Lasso is biased: the true signal never corresponds to the minimum, with a bias proportional to $\lambda$. Indeed, Lasso is conceived for the noisy case: a larger $\lambda$ may tolerate a larger noise. In classical CS, noise-free and noisy cases are approached separately, with different models (*e.g.*, BP vs BPDN/Lasso). This is not optimal for systems where both noise-free and noisy measurements are acquired. This problem is overcome by MCP-Lasso, where $\lambda$ could be designed on the maximum noise, without bias when noise-free measurements are acquired.
Robustness to noise of $\fun$
-----------------------------
We know analyze the robustness to noise of $\fun(x)$ under the RNSP. We consider $$y=A(\xtrue+\delta)+\epsilon$$ where $\delta\in\R^n$ and $\epsilon\in\R^m$ respectively represent the signal noise (*i.e.*, the signal is not exactly sparse) and the measurement noise. We now prove a robust bound of kind [@fou13 Theorems 4.19, 4.21] for the distance between the desired $\xtrue$ and the global minimum of $\fun$.
Rearranging Lemma \[doublereg\] in the noisy setting, we can prove the following inequalities (we omit the proof, which can be simply derived from the proof of Lemma \[doublereg\]).
\[doublereg\_noise\] $$\begin{split}
&(a)~~~\left\| \xmin \right\|_1 \leq \left\| \xtrue\right\|_1+ \frac{1}{2\lambda}\left\| A\xtrue-y \right\|_2^2-\frac{1}{2\lambda}\left\| A\xmin-y \right\|_2^2;\\
&(b)~~~\left\| \xmin \right\|_2^2 \leq \left\| \xtrue\right\|_2^2+ \frac{1}{\lambda}\left\| A\xtrue-y \right\|_2^2-\frac{1}{\lambda}\left\| A\xmin-y \right\|_2^2.
\end{split}$$
\[robustheorem\] Let $\xtrue\in\{0\pm d\}^n$ be a $k$-sparse signal with support $S$, and let $\xtrue+\delta$ be its noisy version (i.e., the signal is not exactly sparse). Let $y=A(\xtrue+\delta)+\epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is the measurement noise. If $A\in\R^{m,n}$ satisfies the *RNSP* of order $k$ with parameters $\rho\in(0,1), \tau>0$ , then,
Let $h=\xmin - \xtrue.$ By triangle inequality, we have: $$\label{wtri}
\left\| \xtrue_S\right\|_1\leq \left\| \xtrue_S +h_S\right\|_1 + \left\| h_S\right\|_1.$$ Moreover, it is easy to verify that we can decouple as follows: $$\label{wdecouple}
\left\| \xmin\right\|_1 = \left\| \xmin_S \right\|_1+\left\| \xmin_{S^c} \right\|_1= \left\| \xmin_S \right\|_1+\left\| h_{S^c} \right\|_1$$ as $\xtrue_{S^c}=0$. Keeping in mind and , we can write: $$\begin{split}
\left\| h_{S^c} \right\|_1 & = \left\| \xmin \right\|_1 -\left\| \xmin_S \right\|_1 = \left\| \xmin \right\|_1 -\left\| \xtrue_S+h_S \right\|_1\\
& \leq \left\| \xmin \right\|_1 - \left\| \xtrue\right\|_1+\left\|h_S \right\|_1.\\
\end{split}$$ Exploiting the RNSP, $$\begin{split}
&\left\| h_{S^c} \right\|_1 \leq \left\| \xmin \right\|_1 - \left\| \xtrue\right\|_1+\rho\left\|h_{S^c} \right\|_1+ \tau\left\|Ah \right\|_2\\
\Rightarrow & \left\| h_{S^c} \right\|_1 \leq \frac{1}{1-\rho}\left[ \left\| \xmin \right\|_1 - \left\| \xtrue\right\|_1+ \tau\left\|Ah \right\|_2\right].
\end{split}$$ Therefore, $$\label{qui}
\begin{split}
\left\| h \right\|_1 &= \left\| h_S \right\|_1 +\left\| h_{S^c} \right\|_1 \leq (1+\rho)\left\| h_{S^c} \right\|_1 + \tau \left\|A h\right\|_2\\
&\leq \frac{1+\rho}{1-\rho}\left[ \left\| \xmin \right\|_1 - \left\| \xtrue\right\|_1\right]+ \frac{2}{1-\rho}\tau\left\|Ah \right\|_2.
\end{split}$$ According to Lemma \[doublereg\_noise\].(a), $\left\| \xmin \right\|_1 - \left\| \xtrue\right\|_1\leq \frac{1}{2\lambda}\left\| A\xtrue-y \right\|_2^2$. Moreover, by Lemma \[doublereg\_noise\].(b): Plugging the last two inequalities into we conclude our proof.
\[etalambda\] In line with classical robustness results [@fou13; @woo16], Theorem \[robustheorem\] states that the recovery error is driven by the noises $\delta$ and $\epsilon$, and by the parameter $\lambda$, which is designed based on the noise magnitude. For example, if $\left\| A\delta+\epsilon\right\|_2\leq \eta $ for some known $\eta>0$, one can set $\lambda=\eta$ and the bound becomes $\left\| h \right\|_1\leq \eta \left[\frac{1+\rho}{2(1-\rho)}+\frac{2\tau}{1-\rho}\right]+ d\sqrt{k\eta} d.$ In this way, when the noise tends to zero, then also the recovery error tends to zero.
In [@woo16] two robustness results are proven for the (non-finite valued) concave problem. First, [@woo16 Proposition 4.4] requires the so-called G-NNSP [@woo16 Definition 4.3], which might be more stringent. Second, [@woo16 Theorem 4.5] provides a noise-driven bound when $AA^T=I$ assuming that $k g(2 \beta')< (n-k)g(\alpha')$ where $\alpha'$ and $\beta'$ respectively are the minimum and the maximum magnitudes of the projection of $h$ onto ker$(A)$ ($\alpha'>0$ is guaranteed only if $\delta>0$ [@woo16 Lemma 4.2], that is, the signal must be not exactly sparse). Since $\alpha'$ and $\beta'$ depend on $h$, which is the quantity to be estimated, this result is somehow circular.
Theoretical analysis: generic alphabet {#sec:generic}
======================================
In this section, we extend the theoretical results to a generic bipolar alphabet $\alf=d\{0,\pm 1,\dots, \pm q\}$, $d>0$, $q\in\N$.
Global minimum of $\gun$
------------------------
\[theo:globalminimum\_gen\] Let us consider $y=A\xtrue$, where $\xtrue$ is a $k$-sparse signal in $\alf^n$, $\alf=d\{0,\pm 1,\dots, \pm q\}$, and $A\in\R^{m,n}$ with $m<n$. If $A\in\R^{m,n}$ satisfies the RNSP of order $k$ with parameters $\tau>0$ and $\rho\in\left(0,\frac{\sqrt{1-2q\lambda\tau^2}}{2q^2}\right)$, and given $\lambda<\frac{1}{2q \tau^2}$, then $\xtrue$ is the global minimum of $\gun(x)$ defined in over $conv(\mathcal{A}^n)$.
Let $\xtrue_i\in\mathcal{A}$. Assume that $\xtrue_i+h_i\in conv(\mathcal{A})$. Let $S$ be the support of $\xtrue$. Following the procedure of the proof of Theorem \[theo:globalminimum\], we prove that $\gun(\xtrue+h) -\gun(\xtrue)>0$ for any $h\in[-qd,qd]^n\setminus\{0\}$. $$\begin{split}
\gun(\xtrue+h) &= \gun(\xtrue)+\frac{1}{2}\left\|A h \right\|_2^2-\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|h \right\|_2^2+\lambda \sum_{j\in S^c}\beta_j(h_j)|h_j|\\&+\lambda \sum_{i\in S}\left[\beta_i(\xtrue_i +h_i)~ |\xtrue_i +h_i| -\xtrue_i^2-\xtrue_i h_i \right].
\end{split}$$ Let us focus on the terms $r_i=\beta_i(\xtrue_i +h_i)~ |\xtrue_i +h_i| -\xtrue_i^2-\xtrue_i h_i$, $i\in S$. We distinguish the following cases:
- if $\xtrue_i>0$, $h_i>-d$: $\beta_i(\xtrue_i +h_i)\geq\xtrue_i$, then $r_i> 0$;
- if $\xtrue_i>0$, $h_i\in[-\xtrue,-d)$, $r_i= (\beta_i(\xtrue_i +h_i)-\xtrue_i)(\xtrue_i+h_i) \geq h_i(\xtrue+h_i)=h_i^2+\xtrue_i h_i\geq h_i^2+q d h_i\geq(1-q)h_i^2$;
- if $\xtrue_i>0$, $h_i\in [-2\xtrue,-\xtrue)$: $\xtrue_i\geq\beta_i(\xtrue_i +h_i)$, then $r_i= -(\xtrue_i-\beta_i(\xtrue_i +h_i))(\xtrue_i+h_i) \geq 0$;
- if $\xtrue_i>0$, $h_i<-2\xtrue$: $\beta_i(\xtrue_i +h_i)>\xtrue_i$, then $r_i\geq 0$.
We omit the description of the case $\xtrue_i<0$ which is symmetric. In conclusion, $\gun(\xtrue+h)-\gun(\xtrue)$ is not smaller than
$$\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{2}\left\|A h \right\|_2^2-\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|h \right\|_2^2+\lambda \sum_{j\in S^c}\beta_j(h_j)|h_j|-\lambda (q-1)\left\|h_S \right\|_2^2\\
%&\geq \frac{1}{2}\left\|A h \right\|_2^2-\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|h_{S^c} \right\|_2^2+\lambda \sum_{j\in S^c}\beta_j(h_j)|h_j|-\lambda q\left\|h_S \right\|_2^2\\
&\geq \frac{1}{2}\left\|A h \right\|_2^2+\frac{\lambda}{2} \sum_{j\in S^c}\beta_j(h_j)|h_j|-\lambda q\left\|h_S \right\|_2^2.
%&\geq \gun(\xtrue)+\frac{1}{2}\left\|A h \right\|_2^2+\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|h_{S^c} \right\|_2^2-\lambda \left(q+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left\|h_S \right\|_2^2.\\
\end{split}$$
We now distinguish two cases.
**Case 1:** $\left\|h_{S^c}\right\|_1>2 q^3kd$. Since $\beta_j(h_j)|h_j|\geq d|h_j|$, we simply obtain: $\sum_{j\in S^c}\beta_j(h_j)|h_j|-2 q\left\|h_S \right\|_2^2>2q^3kd^2-2 q\left\|h_S \right\|_2^2\geq 2q^3kd^2-2qk(qd)^2=0.$
**Case 2:** $\left\|h_{S^c}\right\|_1\leq2 q^3kd$
. The procedure is analogous to the Case 2 in the proof of Theorem \[theo:globalminimum\]. $$\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{\lambda}\left\|A h \right\|_2^2+\sum_{j\in S^c}\beta_j(h_j)|h_j|-2 q\left\|h_S \right\|_2^2\\
&\geq\frac{\left\|A h \right\|_2^2}{\lambda}+ \sum_{j\in S^c}\beta_j(h_j)|h_j|-2 q\left[ \frac{\rho}{\sqrt{k}} \left\|h_{S^c}\right\|_1+\tau \left\|Ah\right\|_2 \right]^2
\end{split}$$ $$\label{qui}
\begin{split}
&\geq c_1 \left\|A h \right\|_2^2+c_2 \left\|h_{S^c}\right\|_1 - c_3 \left\|h_{S^c}\right\|_1 \left\|Ah\right\|_2\\
&\geq\left(c_2-\frac{c_3^2}{4c_1}2q^3kd\right)\left\|h_{S^c}\right\|_1
\end{split}$$ where $c_1=\lambda^{-1} -2q\tau^2$, $c_2=d \left(1-4q^4\rho^2 \right)$, and $c_3=2q\lambda\rho\tau/\sqrt{k}$. As $c_2-\frac{c_3^2}{4c_1}2q^3kd= d\left(1-\frac{4q^4\rho^2}{1-2q\lambda\tau^2}\right)$, the last expression in is positive when $\rho\in\left(0,\frac{\sqrt{1-2q\lambda\tau^2}}{2q^2}\right)$, provided that $\lambda<\frac{1}{2q \tau^2}$.
\[qf2\] Similarly to Remark \[qf\], we notice that $\lambda^{-1}\left\|A h \right\|_2^2\left\|h \right\|_2^2+2\lambda \sum_{j\in S^c}\beta_j(h_j)|h_j|-2 (q-1)\left\|h_S \right\|_2^2\geq \lambda^{-1}\left\|A h \right\|_2^2+\left\|h_{S^c} \right\|_2^2-2\left(q+\frac{1}{2}\right) \left\|h_S \right\|_2^2$. Therefore, the RNSP can be substituted by the study of the sign of a quadratic form, and, specifically, with the computation of the eigenvalues of $\lambda^{-1}A^T A+I_{S^c}-q I_S$. This can be useful in the practice, since the RNSP is difficult to prove for a matrix.
Robustness to noise of $\gun$
-----------------------------
Let us extend Lemma \[doublereg\_noise\] to the case of generic alphabet. The proof follows the schem of the proof of Lemma \[doublereg\_noise\], then omitted for brevity.
\[doublereg\_gen\_noise\] Let $\xmin$ be the global minimum of $\gun$ over $[-qd,qd]^n$ with $y=A(\xtrue+\delta)+\epsilon$, $\xtrue\in\alf^n$. Then $$\text{(a)}~~\lambda\left\|\xmin\right\|_2^2 \leq \lambda\left\|\xtrue\right\|_2^2+ \left\|A\xtrue-y\right\|_2^2-\left\|A\xmin-y\right\|_2^2.$$ Let $\btrue=(\beta_1(\xtrue_1),\dots,\beta_n(\xtrue_n))=(|\xtrue_1|,\dots,|\xtrue_n|)$, and $\bmin=(\beta_1(\xmin_1),\dots,\beta_n(\xmin_n))$, as defined in . For any $z,\beta \in\R^n$, let $\|z\|_{1,\beta}=\sum_j \beta_i|z_i|$ be the $\beta$-weighted $\ell_1-norm$. $$\text{(b)}~~\lambda\left\|\xmin\right\|_{1,\bmin} \leq \lambda\left\|\xtrue\right\|_{1,\btrue}+ \frac{1}{2}\left\|A\xtrue-y\right\|_2^2-\frac{1}{2}\left\|A\xmin-y\right\|_2^2.$$
\[robustheorem\_gen\] Let $\xtrue\in\alf^n$ be a $k$-sparse signal with support $S$, and $\xtrue+\delta$ be its noisy version (*i.e.*, the signal is not exactly sparse). Let $y=A(\xtrue+\delta)+\epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is the measurement noise. Let us assume $d\geq 1$. If $A$ satisfies the RNSP of order $k$ with parameters $\tau>0$ and $\rho\in(0,p^{-1})$ (where $p>0$ will be defined in the proof), then $$\left\| \xmin - \xtrue\right\|_1 \leq C_1 \left\| A\delta+\epsilon\right\|_2^2+C_2\left(2\left\| A\delta+\epsilon\right\|_2+ qd\sqrt{\lambda k}\right)$$ where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are positive constants assessed in the proof.
Let $h=\xmin - \xtrue$. $$%\begin{split}
\left\| h_{S^c} \right\|_{1}=\left\| \xmin_{S^c} \right\|_1= \left\| \xmin \right\|_{1} -\left\| \xmin_S \right\|_{1}=\left\| \xmin \right\|_{1} -\left\| \xtrue_S+h_S \right\|_{1}.
%\end{split}$$ For any $i\in S$, let $p_i\in\R$ such that $\bmin_i\xmin_i=\btrue_i\xtrue_i-p_i h_i$, and let $p=\max_i |p_i|$. We can then write: $$\begin{split}
&\left\| \xmin \right\|_{1} -\left\| \xtrue_S+h_S \right\|_{1}\leq \left\| \xmin \right\|_{1,\bmin} -\left\| \sum_{i\in S}\btrue_i\xtrue_i+p_i h_i \right\|_{1}\\
&\leq\left\| \xmin \right\|_{1,\bmin} -\left\| \xtrue_S\right\|_{1,\btrue}+p\left\|h_S \right\|_{1}.
\end{split}$$ Since $\left\| h_{S} \right\|_{1}\leq \sqrt{k}\left\| h_{S} \right\|_{2}$ [@matrix], applying the RNSP we have $\left\| h_{S} \right\|_{1}\leq \rho \left\| h_{S^c} \right\|_{1}+\tau\sqrt{k} \left\| Ah \right\|_{2}$, under the assumption $\rho<p^{-1}$, we have: $$\begin{split}
&\left\| h_{S^c} \right\|_{1}\leq \left\| \xmin \right\|_{1,\bmin} -\left\| \xtrue\right\|_{1,\btrue} +p\rho \left\| h_{S^c} \right\|_{1}+p\tau\sqrt{k} \left\| Ah \right\|_{2}\\
&~~\Rightarrow \left\| h_{S^c} \right\|_{1}\leq \frac{1}{1-p \rho} \left(\left\| \xmin \right\|_{1,\bmin} -\left\| \xtrue\right\|_{1,\xtrue}+ p \tau\sqrt{k}\left\| Ah \right\|_{2}\right).
\end{split}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{split}
\left\| h \right\|_1 &= \left\| h_S \right\|_1 +\left\| h_{S^c} \right\|_1 \leq (1+\rho)\left\| h_{S^c} \right\|_1+\tau\sqrt{k} \|Ah\|_2\\
&\leq \frac{1+\rho}{1-p \rho}\left[ \left\| \xmin \right\|_{1,\bmin} -\left\| \xtrue\right\|_{1,\btrue}\right]+\frac{p+1-p\rho}{1-p\rho}\tau\sqrt{k}\left\| Ah \right\|_{2}.
\end{split}$$ We now exploit Lemma \[doublereg\_gen\_noise\].(b): $$\left\|\xmin\right\|_{1,\bmin} -\left\|\xtrue\right\|_{1,\btrue} \leq \frac{1}{\lambda}\left\|A\xtrue-y\right\|_2^2$$ along with and $A\xtrue-y=A\delta+\epsilon$ to conclude that
The thesis is then proven with $C_1=\frac{1+\rho}{\lambda(1-p \rho)}$ and $C_2=\frac{p+1-p\rho}{1-p\rho}\tau\sqrt{k}$, and applying $\left\| \xtrue\right\|_2\leq qd\sqrt{k}.$
\[etalambda2\] Similarly to Remark \[etalambda\], if $\left\| A\delta+\epsilon\right\|_2\leq \eta $ for some known $\eta>0$, one can set $\lambda=\eta$, so that the error bound is of order $\sqrt{\eta}$ for small $\eta$, and, in particular, the error tends to zero when $\eta$ tends to zero.
MADMM: ADMM for MCP-Lasso {#sec:algorithm}
==========================
In this section, we present a novel algorithm, called MADMM, which is based on the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM, [@boy10]) and is designed for MCP-Lasso . We derive it and we discuss its convergence. In the next section, numerical simulations demonstrate that MADMM outperforms the state-of-the-art methods.
MADMM for $\fun$
----------------
Following [@hon15 Section 2], we rewrite MCP-Lasso as the following linearly constrained problem: $$\label{constrained}
\begin{split}
&\min_{x,z} \frac{1}{2}\left\|y-A x \right\|_2^2-\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|x \right\|_2^2+\lambda d \left\|z\right\|_1\\
&\text{s.t. } z=x, x \in [-d,d]^n.
\end{split}$$ We notice that the concave penalty has been split into a term depending on $x$ and another depending on $z$. This choice will allow us to prove the convergence. We know write the corresponding augmented Lagrangian (analogously to [@hon15 Section 2]): $$\label{augmented_lagrangian}
\begin{split}
\lag(x,z)&=\frac{1}{2}\left\|y-A x \right\|_2^2-\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|x \right\|_2^2+\lambda d \left\|z\right\|_1\\&~~+\mu^T(x-z)+\frac{\alpha}{2}\left\|x-z \right\|_2^2
\end{split}$$ where $\mu$ is the dual variable, and $\alpha>0$. At this point, we can apply the classical ADMM procedure [@hon15 Section 2]), which consists in the iteration (until convergence) of three steps: 1) minimization of $\lag$ with respect to $x$; 2) minimization of $\lag$ with respect to $z$; 3) update of the dual variable $\mu$.
The minima with respect to $x$ and $z$ can be easily computed in closed form. We notice that fixed $z$ (respectively, $x$) the problem is convex in $x$ (respectively, $z$). Since the solution must be in $[-d, d]^n$, given the convexity, it suffices to find the minima for $x$ and $z$ and then project them onto $[-d, d]^n$, that is, if $|x_{i}|>d$, then $x_{i}=\text{sign}(x_i)d$ (and analogously for $z$). We indicate by $P$ the projection onto $[-d, d]^n$. The so-obtained procedure is written in Algorithm \[alg:MADMM\]. $\soft_a:\R^n\to\R^n$, $a>0$, is the component-wise soft thresholding operator, defined as follows: $\soft_a(x)=0$ if $|x|<a$; $\soft_a(x)=x-a$ if $x>a$; $\soft_a(x)=x+a$ if $x<-a$.
$A,y, \lambda>0, \alpha>0$ $x_{T}$ = estimate of $\xtrue$\
*Notation*:$P$ = operator that projects onto $[-d, d]^n$; $\soft_a$ = soft thresholding operator Initialize $z_0=\mu_0=0\in\R^n$ $x_t=\argmin{x\in[-d,d]^n} \lag(x,z_{t-1})$\
$=P\left(\left[A^T A + (\alpha-\lambda)I\right]^{-1}\big( A^T y + \alpha z_{t-1} - \mu_{t-1}\big)\right)$ $z_t=\argmin{z\in[-d,d]^n} \lag(x_t,z)=P\left(\soft_{\frac{\lambda\beta}{\alpha}}\big(x_t+\frac{\mu_{t-1}}{\alpha}\big)\right)$ $\mu_t=\mu_{t-1}+\alpha(x_t-z_t)$
Convergence of MADMM for $\fun$
-------------------------------
While the convergence of ADMM for convex problems was established and largely studied some years ago [@boy10], the convergence of ADMM for non-convex problems has been faced more recently [@wan15; @li15; @hon15; @hon16]. For our purpose, we mainly rely on the convergence study in [@hon16].
In [@hon16], the functional $\sum_{k=1}^K g_k(x)+h(x)$ has been considered, where each $k$ represents an agent assuming a distributed setting. In this work, the setting is centralized, *i.e.*, $K=1$. Let us rewrite [@hon16 Assumption A] in our centralized framework. Consider the functional $g(x)+h(x)$, $x\in\X$, and the augmented Lagrangian: $$\lag(x,z)=g(x)+h(z)+ \mu^T(x-z)+\frac{\alpha}{2}\left\|x-z \right\|_2^2.$$
\[theassumption\]
1. $\left\|\nabla g(x) - \nabla g(z)\right\|_2\leq C \left\|x-z \right\|_2$ for some $C>0$, $\forall x,y\in\X$;
2. $h$ is convex (possibly non-smooth);
3. $\X$ is closed and convex;
4. the sub-problem $\min_x \lag(x,z)$ is strongly convex, with strongly convexity coefficient $\gamma$;
5. $\alpha \gamma> 2 C^2$ and $\alpha \geq C$;
6. $g(x) +h(x)$ is bounded from below.
MADMM for problem satisfies Assumption \[theassumption\].
Let $g(x)=\frac{1}{2}\left\|y-A x \right\|_2^2-\frac{\lambda}{2}\left\|x \right\|_2^2$ and $h(z)=\lambda d\left\|z\right\|_1$.
1. $\left\|\nabla g(x) - \nabla g(z)\right\|_2= \left\|(A^T A-\lambda I)(x-z)\right\|\leq C\left\|(x-z)\right\|_2$ where $C=\left\|A^T A-\lambda I\right\|_2$;
2. $h$ is convex as $\ell_1$-norm is convex;
3. $[-d,d]^n$ is convex and closed;
4. The Hessian of $\frac{1}{2}\left\|y-A x \right\|_2^2-\lambda\frac{1}{2}\left\|x \right\|_2^2+ \mu^T(x-z)+\frac{\alpha}{2}\left\|x-z \right\|_2^2$ with respect to $x$ is $A^T A-\lambda I+\alpha I$, which is positive definite for any $\alpha>\lambda $;
5. Let $\gamma=\left\|A^T A-\lambda I+\alpha I\right\|_2$. For any sufficient large $\alpha$, it is easy to have $\alpha\gamma>2C$ and $\alpha>C$;
6. $\fun$ is non-negative.
\[convergence\_fun\] MADMM for $\fun$ converges to the set of stationary points of problem ,
Given Assumption \[theassumption\], [@hon16 Theorem 2.4- Point 3.] guarantees that if $\X$ is compact, then the algorithm converges to the set of stationary points of .
MADMM for $\gun$
----------------
In Algorithm \[alg:MADMM\_g\], we write the MADMM procedure for $\gun$. The unique substantial difference from Algorithm \[alg:MADMM\] is that during each iteration also the feasibility set is updated, accordingly to the definition of $\gun$, in which the weights of the $\ell_1$-norm are $\beta_i(x_i)=\min\{\alpha\in\alf\text{ s.t. } |x_i|\leq \alpha\}$. In particular, the set size is non-increasing.
$A,y,\lambda>0, \alpha>0 $ $x_{T}$ = estimate of $\xtrue$\
*Notation*: $P_t$ = operator that projects onto $\mathcal{X}_t$; $\soft_a$ = soft thresholding operator Initialize $z_0=\mu_0=0\in\R^n, \beta_0=qd (1,\dots,1)^T\in\R^n$ $\mathcal{X}_t=\prod_{i=1}^n [-\beta_{t-1,i}, \beta_{t-1,i}]$ $x_t=\argmin{x\in\mathcal{X}_t} \lag(x,z_{t-1})$\
$=P_t\left(\left[A^T A + (\alpha-\lambda)I\right]^{-1}\big( A^T y + \alpha z_{t-1} - \mu_{t-1}\big)\right)$ $z_t=\argmin{z\in\mathcal{X}_t} \lag(x_t,z)=P_t\left(\soft_{\frac{\lambda\beta_t}{\alpha}}\big(x_t+\frac{\mu_{t-1}}{\alpha}\big)\right)$ $\beta_{t,i}= \sum_{j=1}^q dj \I_{(d(j-1), dj]}(|z_{t,i}|)$, $i=1,\dots, n$ $\mu_t=\mu_{t-1}+\alpha(x_t-z_t)$
Convergence of MADMM for $\gun$
-------------------------------
\[convergence\_gun\] MADMM for $\gun$ converges to the set of stationary points.
For any $i\in\{1,\dots, n\}$, the discrete sequence $\{\beta_{t,i}\}_{t=1,2,\dots}$ is non-increasing and lower bounded by zero, hence it converges in a finite number of iterations. After the stabilization of $\beta$, we are in the same setting of MADMM for $\fun$, hence convergence can be proven as in Theorem \[convergence\_fun\].
How to check if the solution is exact
-------------------------------------
In the previous section, we have shown that, under mild conditions, the global minimum of MCP-Lasso is the original signal in the noise-free case. This never happens with Lasso, where the minimum is always affected by a bias proportional to $\lambda$. This theoretical advantage of MCP-Lasso, however, is at the price of non-convexity: the minimum of Lasso can be achieved straightforwardly leveraging on convexity, which is not true for MCP-Lasso. The problem is then how to achieve the global minimum of MCP-Lasso.
An important help in this direction comes from the following proposition (valid for the ternary alphabet; the extension to the generic alphabet is left for future work).
\[howtocheck\] If ker$(A_S^T A)\notin \Z$, $\xtrue$ is the unique point in $\{0,\pm d\}^n$ that can be a stationary point of MADMM.
It is easy to check that a stationary point $x$ of MADMM satisfies the property $A^T(Ax-y)=\lambda x -\mu$, where $\mu\in [-\lambda,\lambda]^n$, and more precisely $\mu_i=\lambda \text{sign}(x_i)$ when $x_i\neq 0$, and $\mu_i\in(-\lambda,\lambda)$ when $x_i=0$.
Let $x\in \{0,\pm\beta\}^n$, $x\neq \xtrue$. For any $x_i\neq 0$, we must have $A_S^T A (x-\xtrue)=0$, where $x-\xtrue\in d\{0,\pm 1,\pm 2\}$. However this contradicts the kernel hypothesis.
Otherwise, if $x=\xtrue$, clearly $A_S^T A (x-\xtrue)=0$, and $\mu_i=0$ when $x_i=0$.
The hypothesis on the kernel is quite similar to the general position property [@tib13] and is almost always satisfied in practical situations. For instance, it is satisfied with probability 1 when the entries drawn from a continuous probability distribution [@tib13 Lemma 4]. In the practice, we can exploit Proposition \[howtocheck\] as follows: if MADMM finds a solution in $\{0,\pm d\}^n$, then this solution is exact. Moreover, our numerical experiments will show that MADMM is very fast, therefore, when a non-exact solution is found, it is feasible to re-run the algorithm with different initialization to look for the right one, as we will show in Section \[sec:numerical\].
As already said, an other algorithm to solve Lasso is IST [@dau04], whose convergence is easy to prove [@for10] if compared to ADMM. Given its simplicity, IST is widely used, in particular in the distributed context [@rfm15; @fox16]. However, it is well known that, in the practice, ADMM converges in a significantly lower number of iterations than IST. With this motivation, in this paper we do not consider IST, even though an IST formulation for MCP-Lasso can be easily derived. Moreover, in the practice, IST for MCP-Lasso converges, but the theoretical proof is not straightforward. We remind that [@woo16; @bayram16] prove the convergence of IST in non-convex sparse problems, but limited to the case of positive definite $A^T A$ (which is not the CS case).
Numerical experiments {#sec:numerical}
=====================
In this section, we show the efficiency of MADMM in terms of recovery accuracy, number of measurements, and speed of convergence through numerical simulations[^1]. First, we consider synthetic random signals; second, we tackle a localization application.
Random finite-valued signals
----------------------------
In the first set of experiments, we consider $k$-sparse signals in $\alf^n$, where $n=100$ and $\alf=\{0,\pm 1\}$ or $\alf=\{0,\pm 1, \dots, \pm 5\}$. Support and non-zero values are chosen uniformly at random. We consider Gaussian sensing matrices $\mathcal{N}\sim (0,\frac{1}{m})$. We implement two versions of the proposed algorithm MADMM: the original one, which stops when a stationary point is achieved, and the “reshuffling” one, which leverages Proposition \[howtocheck\] to check whether the achieved point is the desired signal. If not, the algorithm reshuffles the initialization point and repeats the procedure to search a solution in $\alf^n$ (or at least a solution closer to $\alf^n$). In these experiments, we reshuffle by reinitializing $z$ uniformly at random in conv$(\alf)^n$. The algorithm is definitely stopped when the relative square distance from the found solution and $\alf^n$ is smaller than $10^{-4}$. We indicate this second version as MADMM-R.
Given the estimate $\widehat{x}$, we consider two performance metrics: the relative square error (RSE) defined as $\|\xtrue-\widehat{x}\|^2/\|\xtrue\|^2$ and the count of exact recovery occurrences, that is, the number of experiments where $\widehat{x}= \xtrue$. In the first experiments we compare our approach to Lasso [@kei17] and BP [@fli18], both solved via ADMM (we recall that BP can be used only in the noise-free setting). As Lasso solution has a bias, we finally project it onto $\alf^n$. We fix the ADMM parameter $\alpha=1$ for all the algorithms, and we stop them when the distance between two successive estimates is below $10^{-12}$. The results are averaged over 500 runs.
{width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"}
{width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"}
In Figure \[fig:1m\], we show the results (accuracy metrics and number of iterations) of the experiments with $\alf=\{0,\pm 1\}$ in the noise-free setting; the sparsity is fixed to $k=10$ and we vary the number of measurements $m$. We remark that for each iteration step the complexity of ADMM and MADMM is actually the same, than the number of iterations determines the convergence time. We can appreciate that MADMM is more accurate (in both metrics) and quicker than ADMM. The accuracy can be further improved with MADMM-R (which always obtain the exact recovery with only $m=35$ measurements), at the price of a larger convergence time for smaller $m$’s.
A similar behavior can be observed for $\alf=\{0,\pm 1, \dots, \pm 5\}$ (Figure \[fig:5m\]). In this case, the improvement of MADMM with respect to ADMM is higher. MADMM-R instead has always has a larger convergence time, which means that a lot of reshuffling might be necessary to decrease RSE for larger alphabets. We recall however that the stopping criterion for reshuffling is set on the non-quantized final estimate; performing quantization we could expect an exact solution after less reshuffling iterations.
{width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"}
{width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"}
In the second set of experiments, we fix $k=10$, $m=40$, and we add some measurement Gaussian noise. In Figures \[fig:1snr\] and \[fig:5snr\], we show the performance for different signal-to-noise ratios (SNR). Again, MADMM is observed to be more accurate and quicker than ADMM. For $\alf=\{0,\pm 1\}$, an evident gap is obtained at SNR$=15$dB, where ADMM recovers exactly only in $40\%$ of runs, while MADMM overcomes $80\%$. Moreover, with reshuffling, we always obtain the exact solution for SNR$\geq 20$dB. For $\alf=\{0,\pm 1, \dots, \pm 5\}$ we observe that MADMM and MADMM-R have the same exact recovery rate (the higher number of iterations of MADMM-R is just to reduce the RSE).
We conclude that MADMM generally performs better than Lasso and BP (solved via ADMM), in terms of recovery accuracy and computation complexity. Moreover, MADMM-R can be used when higher precision is required, at the price of slower convergence.
{width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"}
{width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"} {width="31.00000%"}
![MADMM vs PROMP [@fli18], $n=100$, $\alf=\{0,\pm 1\}$, noise-free case, 500 runs. The run time is expressed in seconds.[]{data-label="fig:promp"}](./figs/PROMPvsMADMM.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
Multiple target localization via CS
-----------------------------------
We now show the efficiency of MADMM in a practical problem, namely a multiple target localization problem [@fen09]. We consider a $20\times 20~\text{m}^2$ area, subdivided into $n=100$ cells of dimension $2\times 2~\text{m}^2$, and we simulate the following setting. $m<n$ sensors are deployed uniformly at random over the area. In the training phase, a target is placed in turn in each cell, and the corresponding received signal strength (RSS) at each sensor is measured, according to the IEEE 802.15.4 standard [@fen09 Equation 11], with SNR$=25$dB. Each sensor takes only one measurement, then the number of measurements is equal to the number of sensors (more measurements for each sensor could be considered to improve the localization). In this way, we build the dictionary $A$.
Given $A$, the localization problem can be interpreted as the recovery of a binary signal $x\in\{0,1\}^n$ from $y=Ax$. Specifically, $x_i=1$ when a target transmits from cell $i$, and $x_i=0$ when the cell $i$ is empty. Even in the case of multiple targets, the number of targets is generally much smaller than the number of cells, which guarantees sparsity conditions. The matrix $A$ is deterministic and may not have sufficient properties of incoherence to apply CS. However, in [@fen09 Proposition 1] it has been proven that after feasible orthogonalization, the problem becomes suitable for $\ell_1$-minimization.
For this experiment we compare MADMM and Lasso solved via ADMM. We set $\lambda=10^{-3}$ and we stop the algorithms when the distance with previous step estimate is lower than $10^{-8}$. For MADMM, we clearly set $d=1$.
![Localization error and corresponding number of iterations to converge, varying $m$, with no additive measurement noise and with Gaussian Noise $~\mathcal{N}(0,\eta^2)$, $\eta=10$.[]{data-label="fig:loc"}](./figs/locerror.pdf "fig:"){width="24.00000%"} ![Localization error and corresponding number of iterations to converge, varying $m$, with no additive measurement noise and with Gaussian Noise $~\mathcal{N}(0,\eta^2)$, $\eta=10$.[]{data-label="fig:loc"}](./figs/loctime.pdf "fig:"){width="24.00000%"}
We consider $k=4$ targets. Assuming to know $k$, at the end of the procedure we select the $k$ largest values to estimate the occupied cells. We then compute the mean localization error $\min\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k \|\tau_i-\widehat{\tau}_i \|_2$, where $\tau_i$ and $\widehat{\tau}_i$ respectively are the real and estimated positions of the targets (which are assumed to be in the center of the cells). In Figure \[fig:loc\], we show the localization error and the number of iterations to converge. We can appreciate that MADMM gives a slightly lower error in a significantly smaller number of iterations, in particular for lower $m$’s.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we have used concave penalization techniques to recover finite-valued sparse signals, with particular focus on the CS framework. We have theoretically proven that the desired signal is the global minimum of a suitable cost functional in the noise-free case. The same functional has been shown to be robust to (signal and measurement) noise. We have then derived recovery algorithms based on ADMM, whose convergence has been discussed. A method to check if a solution is exact also been shown. Numerical experiments show the efficiency of the proposed method with respect to the state-of-the-art in terms of accuracy and convergence speed.
[^1]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Numerical evaluation of the path integral for QCD on a discrete space-time lattice has been used to calculate ground state matrix elements specifying moments of quark density and spin distributions. This talk will explain how these matrix elements have been calculated in full QCD using dynamical quarks, show how physical extrapolation to the chiral limit including the physics of the pion cloud resolves previous apparent conflicts with experiment, and describe the computational resources required for a definitive comparison with experiment.'
title: 'Understanding Hadron Structure Using Lattice QCD[^1]'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The structure of hadrons differs profoundly from that of other familiar many body systems. Unlike electrons in atoms or nucleons in nuclei, quarks are confined in the nucleon. Whereas photons can be subsumed into the Coulomb potential in atomic physics and pions can be subsumed into the nucleon-nucleon potential in nuclear physics, gluons are essential degrees of freedom in light hadrons that carry half the momentum and have important nonperturbative topological excitations. Since nonperturbative QCD is presently intractable analytically, the goal of this work is to use lattice field theory to solve QCD with controlled errors to provide a quantitative understanding of the rich quark and gluon structure of the nucleon and to obtain insight into how QCD actually works to produce this structure.
Decades of high energy scattering experiments have now provided detailed experimental knowledge of the light cone distributions of quarks and gluons in the nucleon, so this work addresses the use of lattice QCD to understand the observed distribution of the quark density and helicity. Using the operator product expansion, it is possible to calculate moments of quark distributions, and I will discuss here the first calculations in full QCD[@dolgov-thesis; @Dolgov:2001ca]. A major puzzle in the field has been the fact that quenched calculations of these moments, which ignore quark-antiquark excitations of the Dirac sea, disagree with experiment at the 20-50% level. I will show that contrary to some conjectures, at the quark masses accessible in practical calculations, including quark loops does not alter the results significantly. Rather, I will argue that the physical origin of the discrepancy with experiment has been incorrect extrapolation to the physical quark mass, and will show how extrapolation incorporating the leading non-analytic behavior required by chiral symmetry produces consistent results for the moments of quark distributions. In addition, we have also compared full QCD results with configurations that have been cooled to remove all the gluon contributions except for those of instantons and shown that the qualitative behavior of the moments is reproduced by the instanton content of the gluon configurations.
MOMENTS OF QUARK DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE PROTON
============================================
$$\BoxedEPSF{HadrMatrElem.eps scaled 900}$$
By the operator product expansion, moments of the following linear combinations of quark and antiquark distributions in the proton $$\begin{aligned}
\langle x^n\rangle_q &=&
\int_0^1 \rd x x^n \bigl(q (x) + (-1)^{n+1}\bar q(x)\bigr) \label{mom1}\\
\langle x^n\rangle_{\Delta q} &=&
\int_0^1 \rd x x^n \bigl(\Delta q (x) + (-1)^{n}\Delta\bar q(x)\bigr) \nonumber\\
\langle x^n\rangle_{\delta q} &=&
\int_0^1 \rd x x^n \bigl(\delta q (x) + (-1)^{n+1}\delta\bar q(x)\bigr) \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ are related to the following matrix elements of twist-2 operators $$\begin{aligned}
\braket {PS}{\bar\psi \gamma^{\{\mu_1} i D^{\mu_2} \cdots i
D^{\mu_n\}}
\psi}{PS} &=& 2 \langle x^{n-1}\rangle_q\, P^{\{\mu_1}\cdots P^{\mu_n\}}
\label{mom2}\\
\braket {PS}{\bar\psi \gamma^{\{\mu_1}\gamma_5 i D^{\mu_2} \cdots i
D^{\mu_n\}}
\psi}{PS} &=& 2 \langle x^{n-1}\rangle_{\Delta q}\,
MS^{\{\mu_1}P^{\mu_2}\cdots P^{\mu_n\}} \nonumber\\
\braket{PS}{\bar\psi \sigma^{[\alpha\{\mu_1]}\gamma_5 i
D^{\mu_2}
\cdots i D^{\mu_n\}}
\psi}{PS} &=& 2 \langle x^{n-1}\rangle_{\delta q}\,
MS^{[\alpha}P^{\{\mu_1]}P^{\mu_2}\cdots P^{\mu_n\}} \nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $q = q_\uparrow + q_\downarrow , \Delta q =
q_\uparrow - q_\downarrow$, $\delta q = q_\top + q_\bot $, $x$ denotes the momentum fraction carried by the quark, and $\{\,\} $ and $[\,] $ denote symmetrization and antisymmetrization respectively. We note that odd moments $\langle x^n\rangle_q$ are obtained from deep inelastic electron or muon scattering structure functions $F_1$ or $F_2$, even moments of $\langle x^n\rangle_{\Delta q} $ are determined from $g_1$, and these moments are proportional to the quantities $v_{n+1}$ and $a_n$ defined in ref.[@qcdsf]. In addition, $g_2$ also determines the quantity $d_n$ $$\langle PS | \bar{\psi}
\gamma^{[\sigma}\gamma_5iD^{\{\mu_1]} \cdots
iD^{\mu_n\}}\psi | PS\rangle = \frac{1}{n} {d_n
S^{[\sigma}P^{\{\mu_1]}\cdots P^{\mu_n\}}}$$ Even moments $\langle
x^n\rangle_q$ are obtained from deep inelastic neutrino scattering, and in addition, a variety of other processes have contributed to what is now a detailed empirical knowledge of the quark and antiquark distributions in the nucleon. We will subsequently compare our results with moments calculated from the CTEQ, MRS, and GRV global fits to the world supply of data.
CALCULATION OF MATRIX ELEMENTS
==============================
Proton matrix elements of the operators in Eq.\[mom2\] are calculated by evaluating the connected and disconnected diagrams shown in Fig. \[HadrMatrElem\]. Note that both the connected and disconnected diagrams each receive contributions from quarks and antiquarks. Depending on the moment, by Eq.\[mom1\], the sum of the diagrams yields either the sum or difference of the moments of the quark and antiquark distributions. In the past, there has been some confusion on this point: because the connected diagrams are called the valence quark distribution and experimentalists define the valence quark distribution as the difference between the quark and antiquark distributions, the connected contributions have erroneously been compared only with the difference between the empirical quark and antiquark distributions. Because it is technically much more difficult to evaluate the disconnected diagrams, our present calculations only include connected diagrams. Fortunately, the disconnected diagrams are flavor independent, so they cancel out of the difference between up and down quark distributions. Hence, in Table \[tab-summary\], we compare lattice calculation of the difference between connected diagrams for up and down quarks with the corresponding difference of moments of experimental data for the sum or difference of quark and antiquark distributions.
$$\BoxedEPSF{overlap.eps scaled 470}$$
$$\BoxedEPSF{NewFigs1.eps scaled 450}$$
On the lattice, connected diagrams are evaluated by calculating a three point function in which a source creates a state with the quantum numbers of the proton, the operator acts on this state, and a sink finally annihilates the state. Because evolution in imaginary time filters out the ground state, when the operator is sufficiently far from both the source and sink, it acts in the ground state and produces the desired ground state matrix element. As the time at which it acts approaches either the source or sink, it sees excited state contaminants, yielding a central plateau corresponding to the physical matrix element and exponential contaminants at the edges. Obviously, it is beneficial to optimize the overlap of the source with the ground state to maximize the plateau region and minimize the effect of the excited state contaminants at the edges.
In this work, connected diagrams were calculated using sequential propagators generated by the upper two components of the nucleon source $J^{\alpha} =
u_a^{\alpha}u_b^{\beta}(C\gamma_5)_{\beta,\beta'}
d_c^{\beta'}\epsilon^{abc}$. The overlap with the physical proton ground state was optimized using Wuppertal smearing [@sources] to maximize the overlap $P(0) = {|\langle J|0\rangle |^2}$. Figure \[overlap\] shows that varying the smearing reduced $P$ by over 4 orders of magnitude, yielding an overlap with the physical ground state of approximately 50%. Dirichlet boundary conditions were used for quarks in the t-direction.
The resulting plateaus for four operators that could be measured in a proton with zero three-momentum are shown in Fig. \[NewFigs1\]. Here one observes both a statistically well determined central plateau region and the effectiveness with which the excited state contaminants have been reduced by the optimized source.
OPERATORS AND PERTURBATIVE RENORMALIZATION
==========================================
The continuum operators defined above are approximated on a discrete cartesian lattice using representations of the hypercubic group that have been chosen to eliminate operator mixing as much as possible and to minimize the number of non-zero components of the nucleon momentum. The operators we have used are shown in Table 1, where we have indicated whether the spatial momentum components are non-zero and whether mixing occurs. Note, no$^*$ indicates a case in which mixing could exist in general but vanishes perturbatively for Wilson or overlap fermions and no$^{**}$ indicates perturbative mixing with [*lower*]{} dimension operators for Wilson fermions but no mixing for overlap fermions. Because the statistical errors are much larger for sources projected to non-zero momentum, the moments corresponding to operators requiring non-zero momentum are presently not well determined.
To convert from lattice regularization at the scale of the inverse lattice spacing $1/a$ to the continuum $\overline{MS}$ scheme at momentum scale Q, we use the one-loop perturbation theory result $$O^{\overline{MS}}_i(Q^2)=\sum_j\left(\delta_{ij}+\frac{g_0^2}{16\pi^2}\,
\frac{N_c^2-1}{2N_c}
\left(\gamma^{\overline{MS}}_{ij}\log(Q^2a^2)-(B^{LATT}_{ij}
-B^{\overline{MS}}_{ij})\right)\right)\cdot O^{LATT}_j(a^2) .
\label{app-renorm1}$$ The anomalous dimensions $\gamma_{ij}$ and the finite constants $B_{ij}$ we have calculated and used in this work are tabulated in Table 2 [@pert-renorm].
-3pc
[cc]{}
Table 1Lattice Operators\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H(4) mix $\vec{p}$ lattice operator
--------------------- --------------------------- ----------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
$xq_c^{(a)}$ [**6**]{}$_3^+$ no $\neq 0$ $\bar{q} \gamma_{\{1}
{\stackrel{\,\leftrightarrow}{D}}_{4\}} {q}$
$xq_c^{(b)}$ [**3**]{}$_1^+$ no 0 $\bar{q} \gamma_{4}
{\stackrel{\,\leftrightarrow}{D}}_{4} {q}$
$x^2q_c$ [**8**]{}$_1^-$ yes $\neq 0$ $\bar{q} \gamma_{\{1}
{\stackrel{\,\leftrightarrow}{D}}_{1}
{\stackrel{\,\leftrightarrow}{D}}_{4\}} {q}$
$x^3q_c$ [**2**]{}$_1^+$ no$^*$ $\neq 0$ $\bar{q} \gamma_{\{1}
{\stackrel{\,\leftrightarrow}{D}}_{1}
{\stackrel{\,\leftrightarrow}{D}}_{4}
{\stackrel{\,\leftrightarrow}{D}}_{4\}} {q}$
$\Delta q_c$ [**4**]{}$_4^+$ no 0 $\bar{q}
\gamma^{5} \gamma_{3} {q}$
$x\Delta q_c^{(a)}$ [**6**]{}$_3^-$ no $\neq 0$ $\bar{q}
\gamma^5 \gamma_{\{1} {\stackrel{\,\leftrightarrow}{D}}_{3\}} {q}$
$x\Delta q_c^{(b)}$ [**6**]{}$_3^-$ no 0 $\bar{q} \gamma^5
\gamma_{\{3} {\stackrel{\,\leftrightarrow}{D}}_{4\}} {q}$
$x^2\Delta q_c$ [**4**]{}$_2^+$ no $\neq 0$ $\bar{q}
\gamma^5 \gamma_{\{1} {\stackrel{\,\leftrightarrow}{D}}_{3}
{\stackrel{\,\leftrightarrow}{D}}_{4\}} {q}$
$\delta q_c$ [**6**]{}$_1^+$ no 0 $\bar{q} \gamma^{5} \sigma_{34}
{q}$
$x\delta q_c$ [**8**]{}$_1^-$ no $\neq 0$ $\bar{q} \gamma^{5}
\sigma_{3\{4} {\stackrel{\,\leftrightarrow}{D}}_{1\}}{q}$
$d_1$ [**6**]{}$_1^+$ no$^{**}$ 0 $\bar{q} \gamma^5 \gamma_{[3}
{\stackrel{\,\leftrightarrow}{D}}_{4]}{q}$
$d_2$ [**8**]{}$_1^-$ no$^{**}$ $\neq 0$ $\bar{q} \gamma^5
\gamma_{[1} {\stackrel{\,\leftrightarrow}{D}}_{\{3]}
{\stackrel{\,\leftrightarrow}{D}}_{4\}} {q}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
Table 2Perturbative renormalization\
constants\
------------------- ------------------ ------------- ----------------------- ------------------ ------------------
$\gamma$ $B^{LATT}$ $B^{{\overline{MS}}}$
${}_{\beta=6.0}$ ${}_{\beta=5.6}$
$xq^{(a)}$ $\frac{8}{3}$ $-3.16486$ $-\frac{40}{9}$ $0.989$ $0.988$
$xq^{(b)}$ $\frac{8}{3}$ $-1.88259$ $-\frac{40}{9}$ $0.978$ $0.977$
$x^2q$ $\frac{25}{6}$ $-19.57184$ $-\frac{67}{9}$ $1.102$ $1.110$
$x^3q$ $\frac{157}{30}$ $-35.35192$ $-\frac{2216}{225}$ $1.215$ $1.231$
$\Delta q$ $0$ $15.79628$ $0$ $0.867$ $0.857$
$x\Delta q^{(a)}$ $\frac{8}{3}$ $-4.09933$ $-\frac{40}{9}$ $0.997$ $0.997$
$x\Delta q^{(b)}$ $\frac{8}{3}$ $-4.09933$ $-\frac{40}{9}$ $0.997$ $0.997$
$x^2\Delta q$ $\frac{25}{6}$ $-19.56159$ $-\frac{67}{9}$ $1.102$ $1.110$
$\delta q$ $1$ $16.01808$ $-1$ $0.856$ $0.846$
$x\delta q$ $3$ $-4.47754$ $-5$ $0.996$ $0.995$
$d_1$ $0$ $0.36500$ $0$ $0.997$ $0.997$
$d_2$ $\frac{7}{6}$ $-15.67745$ $-\frac{35}{18}$ $1.116$ $1.124$
------------------- ------------------ ------------- ----------------------- ------------------ ------------------
$$\BoxedEPSF{xqfullquenched.eps scaled 500}
\quad
\BoxedEPSF{xdeltaqfullquenched.eps scaled 500}$$
$$\BoxedEPSF{x_q_full_cooled.eps scaled 450}$$
----------------------------------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- ----------
Connected QCDSF QCDSF Wuppertal Quenched Full QCD
M. E. ($a=0$) (3 pts)
$ \langle x \rangle_u $ $0.452(26)$ $0.454(29)$ $0.459(29)$
$\langle x \rangle_d $ $0.189(12)$ $0.203(14)$ $0.190(17)$
$\langle x \rangle_{u-d}$ $0.263(17)$ $0.251(18)$ $0.269(23)$ $0.154$
$\langle x^2 \rangle_u $ $0.104(20)$ $0.119(61)$ $0.176(63)$
$ \langle x^2 \rangle_d $ $0.037(10)$ $0.029(32)$ $0.031(30)$
$\langle x^2 \rangle_{u-d} $ $0.067(22)$ $0.090(68)$ $0.145(69) $ $0.055 $
$ \langle x^3 \rangle_u $ $0.022(11)$ $0.037(36)$ $0.069(39)$
$ \langle x^3 \rangle_d $ $-0.001(7)$ $0.009(18)$ $-0.010(15)$
$\langle x^3 \rangle_{u-d} $ $0.023(13)$ $0.028(49)$ $0.078(41) $ $0.023 $
$ \langle 1\rangle_{\Delta u}$ $0.830(70)$ $0.889(29)$ $0.816(20)$ $0.888(80)$ $0.860(69)$
$\langle 1\rangle_{\Delta d}$ $-0.244(22)$ $-0.236(27)$ $-0.237(9)$ $-0.241(58)$ $-0.171(43)$
$ \langle 1\rangle_{\Delta u -\Delta d} $ $1.074(90)$ $1.14(3)$ $1.053(27)$ $1.129(98)$ $1.031(81)$ $1.257$
$\langle x \rangle_{\Delta u} $ $0.198(8)$ $0.215(25)$ $0.242(22)$
$\langle x \rangle_{\Delta d}$ $-0.048(3)$ $-0.054(16)$ $-0.029(13)$
$\langle x \rangle_{\Delta u -\Delta d}$ $0.246(9)$ $0.269(29)$ $0.271(25)$ $0.191$
$ \langle x ^2\rangle_{\Delta u} $ $0.087(14)$ $0.027(60)$ $0.116(42)$
$ \langle x ^2\rangle_{\Delta d} $ $-0.025(6)$ $-0.003(25)$ $0.001(25)$
$ \langle x ^2\rangle_{\Delta u - \Delta d} $ $0.112(15)$ $0.030(65)$ $0.115(49)$ $0.061$
$ \delta u_c $ $0.93(3)$ $0.980(30)$ $1.01(8)$ $0.963(59)$
$ \delta d_c $ $-0.20(2)$ $-0.234(17)$ $-0.20(5)$ $-0.202(36)$
$ d_2^u $ $-0.206(18)$ $-0.233(86)$ $-0.228(81)$
$ d_2^d $ $-0.035(6)$ $0.040(31)$ $0.077(31)$
----------------------------------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- ----------
: Comparison of linear extrapolations of our full QCD and quenched results with other lattice calculations and phenomenology at $4$ GeV in $\overline{MS}$[]{data-label="tab-summary"}
RESULTS
=======
$$\BoxedEPSF{nuclear_report_01.eps scaled 550}$$
The moments listed in Table 1 were calculated [@dolgov-thesis] on $16^3 \times 32$ lattices for Wilson fermions in full QCD at $\beta = 5.6$ using 200 SESAM configurations at each of 4 $\kappa 's$ and at $\beta = 5.5$ using 100 SCRI configurations at 3 $\kappa 's$. They were also calculated with two sets of 100 full QCD configurations cooled with 50 cooling steps and in quenched QCD at $\beta = 6.0$ using 200 configurations at each of 3 $\kappa 's$. Typical linear chiral extrapolations for operators calculated with nucleon momentum equal to zero are shown in Figure \[fig-full\] for full and quenched calculations of $\langle x \rangle_q$ and $\langle x
\rangle_{\Delta q}$, showing agreement within statistical errors. To avoid finite volume errors at the lightest quark mass, the SESAM [@sesam] results were extrapolated using the three heaviest quark masses. Table 3 shows a major result of our work, that there is complete agreement within statistics between full and quenched results. Statistics with the SCRI configurations [@scri] are not yet adequate to present extrapolations in the coupling constant.
Typical chiral extrapolations for cooled configurations are compared with the corresponding uncooled full QCD calculations in Figure \[fig-full-cooled\]. This qualitative agreement between cooled and uncooled results occurs at light quark mass for all the twist-2 matrix elements we calculated and demonstrates the degree to which the instanton content of the configurations and their associated zero modes dominate light hadron structure [@instantons].
A longstanding puzzle in this field has been the fact that when quenched lattice results are linearly extrapolated in $m_q$, results disagree at the 20-50% level. Our results show that inclusion of quark-antiquark excitation from the Dirac Sea does not resolve this discrepancy. Salient examples from Table \[tab-summary\] are $\langle x \rangle_{u-d} \sim 0.25 - 0.27$ compared with the experimental result 0.15 and $ g_A =
\langle 1\rangle_{\Delta u -\Delta d} \sim 1.0 - 1.1$ compared with the experimental result 1.26.
There is strong evidence that the physical origin of these discrepancies is the inadequate treatment of the pion cloud in the nucleon that has been necessary because of limited computational resources. By necessity, present calculations are restricted to quark masses that are so heavy that the pion mass is above 600 MeV and the pion cloud surrounding the nucleon is strongly suppressed. Physical quantities like the nucleon magnetic moment and axial charge clearly depend strongly on the pion current, and should therefore be very sensitive to the absence of the full pion cloud. Furthermore, because of the rapid, nonlinear variation from the chiral logs arising from Goldstone boson loops, it is clear that a linear extrapolation is completely inadequate to describe the correct chiral physics.
In a recent work[@Detmold:2001jb], also discussed by A. Thomas at this conference, we have shown that chiral extrapolation incorporating the leading non-analytic behavior from chiral perturbation theory can systematically resolve the discrepancies in the moments $\langle x^n \rangle_{u-d}$ using the formula: $$\langle x^n \rangle_u - \langle x^n \rangle_d \sim a_n \left[ 1 - {
(3{g_A}^2 +1)m_{\pi}^2 \over (4 \pi f_{\pi})^2} \ln \Bigl( {m_{\pi}^2\over
m_{\pi}^2 + \mu^2} \Bigr) \right] + b_n m_{\pi}^2 \label{chiral_ext}$$ The coefficient of the leading non-analytic behavior $m_{\pi}^2 ln(m_{\pi}^2)$ is determined from chiral perturbation theory. The parameter $\mu$ specifies the scale above which pion loops no longer produce rapid variation. It corresponds to the upper limit of the momentum integration if one applies a sharp cutoff in the loop integral and physically corresponds to the inverse size of the quark core of the nucleon that serves as the source for the pion field. As shown in ref [@Detmold:2001jb] , the value $\mu \sim 550$ MeV, which is consistent with the value required to extrapolate the nucleon magnetic moment and with chiral nucleon models, extrapolates the world’s supply of lattice data to the experimental values of $\langle x \rangle_{u-d}$, $\langle x^2 \rangle_{u-d}$, and $\langle x^3
\rangle_{u-d}$. In fig \[fit\], we show the extrapolation of our lattice data for $\langle x \rangle_{u-d}$. From this figure, it is clear that 5% measurements down to $m_{\pi}^2$ = 0.05 GeV$^2$, would provide data for a definitive lattice calculation. This calculation will require 8 Teraflops-years and thus can be carried out on the next generation of 10-Teraflops computers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the contributions of D. Dolgov, S. Capitani, D. Renner, A. Pochinsky, and R. Brower, to these lattice calculations, P. Dreher to the computer cluster infrastructure, N. Eicker, T. Lippert, and K. Schilling in providing the SESAM configurations, R. G. Edwards, and U. M. Heller in providing the SCRI configurations, W. Detmold, W. Melnitchouk, and A. W. Thomas in understanding the chiral extrapolation, and M. Stock to the LaTeX manuscript.
[99]{} D. Dolgov, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT (2000).
D. Dolgov [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**94**]{}, 303 (2001) \[hep-lat/0011010\].
M. Göckeler [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 2317; Phys. Lett. B414 (1997) 340; hep-ph/9711245; hep-ph/9909253; C. Best [*et al.*]{}, hep-ph/9706502; S. Capitani [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) B79 (1999) 548.
C. Alexandrou [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B256 (1991) 60; C. R. Allton [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D47 (1993) 5128.
S. Capitani and G. Rossi, Nucl. Phys. B433 (1995) 351; G. Beccarini [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B456 (1995) 271; M. Göckeler [*et al.*]{} Nucl. Phys. B472 (1996) 309; S. Capitani [*et al.*]{}, hep-lat/0007004; S. Capitani, hep-lat/0005008; hep-lat/0009018.
N. Eicker [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 014509; S. Güsken [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 054504; hep-lat/9901009.
K. M. Bitar [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. D54, (1996) 3546.
M. -C. Chu [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 6039; T. L. Ivanenko and J. W. Negele, Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) B63 (1998) 504; D. Dolgov [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) B73 (1999) 300.
T. Gehrmann and W. J. Stirling, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 6100.
W. Detmold, W. Melnitchouk, J. W. Negele, D. B. Renner and A. W. Thomas, hep-lat/0103006; See also A. Thomas in these proceedings.
[^1]: Work supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under cooperative research agreement \#DE-FC02-94ER40818. MIT-CTP-3162
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This work investigates how context should be taken into account when performing continuous authentication of a smartphone user based on touchscreen and accelerometer readings extracted from swipe gestures. The study is conducted on the publicly available HMOG dataset consisting of 100 study subjects performing pre-defined reading and navigation tasks while sitting and walking. It is shown that context-specific models are needed for different smartphone usage and human activity scenarios to minimize authentication error. Also, the experimental results suggests that utilization of phone movement improves swipe gesture-based verification performance only when the user is moving.'
author:
- |
Pekka Siirtola$^{1}$, Jukka Komulainen$^{2}$ and Vili Kellokumpu$^{2,3}$ [^1]\
$^{1}$Biomimetics and Intelligent Systems Group, University of Oulu\
$^{2}$Center for Machine Vision and Signal Analysis, University of Oulu\
$^{3}$Bittium Wireless Ltd\
title: 'Effect of context in swipe gesture-based continuous authentication on smartphones'
---
Introduction and related work {#problem}
=============================
Traditional “obtrusive” authentication schemes, like passwords, PIN codes and biometrics, do not provide mechanisms to determine whether an active mobile device is being used by the same (or some other) authorized person after the initial access has been granted. Continuous authentication (CA), also referred to as active or implicit authentication, aims at verifying that a device is being used by a legitimate person after login by constantly monitoring the built-in sensor and device usage data, like (partial) face images, touchscreen gestures, device motion, power consumption, in the background (transparently to the user) [@patel2016].
Touchscreen gesture-based user verification has been a popular approach in CA [@patel2016]. Touch input is directly related to the actual physical interaction with the mobile device, thus could be probably used for fast intrusion detection. Most of the existing works have focused on analysing single-finger swipes, i.e. drag and flick, but also other single and multi-finger gestures, like tap/typing, pinch and spread, could be used for touch biometrics. Intuitively, unique phone motion patterns may be observed while user is using touchscreen, thus joint analysis of touch and consequent motion signals has been proposed for CA [@kumar2016]. A major limitation with prior works on touch biometrics, and CA in general, has been that phone usage and human activity contexts have not been properly taken into account. It can be expected that touchscreen gestures and phone movement patterns have significant differences depending whether the user is browsing or reading (phone usage), or is stationary or moving (human activity), which suggests that CA systems need to be context-aware. Furthermore, phone usage context also defines whether authentication should be performed in the first place. For instance, user verification is not probably needed for casual browsing, while it is crucial if private or confidential data is being accessed [@Khan2014].
The preliminary studies [@Khan2014; @Mondal2015; @Murmuria2015; @Feng2015] have demonstrated that application or task specific (phone usage context) modelling can indeed boost the performance of swipe-based CA, while only marginal improvement has been achieved when human activity context has been considered [@Feng2015]. So far, human activity context-based models have shown to be useful only when CA is performed based on solely phone movement patterns [@lee2017] or combined with typing (tap gestures) [@sitova2016hmog]. In this work, we investigate the role of context when CA is conducted based on touchscreen and accelerometer readings extracted from swipe gestures. Our experimental analysis is performed on the publicly available HMOG dataset [@sitova2016hmog] consisting of 100 subjects each performing pre-defined reading and navigation tasks while sitting and walking. We show that both phone usage and human activity context should be considered in swipe gesture-based CA. In addition, our findings suggest that swipe-based CA should rely solely on touch signals when the user is stationary, while inclusion of phone movement patterns improve CA performance only when the user is moving.
Methodology
===========
This study focuses on analysing two different types of context related to: (1) phone usage (reading a document and navigating) and (2) user’s physical activity (using the phone while sitting and walking), and their effect in CA of a smartphone user. Figure \[mobileactivity\] illustrates the distributions of features extracted from touchscreen gestures in the read and navigation scenarios and the features extracted from accelerometer signals during swipe gestures while the phone user is sitting and walking. Based on Figure \[f1\] it is obvious that touch gestures have indeed significant differences across different phone usage contexts as already shown experimentally in [@Khan2014; @Mondal2015; @Murmuria2015; @Feng2015]. Similarly, Figure \[f2\] depicts that the distribution of accelerometer data features extracted during swipe gestures is highly dependent on the phone user’s physical activity. Motivated by this, the aim of this paper is to show that separate models need be trained for each phone usage context and for each type of human activity for accurate CA of a smartphone user. In the following, we introduce the feature extraction and anomaly detection methods used in our experimental analysis.
Feature extraction {#data}
------------------
Touchscreen data consists of time stamp, touch pressure and $x$- and $y$-coordinates of a swipe, while accelerometer data contains time stamp, and acceleration signal in $x$, $y$ and $z$ directions. In our study, swipe gestures with more than five touchscreen data points are considered for feature extraction. Altogether, 211 features[^2] (117 from touchscreen data and 94 from acceleration data) are extracted from these signals. The features extracted from touch coordinates include e.g. mean, variation, percentiles, time, length, velocity, direction, gesture shape related features, start and end point of the swipe in $x$ and $y$ direction as well as from 2D data. Moreover, mean, variation, percentiles, and shape related features are computed from the touch pressure signal. The accelerometer features are calculated from the magnitude signal during swipes and also from 0.5 seconds before and after each swipe, separately. These features include e.g. mean, minimum, maximum, variation, and percentiles.
Anomaly detection {#aim}
-----------------
We use a simple distance-based one-class ensemble classifier for continuous authentication that is based on the method presented in [@smith]. The idea is that swipes locating in the normal region are considered to originate from the genuine user and swipes outside of this are considered as anomalies, and therefore, originating from an impostor. The training begins with person-specific feature ranking based on inter-class distance of genuine user’s and impostors’ data. The features are first normalized to interval 0-1 and the training data $S_{train} = \{ f_1, \ldots, f_n\}$, where $f_i$ is feature vector $i$, is divided to two sets: data from genuine user $S_{Train_G} = \{ f_{1G}, \ldots, f_{nG}\}$ and data from impostors $S_{Train_I} = \{ f_{1I}, \ldots, f_{nI}\}$. The aim is to find features $f_i$ that differ the most between these two. This is done by calculating mean of each feature separately for both sets after removing outliers. Features can then be ranked by comparing the ratios $(\| mean(f_iG) - mean(f_iI) \|) / mean(f_iG)$. Note that the data from both classes is required in this phase, while the rest of the model training is conducted using only the information from the genuine class. The actual anomaly detection model is trained using expectation maximization (EM) clustering. The idea in this distance-based classifier is to cluster training data from genuine user’s swipe gestures and assume that normal data lies close to the cluster centroid, while anomalies are further away from the centroid. Model used in this study is an ensemble classifier so several classifiers are trained. In this stage, only training data from the genuine user, $S_{Train_G}$, is used and the 40 highest ranked features in the previous stage are selected to train the classifiers. Each classifier is trained using two features: the first classifier uses highest and second highest ranked features, the second uses second and third highest ranked features, and so on. The data from each pair is clustered using EM algorithm, and when a new swipe is classified, its Euclidean distance $d_i$ to each cluster centroids is calculated. The classifiers are combined by calculating the sum $D= \Sigma d_i$ from the distances as suggested in [@kittler]. A threshold for $D$ defines whether the new swipe is classified as normal or an anomaly. This threshold is determined based on training data $S_{Train_G}$. The sum of distances to cluster centroids is calculated to each swipe of $S_{Train_G}$. Let us mark this vector of sum of distances as **$D_G$** $= \{D_{G1}, \ldots, D_{Gn}\}$, where $n = \| S_{Train_G} \|$. The threshold is then considered as the $i$th percentile of **$D_G$**. The value of $i$ is optimized separately to each user to find equal error rate (EER). As shown e.g. in [@Zhang2015], the classification on observation as user’s typical behaviour or anomaly is not based on one single swipe. Instead, a sequence of 25 sequential observations, and their distance to cluster centroids $C=\{D_1, \ldots, D_{25}\}$, are analysed. In order to avoid unnecessary false alarms, the values of $C$ are ordered and the final classification is based on the mean of four smallest value of $C$.
Experimental setup and analysis {#experiments}
===============================
For our study, we considered the HMOG dataset [@sitova2016hmog] because it is the only publicly available multi-modal dataset for CA that contains data from both touch gesture and other sensors, including accelerometer, gyroscope and magnetometer. The dataset was collected from 100 subjects who were asked to carry out three different pre-defined tasks using a Samsung Galaxy S4 smartphone: (1) read a document, (2) type text, and (3) use map application. Since this study concentrates on swipe gesture-based user authentication, we discarded the data related to the typing scenario. Similarly, touch events related to tapping were not used in the study. Thus, experiments are based on four scenarios: reading a document while sitting (S1), reading while walking (S2), navigating while sitting (S3), and navigating while walking (S4). Each task was performed during four sessions. The swipe gesture data from first two sessions are used for training and the remaining two are used for testing. Experiments are performed using three feature sets: touchscreen, accelerometer and combination of both.
Table \[results\] reports the average EERs across subjects for context-specific and general CA models. The context-specific models are trained and tested on the data from the same scenario but from different sessions. The general model is trained using data from all scenarios and tested on each individual scenario in turn. According to the results, the results are significantly better when context-specific models are used. In fact, with each scenario, the average EER is lower when the model is trained using the data from same scenario as it is tested compared to the error rate of the general model. Especially the reading scenarios benefit from specific models as the average EER drops from 21.3% to 11.7% in S1 and from 15.8% to 7.0% in S2 when context-specific authentication model is used instead of the general one.
The results presented in Table \[results\] suggest that features extracted from acceleration signals are advised to be used only if user is physically active. In fact, it can be seen from Table \[results\] that the best EER for sitting scenarios are obtained using only touchscreen features while the best EERs for walking scenarios are obtained using fusion of touch and motion features. The results depict also that navigation scenario is more difficult than reading scenario from CA point of view. The main reason for this is that the navigation scenario contains swipes to different directions while in reading scenario swipes are mainly vertical. In fact, we conducted an additional experiment with S3 data where horizontal swipes were removed. The EER for touch features dropped from 21.5% to 17.2%, which suggests that vertical swipes contain more unique variations among the subjects.
**Train** **Test** **Touch** **Motion** **Fusion**
----------------- ----------------- ------------------ -------------- ------------------
S1: read & sit S1: read & sit **11.7%** (13.6) 18.3% (18.8) 14.2% (16.9)
S1-S4: all S1: read & sit 25.5% (19.6) 29.2% (21.7) 21.3% (17.6)
S2: read & walk S2: read & walk 9.1% (12.6) 11.4% (12.2) **7.0%** (11.8)
S1-S4: all S2: read & walk 26.6% (18.0) 21.4% (15.5) 15.8% (12.7)
S3: map & sit S3: map & sit **21.5%** (12.2) 24.1% (17.8) 23.0% (17.4)
S1-S4: all S3: map & sit 28.4% (14.2) 27.1% (16.7) 22.7% (15.4)
S4: map & walk S4: map & walk 21.7% (11.3) 14.5% (14.5) **13.2%** (13.4)
S1-S4: all S4: map & walk 27.4% (12.5) 20.8% (15.7) 16.8% (13.5)
: EERs (and standard deviations) for context-specific and general models.
\[results\]
**Train** **Test** **Touch** **Motion** **Fusion**
----------------- ----------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
S1: read & sit S2: read & walk 12.2% (13.6) 37.2% (23.3) 25.2% (21.8)
S2: read & walk S1: read & sit 11.5% (13.2) 40.3% (19.7) 26.7% (22.3)
S3: map & sit S4: map & walk 25.1% (12.8) 34.7% (19.6) 32.5% (20.0)
S4: map & walk S3: map & sit 23.7% (12.7) 33.3% (18.8) 31.8% (18.6)
S1: read & sit S3: map & sit 40.8% (17.1) 28.5% (18.8) 28.0% (18.0)
S3: map & sit S1: read & sit 40.7% (23.7) 26.2% (22.8) 24.4% (22.4)
S2: read & walk S4: map & walk 39.1% (15.0) 19.2% (15.0) 24.4% (16.6)
S4: map & walk S2: read & walk 40.8% (23.4) 22.1% (19.7) 20.9% (18.7)
: EERs (and standard deviations) for cross-scenario tests.
\[results2\]
Table \[results2\] demonstrates the importance of considering both phone usage and physical activity contexts in the training process. The results correspond to the average EERs when CA models are trained with one phone usage context and tested with the other while the physical activity remains the same. In addition, Table \[results2\] presents the average EERs when CA models are trained with one physical activity and tested with the other while the phone usage context remains the same. The result comparison between Table \[results\] and Table \[results2\] shows as well that CA models should be context-specific. For instance, the phone usage context has a huge effect on the error rates as the EER for S2 jumps from 7.0% to 20.9% when training is performed on navigation while walking scenario (S4) instead of reading while walking (S2). Similarly, the EER for S2 increases from 7.0% to 12.2% when training is performed on reading while sitting scenario (S1) instead of reading while walking (S2). In general, it can be noted that the phone usage context has more significant effect on error rates than user’s physical activity.
Conclusions and future work {#conclusion}
===========================
This study investigated the role of context in swipe gesture-based continuous authentication. It was shown that both phone usage and human activity scenarios affect how the user is interacting with the device. Therefore, not only different applications or tasks require their own specific model but different human activities as well. According to the experiments, only touch features should be used for swipe-based verification if the user is stationary and combination of features extracted from touchscreen and accelerometer signals when the user is moving.
We plan to extend our work from laboratory conditions into unconstrained real-world scenarios where context information is not available. In general, the phone usage context can be determined based on the currently running foreground application, while we believe that the human activity context can be estimated using pre-trained models [@ARready] or unsupervised learning methods.
[10]{}
V. M. Patel, R. Chellappa, D. Chandra, and B. Barbello. Continuous user authentication on mobile devices: Recent progress and remaining challenges. , 33(4):49–61, 2016.
R. Kumar, V. V. Phoha, and A. Serwadda. Continuous authentication of smartphone users by fusing typing, swiping, and phone movement patterns. In [*IEEE International Conference on Biometrics Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS)*]{}, 2016.
H. Khan and U. Hengartner. Towards application-centric implicit authentication on smartphones. In [*Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications (HotMobile)*]{}, pages 10:1–10:6. ACM, 2014.
S. Mondal and P. Bours. Does context matter for the performance of continuous authentication biometric systems? [A]{}n empirical study on mobile device. In [*International Conference of the Biometrics Special Interest Group (BIOSIG)*]{}, pages 1–5, 2015.
R. Murmuria, A. Stavrou, D. Barbará, and D. Fleck. Continuous authentication on mobile devices using power consumption, touch gestures and physical movement of users. In [*International Workshop on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection*]{}. Springer, 2015.
T. Feng, X. Zhao, N. DeSalvo, T.-H. Liu, Z. Gao, X. Wang, and W. Shi. An investigation on touch biometrics: Behavioral factors on screen size, physical context and application context. In [*IEEE International Symposium on Technologies for Homeland Security*]{}, 2015.
W. H. Lee and R. B. Lee. Implicit smartphone user authentication with sensors and contextual machine learning. In [*IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN)*]{}, pages 297–308, 2017.
Z. Sitov[á]{}, J. [Š]{}ed[ě]{}nka, Q. Yang, G. Peng, G. Zhou, P. Gasti, and K. S. Balagani. Hmog: New behavioral biometric features for continuous authentication of smartphone users. , 11(5):877–892, 2016.
R. Smith, A. Bivens, M. Embrechts, C. Palagiri, and B. Szymanski. Clustering approaches for anomaly based intrusion detection. , pages 579–584, 2002.
J. Kittler, M. Hatef, R. Duin, and J. Matas. On combining classifiers. , 20(3):226–239, 1998.
H. Zhang, V. M. Patel, M. Fathy, and R. Chellappa. Touch gesture-based active user authentication using dictionaries. In [*IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV)*]{}, pages 207–214, 2015.
P Siirtola and J. Röning. Ready-to-use activity recognition for smartphones. In [*IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Data Mining*]{}, pages 59–64, 2013.
[^1]: This work was partially funded by the Finnish Foundation for Technology Promotion.
[^2]: The source codes for feature extraction and classification are available at: <http://www.oulu.fi/bisg/node/40364>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give a comprehensive treatment of the parabolic Signorini problem based on a generalization of Almgren’s monotonicity of the frequency. This includes the proof of the optimal regularity of solutions, classification of free boundary points, the regularity of the regular set and the structure of the singular set.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA'
- 'Dipartimento d’Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale (DICEA), Università di Padova, via Trieste 63, 35131 Padova, Italy'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA'
author:
- Donatella Danielli
- Nicola Garofalo
- Arshak Petrosyan
- Tung To
title: |
Optimal Regularity and the Free Boundary\
in the Parabolic Signorini Problem
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
Introduction
============
Given a domain $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n\geq 2$, with a sufficiently regular boundary $\partial\Omega$, let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be a relatively open subset of $\partial \Omega$ (in its relative topology), and set ${\mathcal{S}}=\partial\Omega\setminus{\mathcal{M}}$. We consider the solution of the problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:signor-v-1}
\Delta v-\partial_t v=0&\quad\text{in }\Omega_T:=\Omega\times(0,T],\\
\label{eq:signor-v-2}
v\geq {\varphi},\quad \partial_\nu v\geq 0,\quad (v-{\varphi})\partial_\nu
v=0&\quad\text{on }{\mathcal{M}}_T:={\mathcal{M}}\times(0,T],\\
\label{eq:signor-v-3}
v=g&\quad\text{on }{\mathcal{S}}_T:={\mathcal{S}}\times(0,T],\\
v(\cdot, 0)={\varphi}_0&\quad\text{on }\Omega_0:=\Omega\times\{0\},
\label{eq:signor-v-4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial_\nu$ is the outer normal derivative on $\partial\Omega$, and ${\varphi}:{\mathcal{M}}_T\to {\mathbb{R}}$, ${\varphi}_0:\Omega_0\to{\mathbb{R}}$, and $g:{\mathcal{S}}_T\to {\mathbb{R}}$ are prescribed functions satisfying the compatibility conditions: ${\varphi}_0\geq {\varphi}$ on ${\mathcal{M}}\times\{0\}$, $g\geq {\varphi}$ on $\partial {\mathcal{S}}\times(0,T]$, and $g={\varphi}$ on ${\mathcal{S}}\times\{0\}$, see Fig. \[fig:par-Sig-prob\]. The condition is known as the *Signorini boundary condition* and the problem – as the *(parabolic) Signorini problem* for the heat equation. The function ${\varphi}$ is called the *thin obstacle*, since $v$ is restricted to stay above ${\varphi}$ on ${\mathcal{M}}_T$. Classical examples where Signorini-type boundary conditions appear are the problems with unilateral constraints in elastostatics (including the original Signorini problem [@Sig; @Fic]), problems with semipermeable membranes in fluid mechanics (including the phenomenon of osmosis and osmotic pressure in biochemistry), and the problems on the temperature control on the boundary in thermics. We refer to the book of Duvaut and Lions [@DL], where many such applications are discussed and the mathematical models are derived.
Another historical importance of the parabolic Signorini problem is that it serves as one of the prototypical examples of evolutionary *variational inequalities*, going back to the foundational paper by Lions and Stampacchia [@LS], where the existence and uniqueness of certain weak solutions were established. In this paper, we work with a stronger notion of solution. Thus, we say that a function $v\in
W^{1,0}_2(\Omega_T)$ solves – if $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega_T} \nabla v\nabla(w-v)+\partial_t v(w-v)\geq 0\quad\text{for every $w\in{\mathfrak{K}}$},\\
v\in{\mathfrak{K}},\quad \partial_t v\in L_2(\Omega_T),\quad v(\cdot,0)={\varphi}_0,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathfrak{K}}=\{w\in W^{1,0}_2(\Omega_T)\mid w\geq {\varphi}\text{ on } {\mathcal{M}}_T,\
w=g\text{ on }{\mathcal{S}}_T\}$. The reader should see Section \[sec:parab-funct-class\] for the definitions of the relevant parabolic functional classes. The existence and uniqueness of such $v$, under some natural assumptions on ${\varphi}$, ${\varphi}_0$, and $g$ can be found in [@Bre; @DL; @AU0; @AU]. See also Section \[sec:existence-regularity\] for more details.
Two major questions arise in the study of the problem –:
- the regularity properties of $v$;
- the structure and regularity of the *free boundary* $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(v)&=\partial_{{\mathcal{M}}_T}\{(x,t)\in {\mathcal{M}}_T\mid v(x,t)>{\varphi}(x,t)\},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial_{{\mathcal{M}}_T}$ indicates the boundary in the relative topology of ${\mathcal{M}}_T$.
(150,150) (0,0)[![The parabolic Signorini problem[]{data-label="fig:par-Sig-prob"}](OmegaT "fig:"){height="150pt"}]{} (84,130)[$\Omega_T$]{} (58,110) (80,95) (75,80)[$\partial_\nu v=0$]{} (25,75) (20,60) (80,30)[$v={\varphi}_0$]{} (140,90)[ $v=g$]{} (88,59)[$\Gamma(v)$]{} (87,62)[(-2,1)[10]{}]{}
Concerning the regularity of $v$, it has long been known that the spatial derivatives $\partial_{x_i}v$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, are $\alpha$-Hölder continuous on compact subsets of $\Omega_T\cup{\mathcal{M}}_T$, for some unspecified $\alpha\in (0,1)$. In the time-independent case, such regularity was first proved by Richardson [@Ric] in dimension $n=2$, and by Caffarelli [@Ca-sig] for $n\ge 3$. In the parabolic case, this was first proved by Athanasopoulos [@Ath1], and subsequently by Uraltseva [@Ur] (see also [@AU0]), under certain regularity assumptions on the boundary data, which were further relaxed by Arkhipova and Uraltseva [@AU].
We note that the Hölder continuity of $\partial_{x_i}v$ is the best regularity one should expect for the solution of –. This can be seen from the example $$v={\operatorname{Re}}(x_1+ix_n)^{3/2},\quad x_n\geq 0,$$ which is a harmonic function in ${\mathbb{R}}^n_+$, and satisfies the Signorini boundary conditions on ${\mathcal{M}}={\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times\{0\}$, with thin obstacle ${\varphi}\equiv 0$. This example also suggests that the optimal Hölder exponent for $\partial_{x_i}v$ should be $1/2$, at least when ${\mathcal{M}}$ is flat (contained in a hyperplane). Indeed, in the time-independent case, such optimal $C^{1,1/2}$ regularity was proved in dimension $n=2$ in the cited paper by Richardson [@Ric]. The case of arbitrary space dimension (still time-independent), however, had to wait for the breakthrough work of Athanasopoulos and Caffarelli [@AC]. Very recently, the proof of the optimal regularity for the original Signorini problem in elastostatics was announced by Andersson [@And].
One of the main objectives of this paper is to establish, in the parabolic Signorini problem, and for a flat thin manifold ${\mathcal{M}}$, that $\nabla v\in H^{1/2,1/4}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega_T\cup {\mathcal{M}}_T)$, or more precisely that $v\in H^{3/2,3/4}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega_T\cup {\mathcal{M}}_T)$, see Theorem \[thm:opt-reg\] below. Our approach is inspired by the works of Athanasopoulos, Caffarelli, and Salsa [@ACS] and Caffarelli, Salsa, and Silvestre [@CSS] on the time-independent problem. In such papers a generalization of the celebrated Almgren’s frequency formula established in [@Alm] was used, not only to give an alternative proof of the optimal $C^{1,1/2}$ regularity of solutions, but also to study the so-called *regular set* ${\mathcal{R}}(v)$ of the free boundary $\Gamma(v)$. This approach was subsequently refined in [@GP] by the second and third named authors with the objective of classifying the free boundary points according to their separation rate from the thin obstacle ${\varphi}$. In [@GP] the authors also introduced generalizations of Weiss’s and Monneau’s monotonicity formulas, originally developed in [@Wei1] and [@Mon], respectively, for the classical obstacle problem. Such generalized Weiss’s and Monneau’s monotonicity formulas allowed to prove a structural theorem on the so-called *singular set* $\Sigma(v)$ of the free boundary, see [@GP]. For an exposition of these results in the case when the thin obstacle ${\varphi}\equiv 0$ we also refer to the book by the third named author, Shahgholian, and Uraltseva [@PSU]\*[Chapter 9]{}.
In closing we mention that, as far as we are aware of, the only result presently available concerning the free boundary in the parabolic setting is that of Athanasopoulos [@Ath2], under assumptions on the boundary data that guarantee boundedness and nonnegativity of $\partial_t v$. In that paper it is shown that the free boundary is locally given as a graph $$t=h(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1}),$$ for a Lipschitz continuous function $h$.
Overview of the main results
----------------------------
In this paper we extend all the above mentioned results from the elliptic to the parabolic case. We focus on the situation when the principal part of the diffusion operator is the Laplacian and that the thin manifold ${\mathcal{M}}$ is flat and contained in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times\{0\}$.
One of our central results is a generalization of Almgren’s frequency formula [@Alm], see Theorem \[thm:thin-monotonicity\] below. As it is well known, the parabolic counterpart of Almgren’s formula was established by Poon [@Poo], for functions which are caloric in an infinite strip $S_\rho={\mathbb{R}}^n\times(-\rho^2,0]$. In Section \[sec:gener-freq-funct\], we establish a truncated version of that formula for the solutions of the parabolic Signorini problem, similar to the ones in [@CSS] and [@GP]. The time dependent case presents, however, substantial novel challenges with respect to the elliptic setting. These are mainly due to the lack of regularity of the solution in the $t$-variable, a fact which makes the justification of differentiation formulas and the control of error terms quite difficult. To overcome these obstructions, we have introduced (Steklov-type) averaged versions of the quantities involved in our main monotonicity formulas. This basic idea has enabled us to successfully control the error terms.
Similarly to what was done in [@GP], we then undertake a systematic classification of the free boundary points based on the limit at the point in question of the generalized frequency function. When the thin obstacle ${\varphi}$ is in the class $H^{\ell,\ell/2}$, $\ell\geq 2$, this classification translates into assigning to each free boundary point in $\Gamma(v)$ (or more generally to every point on the *extended free boundary* $\Gamma_*(v)$, see Section \[sec:classes-solutions\]) a certain *frequency* $\kappa\leq \ell$, see Sections \[sec:exist-homog-blow\] and \[sec:class-free-bound\]. At the points for which $\kappa<\ell$, the separation rate of the solution $v$ from the thin obstacle can be “detected”, in a sense that it will exceed the truncation term in the generalized frequency formula. At those points we are then able to consider the so-called blowups, which will be parabolically $\kappa$-homogeneous solutions of the Signorini problem, see Section \[sec:exist-homog-blow\].
Next, we show that, similarly to what happens in the elliptic case, the smallest possible value of the frequency at a free boundary point is $\kappa =3/2$, see Section \[sec:homog-glob-solut\]. We emphasize that our proof of this fact does not rely on the semiconvexity estimates, as in the elliptic case (see [@AC] or [@CSS]). Rather, we use the monotonicity formula of Caffarelli [@Ca1] to reduce the problem to the spatial dimension $n=2$, and then study the eigenvalues of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator in domains with slits (see Fig. \[fig:slit-dom\] in Section \[sec:homog-glob-solut\]). The elliptic version of this argument has appeared earlier in the book [@PSU]\*[Chapter 9]{}. The bound $\kappa\geq 3/2$ ultimately implies the optimal $H^{3/2,3/4}_{\mathrm{loc}}$ regularity of solutions, see Section \[sec:optim-regul-solut\].
We next turn to studying the regularity properties of the free boundary. We start with the so-called *regular set* ${\mathcal{R}}(v)$, which corresponds to free boundary points of minimal frequency $\kappa=3/2$. Similarly to the elliptic case, studied in [@ACS; @CSS], the Lipschitz regularity of ${\mathcal{R}}(v)$ with respect to the space variables follows by showing that there is a cone of spatial directions in which $v-{\varphi}$ is monotone. The $1/2$-Hölder regularity in $t$ is then a consequence of the fact that the blowups at regular points are $t$-independent, see Theorem \[thm:lip-reg-reg-set\]. Thus, after possibly rotating the coordinate axes in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$, we obtain that ${\mathcal{R}}(v)$ is given locally as a graph $$x_{n-1}=g(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-2},t),$$ where $g$ is parabolically Lipschitz (or $\operatorname{Lip}(1,\frac12)$ in alternative terminology). To prove the Hölder $H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}$ regularity of $\partial_{x_i}g$, $i=1,\ldots, n-2$, we then use an idea that goes back to the paper of Athanasopoulos and Caffarelli [@AC0] based on an application of the boundary Harnack principle (forward and backward) for so-called domains with thin Lipschitz complement, i.e, domains of the type $$Q_1\setminus\{(x',t)\in Q_1'\mid x_{n-1}\leq g(x'',t)\},$$ see Lemma \[lem:BHP\]. This result was recently established in the work of the third named author and Shi [@Shi]. We emphasize that, unlike the elliptic case, the boundary Harnack principle for such domains cannot be reduced to the other known results in the parabolic setting (see e.g. [@Kem; @FGS] for parabolically Lipschitz domains, or [@HLN] for parabolically NTA domains with Reifenberg flat boundary).
Another type of free boundary points that we study are the so-called *singular points*, where the coincidence set $\{v={\varphi}\}$ has zero $\mathcal{H}^n$-density in the thin manifold with respect to the thin parabolic cylinders. This corresponds to free boundary points with frequency $\kappa=2m$, $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$. The blowups at those points are parabolically $\kappa$-homogeneous polynomials, see Section \[sec:free-bound-sing\].
Following the approach in [@GP], in Section \[sec:weiss-monneau-type\] we establish appropriate parabolic versions of monotonicity formulas of Weiss and Monneau type. Using such formulas we are able to prove the uniqueness of the blowups at singular free boundary points $(x_0,t_0)$, and consequently obtain a Taylor expansion of the type $$v(x,t)-{\varphi}(x',t)=q_\kappa(x-x_0,t-t_0)+o(\|(x-x_0,t-t_0)\|^\kappa),\quad
t\leq t_0,$$ where $q_\kappa$ is a polynomial of parabolic degree $\kappa$ that depends continuously on the singular point $(x_0,t_0)$ with frequency $\kappa$. We note that such expansion holds only for $t\leq t_0$ and may fail for $t>t_0$ (see Remark \[rem:taylor-cntrex\]). Nevertheless, we show that this expansion essentially holds when restricted to singular points $(x,t)$, even for $t\geq t_0$. This is necessary in order to verify the compatibility condition in a parabolic version of the Whitney’s extension theorem (given in Appendix \[sec:parab-whitn-extens\]). Using the latter we are then able to prove a structural theorem for the singular set. For the elliptic counterpart of this result see [@GP]. It should be mentioned at this moment that one difference between the parabolic case treated in the present paper and its elliptic counterpart is the presence of new types of singular points, which we call *time-like*. At such points the blowup may become independent of the space variables $x'$. We show that such singular points are contained in a countable union of graphs of the type $$t=g(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1}),$$ where $g$ is a $C^1$ function. The other singular points, which we call *space-like*, are contained in countable union of $d$-dimensional $C^{1,0}$ manifolds ($d<n-1$). After a possible rotation of coordinates in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$, such manifolds are locally representable as graphs of the type $$(x_{d+1},\ldots,x_{n-1})=g(x_1,\ldots,x_d,t),$$ with $g$ and $\partial_{x_i}g$, $i=1,\ldots,d$, continuous.
Related problems
----------------
The time-independent version of the Signorini problem is closely related to the obstacle problem for the half-Laplacian in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$ $$u\geq {\varphi},\quad (-\Delta_{x'})^{1/2}u\geq 0,\quad
(u-{\varphi})(-\Delta_{x'})^{1/2}u= 0\quad\text{in }{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}.$$ More precisely, if we consider a harmonic extension of $u$ from ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}={\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times\{0\}$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^n_+$ (by means of a convolution with the Poisson kernel), we will have that $$(-\Delta_{x'})^{1/2}u=- c_n\partial_{x_n} u\quad\text{on
}{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times\{0\}.$$ Thus, the extension $u$ will solve the Signorini problem in ${\mathbb{R}}^n_+$. More generally, in the above problem instead of the half-Laplacian one can consider an arbitrary fractional power of the Laplacian $(-\Delta_{x'})^{s}$, $0<s<1$, see e.g. the thesis of Silvestre [@Sil]. Problems of this kind appear for instance in mathematical finance, in the valuation of American options, when the asset prices are modelled by jump processes. The time-independent problem corresponds to the so-called perpetual options, with infinite maturity time. In such framework, with the aid of an extension theorem of Caffarelli and Silvestre [@CS], many of the results known for $s=1/2$ can be proved also for all powers $0<s<1$, see [@CSS].
The evolution version of the problem above is driven by the fractional diffusion and can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
u(x',t)-{\varphi}(x')&\geq 0,\\
\left((-\Delta_{x'})^{s}+\partial_t\right) u&\geq
0,\\
\left(u(x',t)-{\varphi}(x')\right)\left((-\Delta_{x'})^{s}+\partial_t\right)
u&=0\end{aligned}$$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times(0,T)$ with the initial condition $$u(x',0)={\varphi}(x').$$ This problem has been recently studied by Caffarelli and Figalli [@CF]. We emphasize that, although their time-independent versions are locally equivalent, the problem studied in [@CF] is very different from the one considered in the present paper.
In relation to temperature control problems on the boundary, described in [@DL], we would like to mention the two recent papers by Athanasopoulos and Caffarelli [@AC-two-phase], and by Allen and Shi [@AS]. Both papers deal with two-phase problems that can be viewed as generalizations of the one-phase problem (with ${\varphi}=0$) considered in this paper. The paper [@AS] establishes the phenomenon of separation of phases, thereby locally reducing the study of the two-phase problem to that of one-phase. A similar phenomenon was shown earlier in the elliptic case by Allen, Lindgren, and the third named author [@ALP].
Structure of the paper
----------------------
In what follows we provide a brief description of the structure of the paper.
- In Section \[sec:notat-prel\] we introduce the notations used throughout the paper, and describe the relevant parabolic functional classes.
- In Section \[sec:existence-regularity\] we overview some of the known basic regularity properties of the solution $v$ of the parabolic Signorini problem. The main ones are: $v\in
W^{2,1}_{2,{\mathrm{loc}}}\cap L^\infty_{\mathrm{loc}}$; and, $\nabla v\in
H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}_{\mathrm{loc}}$ for some $\alpha>0$. Such results will be extensively used in our paper.
- In Section \[sec:classes-solutions\] we introduce the classes of solutions ${\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_1^+)$ of the parabolic Signorini problem with a thin obstacle ${\varphi}$, and show how to effectively “subtract” the obstacle by maximally using its regularity. In this process we convert the problem to one with zero thin obstacle, but with a non-homogeneous right hand side $f$ in the equation. In order to apply our main monotonicity formulas we also need to to extend the resulting functions from $Q_1^+$ to the entire strip $S_1^+$. We achieve this by multiplication by a a cutoff function, and denote the resulting class of functions by ${\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$.
- Section \[sec:estimates-w2-1\_2s\_1+\] contains generalizations of $W^{2,1}_2$ estimates to the weighted spaced with Gaussian measure. These estimates will be instrumental in the proof of the generalized frequency formula in Section \[sec:gener-freq-funct\] and in the study of the blowups in Section \[sec:exist-homog-blow\]. In order not to distract the reader from the main content, we have deferred the proof of these estimates to the Appendix \[sec:est-gauss-proofs\].
- Section \[sec:gener-freq-funct\] is the most technical part of the paper. There, we generalize Almgren’s (Poon’s) frequency formula to solutions of the parabolic Signorini problem.
- In Section \[sec:exist-homog-blow\] we prove the existence and homogeneity of the blowups at free boundary points where the separation rate of the solution from the thin obstacle dominates the error (truncation) terms in the generalized frequency formula.
- In Section \[sec:homog-glob-solut\] we prove that the minimal homogeneity of homogeneous solution of the parabolic Signorini problem is $3/2$.
- Section \[sec:optim-regul-solut\] contains the proof of the optimal $H^{3/2,3/4}_{\mathrm{loc}}$ regularity of the solutions of the parabolic Signorini problem.
- In the remaining part of the paper we study the free boundary. We start in Section \[sec:class-free-bound\] by classifying the free boundary points according to the homogeneity of the blowups at the point in question. We also use the assumed regularity of the thin obstacle in the most optimal way.
- In Section \[sec:free-bound-regul\], we study the so-called regular set ${\mathcal{R}}(v)$ and show that it can be locally represented as a graph with $H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}$ regular gradient.
- In Section \[sec:free-bound-sing\] we give a characterization of the so-called singular points.
- Section \[sec:weiss-monneau-type\] contains some new Weiss and Monneau type monotonicity formulas for the parabolic problem. These results generalize the ones in [@GP] for the elliptic case.
- In Section \[sec:struct-sing-set\] we prove the uniqueness of blowups at singular points and the continuous dependence of blowups on compact subsets of the singular set. We then invoke a parabolic version of Whitney’s extension theorem (given in Appendix \[sec:parab-whitn-extens\]) to prove a structural theorem on the singular set.
Notation and preliminaries {#sec:notat-prel}
==========================
Notation {#sec:not}
--------
To proceed, we fix the notations that we are going to use throughout the paper. $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
&{\mathbb{N}}&&=\{1,2,\ldots\}&\qquad&\text{(natural numbers)}\\
&{\mathbb{Z}}&&=\{0,\pm1,\pm2,\ldots\}&\qquad&\text{(integers)}\\
&{\mathbb{Z}}_+&&={\mathbb{N}}\cup\{0\}\qquad&&\text{(nonnegative integers)}\\
&{\mathbb{R}}&&=(-\infty,\infty)&&\text{(real numbers)}\\
& s^\pm&&=\max\{\pm s,0\},\quad s\in{\mathbb{R}}&&\text{(positive/negative
part
of $s$)}\\
&{\mathbb{R}}^n&&=\{x=(x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_n)\mid x_i\in{\mathbb{R}}\}&\qquad& \text{(Euclidean space)}\\
&{\mathbb{R}}^n_+&&=\{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n \mid x_n > 0\}&& \text{(positive half-space)}\\
&{\mathbb{R}}^n_-&&=\{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n\mid x_n < 0\}&& \text{(negative half-space)}\\
&{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}&&\text{identified with ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times\{0\}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$}
&&\text{(thin space)}\\
& x' &&=(x_1, x_2,\ldots,x_{n-1})\quad\text{for }x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\\
&&& \text{we also identify $x'$ with $(x',0)$}\\
&x''&&=(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{n-2})\\
&|x|&&=\Big(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2\Big)^{1/2},\quad x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n&&\text{(Euclidean norm)}\\
&\|(x,t)\|&&=(|x|^2+|t|)^{1/2},\quad x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n, t\in{\mathbb{R}}&&\text{(parabolic norm)}\\
&x^\alpha &&=x_1^{\alpha_1}\dots x_n^{\alpha_n},\quad x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n, \alpha\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+^n\\
&\overline{E}, E^\circ, \partial E&&\text{closure, interior,
boundary of the set $E$}\\
&\partial_{X} E &&\text{boundary in the relative topology of $X$}\\
&\partial_p E &&\text{parabolic boundary of $E$}\\
&E^c&&\text{complement of the set $E$}\\
&\mathcal{H}^s(E)&&\text{$s$-dimensional Hausdorff measure}\\
&&&\text{of a Borel set $E$}\\
\intertext{For $x_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n}$, $t_0\in{\mathbb{R}}$, and $r>0$ we let}
&B_r(x_0) &&=\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\mid |x-x_0| < r\}&&\text{(Euclidean ball)}\\
&B^\pm_r(x_0) &&= B_r(x_0)\cap {\mathbb{R}}^n_\pm,\quad x_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1} &&\text{(Euclidean half-ball)}\\
&B'_r(x_0)&& =B_r(x_0)\cap {\mathbb{R}}^{n-1},\quad x_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}&& \text{(thin ball)}\\
&B''_r(x_0)&& =B_r'(x_0)\cap {\mathbb{R}}^{n-2},\quad x_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-2}&&\\
&{\mathcal{C}}_\eta'&&=\{x'\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\mid x_{n-1}\geq \eta |x''|\},\quad
\eta>0&&\text{(thin cone)}\\
&Q_r(x_0,t_0) &&= B_r(x_0)\times(t_0-r^2,t_0] &&\text{(parabolic cylinder)}\\
&Q_r^\pm(x_0,t_0) &&= B_r^\pm(x_0)\times(t_0-r^2,t_0]&&\text{(parabolic half-cylinders)}\\
&\tilde Q_r(x_0,t_0) &&=
B_r(x_0)\times(t_0-r^2,t_0+r^2)&&\text{(full parabolic cylinder)}\\
&Q_r'(x_0,t_0) &&= B_r'(x_0)\times(t_0-r^2,t_0]&&\text{(thin
parabolic
cylinder)}\\*
&Q_r''(x_0,t_0) &&= B_r''(x_0)\times(t_0-r^2,t_0]\\
&S_r &&={\mathbb{R}}^n\times(-r^2,0] &&\text{(parabolic strip)}\\
&S_r^\pm &&={\mathbb{R}}^n_\pm\times(-r^2,0] &&\text{(parabolic half-strip)}\\
&S'_r &&={\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times(-r^2,0] &&\text{(thin parabolic strip)}
\intertext{When $x_0=0$ and $t_0=0$, we routinely omit indicating
the centers $x_0$ and $(x_0,t_0)$ in the above notations.}
&\partial_e u, u_e&&\text{partial derivative in the direction $e$}
\\
&\partial_{x_i}u, u_{x_i} &&=\partial_{e_i}u,\quad
\text{for standard coordinate}\\*
&&&\text{vectors }e_i,\ i=1,\ldots, n\\
&\partial_t u, u_t&&\text{partial derivative in $t$ variable}\\
&u_{x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_k}}&&=\partial_{x_{i_1}\cdots
x_{i_k}}u=\partial_{x_{i_1}}\cdots\partial_{x_{i_k}}u\\
&\partial_x^\alpha
u&&=\partial_{x_1}^{\alpha_1}\cdots\partial_{x_n}^{\alpha_n}u,\\*
&&&\text{for $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n)$, $\alpha_i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$}\\
&\nabla u, \nabla_{x}u&&=(\partial_{x_1}u,\ldots,\partial_{x_{n}}u)&&\text{(gradient)}\\
&\nabla'u,
\nabla_{x'}u&&=(\partial_{x_1}u,\ldots,\partial_{x_{n-1}}u)&&\text{(tangential
or thin gradient)}\\
&\nabla''u,\nabla_{x''}u&&=(\partial_{x_1}u,\ldots,\partial_{x_{n-2}}u)\\
&D^ku,D^k_x u&&=(\partial_x^\alpha u)_{|\alpha|=k},\quad k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+,\\*
&&& \text{where }
|\alpha|=\alpha_1+\cdots+\alpha_n\\
&\Delta u,\Delta_xu&&=\sum_{i=1}^n \partial_{x_ix_i}u&&\text{(Laplacian)}\\
&\Delta'u,\Delta_{x'}u&&=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \partial_{x_ix_i}u&&\text{(tangential
or thin Laplacian)}\end{aligned}$$ We denote by $G$ the *backward heat kernel* on ${\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}$ $$G(x,t) =\begin{cases}
(-4\pi t)^{-\frac{n}{2}} e^{\frac{x^2}{4t}}, & t<0,\\
0,& t\geq 0.
\end{cases}$$ We will often use the following properties of $G$: $$\label{eq:G}
\Delta G+\partial_t G = 0,\quad G(\lambda x,\lambda^2 t)=
\lambda^{-n} G(x, t),\quad\nabla G =\frac{x}{2t}\, G.$$ Besides, to simplify our calculations, we define the differential operator: $$\label{eq:Z}
Zu = x\nabla u+2t\partial_tu ,$$ which is the generator of the parabolic scaling in the sense that $$\label{eq:Z-gen}
Zu(x,t)=\frac{d}{d\lambda}\Big|_{\lambda=1} u(\lambda x,\lambda^2 t).$$ Using , the operator $Z$ can also be defined through the following identity: $$\label{eq:ZG}
Zu =2t\Big(\nabla u\frac{\nabla G}{G}+\partial_t u\Big).$$
Parabolic functional classes {#sec:parab-funct-class}
----------------------------
For the parabolic functional classes, we have opted to use notations similar to those in the classical book of Ladyzhenskaya, Solonnikov, and Uraltseva [@LSU].
Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be an open subset in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $\Omega_{T}=\Omega\times(0,T]$ for $T>0$. The class $C(\Omega_T)=C^{0,0}(\Omega_T)$ is the class of functions continuous in $\Omega_T$ with respect to parabolic (or Euclidean) distance. Further, given for $m\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ we say $u\in
C^{2m,m}(\Omega_T)$ if for $|\alpha|+2j\leq 2m$ $
\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^j u\in C^{0,0}(\Omega_T)$, and define the norm $$\|u\|_{C^{2m,m}(\Omega_T)}=\sum_{|\alpha|+2j\leq 2m} \sup_{(x,t)\in
\Omega_T}|\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^j u(x,y)|.$$ The parabolic Hölder classes $H^{\ell,\ell/2}(\Omega_T)$, for $\ell=m+\gamma$, $m\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$, $0<\gamma\leq 1$ are defined as follows. First, we let $$\begin{aligned}
\langle u \rangle^{(0)}_{\Omega_T}&=|u|^{(0)}_{\Omega_T}=\sup_{(x,t)\in \Omega_T} |u(x,t)|,\\
\langle u \rangle^{(m)}_{\Omega_T}&=\sum_{|\alpha|+2j=m}
|\partial^\alpha_x\partial_t^j u|^{(0)}_{\Omega_T},\\
\langle
u\rangle^{(\beta)}_{x,\Omega_T}&=\sup_{\substack{(x,t),(y,t)\in
\Omega_T\\0<|x-y|\leq \delta_0}}\frac{|u(x,t)-u(y,t)|}{|x-y|^\beta},\quad 0<\beta\leq1,\\
\langle
u\rangle^{(\beta)}_{t,\Omega_T}&=\sup_{\substack{(x,t),(x,s)\in
\Omega_T\\0<|t-s|<\delta_0^2}}\frac{|u(x,t)-u(x,s)|}{|t-s|^\beta},\quad 0<\beta\leq1,\\
\langle u
\rangle^{(\ell)}_{x,\Omega_T}&=\sum_{|\alpha|+2j=m}\langle \partial^\alpha_x\partial^j_t
u\rangle^{(\gamma)}_{x,\Omega_T},\\
\langle u \rangle^{(\ell/2)}_{t,\Omega_T}&=\sum_{m-1\leq
|\alpha|+2j\leq m} \langle\partial_{x}^\alpha\partial_t^j
u\rangle^{((\ell-|\alpha|-2j)/2)}_{t,\Omega_T},\\
\langle u \rangle^{(\ell)}_{\Omega_T}&=\langle u
\rangle^{(\ell)}_{x,\Omega_T}+\langle u
\rangle^{(\ell/2)}_{t,\Omega_T}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, we define $H^{\ell,\ell/2}(\Omega_T)$ as the space of functions $u$ for which the following norm is finite: $$\|u\|_{H^{\ell,\ell/2}(\Omega_T)}=\sum_{k=0}^m\langle u
\rangle^{(k)}_{\Omega_T}+\langle u \rangle^{(\ell)}_{\Omega_T}.$$ The parabolic Lebesgue space $L_q(\Omega_T)$ indicates the Banach space of those measurable functions on $\Omega_T$ for which the norm $$\|u\|_{L_q(\Omega_T)}=\Big(\int_{\Omega_T} |u(x,t)|^q dx dt\Big)^{1/q}$$ is finite. The parabolic Sobolev spaces $W^{2m,m}_q(\Omega_T)$, $m\in
{\mathbb{Z}}_+$, denote the spaces of those functions in $L_q(\Omega_T)$, whose distributional derivative $\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^j u$ belongs to $\in L_q(\Omega_T)$, for $|\alpha|+2j\leq 2m$. Endowed with the norm $$\|u\|_{W^{2m,m}_q(\Omega_T)}=\sum_{|\alpha|+2j\leq 2m}
\| \partial^\alpha_x\partial^j_t u\|_{L^q(\Omega_T)},$$ $W^{2m,m}_q(\Omega_T)$ becomes a Banach space.
We also denote by $W^{1,0}_q(\Omega_T)$, $W^{1,1}_q(\Omega_T)$ the Banach subspaces of $L^q(\Omega_T)$ generated by the norms $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_{W^{1,0}_q(\Omega_T)}&=\|u\|_{L_q(\Omega_T)}+\|\nabla u\|_{L_q(\Omega_T)},\\
\|u\|_{W^{1,1}_q(\Omega_T)}&=\|u\|_{L_q(\Omega_T)}+\|\nabla
u\|_{L_q(\Omega_T)}+\|\partial_t u \|_{L_q(\Omega_T)}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $E\subset S_R$ for some $R>0$. The weighted Lebesgue space $L_p(E,
G)$, $p>1$, with Gaussian weight $G(x,t)$, will appear naturally in our proofs. The norm in this space is defined by $$\|u\|_{L_p(E,G)}^p=\int_{E} |u(x,t)|^pG(x,t)dxdt.$$ When $E$ is a relatively open subset of $S_R$, one may also define the respective weighted Sobolev spaces. We will also consider weighted spatial Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces $L_p(\Omega,G(\cdot,s))$, and $W^m_p(\Omega,G(\cdot,s))$ with Gaussian weights $G(\cdot,s)$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ for some fixed $s<0$. For instance, the norm in the space $L_p(\Omega,G(\cdot,s))$ is given by $$\|u\|_{L_p(\Omega,G(\cdot,s))}^p=\int_{\Omega} |u(x)|^pG(x,s)dx.$$
Known existence and regularity results {#sec:existence-regularity}
======================================
In this section we recall some known results about the existence and the regularity of the solution of the parabolic Signorini problem that we are going to take as the starting point of our analysis. For detailed proofs we refer the reader to the works of Arkhipova and Uraltseva [@AU0; @AU]. For simplicity we state the relevant results only in the case of the unit parabolic half-cylinder $Q_1^+$.
Suppose we are given functions $f\in L_\infty(Q_1^+)$, ${\varphi}\in
W^{2,1}_\infty(Q'_1)$, $g\in W^{2,1}_\infty((\partial B_1)^+\times
(-1,0])$, and ${\varphi}_0\in W^2_\infty(B_1^+)$ obeying the compatibility conditions $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
{\varphi}_0&=g(\cdot,-1)&&\text{a.e.\ on }(\partial B_1)^+,\\
{\varphi}_0&\geq{\varphi}(\cdot,-1)&\quad&\text{a.e.\ on }B'_1,\\
g&\geq{\varphi}&&\text{a.e.\ on }\partial B_1'\times(-1,0].\end{aligned}$$ Given ${\varphi}$ and $g$ as above, we introduce the following closed subset of $W^{1,0}_2(Q_1^+)$ $${\mathfrak{K}}=\{v\in W^{1,0}_2(Q_1^+)\mid v\geq {\varphi}\text{ a.e.\ on } Q'_1,\
v=g\text{ a.e.\ on }(\partial B_1)^+\times(-1,0]\}.$$ We say that $u\in W^{1,0}_2(Q_1^+)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:HEu-Q1}
\Delta u-\partial_t u = f(x,t)&\quad\text{in } Q_{1}^+,\\
\label{eq:u-signor-Q1}
u\geq {\varphi},\quad -\partial_{x_n} u\geq 0,\quad
(u-{\varphi}) \partial_{x_n}u = 0&\quad\text{on } Q_1',\\
\label{eq:u-Dir-bdry-Q1}
u=g&\quad\text{on }(\partial B_1)^+\times(-1,0],\\
\label{eq:u-init-Q1}
u(\cdot,-1)={\varphi}_0&\quad\text{on } B_1^+,\end{aligned}$$ if $u$ solves the variational inequality $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{Q_1^+} [\nabla u\nabla(v-u) +\partial_t u (v-u)+f(v-u)]\geq
0\quad\text{for any }v\in{\mathfrak{K}},\\
u\in{\mathfrak{K}}, \quad \partial_t u\in L_2(Q_1^+),\\
u(\cdot, -1)={\varphi}_0 \quad\text{on } B_1^+.\end{gathered}$$ Under the assumptions above there exists a unique solution to the problem –. Moreover, the solution will have Hölder continuous spatial gradient: $\nabla u\in
H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(Q_r^+\cup Q_r')$ for any $0<r<1$ with the Hölder exponent $\alpha>0$ depending only on the dimension, see [@AU0; @AU]. Below, we sketch the details in the case ${\varphi}=0$ and $g=0$, that would be most relevant in our case.
For any ${\varepsilon}>0$ we denote by $f^{\varepsilon}$ a mollifications of $f$ and consider the solution $u^{\varepsilon}$ to the approximating problem $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u^{\varepsilon}-\partial_t
u^{\varepsilon}=f^{\varepsilon}(x,t)&\quad\text{in
}Q_1^+,\\
\partial_{x_n} u^{\varepsilon}=\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})&\quad\text{on
}Q_1',\\
u^{\varepsilon}=0& \quad\text{on } (\partial B_1)^+\times(-1,0],\\
u^{\varepsilon}(\cdot,-1)={\varphi}_0&\quad\text{on } B_1^+,\end{aligned}$$ where the penalty function $\beta_{\varepsilon}\in C^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$ is such that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:betaeps}
\beta_{\varepsilon}(s)=0\quad\text{for }s\geq
0,\quad\beta_{\varepsilon}(s)={\varepsilon}+s/{\varepsilon}\quad\text{for }s\leq
-2{\varepsilon}^2,\\
\text{and}\quad \beta'_{\varepsilon}(s)\geq 0\quad\text{for all }s\in{\mathbb{R}}.\end{gathered}$$ The solutions $u^{\varepsilon}$ to the penalization problems are shown to be smooth in $Q_1^+$ up to $Q_1'$, and it can be proved that they are uniformly bounded $W^{1,1}_2(Q_1^+)$. To this end, for any $\eta\in
W^{1,0}_2(Q_1^+)$ vanishing a.e. on $(\partial B_1)^+\times(-1,0]$ and $(t_1,t_2]\subset (-1,0]$, one writes the integral identity $$\label{eq:penalty}
\int_{B_1^+\times(t_1,t_2]}(\nabla u^{\varepsilon}\nabla
\eta+u^{\varepsilon}_t\eta+f^{\varepsilon}\eta)dx
dt+\int_{B_1'\times(t_1,t_2]}\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})\eta dx'dt=0.$$ Taking in first $\eta=u^{\varepsilon}$, and then $\eta=u^{\varepsilon}_t$, one obtains the following global uniform bounds for the family $\{u^{\varepsilon}\}_{0<{\varepsilon}<1}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in(-1,0]}\|u^{\varepsilon}(\cdot,t)\|_{L_2(B_1^+)}^2+\|\nabla
u^{\varepsilon}\|_{L_2(Q_1^+)}^2&\leq C_n \big(\|{\varphi}_0\|^2_{L_2(B_1^+)}+\|f\|_{L_2(Q_1^+)}^2\big),\\
\sup_{t\in(-1,0]}\|\nabla
u^{\varepsilon}(\cdot,t)\|_{L_2(B_1^+)}^2+\|\partial_t
u^{\varepsilon}\|_{L_2(Q_1^+)}^2&\leq C_n \big(\|\nabla
{\varphi}_0\|^2_{L_2(B_1^+)}+\|f\|_{L_2(Q_1^+)}^2\big).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the family $\{u^{\varepsilon}\}_{0<{\varepsilon}<1}$ is uniformly bounded in $W^{1,1}_2(Q_1^+)$ and passing to the weak limit as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ one obtains the existence of solutions of the Signorini problem – in the case ${\varphi}=0$, $g=0$. Besides, by choosing the test functions $\eta=\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon}-w^{\varepsilon})|\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon}-w^{\varepsilon})|^{p-2}$, $p>1$, where $w$ solves the boundary value problem $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta w-\partial_t w=f^{\varepsilon}&\quad\text{in }Q_1^+,\\
w=0&\quad\text{on }\partial_pQ_1^+,\end{aligned}$$ one can show the global uniform bound $$\sup_{Q_1^+} |\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})|\leq C_n
\big(\|{\varphi}_0\|_{W^2_\infty(B_1^+)}+\|f\|_{L_{\infty}(Q_1^+)}\big).$$ For complete details, see the proofs of Lemmas 4 and 5 in [@AU0].
Next we have a series of local estimates. With $\zeta\in
C^\infty_0(B_1)$, we take the function $\eta=\partial_{x_i}[(\partial_{x_i}u^{\varepsilon})\zeta^2(x)]$, $i=1,\ldots, n$ in . Integrating by parts, we obtain the following local, uniform, second order estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\|D^2 u^{\varepsilon}\|_{L_2(Q_r^+)}&\leq C_{n,r}\big(\|\nabla
u\|^2_{L_2(Q_1^+)}
+\|f\|_{L_2(Q_1^+)})\\
&\leq C_{n,r}\big(
\|{\varphi}_0\|_{L_2(B_1^+)}+\|f\|_{L_2(Q_1^+)}\big),\quad 0<r<1.\end{aligned}$$ One should compare with our proof of Lemma \[lem:w212\] in Appendix \[sec:est-gauss-proofs\] which is the weighted version of this estimate. Furthermore, with more work one can establish the following locally uniform spatial Lipschitz bound $$\|u^{\varepsilon}\|_{W^1_\infty(Q_r^+)}\leq
C_{n,r}\big(\|{\varphi}_0\|_{W^2_\infty(B_1^+)}+\|f\|_{L_{\infty}(Q_1^+)}\big),\quad
0<r<1,$$ see Lemma 6 in [@AU0].
Finally, one can show that there exists a dimensional constant $\alpha>0$ such that $\nabla u^{\varepsilon}\in
H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(Q_r^+\cup Q_r')$ for any $0<r<1$, with the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla u^{\varepsilon}\|_{H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(Q_r^+\cup Q_r')}&\leq
C_{n,r,\rho}\big(\|\nabla u^{\varepsilon}\|_{L_\infty(Q_\rho
^+)}+\|f\|_{L_{\infty}(Q_\rho^+)}\big),\quad 0<r<\rho<1\\
&\leq
C_{n,r}\big(\|{\varphi}_0\|_{W^2_\infty(B_1^+)}+\|f\|_{L_{\infty}(Q_1^+)}\big),\end{aligned}$$ see Theorem 2.1 in [@AU].
We summarize the estimates above in the following two lemmas.
\[lem:known-W22\] Let $u\in W^{1,1}_2(Q_1^+)$ be a solution of the Signorini problem – with $f\in
L_{2}(Q_1^+)$, ${\varphi}_0\in W^{1}_2(B_1^+)$, ${\varphi}=0$, and $g=0$. Then, $u\in W^{2,1}_2(Q_r^+)$ for any $0<r<1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_{W^{2,1}_2(Q_r^+)}&\leq
C_{n,r}\big(\|{\varphi}_0\|_{W^1_2(B_1^+)}+\|f\|_{L_{2}(Q_1^+)}\big).\qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:known-Halpha\] Let $u\in W^{1,1}_2(Q_1^+)$ be a solution of the Signorini problem – with $f\in
L_{\infty}(Q_1^+)$, ${\varphi}_0\in W^{2}_\infty(B_1^+)$, ${\varphi}=0$, and $g=0$. Then, for any $0<r<1$, $u\in L_\infty(Q_r^+)$, $\nabla u\in
H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(Q_r^+\cup Q_r')$ with a dimensional constant $\alpha>0$ and $$\|u\|_{L_\infty(Q_r^+)}+\|\nabla u\|_{H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(Q_r^+\cup
Q_r')}\leq
C_{n,r}\big(\|{\varphi}_0\|_{W^2_\infty(B_1^+)}+\|f\|_{L_{\infty}(Q_1^+)}\big).\qedhere$$
We will also need the following variant of Lemma \[lem:known-Halpha\] that does not impose any restriction on the boundary data $g$ and ${\varphi}_0$.
\[lem:known-Halpha-2\] Let $v\in W^{1,1}_2(Q_1^+)\cap
W^{1,0}_\infty(Q_1^+)$ be a solution of the Signorini problem – with $f\in L_\infty(Q_1^+)$, and ${\varphi}\in H^{2,1}(Q_1')$. Then, for any $0<r<1$, $\nabla v\in
H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(Q_r^+\cup Q_r')$ with a universal $\alpha>0$, and $$\|\nabla v\|_{H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(Q_r^+\cup Q_r')}\leq
C_{n,r}\big(\|v\|_{W^{1,0}_\infty(Q_1^+)}+\|f\|_{L_{\infty}(Q_1^+)}+\|{\varphi}\|_{H^{2,1}(Q_1')}\big).$$
Consider the function $$u(x,t)=[v(x,t)-{\varphi}(x',t)] \eta(x,t)$$ with $\eta\in C^\infty_0(Q_1^+)$, such that $$\eta=1\quad\text{on }Q_{r},\quad \eta(x',-x_n,t)=\eta(x',x_n,t).$$ In particular, $\partial_{x_n}\eta=0$ on $Q_1'$. Then $u$ satisfies the conditions of Lemma \[lem:known-Halpha\] with ${\varphi}=0$, $g=0$, ${\varphi}_0=0$ and with $f$ replaced by $$[f-(\Delta'-\partial_t){\varphi}]\eta+(v-{\varphi})(\Delta-\partial_t)\eta+2(\nabla
v-\nabla{\varphi})\nabla \eta.$$ The assumptions on $v$ and ${\varphi}$ now imply the required estimate from that in Lemma \[lem:known-Halpha\].
In Section \[sec:estimates-w2-1\_2s\_1+\] we generalize the estimates in Lemma \[lem:known-W22\] for the appropriate weighted Gaussian norms. The proof of these estimates are given in Appendix \[sec:est-gauss-proofs\]. One of our main results in this paper is the optimal value of the Hölder exponent $\alpha$ in Lemma \[lem:known-Halpha-2\]. We show that $\nabla u\in
H^{1/2,1/4}_{\mathrm{loc}}$, or slightly stronger, that $u\in H^{3/2,3/4}_{\mathrm{loc}}$, when $f$ is bounded, see Theorem \[thm:opt-reg\].
Classes of solutions {#sec:classes-solutions}
====================
In this paper we are mostly interested in local properties of the solution $v$ of the parabolic Signorini problem and of its free boundary. In view of this, we focus our attention on solutions in parabolic (half-)cylinders. Furthermore, thanks to the results in Section \[sec:existence-regularity\], we can, and will assume that such solutions possess the regularity provided by Lemmas \[lem:known-W22\] and \[lem:known-Halpha\].
Given ${\varphi}\in
H^{2,1}(Q_1')$, we say that $v\in{\mathfrak{S}}_{{\varphi}}(Q_1^+)$ if $v\in
W^{2,1}_2(Q_1^+)\cap L_\infty(Q_1^+)$, $\nabla v\in
H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(Q_1^+\cup Q_1')$ for some $0<\alpha<1$, and $v$ satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\Delta v-\partial_t v = 0\quad\text{in } Q_1^+,\\
v-{\varphi}\geq 0,\quad -\partial_{x_n} v\geq
0,\quad(v-{\varphi})\partial_{x_n} v = 0\quad\text{on } Q'_1,
\end{gathered}$$ and $$(0,0)\in\Gamma_*(v):=\partial_{Q_1'}\{(x',t)\in Q_1'\mid v(x',0,t)={\varphi}(x',t),\ \partial_{x_n}v(x',0,t)=0\},$$ where $\partial_{Q_1'}$ is the boundary in the relative topology of $Q_1'$.
We call the set $\Gamma_*(v)$ the *extended free boundary* for the solution $v$. Recall that the *free boundary* is given by $$\Gamma(v):=\partial_{Q_1'}\{(x',t)\in Q_1'\mid v(x',0,t)>{\varphi}(x',t)\}.$$ Note that by definition $\Gamma_*(v)\supset \Gamma(v)$. The reason for considering this extension is that parabolic cylinders do not contain information on “future times”. This fact may create a problem when restricting solutions to smaller subcylinders. The notion of extended free boundary removes this problem. Namely, if $(x_0,t_0)\in
\Gamma_*(v)$ and $r>0$ is such that $Q_r^+(x_0,t_0)\subset Q_1^+$, then $(x_0,t_0)\in
\Gamma_*\big(v\big|_{Q_r^+(x_0,t_0)}\big)$. Sometimes, we will abuse the terminology and call $\Gamma_*(v)$ the free boundary.
Replacing $Q_1^+$ and $Q_1'$ by $Q_R^+$ and $Q_R'$ respectively in the definition above, we will obtain the class ${\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_R^+)$. Note that if $v\in{\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_R^+)$ then the parabolic rescaling $$v_R(x,t)=\frac{1}{C_R}v(Rx, R^2t),$$ where $C_R>0$ can be arbitrary (but typically chosen to normalize a certain quantity), belongs to the class ${\mathfrak{S}}_{{\varphi}_R}(Q_1^+)$. Having that in mind, we will state most of the results only for the case $R=1$.
The function $v\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_1^+)$ allows a natural extension to the entire parabolic cylinder $Q_1$ by the even reflection in $x_n$ coordinate: $$v(x',-x_n,t):=v(x',x_n,t).$$ Then $v$ will satisfy $$\Delta v-\partial_t v=0\quad\text{in }Q_1\setminus \Lambda(v),$$ where $$\Lambda(v):=\{(x',t)\in Q_1'\mid v(x',0,t)={\varphi}(x',t)\},$$ is the so-called *coincidence set*. More generally, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta v-\partial_t v\leq 0&\quad\text{in }Q_1,\\
\Delta v-\partial_t v
=2(\partial_{x_n}^+v)\mathcal{H}^n\big|_{\Lambda(v)}&\quad\text{in
}Q_1,\end{aligned}$$ in the sense of distributions, where $\mathcal{H}^{n}$ is the $n$-dimensional Hausdorff measure and by $\partial_{x_n}^+v$ we understand the limit from the right $\partial_{x_n}v(x',0+,t)$ on $Q_1'$.
We next show how to reduce the study of the solutions with nonzero obstacle ${\varphi}$ to the ones with zero obstacle. As the simplest such reduction we consider the difference $v(x,t)-{\varphi}(x',t)$, which will satisfy the Signorini conditions on $Q_1'$ with zero obstacle, but at an expense of solving nonhomogeneous heat equation instead of the homogeneous one. One may further extend this difference to the strip $S_1^+={\mathbb{R}}^n_+\times(-1,0]$ by multiplying with a cutoff function in $x$ variables. More specifically, let $\psi\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ be such that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:psi-1}
0\leq\psi\leq 1,\quad\psi=1\quad\text{on } B_{1/2},\quad{\operatorname{supp}}\psi\subset B_{3/4},\\\label{eq:psi-2}
\psi(x',-x_n)=\psi(x',x_n),\quad x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,\end{gathered}$$ and consider the function $$u(x,t)=[v(x,t)-{\varphi}(x',t)]\psi(x)\quad\text{for }(x,t)\in S_1^+.$$ It is easy to see that $u$ satisfies the nonhomogeneous heat equation in $S_1^+$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u-\partial_t u &= f(x,t)\quad\text{in } S_1^+,\\
f(x,t)&=-\psi(x)[\Delta'{\varphi}-\partial_t{\varphi}]+[v(x,t)-{\varphi}(x',t)]\Delta\psi+2\nabla
v\nabla\psi,\end{aligned}$$ and the Signorini boundary conditions on $S_1'$ $$u\geq 0,\quad -\partial_{x_n}u\geq 0,\quad u \partial_{x_n}u =
0\quad\text{on } S'_1.$$ Moreover, it is easy to see that $f$ is uniformly bounded.
\[def:Sf\] We say that $u\in {\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$, for $f\in
L_\infty(S_1^+)$ if $u\in W^{2,1}_{2}(S_1^+)\cap L_\infty(S_1^+)$, $\nabla u\in H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(S_1^+\cup S_1')$, $u$ has a bounded support and solves $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:HEv-f}
\Delta u-\partial_t u=f&\quad\text{in } S_1^+,\\
\label{eq:v-signor-f} u\geq 0,\quad-\partial_{x_n}u\geq 0,\quad
u \partial_{x_n}u = 0&\quad\text{on } S'_1,
\end{aligned}$$ and $$(0,0)\in \Gamma_*(u)=\partial_{S_1'}\{(x',t)\in S_1'\mid
u(x',0,t)=0,\ \partial_{x_n}u(x',0,t)=0\}.$$
If we only assume ${\varphi}\in H^{2,1}(Q_1')$, then in the construction above we can only say that the function $f\in L_\infty(S_1^+)$. For some of the results that we are going to prove (such as the optimal regularity in Theorem \[thm:opt-reg\]) this will be sufficient. However, if we want to study a more refined behavior of $u$ near the origin, we need to assume more regularity on ${\varphi}$.
Thus, if we assume ${\varphi}\in H^{\ell,\ell/2}(Q_1')$ with $\ell=k+\gamma\geq 2$, $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $0<\gamma\leq 1$, then for its parabolic Taylor polynomial $q_k(x',t)$ of parabolic degree $k$ at the origin, we have $$|{\varphi}(x',t)-q_k(x',t)|\leq M\|(x',t)\|^{\ell},\\$$ for a certain $M>0$, and more generally $$|\partial_{x'}^{\alpha'}\partial_t^j{\varphi}(x',t)
-\partial_{x'}^{\alpha'}\partial_t^j q_k(x',t)|\leq
M\|(x',t)\|^{\ell-|\alpha'|-2j},$$ for $|\alpha'|+2j\leq k$.
To proceed, we calorically extend the polynomial $q_k(x',t)$ in the following sense.
\[lem:calor-ext\] For a given polynomial $q(x',t)$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}}$ there exists a caloric extension polynomial $\tilde q(x,t)$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}\times{\mathbb{R}}$, symmetric in $x_n$, i.e., $$(\Delta-\partial_t) \tilde q(x,t)=0,\quad \tilde
q(x',0,t)=q(x',t),\quad \tilde q(x',-x_n, t)=\tilde q (x',x_n,t).$$ Moreover, if $q(x',t)$ is parabolically homogeneous of order $\kappa$, then one can find $\tilde q (x,t)$ as above with the same homogeneity.
It is easily checked that the polynomial $$\tilde q (x',x_n,t)=\sum_{j=0}^{N}(\partial_t-\Delta_{x'})^j
q(x',t)\frac{x_n^{2j}}{2j!}$$ is the desired extension. Here $N$ is taken so that the parabolic degree of the polynomial $q(x',t)$ does not exceed $2N$.
Let now $\tilde q_k$ be the extension of the parabolic Taylor polynomial $q_k$ of ${\varphi}$ at the origin and consider $$v_k(x,t):= v(x,t)-\tilde
q_k(x,t),\quad{\varphi}_k(x',t):={\varphi}(x',t)-q_k(x',t).$$ It is easy to see that $v_k$ solves the Signorini problem with the thin obstacle ${\varphi}_k$, i.e. $v_k\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{{\varphi}_k}(Q_1^+)$, now with an additional property $$|\partial_{x'}^{\alpha'}\partial_t^j{\varphi}_k(x',t)|\leq
M\|(x',t)\|^{\ell-|\alpha'|-2|j|},\quad\text{for }|\alpha'|+2j\leq k.$$ Then if we proceed as above and define $$\begin{aligned}
u_k(x,t)&=[v_k(x,t)-{\varphi}_k (x',t)]\psi(x)\\
&=[v(x,t)-{\varphi}(x,t)-(\tilde q_k(x,t)-q_k(x',t))]\psi(x)\end{aligned}$$ then $u_k$ will satisfy – with the right-hand side $$f_k=-\psi(x)[\Delta'{\varphi}_k-\partial_t{\varphi}_k]+[
v_k(x,t)-{\varphi}_k(x',t)]\Delta\psi+2\nabla v_k\nabla\psi,$$ which additionally satisfies $$|f_k(x,t)|\leq M\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-2}\quad \text{for }(x,t)\in S_1^+,$$ for $M$ depending only on $\psi$, $\|u\|_{W^{1,0}_\infty(Q_1^+)}$, and $\|{\varphi}\|_{H^{\ell,\ell/2}(Q_1^+)}$. Moreover, for $|\alpha|+2j\leq
k-2$ one will also have $$|\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^j f_k(x,t)|\leq M_{\alpha,j}
\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-2-|\alpha|-2j}\quad \text{for }(x,t)\in Q_{1/2}^+.$$
We record this construction in the following proposition.
\[prop:uk-def\] Let $v\in{\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_1^+)$ with ${\varphi}\in
H^{\ell,\ell/2}(Q_1')$, $\ell=k+\gamma\geq 2$, $k\in N$, $0<\gamma\leq 1$. If $q_k$ is the parabolic Taylor polynomial of order $k$ of ${\varphi}$ at the origin, $\tilde q_k$ is its extension given by Lemma \[lem:calor-ext\], and $\psi$ is a cutoff function as in –, then $$u_k(x,t)=[v(x,t)-\tilde q_k(x,t)-({\varphi}(x',t)-q_k(x',t))]\psi(x)$$ belongs to the class ${\mathfrak{S}}^{f_k}(S_1^+)$ with $$|f_k(x,t)|\leq M\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-2}\quad \text{for }(x,t)\in S_1^+$$ and more generally, for $|\alpha|+2j\leq k-2$, $$|\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^j f_k(x,t)|\leq M_{\alpha,j}
\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-2-|\alpha|-2j}\quad \text{for }(x,t)\in Q_{1/2}^+.$$ Furthermore, $u_k(x',0,t)=v(x',0,t)-{\varphi}(x,'t)$, $\partial_{x_n}u_k(x',0,t)=\partial_{x_n}v(x',0,t)$ in $Q_{1/2}'$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(u_k)\cap Q_{1/2}'&=\Gamma(v)\cap Q_{1/2}',\\
\Gamma_*(u_k)\cap Q_{1/2}'&=\Gamma_*(v)\cap Q_{1/2}'.\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
Estimates in Gaussian spaces {#sec:estimates-w2-1_2s_1+}
============================
In this section we state $W^{2,1}_2$-estimates with respect to the Gaussian measure $G(x,t)dxdt$ in the half-strips $S_\rho^+$. The estimates involves the quantities that appear in the generalized frequency formula that we prove in the next section. Since the computations are rather long and technical, to help with the readability of the paper, we have moved the proofs to Appendix \[sec:est-gauss-proofs\].
\[lem:w212\] Let $u\in {\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ with $f\in L_\infty(S_1^+)$. Then, for any $0<\rho<1$ we have the estimates $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{S_{\rho}^+} |t||\nabla u|^2 G&\leq C_{n,\rho}\int_{S_1^+} (u^2 +|t|^2f^2) G,\\
\int_{S_{\rho}^+} |t|^2(|D^2 u|^2+u_t^2)G &\leq
C_{n,\rho}\int_{S_1^+} (u^2+|t|^2f^2)G.
\end{aligned}$$
\[rem:w212-alt\]
Even though the estimates above are most natural for our further purposes, we would like to note that slightly modifying the proof one may show that $$\int_{S_{\rho}^+} |\nabla u|^2 G\leq C_{n,\rho}\int_{S_1^+}
(u^2+f^2)G,$$ i.e., without the weights $|t|$ and $|t|^2$ in the integrals for $|\nabla u|^2$ and $f^2$. More generally, the same estimate can be proved if $u(\Delta -\partial_t)u\geq 0$ in $S_1$, with the half-strips $S_\rho^+$ and $S_1^+$ replaced by the full strips $S_\rho$ and $S_1$.
\[lem:w112-diff\] Suppose $u_i\in{\mathfrak{S}}^{f_i}(S_1^+)$, $i=1,2$, with $f_i\in L_\infty(S_1^+)$. Then for any $0<\rho<1$ we have the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{S_{\rho}^+} |t||\nabla (u_1-u_2)|^2 G&\leq
C_{n,\rho}\int_{S_1^+} [(u_1-u_2)^2+|t|^2(f_1-f_2)^2 ] G.
\end{aligned}$$
The generalized frequency function {#sec:gener-freq-funct}
==================================
In this section we will establish a monotonicity formula, which will be a key tool for our study. The origins of this formula go back to Almgren’s Big Regularity Paper [@Alm], where he proved that for (multiple-valued) harmonic functions in the unit ball, the frequency function $$N_u(r)=r\frac{\int_{B_r}|\nabla u|^2}{\int_{\partial B_r} u^2}$$ is monotonically increasing in $r\in(0,1)$. Versions of this formula have been used in different contexts, most notably in unique continuation [@GL1; @GL2] and more recently in the thin obstacle problem [@ACS; @GP]. Almgren’s monotonicity formula has been generalized by Poon to solutions of the heat equation in the unit strip $S_1$. More precisely, he proved in [@Poo] that if $\Delta u
- u_t = 0$ in $S_1$, then its caloric frequency, defined as $$N_u(r)=\frac{r^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} |\nabla u|^2(x,-r^2)
G(x,-r^2)dx}{\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} u(x,-r^2)^2 G(x,-r^2)dx},$$ is monotone non-decreasing in $r\in(0,1)$. This quantity, which to a large extent plays the same role as Almgren’s frequency function, differs from the latter in that it requires $u$ to be defined in an entire strip. Thereby, it is not directly applicable to caloric functions which are only locally defined, for instance when $u$ is only defined in the unit cylinder $Q_1$. One possible remedy to this obstruction is to consider an extension of a caloric function in $Q_1$ to the entire strip $S_1$ by multiplying it with a spatial cutoff function $\psi$, supported in $B_1$: $$v(x,t)=u(x,t)\psi(x).$$ Such extension, however, will no longer be caloric in $S_1$, and consequently the parabolic frequency function $N_v$ is no longer going to be monotone. However, there is a reasonable hope that $N_v$ is going to exhibit properties close to monotonicity. In fact, to be able to control the error terms in the computations, we will need to consider a “truncated” version of $N$. Moreover, we will be able to extend this result to functions $u\in {\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$, and to functions $v\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_1^+)$, via the constructions in Proposition \[prop:uk-def\].
To proceed, we define the following quantities: $$\begin{aligned}
h_u(t) &=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} u(x, t)^2 G(x, t)dx,\\
i_u(t) &=-t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} |\nabla u(x, t)|^2 G(x, t)dx,\end{aligned}$$ for any function $u$ in the parabolic half-strip $S_1^+$ for which the integrals involved are finite. Note that, if $u$ is an even function in $x_n$, then Poon’s parabolic frequency function is given by $$N_u(r)=\frac{i_u(-r^2)}{h_u(-r^2)}.$$ There are many substantial technical difficulties involved in working with this function directly. To overcome such difficulties, we consider the following averaged versions of $h_u$ and $i_u$: $$\begin{aligned}
H_u(r) &=\frac{1}{r^2}\int_{-r^2}^0
h_u(t)dt=\frac{1}{r^2}\int_{S_r^+}u(x,t)^2 G(x,t)dxdt,\\
I_u(r) &=\frac{1}{r^2}\int_{-r^2}^0
i_u(t)dt=\frac1{r^2}\int_{S_r^+}|t||\nabla u(x,t)|^2 G(x,t)dxdt.\end{aligned}$$ One further obstruction is represented by the fact that the above integrals may become unbounded near the endpoint $t=0$, where $G$ becomes singular. To remedy this problem we introduce the following truncated versions of $H_u$ and $I_u$. For a constant $0<\delta<1$, let $$\begin{aligned}
H_u^\delta(r) &=\frac{1}{r^2}\int_{-r^2}^{-\delta^2r^2}
h_u(t)dt=\frac{1}{r^2}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_{\delta r}^+}u(x,t)^2
G(x,t)dxdt,
\\
I_u^\delta(r) &=\frac{1}{r^2}\int_{-r^2}^{-\delta^2r^2}
i_u(t)dt=\frac1{r^2}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_{\delta r}^+}|t||\nabla
u(x,t)|^2 G(x,t)dxdt.\end{aligned}$$
The following lemma plays a crucial role in what follows.
\[lem:differentiation-formulae-smooth\] Assume that $v\in C^{4,2}_0(S_1^+\cup S_1')$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta v-\partial_t v = g(x,t)\quad\text{in } S_1^+.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, for any $0< \delta<1$ we have the following differentiation formulas $$\begin{aligned}
(H_v^\delta)'(r)
&=\frac{4}{r}I_v^\delta(r)-\frac{4}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+\setminus
S_{\delta r}} t vg G-
\frac{4}{r^3}\int_{S'_r\setminus S'_{\delta r}} t v v_{x_n} G\\
(I_v^\delta)'(r) &=\frac{1}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S^+_{\delta
r}}(Zv)^2 G+ \frac{2}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S^+_{\delta r}}
t (Zv) g G+\frac{2}{r^3}\int_{S'_r\setminus S'_{\delta r}} t
v_{x_n}(Zv) G,
\end{aligned}$$ where the vector field $Z$ is as in .
The main step in the proof consists in establishing the following differentiation formulas for $-1<t<0$: $$\label{eq:h'}
h_v'(t) =\frac{2}{t} i_v(t)-2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} v g G-2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}} v v_{x_n} G,$$ and $$\label{eq:i'}
i_v'(t) =\frac{1}{2t}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}(Z v)^2 G+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} (Zv) g G+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}}v_{x_n}(Zv) G.$$ Once this is done, then noting that $$\begin{aligned}
H_u^\delta(r) &= \int_{-1}^{-\delta^2} h_u(r^2 s)ds,\ \ \
I_u^\delta(r) = \int_{-1}^{-\delta^2} i_u(r^2 s)ds,
\end{aligned}$$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
(H_u^\delta)'(r) &= 2r \int_{-1}^{-\delta^2} s h_u'(r^2 s)ds,\ \ \
(I_u^\delta)'(r) = 2r \int_{-1}^{-\delta^2} s i_u'(r^2 s)ds.
\end{aligned}$$ Using we thus obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(H_v^\delta)'(r) & =\frac{2}{r^3}\int_{-r^2}^{-\delta^2r^2} t h_v'(t)dt\\
&=\frac{2}{r^3}\int_{-r^2}^{-\delta^2r^2}\Big(2 i_v(t)-2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} t v g G(\cdot,t)\,dx-2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}} v v_{x_n} G(\cdot,t)\,dx\Big)dt\\
&=\frac{4}{r} I_v^\delta(r)-\frac{4}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+\setminus
S_{\delta r}^+} t v g G-\frac{4}{r^3}\int_{S'_r\setminus
S'_{\delta r}}t v v_{x_n} G .
\end{aligned}$$ The formula for $(I_v^\delta)'(r)$ is computed similarly. We are thus left with proving and .
[\[step:1-diff-form-smooth\]($^\circ$)]{} We start with claiming that $$i_{v}(t)=\frac12\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} v Z v G+t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} v g
G+t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}}v v_{x_n} G.$$ Indeed, noting that $\Delta(v^2/2) = v\Delta v+|\nabla v|^2$ in $S^+_1$, and keeping in mind that the outer unit normal to ${\mathbb{R}}^n_+$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$ is given by $\nu = - e_n = (0,\ldots,0,-1)$, we integrate by parts to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
i_v(t) &=-t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}\left(\Delta(v^2/2)-v\Delta v\right) G\\
&= t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} v\nabla v\nabla G +t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}} v v_{x_n} G+
t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} v v_t G+t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} v g G\\
&=t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} \Big(\nabla v\frac{\nabla G}{G}+v_t\Big)v G+t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} v g G+t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}} v v_{x_n} G\\
&=\frac12\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} v (Z v) G+t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} v g
G+t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}} v v_{x_n} G,\end{aligned}$$ where in the first integral of the last equality we have used . This proves the claim.
[\[step:2-diff-form-smooth\]($^\circ$)]{} We now prove the formula for $h_v'$. Note that for $\lambda>0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
h_v(\lambda^2 t)&=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} v(x,\lambda^2
t)^2 G(x,\lambda^2t)dx\\
&=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} v(\lambda y,\lambda^2 t)^2 G(\lambda y,\lambda^2
t)\lambda^n dy=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} v(\lambda y,\lambda^2 t)^2 G(y, t)dy.\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have used the identity $ G(\lambda y,\lambda^2 t)\lambda^n=
G(y,t)$. Differentiating with respect to $\lambda$ at $\lambda=1$, and using , we therefore obtain $$2th'_v(t)=2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} v Zv G,$$ or equivalently $$h_v'(t)=\frac1t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} v Zv G.$$ Using now the formula for $i_v$ in [(\[step:1-diff-form-smooth\]$^\circ$)]{}, and the fact that $\Delta v - v_t = g$, we obtain $$h_v'(t) =\frac{2}{t} i_v(t)-2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} v g G-2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}} v
v_{x_n} G.$$
[\[step:3-diff-form-smooth\]($^\circ$)]{} To obtain the differentiation formula for $i_v$, note that using the scaling properties of $
G$, similarly to what was done for $h_v$, we have $$i_v(\lambda^2t)=-\lambda^2t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}|\nabla v(\lambda y,\lambda^2
t)|^2 G(y,t)dy.$$ Differentiating with respect to $\lambda$ at $\lambda=1$, we obtain $$2t\, i'_v(t)=-t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} Z(|\nabla v|^2) G-2t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}|\nabla
v|^2 G = - t \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} \left(Z(|\nabla v|^2 + 2 |\nabla
v|^2\right) G.$$ We now use the following easily verifiable identity $$Z(|\nabla v|^2)+2|\nabla v|^2=2\nabla v\cdot\nabla(Zv),$$ which, after substitution in the latter equation and integration by parts, yields $$\begin{aligned}
2t\, i'_v(t)&=-2t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}\nabla v\cdot\nabla(Z
v) G\\
&=2t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}\Delta v(Zv) G+2t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}(Zv)\nabla v\nabla
G+2t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}}v_{x_n}(Zv) G\\
&=2t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}g(Zv) G+2t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}Zv\Big(\nabla v\frac{\nabla
G}{G}+v_t\Big)G+2t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}}v_{x_n}(Zv) G\\
&=2t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}g(Zv) G+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}(Zv)^2
G+2t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}}v_{x_n}(Zv) G.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we obtain $$i'_v(t)=\frac{1}{2t}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}(Zv)^2 G+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} g(Zv)
G+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}}v_{x_n}(Zv) G,$$ which establishes .
With Lemma \[lem:differentiation-formulae-smooth\] in hands, we turn to establishing the essential ingredient in the proof of our main monotonicity result.
\[prop:diff-form-signor\] Let $u\in {\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$. Then, $H_u$ and $I_u$ are absolutely continuous functions on $(0,1)$ and for a.e. $r\in(0,1)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
H_u'(r) &=\frac{4}{r}I_u(r)-\frac{4}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+} t u f G,
\\
I_u'(r) &\geq\frac{1}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+}(Zu)^2 G+
\frac{2}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+} t (Zu)f G.
\end{aligned}$$
We note that, thanks to the estimates in Lemma \[lem:w212\] above, all integrals in the above formulas are finite. The idea of the proof of the proposition is to approximate $u$ with smooth solutions $u^{\varepsilon}$ to the Signorini problem, apply Lemma \[lem:differentiation-formulae-smooth\], and then pass to the limit in ${\varepsilon}$. The limit process is in fact more involved then one may expect. One complication is that although we have the estimates in Lemma \[lem:w212\] for the solution $u$, we do not have similar estimates, uniform in ${\varepsilon}$, for the approximating $u^{\varepsilon}$. This is in fact the main reason for which we have to consider truncated quantities $H_{u^{\varepsilon}}^\delta$ and $I_{u^{\varepsilon}}^\delta$, let ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ first, and then $\delta\to 0$. However, the main difficulty is to show that the integrals over $S_r'$ vanish. This is relatively easy to do for $H_u$, since $u u_{x_n} =0$ on $S_1'$. On the other hand, proving the formula for $I'_u$ is considerably more difficult, since one has to justify that $u_{x_n} Zu=0$ on $S_1'$. Furthermore, the vanishing of this term should be interpreted in a proper sense, since we generally only know that $Z u\in L_2(S_1^+)$, and thus its trace may not even be well defined on $S_1'$.
With this being said, in the sequel we justify only the formula for $I'_u$, the one for $H'_u$ being analogous, but much simpler.
[\[step:1-diff-form\]($^\circ$)]{} Assume that $u$ is supported in $B_{R-2}^+\times (-1,0]$, $R\geq 3$. Multiplying $u$ with a cutoff function $\eta(t)$ such that $\eta=1$ on $[-\tilde r^2,0]$ and $\eta=0$ on $(-1,-\tilde{\tilde r}^2]$ for $0<r<\tilde
r<\tilde{\tilde r}<1$, without loss of generality we may assume that $u(\cdot,-1)=0$. We then approximate $u$ in $B_R^+\times(-1,0]$ with the solutions of the penalized problem $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u^{\varepsilon}-\partial_t u^{\varepsilon}=f^{\varepsilon}&\quad\text{in }
B_R^+\times(-1,0],\\
\partial_{x_n}u^{\varepsilon}=\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})&\quad\text{on } B_R'\times(-1,0],\\
u^{\varepsilon}=0&\quad\text{on }(\partial B_R)^+\times(-1,0],\\
u^{\varepsilon}(\cdot, -1)=0&\quad\text{on }B_R^+,
\end{aligned}$$ where $f^{\varepsilon}$ is a mollification of $f$. For any $\rho\in(0,1)$, let $$Q_{R-1,\rho}^+=B_{R-1}^+\times(-\rho^2,0],\quad Q_{R-1,\rho}
'=B_{R-1}'\times(-\rho^2,0].$$ From the estimates in Section \[sec:existence-regularity\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|u^{\varepsilon}\|_{W^{2,1}_2(Q_{R-1, \rho}^+)},\
\|u^{\varepsilon}\|_{L_\infty(Q_{R-1, \rho}^+)},\ \|\nabla
u^{\varepsilon}\|_{L_\infty(Q_{R-1,\rho}^+)}&\leq C(\rho,u),\\
\max_{Q_{R-1,\rho}'}|\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})|&\leq C(\rho,u),\end{aligned}$$ uniformly in ${\varepsilon}\in(0,1)$.
[\[step:2-diff-form\]($^\circ$)]{} Now, in order to extend $u^{\varepsilon}$ to $S_1^+$, pick a cutoff function $\zeta\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ such that $$0\leq\zeta\leq 1,\quad\zeta=1\quad\text{on }B_{R-2},\quad{\operatorname{supp}}\zeta\subset B_{R-1},\quad\zeta(x',-x_n)=\zeta(x',x_n),$$ and define $$v^{\varepsilon}(x,t)=u^{\varepsilon}(x,t)\zeta(x).$$ Note that since $u$ is supported in $B_{R-2}^+\times(-1,0]$, $v^{\varepsilon}$ will converge to $u$ and we will have the uniform estimates $$\|v^{\varepsilon}\|_{W^{2,1}_2(S_\rho^+)},\
\|v^{\varepsilon}\|_{L_\infty(S_{\rho}^+)},\ \|\nabla
v^{\varepsilon}\|_{L_\infty(S_{\rho}^+)}\leq C(\rho,u)<\infty.$$ For $v^{\varepsilon}$ we have that $$\Delta v^{\varepsilon}-\partial_t
v^{\varepsilon}=f^{\varepsilon}\zeta+u^{\varepsilon}\Delta\zeta+2\nabla
u^{\varepsilon}\nabla \zeta=:g^{\varepsilon}\quad\text{in }S_1^+.$$ It is easy to see that $g^{\varepsilon}$ converges strongly to $f$ in $L_2(S_\rho^+\setminus S_{\delta \rho}^+,G)$ for $0<\delta<1$. Besides, we also have $$v^{\varepsilon}_{x_n}=u^{\varepsilon}_{x_n}\zeta,\quad Zv^{\varepsilon}=\zeta (Z
u^{\varepsilon})+(Z\zeta) u^{\varepsilon}\quad\text{on }S_1',$$ and therefore $$v^{\varepsilon}_{x_n} Zv^{\varepsilon}=\zeta (Z\zeta)
u^{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})+\zeta^2u^{\varepsilon}_{x_n}
(Zu^{\varepsilon})\quad\text{on }S_1'.$$
[\[step:3-diff-form\]($^\circ$)]{} We now fix a small $\delta>0$, apply the differentiation formulas in Lemma \[lem:differentiation-formulae-smooth\] to $v^{\varepsilon}$ and pass to the limit. We have $$\begin{aligned}
(I^\delta_{v^{\varepsilon}})'(r)&=\frac{1}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+\setminus
S_{\delta r}^+}(Zv^{\varepsilon})^2 G+
\frac{2}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_{\delta r}^+} t (Zv^{\varepsilon})
g^{\varepsilon}G +
\frac{4}{r^3}\int_{S'_r\setminus S_{\delta r}'} t v^{\varepsilon}_{x_n} (Zv^{\varepsilon}) G\\
&=J_1+J_2+J_3.\end{aligned}$$ [\[step:3.1-diff-form\]([.]{}$^\circ$)]{} To pass to the limit in $J_1$, we note that $Zv^{\varepsilon}$ converges to $Zu$ weakly in $L_2(S_r^+\setminus
S_{\delta r}^+, G)$. Indeed, this follows from the uniform $W^{2,1}_2$ estimates on $v^{\varepsilon}$ in [(\[step:2-diff-form\]$^\circ$)]{} and the boundedness of $G$ in $S_r^+\setminus S_{\delta r}^+$. Thus, in the limit we obtain $$\frac{1}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_{\delta r}^+}(Zu)^2 G\leq
\liminf_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\frac{1}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_{\delta
r}^+}(Zv^{\varepsilon})^2 G.$$ Note that here we cannot claim equality, as we do not have a strong convergence of $Zv^{\varepsilon}$ to $Zu$.
[\[step:3.2-diff-form\]([.]{}$^\circ$)]{} In $J_2$, the weak convergence of $Zv^{\varepsilon}$ to $Zu$, combined with the strong convergence of $g^{\varepsilon}$ to $f$ in $L_2(S_r^+\setminus S_{\delta r}^+, G)$ is enough to conclude that $$\frac{2}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_{\delta r}^+} t (Zu) f
G=\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\frac{2}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_{\delta
r}^+} t (Zv^{\varepsilon}) g^{\varepsilon}G.$$ Moreover, the convergence will be uniform in $r\in[r_1,r_2]\subset
(0,1)$.
[\[step:3.3-diff-form\]([.]{}$^\circ$)]{} Finally, we claim that $J_3\to 0$ as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$, i.e., $$\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0+}\frac{4}{r^3}\int_{S'_r\setminus S_{\delta r}'} t
v^{\varepsilon}_{x_n} (Zv^{\varepsilon}) G=0.$$ Indeed, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\int_{S'_r\setminus S_{\delta r}'} t v^{\varepsilon}_{x_n} (Zv^{\varepsilon})
G &=\int_{S_r'\setminus S_{\delta r}'} t\zeta (Z\zeta) u^{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon}) G+\int_{S_r'\setminus S_{\delta r}'}t\zeta^2\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})(Zu^{\varepsilon}) G\\
&=:E_1+E_2.\end{aligned}$$
We then estimate the integrals $E_1$ and $E_2$ separately.
[\[step:3.3.1-diff-form\]([[.]{}.]{}$^\circ$)]{} We start with $E_1$. Recall that $|\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})|\leq C(\rho)$ in $Q_{R-1,\rho}'$. By , this implies that $u^{\varepsilon}\geq-C(\rho){\varepsilon}$ in $Q_{R-1,\rho}'$ and therefore $$|E_1|\leq C(\rho)r^3{\varepsilon},\quad 0<r\leq\rho<1.$$
[\[step:3.3.2-diff-form\]([[.]{}.]{}$^\circ$)]{} A similar estimate holds also for $E_2$, but the proof is a little more involved. To this end consider $${\mathcal{B}}_{\varepsilon}(t)=\int_{0}^t\beta_{\varepsilon}(s)ds,\quad t\in{\mathbb{R}}.$$ From , it is easy to see that $${\mathcal{B}}_{\varepsilon}(t)=0\quad\text{for }t>0,\quad \mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon}(t)\geq
0\quad\text{for all }t,\quad {\mathcal{B}}_{\varepsilon}(t)=C_{\varepsilon}+{\varepsilon}t+\frac{t^2}{2{\varepsilon}}\quad\text{for }t\leq -2{\varepsilon}^2,$$ with $C_{\varepsilon}=\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon}(-2{\varepsilon}^2)\leq
2{\varepsilon}^3$. Note that the uniform bound $u^{\varepsilon}\geq
-C(\rho){\varepsilon}$ in $Q_{R-1,\rho}'$ implies that $$\max_{Q_{R-1,\rho}'}|{\mathcal{B}}_{\varepsilon}(v^{\varepsilon})|\leq C(\rho){\varepsilon}.$$ To use this fact, note that $$\begin{aligned}
E_2&=\int_{S_r'\setminus S_{\delta r}'}
t\zeta^2\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})(Z
u^{\varepsilon}) G = \int_{S_r'\setminus S_{\delta r}'}t\zeta^2 [Z{\mathcal{B}}_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})] G\\
&=\int_{S_r'\setminus S_{\delta
r}'}Z[t\zeta^2{\mathcal{B}}_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})]
G-\int_{S_r'\setminus S_{\delta r}'}Z(t\zeta^2){\mathcal{B}}_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon}) G\\
&=:E_{22}-E_{21}.\end{aligned}$$ [\[step:3.3.2.1-diff-form\]([[[.]{}.]{}.]{}$^\circ$)]{} The estimate for $E_{21}$ is straightforward: $$|E_{21}|\leq C(\rho)r^3{\varepsilon},\quad 0<r\leq\rho.$$ [\[step:3.3.2.2-diff-form\]([[[.]{}.]{}.]{}$^\circ$)]{} To estimate $E_{22}$, denote $U^{\varepsilon}=t\zeta^2{\mathcal{B}}_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})$. Then, substituting $t=-\lambda^2$, $x'=\lambda y'$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
E_{22}&=\int_{S_r'}Z U^{\varepsilon}G\, dx' dt=\int_{\delta
r}^r\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}}(Z U^{\varepsilon})(\lambda
y',-\lambda^2) G(\lambda y',-\lambda^2)2\lambda^{n} dy'd\lambda\\
&=2\int_{\delta r}^r\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}}\lambda\frac{d}{d\lambda}
U^{\varepsilon}(\lambda y',-\lambda^2) G(y',-1)dy'd\lambda\\
&=2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}} [r U^{\varepsilon}(r
y',-r^2) -\delta r U^{\varepsilon}(\delta r y',-\delta^2r^2)]G(y',-1)dy'\\
&\qquad-2\int_{\delta r}^r\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}} U^{\varepsilon}(\lambda
y',-\lambda^2) G(y',-1)dy'd\lambda\end{aligned}$$ and consequently $$|E_{22}|\leq C(\rho)r^3{\varepsilon},\quad 0<r\leq\rho.$$ Combining the estimates in [(\[step:3.3.1-diff-form\]$^\circ$)]{}–[(\[step:3.3.2-diff-form\]$^\circ$)]{} above, we obtain $$|J_3|=\Big|\frac4{r^3}\int_{S'_r\setminus S'_{\delta r}} t
v^{\varepsilon}_{x_n} (Zv^{\varepsilon}) G\Big|\leq C(\rho){\varepsilon}\to 0,\quad
0<r\leq\rho.$$ [\[step:4-diff-form\]($^\circ$)]{} Now, writing for any $0<r_1<r_2<1$ $$I_{v^{\varepsilon}}^\delta(r_2)-I_{v^{\varepsilon}}^\delta(r_1)=\int_{r_1}^{r_2}
(I_{v^{\varepsilon}}^\delta)'(r) dr,$$ collecting the facts proved in [(\[step:3.1-diff-form\]$^\circ$)]{}–[(\[step:3.3-diff-form\]$^\circ$)]{}, and passing to the limit as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$, we obtain $$I_u^\delta(r_2)-I_u^\delta(r_1)\geq \int_{r_1}^{r_2}
\bigg(\frac{1}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_{\delta r}^+}(Zu)^2 G+
\frac{2}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_{\delta r}^+} t (Zu)f G\bigg)dr.$$ Next, note that by Lemma \[lem:w212\] the integrands are uniformly bounded with respect to $\delta$ (for fixed $r_1$ and $r_2$). Therefore, we can let $\delta\to 0$ in the latter inequality, to obtain $$I_u(r_2)-I_u(r_1)\geq \int_{r_1}^{r_2}
\bigg(\frac{1}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+}(Zu)^2 G+ \frac{2}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+} t
(Zu)f G\bigg)dr.$$ This is equivalent to the sought for conclusion for $I_u'$.
To state the main result of this section, the generalized frequency formula, we need the following notion. We say that a positive function $\mu(r)$ is a $\log$-convex function of $\log r$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^+$ if $\log
\mu(e^t)$ is a convex function of $t$. This simply means that $$\mu(e^{(1-\lambda)s + \lambda t}) \leq \mu(e^s)^{1-\lambda}
\mu(e^t)^\lambda,\quad 0\le \lambda \leq 1.$$ This is equivalent to saying that $\mu$ is locally absolutely continuous on ${\mathbb{R}}_+$ and $r\mu'(r)/\mu(r)$ is nondecreasing. For instance, $\mu(r)=r^\kappa$ is a $\log$-convex function of $\log r$ for any $\kappa$. The importance of this notion in our context is that Almgren’s and Poon’s frequency formulas can be regarded as $\log$-convexity statements in $\log r$ for the appropriately defined quantities $H_u(r)$.
\[thm:thin-monotonicity\] Let $u\in{\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ with $f$ satisfying the following condition: there is a positive monotone nondecreasing $\log$-convex function $\mu(r)$ of $\log r$, and constants $\sigma>0$ and $C_\mu > 0$, such that $$\mu(r)\geq C_\mu r^{4-2\sigma}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} f^2(\cdot,-r^2)
G(\cdot,-r^2)\,dx.$$ Then, there exists $C>0$, depending only on $\sigma$, $C_\mu$ and $n$, such that the function $$\Phi_u(r) = \frac 12 r e^{C
r^{\sigma}}\frac{d}{dr}\log\max\{H_u(r),\mu(r)\}+2 (e^{C
r^{\sigma}}-1)$$ is nondecreasing for $r\in(0, 1)$.
Note that on the open set where $H_u(r)>\mu(r)$ we have $\Phi_u(r)\sim
\frac12 r H_u'(r)/H_u(r) $ which coincides with $2N_u$, when $f=0$. The purpose of the “truncation” of $H_u(r)$ with $\mu(r)$ is to control the error terms in computations that appear from the right-hand-side $f$.
First, we want to make a remark on the definition of $r\mapsto
\Phi_u(r)$, for $r\in (0,1)$. The functions $H_u(r)$ and $\mu(r)$ are absolutely continuous and therefore so is $\max\{H_u(r),
\mu(r)\}$. It follows that $\Phi_u$ is uniquely identified only up to a set of measure zero. The monotonicity of $\Phi_u$ should be understood in the sense that there exists a monotone increasing function which equals $\Phi_u$ almost everywhere. Therefore, without loss of generality we may assume that $$\Phi_u(r)=\frac12re^{Cr^\sigma}\frac{\mu'(r)}{\mu(r)}+2(e^{Cr^\sigma}-1)$$ on $\mathcal{F}=\{H_u(r)\leq \mu(r)\}$ and $$\Phi_u(r)=\frac12re^{Cr^\sigma}\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}+2(e^{Cr^\sigma}-1)$$ in $\mathcal{O}=\{H_u(r)>\mu(r)\}$. Following an idea introduced in [@GL1; @GL2] we now note that it will be enough to check that $\Phi_u'(r)>0$ in $\mathcal{O}$. Indeed, from the assumption on $\mu$, it is clear that that $\Phi_u$ is monotone on $\mathcal{F}$. Next, if $(r_0,r_1)$ is a maximal open interval in $\mathcal{O}$, then $H_u(r_0)=\mu(r_0)$ and $H_u(r_1)=\mu(r_1)$ unless $r_1=1$. Besides, if $\Phi_u$ is monotone in $(r_0,r_1)$, it is easy to see that the limits $H_u'(r_0+)$ and $H_u'(r_1-)$ will exist and satisfy $$\mu'(r_0+)\leq H_u'(r_0+),\quad H_u'(r_1-)\leq \mu'(r_1-)\quad
(\text{unless }r_1=1)$$ and therefore we will have $$\Phi_u(r_0)\leq \Phi_u(r_0+)\leq \Phi_u(r_1-)\leq \Phi_u(r_1),$$ with the latter inequality holding when $r_1<1$. This will imply the monotonicity of $\Phi_u$ in $(0,1)$.
Therefore, we will concentrate only on the set $\mathcal{O}=\{H_u(r)>\mu(r)\}$, where the monotonicity of $\Phi_u(r)$ is equivalent to that of $$\Big(r\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}+4\Big) e^{C r^{\sigma}}=2\Phi_u(r)+4.$$ The latter will follow, once we show that $$\frac{d}{dr}\Big(r\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}\Big)\geq-C\Big(r\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}+4\Big)
r^{-1+\sigma}$$ in $\mathcal{O}$. Now, from Proposition \[prop:diff-form-signor\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
r\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)} &=
4\frac{I_u(r)}{H_u(r)}-\frac{4}{r^2}\frac{\int_{S_r^+} t u f
G}{H_u(r)}:=4E_1(r)+4 E_2(r).
\end{aligned}$$ We then estimate the derivatives of each of the quantities $E_i(r)$, $i=1,2$.
[\[step:1-mon-form\]($^\circ$)]{} Using the differentiation formulas in Proposition \[prop:diff-form-signor\], we compute $$\begin{aligned}
r^5 H_u^2(r) E_1'(r)&=r^5 H_u^2(r)\frac{d}{dr}\Big(\frac{I_u(r)}{H_u(r)}\Big)\\
&= r^5(I_u'(r) H_u(r)-I_u(r)H_u'(r))\\
&\geq r^2 H_u(r)\Big(\int_{S_r^+}(Zu)^2 G+2\int_{S_r^+} t (Zu)
f G\Big)\\
&\qquad-r^2 I_u(r) r^3 H_u'(r)\\
&= r^2 H_u(r)\Big(\int_{S_r^+}(Zu+t f)^2 G-\int_{S_r^+} t^2
f^2 G\Big)\\&\qquad -\Big(\int_{S_r^+}t u f G+\frac{r^3}{4}H_u'(r)\Big)r^3 H_u'(r)\\
&=\int_{S_r^+} u^2 G\Big(\int_{S_r^+}(Zu+t f)^2 G-\int_{S_r^+} t^2
f^2 G\Big)\\
&\qquad-\Big(\frac{r^3}{2}H_u'(r)+\int_{S_r^+} t u f G\Big)^2+\Big(\int_{S_r^+} t u f G\Big)^2\\
&=\Big[\int_{S_r^+} u^2 G\int_{S_r^+}(Zu+t f)^2
G-\Big(\int_{S_r^+} u(Zu+t f) G\Big)^2\Big]\\&\qquad-\int_{S_r^+}
u^2 G\int_{S_r^+} t^2 f^2 G+\Big(\int_{S_r^+} t u f G\Big)^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we obtain that the term in square brackets above is nonnegative. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
r^5 H_u^2(r) E_1'(r) &\geq-\int_{S_r^+} u^2 G\int_{S_r^+} t^2 f^2 G\\
\intertext{or equivalently,} E_1'(r) &\geq-\frac{1}{r^{3}
H_u(r)}\int_{S_r^+} t^2 f^2 G.
\end{aligned}$$
[\[step:2-mon-form\]($^\circ$)]{} We next estimate the derivative of $E_2(r)$. $$\begin{aligned}
E_2'(r)&=\frac{d}{dr}\bigg(-\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\int_{S_r^+} t u
f G}{H_u(r)}\bigg)\\
&=\frac{2}{r^3}\frac{\int_{S_r^+} t u f G}{H_u(r)}-\frac{2}{r}\frac{\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}(-r^2) u(\cdot,-r^2)f(\cdot,-r^2) G(\cdot,-r^2)}{H_u(r)}\\
&\qquad+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{H_u'(r)\int_{S_r^+} t u f G}{H_u(r)^2}\\
&\geq-\frac{2}{r^3 H_u(r)}\Big(\int_{S_r^+} u^2 G\Big)^{1/2}\Big(\int_{S_r^+} t^2 f^2 G\Big)^{1/2}\\
&\qquad-\frac{2}{r H_u(r)}\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}u^2(\cdot,-r^2) G(\cdot,-r^2)\Big)^{1/2}\Big(r^4\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}f^2(\cdot,-r^2) G(\cdot,-r^2)\Big)^{1/2}\\
&\qquad-r\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}\frac{1}{r^3 H_u(r)}\Big(\int_{S_r^+} u^2 G\Big)^{1/2}\Big(\int_{S_r^+} t^2 f^2 G\Big)^{1/2}\\
&=-\frac{2}{r^2H_u(r)^{1/2}}\Big(\int_{S_r^+} t^2 f^2 G\Big)^{1/2}\\
&\qquad-\frac{2}{r H_u(r)}\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}u^2(\cdot,-r^2) G(\cdot,-r^2)\Big)^{1/2}\Big(r^4\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}f^2(\cdot,-r^2) G(\cdot,-r^2)\Big)^{1/2}\\
&\qquad-r\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}\frac{1}{r^2H_u(r)^{1/2}}\Big(\int_{S_r^+}
t^2 f^2 G\Big)^{1/2}.
\end{aligned}$$
[\[step:3-mon-form\]($^\circ$)]{} Combining together the estimates for $E_1'(r)$ and $E_2'(r)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dr}\Big(r\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}\Big) &\geq-\frac{4}{r^3 H_u(r)}\int_{S_r^+} t^2 f^2 G-\frac{8}{r^2H_u(r)^{1/2}}\Big(\int_{S_r^+} t^2 f^2 G\Big)^{1/2}\\
&\quad-\frac{8}{r H_u(r)}\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}u^2(\cdot,-r^2) G(\cdot,-r^2)\Big)^{1/2}\Big(r^4\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}f^2(\cdot,-r^2) G(\cdot,-r^2)\Big)^{1/2}\\
&\quad-r\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}\frac{4}{r^2H_u(r)^{1/2}}\Big(\int_{S_r^+}
t^2 f^2 G\Big)^{1/2}.
\end{aligned}$$ We estimate the third term separately. First, from $$\frac{d}{dr}\int_{S_r^+} u^2 G = 2r\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} u^2(\cdot,-r^2)
G(\cdot,-r^2)\,dx$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} u^2(\cdot,-r^2) G(\cdot,-r^2)&=\frac{1}{2r}\frac{d}{dr}(r^2 H_u(r))\\
&= H_u(r)+\frac{r}{2} H_u'(r).
\end{aligned}$$ From here we see that $$1+\frac{r}2\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}\geq 0$$ and therefore we also have $$\begin{aligned}
2\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} u^2(\cdot,-r^2) G(\cdot,-r^2)\Big)^{1/2} &= 2H_u(r)^{1/2}\left(1+\frac{r}{2}\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}\right)^{1/2}\\
&\leq
H_u(r)^{1/2}\left(2+\frac{r}{2}\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Substituting into the inequality above, we then have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dr}\Big(r\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}\Big) &\geq-\frac{4}{r^3 H_u(r)}\int_{S_r^+} t^2 f^2 G-\frac{8}{r^2H_u(r)^{1/2}}\Big(\int_{S_r^+} t^2 f^2 G\Big)^{1/2}\\
&\quad-\Big(2+\frac{r}{2}\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}\Big)\frac{4}{rH_u(r)^{1/2}}\Big(r^4\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}f^2(\cdot,-r^2) G(\cdot,-r^2)\Big)^{1/2}\\
&\quad-r\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}\frac{4}{r^2H_u(r)^{1/2}}\Big(\int_{S_r^+}
t^2 f^2 G\Big)^{1/2}.
\end{aligned}$$ On the set $\{H_u(r) >\mu(r)\}$, we easily have $$\begin{aligned}
H_u(r)&\geq C_\mu r^{4-2\sigma}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} f^2(\cdot,-r^2) G(\cdot,-r^2),\\
H_u(r)&\geq C_\mu r^{-2-2\sigma}\int_{S_r^+} t^2 f^2 G,
\end{aligned}$$ and consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dr}\Big(r\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}\Big) &\geq-C r^{-1+2\sigma}-C r^{-1+\sigma}-\Big(2+\frac{r}{2}\frac{H'_u(r)}{H_u(r)}\Big) C r^{-1+\sigma}-C r\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)} r^{-1+\sigma}\\
&\geq-C\Big(r\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}+4\Big) r^{-1+\sigma}.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that in the last step we have again used the fact that $1+\frac{r}2 \frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}\geq 0$. The desired conclusion follows readily.
Existence and homogeneity of blowups {#sec:exist-homog-blow}
====================================
In this section, we show how the generalized frequency formula in Theorem \[thm:thin-monotonicity\] can be used to study the behavior of the solution $u$ near the origin. The central idea is to consider some appropriately normalized rescalings of $u$, indicated with $u_r$ (see Definition \[def:resc-H\]), and then pass to the limit as $r\to
0+$ (see Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\]). The resulting limiting functions (over sequences $r=r_j\to 0+$) are known as *blowups*. However, because of the truncation term $\mu(r)$ in the generalized frequency function $\Phi_u(r)$, we can show the existence of blowups only when the growth rate of $u$ can be “detected,” in a certain proper sense to be made precise below. Finally, as a consequence of the monotonicity of $\Phi_u(r)$, we obtain that the blowups must be parabolically homogeneous solutions of the Signorini problem in $S_\infty={\mathbb{R}}^n\times(-\infty,0]$.
Henceforth, we assume that $u\in {\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$, and that $\mu(r)$ be such that the conditions of Theorem \[thm:thin-monotonicity\] are satisfied. In particular, we assume that $$ r^{4}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} f^2(\cdot,-r^2) G(\cdot,-r^2)\,dx \le \frac{r^{2\sigma} \mu(r)}{C_\mu}.$$ Consequently, Theorem \[thm:thin-monotonicity\] implies that the function $$\Phi_u(r) = \frac12 r e^{C
r^{\sigma}}\frac{d}{dr}\log\max\{H_u(r),\mu(r)\}+2(e^{C
r^{\sigma}}-1)$$ is nondecreasing for $r\in (0,1)$. Hence, there exists the limit $$\label{eq:kappa}
\kappa:=\Phi_u(0+)=\lim_{r\to 0+}\Phi_u(r).$$ Since we assume that $r\mu'(r)/\mu(r)$ is nondecreasing, the limit $$\label{eq:kappamu}
\kappa_\mu:=\frac12\lim_{r\to 0+}\frac{r\mu'(r)}{\mu(r)}$$ also exists. We then have the following basic proposition concerning the values of $\kappa$ and $\kappa_\mu$.
\[lem:Hu-mu\] Let $u\in {\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ and $\mu$ satisfy the conditions of Theorem \[thm:thin-monotonicity\]. With $\kappa$, $\kappa_\mu$ as above, we have $$ \kappa\leq \kappa_\mu.$$ Moreover, if $\kappa<\kappa_\mu$, then there exists $r_u>0$ such that $H_u(r)\geq \mu(r)$ for $0<r\leq r_u$. In particular, $$\kappa=\frac12\lim_{r\to 0+}\frac{r H'_u(r)}{H_u(r)}=2\lim_{r\to
0+}\frac{I_u(r)}{H_u(r)}.$$
As a first step we show that $$\label{eq:Hmu}
\kappa\not= \kappa_\mu\quad\Rightarrow\quad \text{there exists}\ r_u>0\
\text{such that}\ H_u(r)\geq \mu(r)\text{ for } 0<r\leq
r_u.$$ Indeed, if the implication claimed in fails, then for a sequence $r_j\to 0+$ we have $H_{u}(r_j)< \mu(r_j)$. This implies that $$\Phi_u(r_j)=\frac12
r_je^{C{r_j^\sigma}}\frac{\mu'(r_j)}{\mu(r_j)}+2(e^{Cr_j^\sigma}-1),$$ and therefore $$\kappa=\lim_{j\to\infty} \Phi_u(r_j)=\frac12\lim_{j\to
\infty}r_j\frac{\mu'(r_j)}{\mu(r_j)}=\kappa_\mu,$$ which contradicts $\kappa\not= \kappa_\mu$. We have thus proved .
Now, implies that, if $\kappa\not= \kappa_\mu$, then $$\Phi_u(r)=\frac12
re^{C{r^\sigma}}\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}+2(e^{Cr^\sigma}-1),\quad
0<r<r_u.$$ Passing to the limit, we conclude that, if $\kappa\not= \kappa_\mu$, then $$\label{eq:firstlim}
\kappa=\lim_{r\to 0+} \Phi_u(r)=\frac12\lim_{r\to 0+} \frac{r H'_u(r)}{H_u(r)}.$$ However, in this case we also have $$\label{eq:secondlim}
\frac12\lim_{r\to 0+}\frac{r H'_u(r)}{H_u(r)}=2\lim_{r\to
0+}\frac{I_u(r)}{H_u(r)}.$$ Indeed, recall that (see Proposition \[prop:diff-form-signor\]) $$r\frac{H'_u(r)}{H_u(r)}=4\frac{I_u(r)}{H_u(r)}-\frac{4}{r^2}\frac{\int_{S_r^+}
tuf G}{H_u(r)},$$ and will follow once we show that $$\lim_{r\to 0+}\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\int_{S_r^+} tuf G}{H_u(r)}=0.$$ Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\int_{S_r^+} tuf G}{r^2H_u(r)}&\leq\frac{\big(\int_{S_r^+}
t^2f^2 G\big)^{1/2}\big(\int_{S_r^+}u^2
G\big)^{1/2}}{r^2H_u(r)}=\frac{\big(\int_{S_r^+}
t^2f^2 G\big)^{1/2}}{rH_u(r)^{1/2}}\\
&\leq \Big(\frac{\mu(r)}{C_\mu H_u(r)}\Big)^{1/2}r^\sigma\leq
C^{-1}_\mu r^\sigma\to 0,\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality before the limit we have used . Summarizing, the assumption $\kappa\not=\kappa_\mu$ implies – above. Therefore, the proof will be completed if we show that the case $\kappa>\kappa_\mu$ is impossible.
So, assume towards a contradiction that $\kappa>\kappa_\mu$, and fix $0<{\varepsilon}<\kappa - \kappa_\mu$. For such ${\varepsilon}$ choose $r_{\varepsilon}>0$ so that $$\frac{r H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}> 2\kappa-{\varepsilon},\quad \frac{r
\mu'(r)}{\mu(r)}<2\kappa_\mu+{\varepsilon},\quad 0<r<r_{\varepsilon}.$$ Integrating these inequalities from $r$ to $r_{\varepsilon}$, we obtain $$H_u(r)\leq \frac{H_u(r_{\varepsilon})}{r_{\varepsilon}^{2\kappa-{\varepsilon}}}
r^{2\kappa-{\varepsilon}},\quad \mu(r)\geq
\frac{\mu(r_{\varepsilon})}{r_{\varepsilon}^{2\kappa_\mu+{\varepsilon}}}r^{2\kappa_\mu+{\varepsilon}}.$$ Since by our choice of ${\varepsilon}>0$ we have $2\kappa-{\varepsilon}>2\kappa_\mu+{\varepsilon}$, the above inequalities imply that $H_u(r)<\mu(r)$ for small enough $r$, contrary to the established conclusion of above. Hence, the case $\kappa>\kappa_\mu$ is impossible, which implies that we always have $\kappa\leq \kappa_\mu$.
To proceed, we define the appropriate notion of rescalings that works well with the generalized frequency formula.
\[def:resc-H\] For $u\in{\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ and $r>0$ define the *rescalings* $$u_r(x,t):=\frac{u(rx, r^2 t)}{H_u(r)^{1/2}},\quad (x,t)\in
S_{1/r}^+={\mathbb{R}}^n_ +\times(-1/r^2,0].$$
It is easy to see that the function $u_r$ solves the nonhomogeneous Signorini problem $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u_r-\partial_t u_r = f_r(x,t)&\quad\text{in } S_{1/r}^+,
\\
u_r\geq 0,\quad-\partial_{x_n}u_r\geq 0,\quad u_r\partial_{x_n} u_r
= 0&\quad\text{on } S'_{1/r},\end{aligned}$$ with $$f_r(x,t)=\frac{r^2f(rx,r^2t)}{H_u(r)^{1/2}}.$$ In other words, $u_r\in {\mathfrak{S}}^{f_r}(S_{1/r}^+)$. Further, note that $u_r$ is normalized by the condition $$H_{u_r}(1)=1,$$ and that, more generally, we have $$H_{u_r}(\rho)=\frac{H_u(\rho r)}{H_u(r)}.$$ We next show that, unless we are in the borderline case $\kappa=\kappa_\mu$, we will be able to study the so-called blowups of $u$ at the origin. The condition $\kappa<\kappa_\mu$ below can be understood, in a sense, that we can “detect” the growth of $u$ near the origin.
\[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\] Let $u\in {\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$, $\mu$ satisfy the conditions of Theorem \[thm:thin-monotonicity\], and $$\kappa:=\Phi_u(0+)< \kappa_\mu= \frac12\lim_{r\to
0+}r\frac{\mu'(r)}{\mu(r)}.$$ Then, we have:
1. For any $R>0$, there is $r_{R,u}>0$ such that $$\int_{S_R^+}(u_r^2+|t||\nabla u_r|^2+|t|^2|D^2u_r|^2+|t|^2 (\partial_t
u_r)^2) G\leq C(R),\quad 0<r<r_{R,u}.$$
2. There is a sequence $r_j\to 0+$, and a function $u_0$ in $S^+_\infty={\mathbb{R}}^n_+\times(-\infty, 0]$, such that $$\int_{S_R^+}(|u_{r_j}-u_0|^2+|t||\nabla (u_{r_j}-u_0)|^2) G \to 0.$$ We call any such $u_0$ a *blowup* of $u$ at the origin.
3. $u_0$ is a nonzero *global solution* of Signorini problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u_0-\partial_t u_0=0&\quad\text{in }S_\infty^+\\
u_0\geq 0,\quad -\partial_{x_n}u_0\geq 0,\quad
u_0\partial_{x_n}u_0=0&\quad\text{on }S_\infty',
\end{aligned}$$ in the sense that it solves the Signorini problem in every $Q_R^+$.
4. $u_0$ is parabolically homogeneous of degree $\kappa$: $$u_0(\lambda x,\lambda^2t)=\lambda^\kappa u_0(x,t),\quad (x,t)\in
S_\infty^+,\ \lambda>0$$
The proof of Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\] is based on the following lemmas.
\[lem:Hu-est\]If $\kappa<\kappa'<\kappa_\mu$ and $r_u>0$ is such that $\Phi_u(r)<\kappa'$ and $H_u(r)\geq \mu(r)$ for $0<r< r_u$, then $$\begin{aligned}
H_{u_r}(\rho)&\geq \rho^{2\kappa'}\quad\text{for any
}0<\rho\leq 1,\ 0<r<r_u,\\
H_{u_r}(R) &\leq R^{2\kappa'}\quad\text{for any }R\geq 1,\
0<r<r_u/R.
\end{aligned}$$
From the assumptions we have $$\Phi_u(r)=\frac12
re^{Cr^\sigma}\frac{H'_u(r)}{H_u(r)}+2(e^{Cr^\sigma}-1)\leq \kappa',$$ for $0<r<r_u$, which implies that $$\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}\leq \frac{2\kappa'}{r}.$$ Integrating from $\rho r$ to $r$ and exponentiating, we find $$\frac{H_u(r)}{H_u(\rho r)}\leq \rho^{-2\kappa'},$$ which implies that $$H_{u_r}(\rho)=\frac{H_u(\rho r)}{H_u(r)}\geq \rho^{2\kappa'}.$$ Similarly, integrating from $r$ to $Rr$ (under the assumption that $Rr\leq r_u$) we find $$H_{u_r}(R)=\frac{H_u(Rr)}{H_u(r)}\leq R^{2\kappa'}.$$
\[lem:fr-est\] Under the notations of the previous lemma, for any $R\geq 1$ and $0<r<r_{u}/R$, we have $$\int_{S_R^+} t^2 f_r^2 G\leq c_\mu R^{2+2\sigma+2\kappa'} r^{2\sigma}.$$
Note that from the assumptions we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(r)&\geq C_\mu r^{4-2\sigma}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_n^+} f^2(\cdot,-r^2) G(\cdot,-r^2),\\
\mu(r)&\geq C_\mu r^{-2-2\sigma}\int_{S_r^+} t^2 f^2 G.
\end{aligned}$$ Now take $R\geq 1$. Then, making the change of variables and using the inequalities above, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{S_R^+} t^2 f_r^2 G&=\frac{r^4}{H_u(r)}\int_{S_R^+}t^2
f(rx,r^2t)^2 G(x,t)dxdt\\
&=\frac{1}{r^2 H_u(r)}\int_{S_{Rr}^+}t^2 f^2 G\leq
R^{2+2\sigma}r^{2\sigma}\frac{\mu(Rr)}{C_\mu H_u(r)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if $0<r< r_{u}/R$, then $H_u(Rr)\geq \mu(Rr)$ and therefore $$\int_{S_R^+} t^2 f_r^2 G\leq c_\mu R^{2+2\sigma}
r^{2\sigma}\frac{H_u(Rr)}{H_u(r)}\leq c_\mu R^{2+2\sigma+2\kappa'}
r^{2\sigma}.$$ This completes the proof.
We will also need the following well-known inequality (see [@Gro]) and one of its corollaries.
For any $f\in W^{1}_2({\mathbb{R}}^n, G(\cdot,s))$ one has $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} f^2\log(f^2) G(\cdot,s)\leq \Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} f^2
G(\cdot,s)\Big)\log\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} f^2
G(\cdot,s)\Big)+4|s|\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} |\nabla f|^2 G(\cdot,s).\qedhere$$
\[lem:cor-log-Sob\] For any $f\in W^{1}_2({\mathbb{R}}^n,
G(\cdot,s))$, let $\omega=\{|f|>0\}$. Then, $$\log\frac{1}{|\omega|_s}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} f^2 G(\cdot,s)\leq 2|s|\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}
|\nabla f|^2 G(\cdot,s),$$ where $$|\omega|_s=\int_{\omega} G(\cdot,s).$$
Let $\psi(y)=y\log y$ for $y>0$ and $\psi(0)=0$. Then, the $\log$-Sobolev inequality can be rewritten as $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\psi(f^2) G(\cdot,s)\leq \psi\bigg(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}f^2
G(\cdot,s)\bigg)+2|s|\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} |\nabla f|^2 G(\cdot,s).$$ On the other hand, since $\psi$ is convex on $[0,\infty)$, by Jensen’s inequality we have $$\frac1{|\omega|_s}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\psi(f^2) G(\cdot,s)\geq
\psi\bigg(\frac1{|\omega|_s}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}f^2 G(\cdot,s)\bigg).$$ Combining these inequalities and using the identity $\lambda\,\psi\left(\dfrac{a}{\lambda}\right)-\psi(a)=a\,\log\dfrac1\lambda$, we arrive at the claimed inequality.
i\) From Lemmas \[lem:Hu-est\] and \[lem:fr-est\] as well as Lemma \[lem:w212\], for $R\geq 1$, $0<r<r_{R,u}$ we have $$\int_{S_{R/2}^+}(u_r^2+|t||\nabla u_r|^2+|t|^2|
D^2u_r|^2+|t|^2|\partial_t u_r|^2) G\leq C_R(1+c_\mu r^{2\sigma}).$$ Since $R\geq 1$ is arbitrary, this implies the claim of part i).
ii\) Note that, in view of Lemma \[lem:w112-diff\], it will be enough to show the existence of $u_0$, and the convergence $$\int_{S_R^+}|u_{r_j}-u_{0}|^2 G\to 0.$$ From Lemma \[lem:Hu-mu\] it follows that $\kappa\geq 0$,[^4] and therefore we obtain $$r\frac{H_u'(r)}{H_u(r)}\geq-1,\quad 0<r<r_0.$$ Integrating, we obtain that for small $\delta>0$ $$H_u(r\delta)\leq H_u(r)\delta^{-1},\quad$$ which gives $$H_{u_r}(\delta)\leq \delta^{-1}$$ and consequently $$\int_{S_\delta^+} u_r^2 G<\delta,\quad 0<r<r_0.$$ Next, let $\zeta_A\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ be a cutoff function, such that $$0\leq\zeta\leq 1,\quad \zeta_A=1\quad\text{on }B_{A-1},\quad {\operatorname{supp}}\zeta\subset B_{A}.$$ We may take $A$ so large that $\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus B_{A-1}}
G(x,t)dx<e^{-1/\delta}$ for $-R^2< t<0$. Then from Lemma \[lem:cor-log-Sob\], we have that $$\int_{S_R^+\cap\{|x|\geq A\}}u_r^2 G \leq
\int_{S_R^+}u_r^2(1-\zeta_A)^2 G\leq \delta
\int_{S_R^+}(u_r^2+|t||\nabla u_r|^2) G\leq \delta C(R),$$ for small enough $r$, where in the last step we have used the uniform estimate from part i).
Next, notice that on $E=E_{R,\delta,A}=(S_R^+\setminus
S_\delta^+)\cap\{|x|\leq A\}=B_A\times(-R^2,-\delta^2]$ the function $
G$ is bounded below and above and therefore the estimates in i) imply that the family $\{u_r\}_{0<r<r_{R,u}}$ is uniformly bounded in $W^{1,1}_2(E^\circ)$ and thus we can extract a subsequence $u_{r_j}$ converging strongly in $L_2(E)$ and consequently in $L_2(E,
G)$. Letting $\delta\to 0$ and $A\to \infty$, combined with the estimates above, by means of the Cantor diagonal method, we complete the proof of this part.
iii\) We first start with the Signorini boundary conditions. From the estimates in ii) we have that $\{u_r\}$ is uniformly bounded in $W^{2,1}_2(B_R^+\times(-R^2,-\delta^2])$ for any $0<\delta<R$. We thus obtain that $u_{r_j}\to u_0$ strongly, and $\partial_{x_n}
u_{r_j}\to \partial_{x_n} u_0$ weakly in $L_2(B_R'\times(-R^2,-\delta^2])$. This is enough to pass to the limit in the Signorini boundary conditions and to conclude that $$u_0\geq 0,\quad -\partial_{x_n}u_0\geq 0,\quad
u_0\partial_{x_n}u_0=0\quad\text{on }{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times(-\infty,0).$$ Besides, arguing similarly, and using Lemma \[lem:fr-est\] we obtain that $$\Delta u_0-\partial_t u_0=0\quad\text{in }{\mathbb{R}}^n_+\times(-\infty,0).$$ Thus, to finish the proof of this part it remains to show that $u_0$ is in the unweighted Sobolev class $W^{1,1}_2(Q_R^+)$ for any $R>0$. Because of the scaling properties, it is sufficient to prove it only for $R=1/8$. We argue as follows. First, extend $u_0$ by even symmetry in $x_n$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^n\times(-\infty,0)$. We then claim that $u_0^\pm$ are subcaloric functions in ${\mathbb{R}}^n\times(-\infty,0)$. Indeed, this would follow immediately, if we knew the continuity of $u_0$, since $u_0$ is caloric where nonzero. But since we do not know the continuity of $u_0$ at this stage, we argue as follows. By continuity of $u_r$ we easily obtain $$(\Delta -\partial_t) u_r^\pm\geq -f_r^\mp\quad\text{in }
B_R\times(-R^2,-\delta^2].$$ Then, passing to the limit as $r=r_j\to 0$, we conclude that $u_0^\pm$ are subcaloric, since $|f_r|\to 0$ in $L_2(B_R\times(-R^2,-\delta^2])$ by Lemma \[lem:fr-est\]. Further, we claim that $u_0^\pm$ satisfy the sub mean-value property $$u_0^\pm(x,t)\leq\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} u_0^\pm(y,-1) G(x-y,-t-1)dy,$$ for any $(x,t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\times(-1,0)$. The proof of this fact is fairly standard, since, by the estimates in part i), $u_0$ satisfies an integral Tychonoff-type condition in the strips $S_1\setminus
S_\delta$, $\delta>0$. Nevertheless, for completeness we give the details below. For large $R>0$ let $\zeta_R\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ be a cutoff function such that $0\leq \zeta_R\leq 1$, $\zeta_R=1$ on $B_R$, ${\operatorname{supp}}\zeta_R\subset B_{R+1}$, $|\nabla \zeta_R|\leq 1$. Let now $w=u_0^\pm\zeta_R$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n\times(-1,0)$. From the fact that $u_0^\pm$ are subcaloric, we have that $$(\Delta-\partial_t)w\geq 2\nabla u_0^\pm\nabla \zeta_R.$$ The advantage of $w$ now is that it has a bounded support, and therefore we can write $$\begin{gathered}
u_0(x,t)^\pm\zeta_R(x)=w(x,t)\leq\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}u_0^\pm(y,-1)\zeta_R(y)
G(x-y,-t-1)\\+2\int_{-1}^t\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}|\nabla u_0(y,s)||\nabla
\zeta_R(y,s)| G(x-y, s-t)dyds.\end{gathered}$$ To proceed, fix $A>0$ large and $a>0$ small and consider $|x|\leq A$ and $-1<t<-a$. We want to show that the second integral above will vanish as we let $R\to \infty$. This will be done with suitable estimates on the kernel $G$.
\[clm:rho-est\] Let $|x|\leq A$, $-1<s<-a<0$, and $s<t<0$. Then $$G(x-y,s-t)\leq
\begin{cases} C G(y,s),&\quad \text{if } t-s<-s/8,\ |y|\geq R\\
C G(y,s) e^{C|y|},&\quad \text{if } t-s\geq-s/8
\end{cases}$$ with $C=C_{n,a,A}$, $R=R_{n,a,A}$.
[\[step:1-G-est\]($^\circ$)]{} $t-s<-s/8$. Choose $R=2A+1$ and let $|y|\geq R$. Then $$|x-y|^2\geq \frac{|x-y|^2}{2}+\frac{|x-y|^2}{2}\geq
\frac{|R-A|^2}{2}+\frac{(|y|/2)^2}{2}\geq \frac12+\frac{|y|^2}8$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
G(x-y,s-t)&=\frac{1}{(4\pi(t-s))^{n/2}}e^{-\frac{|x-y|^2}{4(t-s)}}\leq
\frac{1}{(4\pi(t-s))^{n/2}}e^{-\frac{1}{8(t-s)}}e^{-\frac{|y|^2}{32(t-s)}}\\
&\leq
\frac{1}{(4\pi(t-s))^{n/2}}e^{-\frac{1}{8(t-s)}}e^{\frac{|y|^2}{4s}}\leq
C_ne^{\frac{|y|^2}{4s}}\\
&\leq \frac{C_{n,a}}{(4\pi(-s))^{n/2}}e^{\frac{|y|^2}{4s}}\leq
C_{n,a} G(y,s),\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that the function $r\mapsto 1/(4\pi r)^{n/2}
e^{-1/4r}$ is uniformly bounded on $(0,\infty)$.
[\[step:2-G-est\]($^\circ$)]{} Suppose now $t-s\geq-s/8$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
G(x-y,s-t)&=\frac{1}{(4\pi(t-s))^{n/2}}e^{-\frac{|x-y|^2}{4(t-s)}}\leq
\frac{8^{n/2}}{(4\pi(-s))^{n/2}}e^{-\frac{|x-y|^2}{4s}}\\
&\leq
\frac{C_n}{(4\pi(-s))^{n/2}}e^{-\frac{(|y|-|A|)^2}{4s}}\\
&\leq
\frac{C_n}{(4\pi(-s))^{n/2}}e^{-\frac{|y|^2}{4s}}e^{C_{a,A}|y|}\leq
C_n G(y,s)e^{C_{a,A}|y|}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the claim follows.
Using the claim, the facts that $\int_{S_1}|\nabla u_0|^2 G<\infty$ and $\int_{S_1}e^{C|y|} G(y,s)dyds<\infty$, and letting $R\to \infty$, we then easily obtain $$u_0^\pm(x,t)\leq\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} u_0^\pm(y,-1) G(x-y,-t-1)dy.$$ Then, using the second estimate in Claim \[clm:rho-est\], for $(x,t)\in Q_{1/2}$ we obtain $$|u_0(x,t)|\leq C_n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}|u_0(y,-1)| G(y,-1)e^{C_n|y|}dy.$$ More generally, changing the initial point $s=-1$ to arbitrary point $s\in(-1,-1/2]$ we will have $$|u_0(x,t)|\leq C_n\int_{S_1\setminus S_{1/2}}|u_0(y,s)|
G(y,s)e^{C_n|y|}dyds$$ and by applying Cauchy-Schwarz $$\|u_0\|_{L_\infty(Q_{1/2})}^2\leq C_n\int_{S_1}u_0^2 G=C_n
H_{u_0}(1)<\infty.$$ The energy inequality applied to $u_0^\pm$ then yields $u_0\in
W^{1,0}(Q_{1/4})$. Further, applying the estimate in Lemma \[lem:known-W22\] for $u(x,t)=u_0(x,t)\zeta(x,t)$, where $\zeta$ is a smooth cutoff function in $Q_{1/4}$, equal to $1$ on $Q_{1/8}$, with ${\varphi}_0=0$ and $f=2\nabla u_0\nabla
\zeta+u_0(\Delta\zeta-\partial_t\zeta)$, we obtain that $u_0\in
W^{2,1}_2(Q_{1/8}^+)$. As remarked earlier, the scaling properties imply that $u_0\in W^{2,1}_2(Q_{R}^+)$ for any $R>0$.
iv\) Finally, we show that $u_0$ is parabolically homogeneous of degree $\kappa$. Let $r_j\to 0+$ be such that $u_{r_j}\to u_0$ as in ii). Then by part ii) again we have for any $0<\rho<1$ $$H_{u_{r_j}}(\rho)\to H_{u_0}(\rho),\quad I_{u_{r_j}}(\rho)\to
I_{u_0}(\rho).$$ Moreover, since by Lemma \[lem:Hu-est\] $H_{u_r}(\rho)\geq
\rho^{2\kappa'}$ for sufficiently small $r$, we also have $$H_{u_0}(\rho)\geq \rho^{2\kappa'},\quad 0<\rho<1.$$ Hence, we obtain that for any $0<\rho<1$ $$2\frac{I_{u_0}(\rho)}{H_{u_0}(\rho)}=2\lim_{j\to
\infty}\frac{I_{u_{r_j}}(\rho)}{H_{u_{r_j}}(\rho)}=2\lim_{j\to
\infty}\frac{I_{u}(r_j\rho)}{H_u(r_j\rho)}=\kappa,$$ by Lemma \[lem:Hu-mu\]. Thus the ratio $2I_{u_0}(\rho)/H_{u_0}(\rho)$ is constant in the interval $(0,1)$. Further, notice that passing to the limit in the differentiation formulas in Proposition \[prop:diff-form-signor\], we will obtain the similar formulas hold for $u_0$ for any $0<r<\infty$. Thus, from computations in step [(\[step:1-mon-form\]$^\circ$)]{} in Theorem \[thm:thin-monotonicity\], before the application of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $$\frac{d}{dr}\Big(\frac{I_{u_0}(r)}{H_{u_0}(r)}\Big)\geq \frac{1}{r^5
H_{u_0}(r)}\Big[\int_{S_r^+} u_0^2 G\int_{S_r^+}(Zu_0)^2
G-\Big(\int_{S_r^+} u_0(Zu_0) G\Big)^2\Big].$$ Note here that $H_{u_0}(r)$ is never zero, since $H_{u_0}(r)\geq
r^{2\kappa'}$ for $r\leq 1$ and $H_{u_0}(r)\geq r^{-2}H_{u_0}(1)\geq
r^{-2}$. And since we know that the above derivative must be zero it implies that we have equality in Cauchy-Schwarz inequality $$\int_{S_r^+} u_0^2 G\int_{S_r^+}(Zu_0)^2 G=\Big(\int_{S_r^+} u_0(Zu_0)
G\Big)^2,$$ which can happen only if for some constant $\kappa_0$ we have $$Zu_0=\kappa_0 u_0\quad\text{in }S_\infty^+,$$ or that $u_0$ is parabolically homogeneous of degree $\kappa_0$. But then, in this case it is straightforward to show that $$\begin{aligned}
H_{u_0}(r)&=Cr^{2\kappa_0},\\
H'_{u_0}(r)&=\frac{4}{r}I_{u_0}(r)=2\kappa_0 Cr^{2\kappa_0-1},\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$2\frac{I_{u_0}(r)}{H_{u_0}(r)}=\kappa_0.$$ This implies that $\kappa_0=\kappa$ and completes the proof of the theorem.
Homogeneous global solutions {#sec:homog-glob-solut}
============================
In this section we study the homogeneous global solutions of the parabolic Signorini problem, which appear as the result of the blowup process described in Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\]. One of the conclusions of this section is that the homogeneity $\kappa$ of the blowup is $$\text{either}\quad\kappa=\frac32\quad\text{or}\quad \kappa\geq 2,$$ see Theorem \[thm:min-homogen\] below. This will have two important consequences: (i) the fact that $\kappa\geq 3/2$ will imply the optimal $H^{3/2,3/4}_{{\mathrm{loc}}}$ regularity of solutions (see Theorem \[thm:opt-reg\]) and (ii) the “gap” $(3/2,2)$ between possible values of $\kappa$ will imply the relative openness of the so-called regular set (see Proposition \[prop:reg-set-rel-open\]).
We start by noticing that $\kappa>1$.
\[prop:kappa>1alpha\] Let $u\in {\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ be as in Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\]. Then, $\kappa\geq
1+\alpha$, where $\alpha$ is the Hölder exponent of $\nabla u$ in Definition \[def:Sf\].
For the proof we will need the following fact.
\[lem:Holder-Hu-above\] Let $u\in{\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$. Then, $$H_u(r)\leq C_ur^{2(1+\alpha)},\quad 0<r<1,$$ where $\alpha$ is the Hölder exponent of $\nabla u$ in Definition \[def:Sf\].
Since $(0,0)\in \Gamma_*(u)$, we must have $|\nabla
u(0,0)|=0$. Recalling also that $u$ has a bounded support, we obtain that $$|\nabla u|\leq C_0\|(x,t)\|^{\alpha},\quad (x,t)\in S_1^+.$$ Let us show that for $C>0$ $$|u|\leq C\|(x,t)\|^{1+\alpha},\quad (x,t)\in S_1^+.$$ Because of the gradient estimate above, it will be enough to show that $$|u|\leq C r^{1+\alpha}\quad\text{in }Q_r^+.$$ First, observe that since $u\geq 0$ on $Q_r'$, we readily have $$u\geq -C_0 r^{1+\alpha}\quad\text{in }Q_r^+.$$ To show the estimate from above, it will be enough to establish that $$u(0,-r^2)\leq C_1 r^{1+\alpha}.$$ Note that since $u$ is bounded, it is enough to show this bound for $0<r<1/2$. Assuming the contrary, let $r\in (0,1/2 )$ be such that $u(0,-r^2)\geq C_1 r^\alpha$ with large enough $C_1$. Then, from the bound on the gradient, we have $u\geq (C_1-C_0)r^{1+\alpha}$ on $B_r\times\{-r^2\}$. In particular, $$u(\tfrac12r e_n,-r^2)\geq (C_1-C_0)r^{1+\alpha}.$$ Also, let $M$ be such that $|f(x,t)|\leq M$ in $S_1^+$. Then, consider the function $$\tilde u(x,t)=u(x,t)+C_0(2r)^{1+\alpha}.$$ We will have $$\tilde u\geq 0,\quad |(\Delta -\partial_t) \tilde u|\leq
M\quad\text{in } Q_{2r}^+.$$ Besides, $$\tilde u(\tfrac 12 r e_n,-r^2)\geq C_1r^{1+\alpha}.$$ Then, from the parabolic Harnack inequality (see e.g.[@Lie]\*[Theorems 6.17–6.18]{}) $$\tilde u(\tfrac12 e_n,0)\geq C_nC_1 r^{1+\alpha}- Mr^2,$$ or equivalently, $$u((\tfrac12 e_n,0)\geq (C_nC_1-C_0 2^{1+\alpha})r^{1+\alpha}-Mr^2.$$ But then from the bound on the gradient we will have $$u(0,0)\geq (C_nC_1-C_02^{1+\alpha}-C_0)r^{1+\alpha}-Mr^2>0,$$ if $C_1$ is sufficiently large, a contradiction. This implies the claimed estimate $$|u(x,t)|\leq C\|(x,t)\|^{1+\alpha}.$$ The estimate for $H_u(r)$ is then a simple corollary: $$\begin{aligned}
H_u(r)&\leq \frac{C}{r^2}\int_{S_r^+}(|x|^2+|t|)^{1+\alpha} G(x,t)dxdt\\
&=\frac{C}{r^2}\int_0^{r^2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}s^{1+\alpha}(y^2+1) G(s^{1/2}y,-s)s^{n/2}dyds\\
&=\frac{C}{r^2}\int_0^{r^2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}s^{1+\alpha}(y^2+1) G(y,-1)dyds\\
&=Cr^{2(1+\alpha)}.\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
The proof of Proposition \[prop:kappa>1alpha\] now follows easily.
Let $\kappa'\in (\kappa, \kappa_\mu)$ be arbitrary. Then, by Lemma \[lem:Hu-est\] we have $$H_u(r)\geq c_u\, r^{2\kappa'},\quad 0<r<r_u.$$ On the other hand, by Lemma \[lem:Holder-Hu-above\] (proved below) we have the estimate $$H_{u}(r)\leq C_u r^{2(1+\alpha)},\quad 0<r<1.$$ Hence, $\kappa'\geq 1+\alpha$. Since this is true for any $\kappa'\in
(\kappa, \kappa_\mu)$, we obtain that $\kappa\geq 1+\alpha$, which is the sought for conclusion.
We will also need the following technical fact.
Let $u_0$ be a nonzero $\kappa$-parabolically homogeneous solution of the Signorini problem in $S_\infty^+$, as in Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\](iii). Then, $\nabla u_0\in
H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}_{\mathrm{loc}}(({\mathbb{R}}^n_+\cup{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1})\times(-\infty,0))$ for some $0<\alpha<1$.
Note that this does not follow from Lemmas \[lem:known-Halpha\] or \[lem:known-Halpha-2\] directly, since they rely on $W^{2}_\infty$-regularity of ${\varphi}_0$ (which is given by the function $u_0$ itself), or $W^{1,0}_\infty$-regularity of $u_0$, which has to be properly justified.
Note that because of the homogeneity, it is enough to show that $g(x):=u_0(x,-1)$ is in $H^{1+\alpha}_{\mathrm{loc}}({\mathbb{R}}^n_+\cup{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1})$. Indeed, $g\in
W^{2}_{2}(B_R^+)$ for any $R>0$ and since $x\nabla u_0+2t\partial_t
u_0=\kappa u_0$, we obtain that $g$ solves the Signorini problem $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta g-\frac12x\nabla g+\frac{\kappa}{2}g=0&\quad\text{in }B_R^+,\\
g\geq 0,\quad -\partial_{x_n}g\geq 0,\quad
g\partial_{x_n}g=0&\quad\text{on }B_R'.
\end{aligned}$$ But now, the known results for the elliptic Signorini problem for operators with variable coefficients (see e.g. [@AU]) imply that $g\in H^{1+\alpha}_{\mathrm{loc}}({\mathbb{R}}^n_+\cup {\mathbb{R}}^{n-1})$, as claimed.
\[prop:homogen-glob-sol-1-2\] Let $u_0$ be a nonzero $\kappa$-parabolically homogeneous solution of the Signorini problem in $S_\infty^+={\mathbb{R}}^n_+\times(-\infty,0]$ with $1<\kappa<2$. Then, $\kappa=3/2$ and $$u_0(x,t)=C{\operatorname{Re}}(x'\cdot e+ix_n)_+^{3/2}\quad\text{in }S_\infty^+$$ for some tangential direction $e\in\partial B_1'$.
Extend $u_0$ by even symmetry in $x_n$ to the strip $S_\infty$, i.e., by putting $$u_0(x',x_n,t)=u_0(x',-x_n,t).$$ Take any $e\in\partial B_1'$, and consider the positive and negative parts of the directional derivative $\partial_eu_0$ $$v_e^\pm=\max\{\pm\partial_e u_0,0\}.$$ We claim that they satisfy the following conditions $$(\Delta-\partial_t)v_e^\pm\geq 0,\quad v_e^\pm\geq0,\quad v_e^+\cdot
v_e^-=0\quad\text{in }S_\infty.$$ The last two conditions are obvious. The first one follows from the fact that $v_e^\pm$ are continuous in ${\mathbb{R}}^n\times(-\infty,0)$ (by Lemma \[lem:Holder-Hu-above\]) and caloric where positive. Hence, we can apply Caffarelli’s monotonicity formula to the pair $v_e^\pm$, see [@Ca1]. Namely, the functional $${\varphi}(r)=\frac{1}{r^4}\int_{S_r} |\nabla v_e^+|^2 G\int_{S_r}|\nabla
v_e^-|^2 G,$$ is monotone nondecreasing in $r$. On the other hand, from the homogeneity of $u$, it is easy to see that $${\varphi}(r)=r^{4(\kappa-2)}{\varphi}(1),\quad r>0.$$ Since $\kappa<2$, ${\varphi}(r)$ can be monotone increasing if and only if ${\varphi}(1)=0$ and consequently ${\varphi}(r)=0$ for all $r>0$. If fact, one has to exclude the possibility that ${\varphi}(1)=\infty$ as well. This can be seen in two different ways. First, by Remark \[rem:w212-alt\], one has $$\int_{S_{1}}|\nabla v_e^\pm|^2 G\leq C_n\int_{S_{2}}(v_e^\pm)^2 G\leq
\int_{S_4} u_0^2 G.$$ Alternatively, from Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\] (i) and (iv) it follows that $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} |\nabla v_e^\pm|^2 G(\cdot,-1)dx=j^\pm<\infty.$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{S_1} |\nabla v_e^\pm|^2 G(x,t)dxdt&=\int_{S_1}|\nabla
v_e^\pm(|t|^{1/2}y,t)|^2 G(|t|^{1/2}y,t)|t|^{n/2}dydt\\
&=j^\pm\int_{-1}^0 |t|^{(\kappa-2)} dt<\infty,\end{aligned}$$ since $\kappa>1$.
From here it follows that one of the functions $v_e^\pm$ is identically zero, which is equivalent to $\partial_e u_0$ being ether nonnegative or nonpositive on the entire ${\mathbb{R}}^n\times(-\infty,0]$. Since this is true for any tangential direction $e\in\partial B_1$, it thus follows that $u_0$ depends only on one tangential direction, and is monotone in that direction. Therefore, without loss of generality we may assume that $n=2$ and that the coincidence set at $t=-1$ is an infinite interval $$\Lambda_{-1}=\{(x',0)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2\mid u_0(x',0,-1)=0\}=(-\infty,
a]\times\{0\}=:\Sigma_a^-.$$ Besides, repeating the monotonicity formula argument above for the pair of functions $\max\{\pm w,0\}$, where $$w(x,t)=\begin{cases}-\partial_{x_2} u_0(x_1,x_2,t),& x_2\geq
0\\\partial_{x_2}u_0(x_1,x_2,t),& x_2<0
\end{cases}$$ is a caloric function in ${\mathbb{R}}^2\times(-\infty,0]\setminus\Lambda$, parabolically homogeneous of degree $\kappa-1$, we obtain that also $w$ does not change sign in ${\mathbb{R}}^2\times(-\infty,0]$. Noting also that $w\geq 0$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^\times\{0\}\times (-\infty,0]$, we see that $w\geq 0$ everywhere(unless $w=0$ identically on ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times(-\infty,0]$, in which case $w$ is a polynomial of degree $\kappa-1$, which is impossible, since $\kappa$ is noninteger). Hence, we get $$\partial_{x_1}u_0\geq 0,\quad-\partial_{x_2} u_0(x_1, x_2,t)\geq
0\quad\text{in } {\mathbb{R}}^2_+\times(-\infty, 0].$$ Further if $g_1(x)=\partial_{x_1}u_0(x,-1)$ and using that $\partial_{x_1}u_0(x,t)$ is caloric we obtain that $$g_1=0\quad\text{on }\Sigma_a^-,\quad-\Delta g_1+\frac12x\nabla
g_1=\frac{\kappa-1}{2} g_1\quad\text{in }{\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus\Sigma_a^-.$$ Since also $g_1$ is nonnegative and not identically zero, then $g_1$ is the ground state for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator in ${\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus\Sigma_a^-$ and $$\frac{\kappa-1}2=\lambda(\Sigma_a^-)=\inf_{v|_{\Sigma_a^-}=0}\frac{\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}|\nabla
v|^2 e^{-\frac{x^2}{4}}dx}{\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}v^2 e^{-\frac{x^2}{4}}dx}.$$ On the other hand, let $g_2(x)=-\partial_{x_2}u_0(x_1,x_2,-1)$ in $x_2\geq 0$ and $g_2(x)=\partial_{x_2}u_0(x_1,x_2,-1)$ for $x_2<0$. Then, we have $$g_2=0\quad\text{on }\Sigma_a^+,\quad-\Delta g_2+\frac12x\nabla
g_2=\frac{\kappa-1}{2} g_2\quad\text{in }{\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus\Sigma_a^+.$$ with $\Sigma_a^+:=[a,\infty)\times\{0\}$.
(100,100) (0,0)[![The slit domain ${\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus \Sigma_a^+$, $\Sigma_a^+=[a,\infty)\times\{0\}$.[]{data-label="fig:slit-dom"}](Omega "fig:"){height="100pt"}]{} (40,43)[$a$]{} (78,40)[ $\Sigma_a^+$]{} (10,40)[${\mathbb{R}}$]{} (86,90)[${\mathbb{R}}^2$]{}
Thus, this time $g_2$ is the ground state for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator in ${\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus\Sigma_a^+$, and therefore $$\frac{\kappa-1}2=\lambda(\Sigma_a^+)=\inf_{v|_{\Sigma_a^+}=0}\frac{\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}|\nabla
v|^2 e^{-\frac{x^2}{4}}dx}{\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}v^2 e^{-\frac{x^2}{4}}dx}.$$ Observe now that $\lambda(\Sigma_a^+)=\lambda(\Sigma_{-a}^-)$ and therefore from the above equations we have $$\lambda(\Sigma_{a}^-)=\lambda(\Sigma_{-a}^-).$$ On the other hand, it is easy to see that the function $a\mapsto
\lambda(\Sigma_{a}^-)$ is strictly monotone and therefore the above equality can hold only if $a=0$. In particular, $$\kappa=1+2\lambda(\Sigma_0^-).$$ We now claim that $\lambda(\Sigma_0^-)=1/4$. Indeed, consider the function $$v(x)={\operatorname{Re}}(x_1+i|x_2|)^{1/2},$$ which is harmonic and homogeneous of degree $1/2$: $$\Delta v=0,\quad x\nabla v-\frac12 v=0.$$ Therefore, $$v=0\quad\text{on }\Sigma_0^-,\quad-\Delta v+\frac12 x\nabla v=\frac14
v\quad\text{in }{\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus\Sigma_0^-.$$ Also, since $v$ is nonnegative, we obtain that $v$ is the ground state of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator in ${\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus\Sigma_0^-$. This implies in particular that $\lambda(\Sigma_0^-)=\frac14$, and consequently $$\kappa=3/2.$$ Moreover, $g_1(x)=\partial_{x_1}u_0(x,-1)$ must be a multiple of the function $v$ above and from homogeneity we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{x_1}u_0(x,t)&=(-t)^{1/4}g_1(x/(-t)^{1/2})=C(-t)^{1/4}{\operatorname{Re}}((x_1+i
|x_2|)/(-t)^{1/2})^{1/2}\\&=C{\operatorname{Re}}(x_1+i |x_2|)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ From here it is now easy to see that necessarily $$u_0(x,t)=C{\operatorname{Re}}(x_1+i |x_2|)^{3/2}.\qedhere$$
Combining Propositions \[prop:kappa>1alpha\] and \[prop:homogen-glob-sol-1-2\] we obtain the following result.
\[thm:min-homogen\] Let $u\in {\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ and $\mu$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem \[thm:thin-monotonicity\]. Assume also $\kappa_\mu=\frac12\lim_{r\to 0+}r\mu'(r)/\mu(r)\geq 3/2$. Then $$\kappa:=\Phi_u(0+)\geq 3/2.$$ More precisely, we must have $$\text{either}\quad \kappa=3/2\quad\text{or}\quad \kappa\geq 2.\qedhere$$
Very little is known about the possible values of $\kappa$. However, we can say that the following values of $\kappa$ do occur: $$\kappa=2m-1/2,\ 2m,\ 2m+1,\quad m\in{\mathbb{N}}.$$ This can be seen from the following explicit examples of homogeneous solutions (that are actually $t$-independent) $${\operatorname{Re}}(x_1+ix_n)^{2m-1/2},\quad {\operatorname{Re}}(x_1+ix_n)^{2m},\quad
-{\operatorname{Im}}(x_1+ix_n)^{2m+1}.$$ It is known (and easily proved) that in $t$-independent case and dimension $n=2$, the above listed values of $\kappa$ are the only ones possible. In all other cases, finding the set of possible values of $\kappa$ is, to the best of our knowledge, an open problem.
Optimal regularity of solutions {#sec:optim-regul-solut}
===============================
Using the tools developed in the previous sections we are now ready to prove the optimal regularity of solutions of the parabolic Signorini problem with sufficiently smooth obstacles. In fact, we will establish our result for a slightly more general class of functions solving the Signorini problem with nonzero obstacle and nonzero right-hand side.
\[thm:opt-reg\] Let ${\varphi}\in H^{2,1}(Q_1^+)$, $f\in L_\infty(Q_1^+)$. Assume that $v\in W^{2,1}_2(Q_1^+)$ be such that $\nabla v\in
H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(Q_1^+\cup Q_1')$ for some $0<\alpha<1$, and satisfy $$\begin{gathered}
\Delta v-\partial_t v = f\quad\text{in } Q_1^+,\\
v-{\varphi}\geq 0,\quad -\partial_{x_n} v\geq
0,\quad(v-{\varphi})\partial_{x_n} v = 0\quad\text{on } Q'_1.
\end{gathered}$$ Then, $v\in H^{3/2,3/4}(Q_{1/2}^+\cup Q_{1/2}')$ with $$\|v\|_ {H^{3/2,3/4}(Q_{1/2}^+\cup Q_{1/2}')}\leq
C_n\left(\|v\|_{W^{1,0}_\infty(Q_1^+)}+\|f\|_{L_\infty(Q_1^+)}+\|{\varphi}\|_{H^{2,1}(Q_1')}\right).$$
The proof of Theorem \[thm:opt-reg\] will follow from the interior parabolic estimates and the growth bound of $u$ away from the free boundary $\Gamma(v)$.
\[lem:HuMr3\] Let $u\in {\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ with $\|u\|_{L_\infty(S_1^+)}$, $\|f\|_{L_\infty(S_1^+)}\leq M$. Then, $$H_r(u)\leq C_{n}M^2 r^3.$$
The $L_\infty$ bound on $f$ allows us to apply Theorem \[thm:thin-monotonicity\] with the following specific choice of $\mu$ in the generalized frequency function. Indeed, fix $\sigma=1/4$ and let $\mu(r)=M^2 r^{4-2\sigma}$. Then, $$r^{4-2\sigma}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} f^2(\cdot, -r^2) G(\cdot, -r^2)\leq \mu(r)$$ and therefore $$\Phi_u(r)=\frac12 r e^{Cr^\sigma} \frac{d}{dr}\log \max\{H_u(r),M^2
r^{4-2\sigma}\}+2(e^{C r^\sigma}-1)$$ is monotone for $C=C_n$. By Theorem \[thm:min-homogen\] we have that $\Phi_u(0+)\geq 3/2$.
Now, for $H_u(r)$ we have two alternatives: either $H_u(r)\leq
\mu(r)=M^2r^{4-2\sigma}$ or $H_u(r)>\mu(r)$. In the first case the desired estimate is readily satisfied, so we concentrate on the latter case. Let $(r_0,r_1)$ be a maximal interval in the open set $\mathcal{O}= \{r\in (0,1)\mid H_u(r)>\mu(r)\}$. Then, for $r\in
(r_0,r_1)$ we have $$\Phi_u(r)=\frac12 r e^{Cr^\sigma}
\frac{H'_u(r)}{H_u(r)}+2(e^{Cr^\sigma}-1)\geq \Phi_u(0+)\geq \frac32.$$ We thus have, $$\frac{H'_u(r)}{H_u(r)}\geq \frac{3}{r}(1-Cr^\sigma),\quad r\in
(r_0,r_1),$$ which, after integration, implies $$\log\frac{H_u(r_1)}{H_u(r)}\geq\log\frac{r_1^3}{r^3}-C r_1^\sigma,$$ and therefore $$H_u(r)\leq Cr^3\frac{H_u(r_1)}{r_1^3}.$$ Now, for $r_1$ we either have $r_1=1$ or $H_u(r_1)=\mu(r_1)$. Note that $H_u(1)\leq M^2$ from the $L_\infty$ bound on $u$, and thus in both cases we have $H_u(r_1)\leq M^2 r_1^3$. We thus have the desired conclusion $$H_u(r)\leq CM^2r^3.$$
To apply the results of the previous sections, we will need the following $L_\infty-L_2$ type estimates.
\[lem:l2linf-lower\] Let $w$ be a nonnegative function with at most polynomial growth at infinity in the strip $S_R$, and such that for some $\gamma> 0$ $$\Delta w-\partial_t w\geq -M\|(x,t)\|^{\gamma-2}\quad\text{in }S_R.$$ Then, $$\sup_{Q_{r/2}} w\leq C_n H_w(r)^{1/2}+C_{n,\gamma}Mr^{\gamma},\quad
0<r<R.$$
Choosing a constant $C_{n,\gamma}>0$ we can guarantee that $$\tilde w(x,t)=w(x,t)+C_{n,\gamma} M (|x|^2-t)^{\gamma/2}$$ is still nonnegative, has a polynomial growth at infinity and satisfies $$\Delta \tilde w-\partial_t\tilde w\geq 0\quad\text{in }S_R.$$ Moreover, $$H_{\tilde w}(r)^{1/2}\leq
H_w(r)^{1/2}+C_{n,\gamma}M\Big(\frac1{r^2}\int_{S_r}
(|x|^2+|t|)^\gamma G(x,t)dxdt\Big)^{1/2}.$$ From the scaling properties of $ G$ it is easily seen that $$\frac1{r^2}\int_{S_r}
(|x|^2+|t|)^\gamma G(x,t)dxdt=C_n r^{2\gamma}$$ and therefore we may assume that $M=0$ from the beginning.
The rest of the proof is now similar to that of Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\](iii).
Indeed, for $(x,t)\in Q_{r/2}$ and $s\in(-r^2,-r^2/2]$ we have the sub mean-value property $$\begin{aligned}
w(x,t) &\leq\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} w(y,s) G(x-y,t-s)dy.\end{aligned}$$ This can be proved as in Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\](iii) by combining the fact that $\int_{S_\rho\setminus S_\delta}|\nabla
w|^2 G<\infty$ for any $0<\delta<\rho<R$, with the polynomial growth assumption on $w$, and the energy inequality. On the other hand, for our choice of $t$ and $s$, we have $|s|/4<t-s<|s|$. Thus, arguing as in Claim \[clm:rho-est\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
G(x-y,t-s)&=\frac{1}{(4\pi
(t-s))^{n/2}}e^{-|x-y|^2/4(t-s)}\\
&\leq\frac{C_n}{(4\pi
|s|)^{n/2}} e^{-|x-y|^2/4|s|}\\
&\leq C_n G(y,s) e^{(x\cdot y)/2|s|}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we obtain that $$w(x,t)\leq C_n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} w(y,s) e^{(x\cdot y)/2|s|} G(y,s)dy.$$ Now, applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we will have $$\begin{aligned}
w(x,t) &\leq C_n\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} w(y,s)^2 G(y,s) dy\Big)^{1/2}
\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} e^{(x\cdot y)/|s|} G(y,s) dy\Big)^{1/2}\\
& \leq C_n\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} w(y,s)^2 G(y,s) dy\Big)^{1/2}
e^{2|x|^2/|s|}\\
&\leq C_n\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} w(y,s)^2 G(y,s) dy\Big)^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ where in the last step we have used that $|x|\leq r$ and $|s|\geq
r^2/2$. Integrating over $s\in [-r^2,-r^2/4]$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
w(x,t) &\leq\frac{C_n}{r^2}\int_{-r^2}^{-r^2/2}\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}
w(y,s)^2 G(y,s) dy\Big)^{1/2}ds\\
&\leq C_n\Big(\frac{1}{r^2}\int_{-r^2}^{-r^2/2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}
w(y,s)^2 G(y,s) dyds\Big)^{1/2}\\
&\leq C_n H_w(r)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
\[lem:l2linf-upper\] Let $w$ be a nonnegative bounded function in $S_R$ satisfying $$0\leq w\leq M,\quad \Delta w -\partial_t w\geq -M\quad\text{in }S_R,$$ and let $(x_0,t_0)\in S_R'$, $r_0>0$ be such that for some constant $A$ $$\sup_{Q_r(x_0,t_0)}w\leq A r^{3/2},\quad 0<r<r_0.$$ Then, $$w(x,t)\leq C \|(x-x_0,t-t_0)\|^{3/2},\quad(x,t)\in S_R,$$ with $C=C_{n,r_0,R}(A+M)$.
Without loss of generality we may assume that $x_0=0$. Then, from the assumptions on $w$ we have that $$w(x,t_0)\leq C|x|^{3/2},\quad x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,$$ and more generally $$w(x,t)\leq C\|(x,t-t_0)\|^{3/2},\quad x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,\ t\in (-R^2, t_0],$$ where $C=C_{n,r_0,R}(A+M)$. To propagate the estimate to $t\in
(t_0,0)$ we use the sub-mean value property. Namely, for $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $t_0<t<0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
w(x,t)&\leq \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}w(y,t_0) G(x-y,t-t_0)dy+M(t-t_0)\\
&\leq C\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} |y|^{3/2} G(x-y,t-t_0)dy+M(t-t_0).\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the desired conclusion, we notice that the integral $$V(x,s)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} |y|^{3/2} G(x-y,s)dy,\quad x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n, s>0$$ is parabolically homogeneous of degree $3/2$ in the sense that $$V(\lambda x, \lambda^2s)=\lambda^{3/2}V(x,s),\quad \lambda>0$$ and therefore we immediately obtain that $$V(x,s)\leq C_n\|(x,s)\|^{3/2},\quad x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n, \ s>0.$$ Consequently, this yields $$w(x,t)\leq C_nC\|(x,t-t_0)\|^{3/2}+M(t-t_0),\quad x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,\
t\in(t_0,0],$$ which implies the statement of the lemma.
\[lem:growth-est\] Let $u\in {\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ and $(x_0,t_0)\in
\Gamma_*(u)\cap Q_{3/4}'$. Then, $$|u(x,t)|\leq C\|(x-x_0,t-t_0)\|^{3/2},\quad (x,t)\in S_1^+,$$ with $$C=C_n\big(\|u\|_{L_\infty(S_1^+)}+\|f\|_{L_\infty(S_1^+)}\big).$$
This is simply a combination of Lemma \[lem:HuMr3\] for $u$ and Lemmas \[lem:l2linf-lower\]–\[lem:l2linf-upper\] applied for $w=u^\pm$.
As in Section \[sec:classes-solutions\], let $\psi\in
C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ be a cutoff function satisfying –, and consider $$u(x,t)=[v(x,t)-{\varphi}(x',t)]\psi(x).$$ We may also assume that $|\nabla\psi|\leq C_n$. We will thus have $u\in{\mathfrak{S}}^g(S_1^+)$ with $$\|g\|_{L_\infty(S_1^+)}\leq
C_n\left(\|v\|_{W^{1,0}_\infty(Q_1^+)}+\|f\|_{L_\infty(Q_1^+)}+\|{\varphi}\|_{H^{2,1}(Q_1')}\right).$$ In the remaining part of the proof, $C$ will denote a generic constant that has the same form as the right-hand side in the above inequality. For $(x,t)\in Q_{1/2}$, and $$Q_r^*(x,t):=\tilde Q_r(x,t)\cap S_\infty=B_r(x)\times
((t-r^2,t+r^2)\cap(-\infty, 0]),$$ let $$d=d(x,t)=\sup\{r>0\mid Q^*_r(x,t)\subset Q_1\setminus \Gamma_*(u)\}.$$ We first claim that $$\label{eq:ud32}
|u|\leq C d^{3/2}\quad\text{in }Q_{d}^*(x,t).$$ Indeed, if $d>1/4$, this follows from boundedness of $u$. If instead $d\leq 1/4$, then there exist $(x_0,t_0)\in Q_{3/4}'\cap
\Gamma_*(u)\cap \partial Q_{d}^*(x,t)$ and by Lemma \[lem:growth-est\] we have the desired estimate. Next, we claim that $$\label{eq:gradud12}
|\nabla u|\leq C d^{1/2} \quad\text{in }Q_{d/2}^*(x,t)$$ This will follow from the interior gradient estimates, applied to the even or odd extension of $u$ in $x_n$ variable. More specifically, consider the intersection $Q_{d}^*(x,t)\cap Q_1'$. Since there are no points of $\Gamma_*(u)$ in this set, we have a dichotomy: either (i) $u>0$ on $Q_{d}^*(x,t)\cap Q_1'$, or (ii) $u=0$ on $Q_{d}^*(x,t)\cap
Q_1'$. Accordingly, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde u(x',x_n,t)&=\begin{cases} u(x',x_n,t), & x_n\geq 0\\
u(x',-x_n,t), &x_n\leq 0
\end{cases}\quad\text{in case (i)},\\
\tilde u(x',x_n,t)&=\begin{cases} u(x',x_n,t), & x_n\geq 0\\
-u(x',-x_n,t), &x_n\leq 0\quad\text{in case (ii)}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ In either case $\tilde u$ satisfies a nonhomogeneous heat equation $$(\Delta-\partial_t)\tilde u=\tilde g\quad\text{in }Q_{d}^*(x,t),$$ for an appropriately defined $\tilde g$. The claimed estimate for $|\nabla u|=|\nabla \tilde u|$ now follows from parabolic interior gradient estimates, see e.g. [@LSU]\*[Chapter III, Theorem 11.1]{}. Moreover, by [@LSU]\*[Chapter IV, Theorem 9.1]{}, one also has that $\tilde u\in W^{2,1}_q(Q_{d/2}^*(x,t))$ for any $3/2<q<\infty$. To be more precise, we apply the latter theorem to $\tilde u\zeta$, where $\zeta$ is a cutoff function supported in $Q^*_d(x,t)$, such $\zeta=1$ on $Q^*_{d/2}(x,t)$, $0\leq \zeta\leq 1$, $|\nabla\zeta|\leq C_n/d$, $|\partial_t\zeta|\leq C_n/d^2$. From the estimates on $\tilde u$ and $|\nabla \tilde u|$, we thus have $$|(\Delta -\partial_t)(\tilde u\zeta)|\leq C d^{-1/2},$$ which provides the estimate $$\|D^2\tilde u\|_{L_q(Q^*_{d/2}(x,t))}+\|\partial_t \tilde
u\|_{L_q(Q^*_{d/2}(x,t))}\leq C d^{-1/2} d^{(n+2)/q}.$$ Then, from the Sobolev embedding of $W^{2,1}_q$ into $H^{2-\frac{n+2}q,1-\frac{n+2}{2q}}$ when $q>n+2$, we obtain the estimates for Hölder seminorms $$\langle \nabla \tilde u\rangle^{(\alpha)}_{Q^*_{d/2}(x,t)}+ \langle
\tilde u\rangle^{((1+\alpha)/2)}_{t,Q^*_{d/2}(x,t)}\leq C
d^{1/2-\alpha},$$ for any $0<\alpha<1$, see [@LSU]\*[Chapter II, Lemma 3.3]{}. In particular, we have $$\label{eq:graduholder12}
\langle \nabla \tilde u\rangle^{(1/2)}_{Q^*_{d/2}(x,t)}+
\langle \tilde u\rangle^{(3/4)}_{t,Q^*_{d/2}(x,t)}\leq C.$$ Now take two points $(x^i,t^i)\in Q_{1/2}^+$, $i=1,2$, and let $d^i=d(x^i,t^i)$. Without loss of generality we may assume $d_1\geq
d_2$. Let also $\delta=(|x^1-x^2|^2+|t^1-t^2|)^{1/2}$.
Consider two cases:
1\) $\delta> \frac12 d_1$. In this case, we have by $$\begin{aligned}
|\nabla u(x^1,t^1)-\nabla u(x^2,t^2)|&\leq |\nabla
u(x^1,t^1)|+|\nabla u(x^2,t^2)|\\&\leq C (d^1)^{1/2}+C
(d^2)^{1/2}\leq C \delta^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$
2\) $\delta< \frac12 d_1$. In this case, both $(x^i,t^i)\in
Q_{d^1/2}^*(x^1,t^1)$, and therefore by $$\begin{aligned}
|\nabla u(x^1,t^1)-\nabla u(x^2,t^2)|&\leq C \delta^{1/2}\end{aligned}$$ This gives the desired estimate for the seminorm $\langle \nabla
u\rangle^{1/2}_{Q_{1/2}^+}$. Arguing analogously, we can also prove a similar estimate for $\langle u\rangle^{(3/4)}_{t,Q_{1/2}^+}$, thus completing the proof of the theorem.
Classification of free boundary points {#sec:class-free-bound}
======================================
After establishing the optimal regularity of the solutions, we are now able to undertake the study of the free boundary $$\Gamma(v)=\partial\{(x',t)\mid v(x',0,t)>{\varphi}(x',t)\}.$$ We start with classifying the free boundary points and more generally points in $$\Gamma_*(v)=\{(x',t)\mid
v(x',0,t)={\varphi}(x',t),\ \partial_{x_n}v(x',0,t)=0\}.$$ As we will see the higher is the regularity of ${\varphi}$, the finer is going to be the classification.
Let $v\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_1^+)$ with ${\varphi}\in H^{\ell,\ell/2}(Q_1')$, $\ell=k+\gamma\geq 2$, $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $0<\gamma\leq1$ and $u_k\in
{\mathfrak{S}}^{f_k}(S_1^+)$ be as constructed in Proposition \[prop:uk-def\]. In particular, $f_k$ satisfies $$|f_k(x,t)|\leq M\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-2},\quad (x,t)\in S_1^+.$$ This implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}f_k(x,-r^2)^2 G(x,-r^2)dx&\leq
M^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}(|x|^2+r^2)^{\ell-2} G(x,-r^2)dx\\
&=M^2r^{2\ell-4}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}(|y|^2+1)^\ell G(y,-1)dy\\
&=C_\ell M^2 r^{2\ell-4}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if we choose $$\mu(r)=r^{2\ell_0},\quad\text{with }k\leq \ell_0<\ell\text{ and
}\sigma\leq\ell-\ell_0,$$ then $\mu$, $f_k$ and $u_k$ will satisfy the conditions of Theorem \[thm:thin-monotonicity\]. In particular, we will have that $$\label{eq:Philo}
\Phi_{u_k}^{(\ell_0)}(r) := \frac 12 r e^{C
r^{\sigma}}\frac{d}{dr}\log\max\{H_{u_k}(r),r^{2\ell_0}\}+2
(e^{C r^{\sigma}}-1)$$ is monotone increasing in $r\in(0,1)$ and consequently there exists the limit (see above) $$\kappa=\Phi_{u_k}^{(\ell_0)}(0+).$$ Recalling the definition of $\kappa_\mu$, we note that in the present case we have $$\kappa_\mu=\ell_0.$$ Therefore, by Lemma \[lem:Hu-mu\] we infer that $$\kappa\leq \ell_0<\ell.$$ Generally speaking, the value of $\kappa$ may depend on the cutoff function that we have chosen to construct $u_k$. However, as the next result proves, it is relatively straightforward to check that this is not the case.
\[lem:kappa-indep-psi\] The limit $\kappa=\Phi_{u_k}^{(\ell_0)}(0+)$ does not depend on the choice of the cutoff function $\psi$ in the definition of $u_k$.
Indeed, if we choose a different cutoff function $\psi'$, satisfying – and denote by $u_k'$ the function corresponding to $u_k$ in the construction above, and by $\kappa'$ the corresponding value as in , then by simply using the fact that $u_k=u_k'$ on $B_{1/2}^+\times(-1,0]$ and that $|
G(x,t)|\leq e^{-c_n/r^2}$ for $|x|\geq 1/2$ and $-r^2<t\leq0$, we have $$|H_{u_k}(r)-H_{u_k'}(r)|\leq C e^{-c_n/r^2}.$$ To show now that $\kappa=\kappa'$, we consider several cases.
1\) If $\kappa=\kappa'=\ell_0$, then we are done.
2\) If $\kappa<\ell_0$, then Lemma \[lem:Hu-mu\] implies that $$2\kappa-{\varepsilon}\leq r\frac{H_{u_k}'(r)}{H_{u_k}(r)}\leq
2\kappa+{\varepsilon},\quad 0<r<r_{\varepsilon}.$$ Integrating these inequalities we obtain $$c_{\varepsilon}r^{2\kappa+{\varepsilon}}\leq H_{u_k}(r)\leq C_{\varepsilon}r^{2\kappa-{\varepsilon}},\quad 0<r<r_{\varepsilon},$$ for some (generic) positive constants $c_{\varepsilon}$, $C_{\varepsilon}$. This will also imply $$c_{\varepsilon}r^{2\kappa+{\varepsilon}}\leq H_{u_k'}(r)\leq C_{\varepsilon}r^{2\kappa-{\varepsilon}},\quad 0<r<r_{\varepsilon}.$$ Now, if ${\varepsilon}$ is so small that $2\kappa+{\varepsilon}<\ell_0$, we will have that $H_{u_k'}(r)> \mu(r)=r^{\ell_0}$ for $0<r<r_{\varepsilon}$. But then, we also have $\kappa'=\lim_{r\to 0}r H'_{u_k'}(r)/H_{u_k'}(r)$, and therefore $$c_{\varepsilon}r^{2\kappa'+{\varepsilon}}\leq H_{u_k'}(r)\leq C_{\varepsilon}r^{2\kappa'-{\varepsilon}},\quad 0<r<r_{\varepsilon},$$ for arbitrarily small ${\varepsilon}>0$. Obviously, the above estimates imply that $\kappa'=\kappa$.
3\) If $\kappa'<\ell_0$, we argue as in 2) above.
To stress in the above construction the dependence only of the function $v$, we will denote the quantity $\kappa=\Phi_{u_k}^{(\ell_0)}(0+)$ by $$\kappa^{(\ell_0)}_v(0,0).$$ More generally, for $(x_0,t_0)\in\Gamma_*(v)$ we let $$v^{(x_0,t_0)}(x,t):=v(x_0+x,t_0+t),$$ which translates $(x_0,t_0)$ to the origin. Then, $v^{(x_0,t_0)}\in
{\mathfrak{S}}^{f^{(x_0,t_0)}}(Q_r^+)$ for some small $r>0$. The construction above has been carried out in $Q_1^+$, rather than $Q_r^+$. However, a simple rescaling argument generalizes it to any $r>0$. Thus, we can define $$\kappa_v^{(\ell_0)}(x_0,t_0)=\kappa_{v^{(x_0,t_0)}}^{(\ell_0)}(0,0),$$ which we will call the *truncated homogeneity* of $v$ at an extended free boundary point $(x_0,t_0)$.
Suppose now for a moment that the thin obstacle ${\varphi}$, that was assumed to belong to the class $H^{\ell,\ell/2}(Q_1')$, has a higher regularity. To fix the ideas, suppose ${\varphi}\in H^{\tilde \ell,\tilde
\ell/2}(Q_1')$, for some $\tilde \ell\geq\ell\geq 2$, with $\tilde
\ell=\tilde k+\tilde \gamma$, $\tilde k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $\tilde k\geq k$, $0<\tilde \gamma\leq 1$. We may thus define $$\kappa_v^{(\tilde\ell_0)}(x_0,t_0),$$ for any $\tilde k\leq \tilde\ell_0<\tilde\ell$. It is natural to ask about the relation between $\kappa_v^{(\tilde\ell_0)}(x_0,t_0)$ and $\kappa_v^{(\ell_0)}(x_0,t_0)$. The following proposition provides an answer to this question.
\[prop:kappa-compat\] If $\ell\leq\tilde\ell$, $\ell_0\leq\tilde\ell_0$ are as above, then $$\kappa^{(\ell_0)}_v(x_0,t_0)=\min\{\kappa^{(\tilde\ell_0)}_v(x_0,t_0),\ell_0\}.$$
This proposition essentially says that $\kappa^{(\ell_0)}_v(x_0,t_0)$ is the truncation of $\kappa^{(\tilde \ell_0)}_v(x_0,t_0)$ by the value $\ell_0$.
It will be sufficient to prove the statement for $(x_0,t_0)=(0,0)$. To simplify the notation in the proof, we are going to denote $$\kappa=\kappa^{(\ell_0)}_v(0,0),\quad \tilde\kappa=\kappa^{(\tilde
\ell_0)}_v(0,0),$$ so we will need to show that $$\kappa=\min\{\tilde\kappa,\ell_0\}.$$ First, we fix a cutoff function $\psi$ is the definition of the functions $u_k$ and $u_{\tilde k}$, and note that $$|u_k(x,t)-u_{\tilde k}(x,t)|\leq C \|(x,t)\|^{\ell}.$$ This implies that $$|H_{u_{k}}(r)-H_{u_{\tilde k}}(r)|\leq C r^{2\ell}.$$ Arguing as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:kappa-indep-psi\], we obtain that, in fact, $$\kappa=\Phi_{u_k}^{(\ell_0)}(0+)=\Phi_{u_{\tilde k}}^{(\ell_0)}(0+).$$ Using this information, form now on in this proof we will abbreviate $H_{u_{\tilde k}}(r)$ with $H(r)$.
We consider two cases.
[\[step:1-trunc-kappa\]($^\circ$)]{} Assume first that $\tilde \kappa<\ell_0$. In this case we need to show that $\kappa=\tilde \kappa$.
From the assumption we will have that $\tilde \kappa<\tilde \ell_0$ and by Lemma \[lem:Hu-mu\] $$\tilde \kappa=\frac12\lim_{r\to 0+}\frac{r H'(r)}{H(r)}.$$ Therefore, for any ${\varepsilon}>0$ we obtain $$r\frac{H'(r)}{H(r)}\leq 2\tilde\kappa+{\varepsilon},\quad 0<r<r_{\varepsilon}.$$ Integrating, we find $$H(r)\geq\frac{H(r_{\varepsilon})}{r_{\varepsilon}^{2\tilde\kappa+{\varepsilon}}}
r^{2\tilde \kappa+{\varepsilon}},\quad 0<r<r_{\varepsilon}.$$ In particular, if ${\varepsilon}>0$ is so small that $2\tilde\kappa+{\varepsilon}<2\ell_0$, then $H(r)>r^{2\ell_0}$ and therefore $$\kappa=\Phi^{(\ell_0)}(0+)=\frac12\lim_{r\to 0+}\frac{r
H'(r)}{H(r)}=\tilde \kappa.$$
[\[step:2-trunc-kappa\]($^\circ$)]{} Assume now that $\tilde \kappa\geq \ell_0$. We need to show in this case that $\kappa=\ell_0$. In general, we know that $\kappa\leq \ell_0$, so arguing by contradiction, assume $\kappa<\ell_0$. We thus know by Lemma \[lem:Hu-mu\] that $H(r)\geq
r^{2\ell_0}$ for $0<r<r_0$, and $$\kappa=\frac12\lim_{r\to 0+}\frac{r H'(r)}{H(r)}.$$ But then, we also have $H(r)\geq r^{2\tilde\ell_0}$ for $0<r<r_0$ and therefore $$\tilde \kappa=\Phi^{(\tilde\ell_0)}(0+)=\frac12\lim_{r\to 0+}\frac{r
H'(r)}{H(r)}=\kappa<\ell_0,$$ contrary to the assumption.
\[def:trunc-hom-II\] In view of Proposition \[prop:kappa-compat\], if ${\varphi}\in
H^{\ell,\ell/2}(Q_1')$ we can push $\ell_0$ in the definition of the truncated homogeneity up to $\ell$ by setting $$\kappa^{(\ell)}_v(x_0,t_0)=\sup_{\ell_0<\ell}\kappa^{(\ell_0)}_v(x_0,t_0).$$ Indeed, Proposition \[prop:kappa-compat\] guarantees that $\ell_0\mapsto \kappa^{(\ell_0)}_v$ is monotone increasing. Moreover, we have $$\kappa^{(\ell_0)}_v=\min\{\kappa^{(\ell)}_v,\ell_0\}.$$
\[lem:kappa-upp-semi\] The function $(x,t)\mapsto \kappa^{(\ell)}_v(x,t)$ is upper semicontinuous on $\Gamma_*(v)$ (with respect to Euclidean or, equivalently, parabolic distance), i.e., for any $(x_0,t_0)\in\Gamma_*(v)$ one has $$\lim_{\delta\to 0} \sup_{\tilde Q_\delta'(x_0,t_0)\cap \Gamma_*(v)}
\kappa^{(\ell)}_v\leq \kappa_v^{(\ell)}(x_0,t_0).$$
Suppose first $\kappa=\kappa_v^{(\ell)}(x_0,t_0)<\ell$ and fix $\ell_0\in (\kappa,\ell)$. Then, for any ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists $r_{\varepsilon}>0$ such that $\Phi_{u}^{(\ell_0)}(r_{\varepsilon})<\kappa+{\varepsilon}<\ell_0$, where $u=u_k^{(x_0,t_0)}$. This implies that that $H_{u}(r)\geq C
r^{2(\kappa+{\varepsilon})}$ for $0<r<r_{\varepsilon}$. Since the mapping $(x,t)\mapsto H_{u_k^{(x,t)}}(r_{\varepsilon})$ is continuous on $\Gamma_*(v)$, we will have $$H_{u^{(x,t)}_k}(r_{\varepsilon})\geq (C/2) r_{\varepsilon}^{2(\kappa+{\varepsilon})}>
r_{\varepsilon}^{2\ell_0},$$ if $|x-x_0|^2+|t-t_0|<\eta_{\varepsilon}^2$, $(x,t)\in \Gamma_*(v)$, provided $r_{\varepsilon}$ and $\eta_{\varepsilon}>0$ are small enough. In particular, this implies the explicit formula $$\Phi_{u_k^{(x,t)}}^{(\ell_0)}(r_{\varepsilon})=\frac12r_{\varepsilon}e^{Cr_{\varepsilon}^\sigma}\frac{H_{u_k^{(x,t)}}'(r_{\varepsilon})}{H_{u_k^{(x,t)}}(r_{\varepsilon})}+2(e^{Cr_{\varepsilon}^\sigma}-1).$$ Therefore, taking $\eta_{\varepsilon}>0$ small, we can guarantee $$|\Phi_{u_k^{(x,t)}}^{(\ell_0)}(r_{\varepsilon})-\Phi_{u_k^{(x_0,t_0)}}^{(\ell_0)}(r_{\varepsilon})|\leq{\varepsilon},$$ if $|x-x_0|^2+|t-t_0|<\eta_{\varepsilon}^2$, $(x,t)\in \Gamma_*(v)$. It follows that, for such $(x,t)$, one has $$\kappa_v^{(\ell_0)}(x,t)\leq \Phi_{u_k^{(x,t)}}(r_{\varepsilon})\leq
\kappa+2{\varepsilon},$$ which implies the upper semicontinuity of $\kappa_v^{(\ell_0)}$ and $\kappa_v^{(\ell)}$ at $(x_0,t_0)$.
If $\kappa^{(\ell)}_v(x_0,t_0)=\ell$, the upper continuity follows immediately since $\kappa^{(\ell)}_v\leq \ell$.
The truncated homogeneity $\kappa_v^{(\ell)}$ gives a natural classification of extended free boundary points.
Let $v\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_1^+)$, with ${\varphi}\in H^{\ell,\ell/2}(Q_1')$. For $\kappa\in [3/2,\ell]$, we define $$\Gamma_\kappa^{(\ell)}(v):=\{(x,t)\in\Gamma_*(v)\mid
\kappa_v^{(\ell)}(x,t)=\kappa\}.$$
As a direct corollary of Proposition \[prop:kappa-compat\], we have the following consistency for the above definition.
If ${\varphi}\in H^{\tilde\ell,\tilde\ell/2}(Q_1')$ with $\tilde \ell\geq \ell\geq 2$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_\kappa^{(\ell)}(v)&=\Gamma_\kappa^{(\tilde\ell)}(v),\quad\text{if
}\kappa<\ell,\\
\Gamma_\ell^{(\ell)}(v)&=\bigcup_{\ell\leq \kappa\leq
\tilde\ell}\Gamma_\kappa^{(\tilde\ell)}(v).\qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
The latter identity essentially means that, if ${\varphi}$ is more regular than $H^{\ell,\ell/2}$, then $\Gamma^{(\ell)}_\ell(v)$ is an “aggregate” of points with higher homogeneities $\kappa$.
We conclude this section with the following description of the free boundary, based on the fact that the function $\kappa_v^{(\ell)}$ never takes certain values. We also characterize the points that are in the extended free boundary $\Gamma_*(v)$, but not in the free boundary $\Gamma(v)$.
\[prop:free-bound-struct\] If $v\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_1^+)$ with ${\varphi}\in
H^{\ell,\ell/2}(Q_1')$, $\ell\geq 2$, then for any $(x_0,t_0)\in
\Gamma_*(v)$, either we have $$\kappa^{(\ell)}_v(x_0,t_0)=\frac32,\quad\text{or}\quad2\leq
\kappa^{(\ell)}_v(x_0,t_0)\leq \ell.$$ As a consequence, $$\Gamma_*(v)=\Gamma^{(\ell)}_{3/2}(v)\cup\bigcup_{2\leq\kappa\leq\ell}\Gamma_{\kappa}^{(\ell)}(v).$$ Moreover, $$\Gamma_*(v)\setminus \Gamma(v)\subset
\Gamma^{(\ell)}_\ell(v)\cup\bigcup_{m\in{\mathbb{N}}}\Gamma_{2m+1}^{(\ell)}(v).$$
The first part is nothing but Theorem \[thm:min-homogen\].
Suppose now $(x_0,t_0)\in \Gamma_*(v)\setminus \Gamma(v)$ and that $\kappa=\kappa_v^{(\ell)}(x_0,t_0)<\ell$. Then, there exists a small $\delta>0$ such that $v={\varphi}$ on $Q_\delta'(x_0,t_0)$. Next, consider the translate $v^{(x_0,t_0)}=v(x_0+\cdot,t_0+\cdot)$ and let $u=u_k^{(x_0,t_0)}$ be obtained from $v^{(x_0,t_0)}$ as in Proposition \[prop:uk-def\]. Since $\kappa<\ell$, by Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\], there exists a blowup $u_0$ of $u$ over some sequence $r=r_j\to 0+$. Since $u=0$ on $Q_\delta'$, $u_0$ will vanish on $S'_\infty$. Hence, extending it as an odd function $\tilde u_0$ of $x_n$ from $S_\infty^+$ to $S_\infty$, we will obtain a homogeneous caloric function in $S_\infty$. Then, by the Liouville theorem, $\tilde u_0$ must be a caloric polynomial of degree $\kappa$. Thus, $\kappa$ is an integer. We further claim that $\kappa$ is odd. Indeed, $\tilde u_0$ solves the Signorini problem in $S_\infty^+$ and therefore we must have that $-\partial_{x_n}
u_0(x',0,t)$ is a nonnegative polynomial on $S_\infty'$ of homogeneity $\kappa-1$. The latter is possible when either $\kappa-1$ is even or if $-\partial_{x_n} u_0$ vanishes on $S_\infty'$. However, the latter case is impossible, since otherwise Holmgren’s uniqueness theorem would imply that $u_0$ is identically zero, contrary to Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\]. Thus, the only possibility is that $\kappa-1$ is even, or equivalently, $\kappa$ is odd. Since we also have $\kappa\geq 3/2>1$, we obtain that $\kappa\in\{2m+1\mid m\in{\mathbb{N}}\}$.
It is easy to construct $v\in{\mathfrak{S}}_0(Q_1^+)$ such that $\Gamma(v)=\emptyset$ and $\Gamma_*(v)=\Gamma_{2m+1}^{(\ell)}(v)\not= \emptyset$. The simplest example is perhaps $$v(x,t)=-{\operatorname{Im}}(x_1+ix_n)^{2m+1}.$$ It is easy to verify that $v\in {\mathfrak{S}}_0(Q_1^+)$, and $v=0$ on $Q_1'$. Thus, $\Gamma(v)=\emptyset$. However, $\Gamma_*(v)=\{0\}\times\{0\}\times(-1,0]$, and because of the $(2m+1)$-homogeneity of $v$ with respect to any point on $\Gamma_*(v)$, if we choose $\ell>2m+1$, we have that $\Gamma_*(v)=\Gamma_{2m+1}^{(\ell)}(v)$.
Free boundary: Regular set {#sec:free-bound-regul}
==========================
In this section we study a special subset ${\mathcal{R}}(v)$ of the extended free boundary. Namely, the collection of those points having minimal frequency $\kappa=3/2$.
Let $v\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_1^+)$ with ${\varphi}\in H^{\ell,\ell/2}(Q_1')$, $\ell\geq 2$. We say that $(x_0,t_0)\in \Gamma_*(v)$ is a *regular* free boundary point if it has a minimal homogeneity $\kappa=3/2$, or equivalently $\kappa_{v}^{(\ell)}(x_0,t_0)=3/2$. The set $${\mathcal{R}}(v):=\Gamma_{3/2}^{(\ell)}(v)$$ will be called the *regular set* of $v$.
We have the following basic fact about ${\mathcal{R}}(v)$.
\[prop:reg-set-rel-open\] The regular set ${\mathcal{R}}(v)$ is a relatively open subset of $\Gamma(v)$. In particular, for any $(x_0,t_0)\in {\mathcal{R}}(v)$ there exists $\delta_0>0$ such that $$\Gamma(v)\cap Q_{\delta_0}'(x_0,t_0)={\mathcal{R}}(v)\cap
Q_{\delta_0}'(x_0,t_0).$$
First note that, by Proposition \[prop:free-bound-struct\], we have ${\mathcal{R}}(v)\subset
\Gamma(v)$. The relative openness of ${\mathcal{R}}(v)$ follows from the upper semicontinuity of the function $\kappa^{(\ell)}_v$ and form the fact that it does not take any values between $3/2$ and $2$.
We will show in this section that, if the thin obstacle ${\varphi}$ is sufficiently smooth, then the regular set can be represented locally as a $(n-2)$-dimensional graph of a parabolically Lipschitz function. Further, such function can be shown to have Hölder continuous spatial derivatives. We begin with the following basic result.
\[thm:lip-reg-reg-set\] Let $v\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_1^+)$ with ${\varphi}\in H^{\ell,\ell/2}(Q_1')$, $\ell\geq 3$ and that $(0,0)\in{\mathcal{R}}(v)$. Then, there exist $\delta=\delta_v>0$, and $g\in H^{1,1/2}(Q_\delta'')$ (i.e., $g$ is a parabolically Lipschitz function), such that possibly after a rotation in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(v)\cap Q_\delta'={\mathcal{R}}(v)\cap Q_\delta'&=\{(x',t)\in
Q'_\delta\mid x_{n-1}=g(x'',t)\},\\
\Lambda(v)\cap Q_\delta'&=\{(x',t)\in Q'_\delta\mid x_{n-1}\leq
g(x'',t)\},
\end{aligned}$$
(150,150) (12,0)[![The regular set ${\mathcal{R}}(v)$ in $Q_\delta'$, given by the graph $x_{n-1}=g(x'')$ with $g\in H^{1,1/2}(Q_\delta'')$ and $\nabla''g\in H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(Q_\delta'')$ by Theorems \[thm:lip-reg-reg-set\] and \[thm:h1alpha-reg-set\][]{data-label="fig:reg-set"}](Df-crop "fig:"){height="150pt"}]{} (50,80) (45,100) (92,65)[$x_{n-1}=g(x'',t)$]{} (90,105)[${\mathcal{R}}(v)$]{} (100,70)[(-1,1)[10]{}]{}
For an illustration, see Fig \[fig:reg-set\]. Following the well-known approach in the classical obstacle problem, see e.g.[@PSU]\*[Chapter 4]{}, the idea of the proof is to show that there is a cone of directions in the thin space, along which $v-{\varphi}$ is increasing. This approach was successfully used in the elliptic Signorini problem in [@ACS], [@CSS], see also [@PSU]\*[Chapter 9]{}, and in the arguments below we generalize the constructions in these papers to the parabolic case. This will establish the Lipschitz regularity in the space variables. To show the $1/2$-Hölder regularity in $t$ (actually better than that), we will use the fact that the $3/2$-homogeneous solutions of the parabolic Signorini problem are $t$-independent (see Proposition \[prop:homogen-glob-sol-1-2\]).
However, in order to carry out the program outlined above, in addition to (i) and (ii) in Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\] above, we will need a stronger convergence of the rescalings $u_r$ to the blowups $u_0$. This will be achieved by assuming a slight increase in the regularity assumptions on the thin obstacle ${\varphi}$, and, consequently, on the regularity of the right-hand side $f$ in the construction of Proposition \[prop:uk-def\].
\[lem:blowups-H1alpha-conv\] Let $u\in {\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$, and suppose that for some $\ell_0\geq 2$ $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
|f(x,t)|&\leq M\|(x,t)\|^{\ell_0-2}&\quad&\text{in }S_1^+,\\
|\nabla f(x,t)|&\leq L\|(x,t)\|^{(\ell_0-3)^+}&\quad&\text{in
}Q_{{1/2}}^+,
\end{aligned}$$ and $$H_u(r)\geq r^{2\ell_0},\quad\text{for }0<r<r_0.$$ Then, for the family of rescalings $\{u_r\}_{0<r<r_{0}}$ we have the uniform bounds $$\|u_r\|_{H^{3/2,3/4}(Q_R^+\cup Q_R')}\leq C_u,\quad 0<r<r_{R,u}.$$ In particular, if the sequence of rescalings $u_{r_j}$ converges to $u_0$ as in Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\], then over a subsequence $$u_{r_j}\to u_0, \quad\nabla u_{r_j}\to \nabla u_0\quad\text{in }
H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(Q_R^+\cup Q_R'),$$ for any $0<\alpha<1/2$ and $R>0$.
Because of Theorem \[thm:opt-reg\], it is enough to show that $u_r$, $|\nabla u_r|$, and $f_r$ are bounded in $Q_R^+$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
|f_r(x,t)|&=\frac{r^2|f(rx,r^2t)|}{H_u(r)^{1/2}}\\&\leq
\frac{Mr^{\ell_0}\|(x,t)\|^{\ell_0-2}}{H_{u}(r)^{1/2}}\leq M \|(x,t)\|^{\ell_0-2}, &\quad&(x,t)\in S_R^+.\\
\intertext{Besides, we have that} |\nabla
f_r(x,t)|&=\frac{r^3|\nabla f(rx,r^2t)|}{H_u(r)^{1/2}}\\&\leq
\frac{Lr^{\max\{\ell_0,3\}}\|(x,t)\|^{(\ell_0-3)_+}}{H_{u}(r)^{1/2}}\leq
L \|(x,t)\|^{(\ell_0-3)_+},&\quad&(x,t)\in Q_R^+.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, the functions $$w_\pm=(u_r)_\pm \quad\text{(evenly reflected to $S_R^-$)}$$ satisfy $$\Delta w_\pm-\partial_t w_\pm\geq -M\|(x,t)\|^{\ell_0-2}\quad\text{in
}S_R.$$ By Lemma \[lem:l2linf-lower\] we thus obtain $$\sup_{Q_{R/2}}|u_r|\leq C( H_{u_r}(R)^{1/2}+M R^{\ell_0})\leq C
R^{\ell_0}(1+M),$$ for small $r$. Then, by the energy inequality for $w_\pm$ in $Q_{R/2}$, we have $$\frac{1}{R^{n+2}}\int_{Q_{R/4}} |\nabla u_r|^2\leq C
R^{-2}R^{2\ell_0}(1+M)^2+CR^2 R^{2(\ell_0-2)}M^2\leq C
R^{2\ell_0-2}(1+M)^2.$$ On the other hand, using that for $i=1,\ldots, n$, $$(w_i)_\pm=(\partial_{x_i}u_r)_\pm\quad\text{(evenly reflected to
$S_R^-$)}$$ satisfy $$\Delta (w_i)_\pm-\partial_t (w_i)_\pm\geq -L
R^{(\ell_0-3)_+}\quad\text{in }Q_R,$$ then from $L_\infty-L_2$ estimate for subcaloric functions, we obtain $$\sup_{Q_{R/8}} |\nabla u_r|\leq C_nR^{\max\{\ell_0-1,2\}}(1+M+L).$$ Thus, $u_r$, $|\nabla u_r|$ and $f_r$ are uniformly bounded in $Q_{R/8}^+$ for small $r<r_{R,u}$, and this completes the proof of the lemma.
The next lemma will allow to deduce the monotonicity of the solution $u$ in a cone of directions in the thin space, from that of the blowup. It is the parabolic counterpart of [@ACS]\*[Lemma 4]{} and [@CSS]\*[Lemma 7.2]{}.
\[lem:glob-local\] Let $\Lambda$ be a closed subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times(-\infty,0]$, and $h(x,t)$ a continuous function in $Q_{1}$. For any $\delta_0>0$ there exists ${\varepsilon}_0>0$, depending only on $\delta_0$ and $n$, such that if
1. $h\geq 0$ on $Q_1\cap\Lambda$,
2. $(\Delta-\partial_t)h\leq {\varepsilon}_0$ in $Q_1\setminus\Lambda$,
3. $h\geq-{\varepsilon}_0$ in $Q_1$,
4. $h\geq\delta_0$ in $Q_1\cap\{|x_n|\geq c_n\}$, $c_n=1/(32\sqrt{n-1})$,
then $h\geq 0$ on $Q_{1/2}$.
It is enough to show that $h\geq 0$ on $Q_{1/2}\cap\{|x_n|\leq
c_n\}$. Arguing by contradiction, let $(x_0,t_0)\in
Q_{1/2}\cap\{|x_n|\leq c_n\}$ be such that $h(x_0,t_0)<0$. Consider the auxiliary function $$w(x,t)=h(x,t)+\frac{\alpha_0}{2(n-1)}|x'-x_0'|^2+\alpha_0(t_0-t)-\left(\alpha_0+\frac{{\varepsilon}_0}2\right)x_n^2,$$ where $\alpha_0=\delta_0/2c_n^2$. It is immediate to check that $$w(x_0,t_0)<0,\quad(\Delta-\partial_t)w\leq 0\quad\text{in
}Q_{1}\setminus\Lambda.$$ Now, consider the function $w$ in the set $U=(Q_{3/4}\cap \{|x_n|\leq
c_n, t\leq t_0\})\setminus\Lambda$. By the maximum principle, we must have $$\inf_{\partial_p U} w< 0.$$ Analyzing the different parts of $\partial_p U$ we show that this inequality cannot hold:
1\) On $\Lambda\cap \partial_p U$ we have $w\geq 0$.
2\) On $\{|x_n|=c_n\}\cap\partial_p U$ we have $$w(x,t)\geq h(x,t)-2\alpha_0 x_n^2\geq\delta_0-2\alpha_0 c_n^2\geq 0,$$ if ${\varepsilon}_0\leq 2\alpha_0$.
3\) On $\{|x_n|<c_n\}\cap\partial_p U$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
w(x,t)&\geq-{\varepsilon}_0+\frac{\alpha_0}{2(n-1)}|x'-x_0'|^2-2\alpha_0
x_n^2\\
&\geq-{\varepsilon}_0+\alpha_0{\varepsilon}_n,\end{aligned}$$ with $${\varepsilon}_n=\frac{1}{128(n-1)}-2c_n^2=\frac{3}{512(n-1)}>0.$$ If we choose ${\varepsilon}_0<\alpha_0{\varepsilon}_n$, we conclude that $w\geq
0$ on this portion of $\partial_p U$.
4\) On $t=-9/16$ we have $$w(x,t)\geq-{\varepsilon}_0+\alpha_0\frac{5}{16}-2\alpha_0 c_n^2\geq
-{\varepsilon}_0+\alpha_0\left(\frac{5}{16}-2c_n^2\right)\geq0,$$ for ${\varepsilon}_0<\alpha_0/4$.
In conclusion, if ${\varepsilon}_0$ is sufficiently small, we see that we must have $\inf_{\partial_p U} w \ge 0$, thus arriving at a contradiction with the assumption that $h(x_0,t_0)<0$. This completes the proof.
Let $u=u_k$ and $f=f_k$ be as in Proposition \[prop:uk-def\]. From the assumption $\ell\geq 3$, we have that $|f|\leq M$ in $S_1^+$ and $|\nabla f|\leq L$ in $Q_{1/2}^+$. We also choose $\ell_0=2$. We thus conclude that $H_u(r)\geq r^{2\ell_0}$ for $0<r<r_u$. In view of Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\], the rescalings $u_{r_j}$ converge (over a sequence $r=r_j\to 0+$) to a homogeneous global solution $u_0$ of degree $3/2$. Furthermore, we note that Lemma \[lem:blowups-H1alpha-conv\] is also applicable here. In view of Proposition \[prop:homogen-glob-sol-1-2\], after a possible rotation in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$, we may assume that $$u_0(x,t)=C_n{\operatorname{Re}}(x_{n-1}+i x_n)^{3/2}.$$ It can be directly calculated that for any $e\in \partial B_1'$ $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{e} u_0(x,t)&=\frac32C_n(e\cdot e_{n-1}){\operatorname{Re}}(x_{n-1}+ix_n)^{1/2}\\
&=\frac3{2\sqrt2}C_n(e\cdot
e_{n-1})\sqrt{\sqrt{x_{n-1}^2+x_n^2}+x_{n-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if for any given $\eta>0$ we consider the thin cone around $e_{n-1}$ $${\mathcal{C}}_\eta':=\{x'=(x'',x_{n-1})\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\mid x_{n-1}\geq \eta |x''|\},$$ then it is immediate to conclude that for any $e\in{\mathcal{C}}_\eta'$, $|e|=1$, $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
&\partial_e u_0\geq 0, &\quad&\text{in } Q_1^+\\
&\partial_e u_0\geq \delta_{n,\eta}>0,&\quad&\text{in }
Q_1^+\cap\{x_n\geq c_n\},\end{aligned}$$ where $c_n=1/(32\sqrt{n-1})$ is the dimensional constant in Lemma \[lem:glob-local\]. We next observe that, by Lemma \[lem:blowups-H1alpha-conv\], for any given ${\varepsilon}>0$ we will have for all directions $e\in \partial B_1'$ $$|\partial_{e}u_{r_j}-\partial_e u_0|<{\varepsilon}\quad\text{on }Q_1^+,$$ provided $j$ is sufficiently large. Moreover, note that in view of Proposition \[prop:uk-def\] we can estimate $$\begin{aligned}
|(\Delta-\partial_t) \partial_e u_{r_j}|=\frac{C
r_j^\ell\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-3}}{H_u(r_j)^{1/2}}\leq C
r_j^{\ell-\ell_0}\to 0\quad\text{uniformly in }Q_1^+.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the function $h=\partial_{e}u_{r_j}$ (evenly reflected to $Q_1$) will satisfy the conditions of Lemma \[lem:glob-local\], and therefore we conclude that $$\partial_e u_{r_{j}}\geq 0\quad\text{in }Q_{1/2}^+,\quad\text{for any
}e\in {\mathcal{C}}_\eta',\ |e|=1,$$ for $j\geq j_\eta$. Scaling back, we obtain that $$\partial_e u\geq 0\quad\text{in }Q_{r_{\eta}}^+,\quad\text{for any
}e\in {\mathcal{C}}_\eta',\ |e|=1,$$ where $r_\eta=r_{j_\eta}/2$. Now a standard argument (see [@PSU]\*[Chapter 4, Exercise 4.1]{}) implies that $$\{u(x',0,t)>0\}\cap Q'_{r_\eta}=\{ (x',t)\in Q'_{r_\eta}\mid x_{n-1}>
g(x'',t)\},$$ where, for every fixed $t\in (-r_\eta^2, 0]$, $x''\mapsto g(x'',t)$ is a Lipschitz continuous function with $$|\nabla'' g|\leq \eta.$$ We are now left with showing that $g$ is $(1/2)$-Hölder continuous in $t$. In fact, we are going to show that $|g(x,t)-g(x,s)|=o(|t-s|^{1/2})$, uniformly in $Q''_{r_\eta/2}$.
Suppose, towards a contradiction, that for $x_j''\in B''_{r_\eta/2}$, $-r_\eta^2/4\leq s_j<t_j\leq 0$, $t_j-s_j\to 0$, we have for some $C>0$ $$\label{eq:awayfromzero}
|g(x_j'',t_j)-g(x_j'',s_j)|\geq C |t_j-s_j|^{1/2}.$$ Let $$x_j'=(x_j'',g(x_j'',t_j)),\quad y_j'=(x_j'',g(x_j'',s_j))$$ and $$\delta_j=\max\{|g(x_j'',t_j)-g(x_j'',s_j)|, |t_j-s_j|^{1/2}\}.$$ Let also $$\xi_j'=\frac{y_j'-x_j'}{\delta_j},\quad
\tau_j=\frac{s_j-t_j}{\delta_j^2}.$$ Note that $$\xi_j'=|\xi_j'|e_{n-1},\quad (\xi_j', \tau_j)\in \partial_p Q_1'.$$ Moreover, we claim that $\delta_j\to 0$. Indeed, we may assume that the sequences $x_j'$, $y_j'$, $t_j$, $\delta_j$ converge to some $x'$, $y'$, $t$, $\delta$ respectively. If $\delta>0$ then we obtain that $(x',t), (y',t)\in \Gamma(v)$. But $y'-x'=|y'-x'|e_{n-1}$, which cannot happen since $\Gamma(v)$ is given as a graph $\{x_{n-1}=g(x'',t)\}$ in $Q'_{r_\eta}$. Thus, $\delta_j\to 0$.
Consider now the rescalings of $u$ at $(x_j,t_j)$ by the factor of $\delta_j$: $$\label{eq:wj}
w_j(x,t)
=\frac{u(x_j+\delta_jx, t_j+\delta_j^2t)}{H_{u^{(x_j,t_j)}}(\delta_j)^{1/2}}.$$ We want to show that the sequence $w_j$ converges to a homogeneous global solution in $S_\infty$, of homogeneity $3/2$. For that purpose, we first assume that $r_\eta$ is so small that $$\Gamma(u)\cap Q'_{r_\eta}=\Gamma_{3/2}^{(2)}(u)\cap Q'_{r_\eta}.$$ This is possible by the upper semicontinuity of the mapping $(x,t)\mapsto \kappa^{(2)}_u(x,t)=\Phi_{u^{(x,t)}}^{(2)}(0+)$ on $\Gamma_*(u)$ as in Lemma \[lem:kappa-upp-semi\], the equality $\kappa^{(2)}_u(0,0)=\kappa_v^{(2)}(0,0)=3/2$, and Theorem \[thm:min-homogen\]. Moreover, arguing as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:kappa-upp-semi\], we may assume that $$\Phi_{u^{(x,t)}}^{(2)}(r)<7/4,\quad\text{if } r<r_0,\
(x,t)\in\Gamma(u)\cap Q'_{r_\eta}.$$ This assumption implies $$H_{u^{(x,t)}}(r)\geq r^4,\quad\text{if } r<r_0,\ (x,t)\in\Gamma(u)\cap
Q'_{r_\eta}.$$ Otherwise, we would have $\Phi_{u^{(x,t)}}^{(2)}(r)\geq 2$, a contradiction. As a consequence, the functions $${\varphi}_r(x,t)=\Phi_{u^{(x,t)}}^{(2)}(r),\quad (x,t)\in\Gamma(u)\cap
Q'_{r_\eta}$$ will have an explicit representation through $H_{u^{(x,t)}}(r)$ and its derivatives, and therefore will be continuous. We thus have a monotone family of continuous functions $\{{\varphi}_r\}$ on a compact set $K=\Gamma(u)\cap\overline{Q'_{r_\eta/2}}$ such that $${\varphi}_r\searrow 3/2\quad\text{on }K\quad\text{as }r\searrow 0.$$ By the theorem of Dini the convergence ${\varphi}_r\to 3/2$ is uniform on $K$. This implies that $${\varphi}_{r_j}(x_j,t_j)\to 3/2\quad\text{for any }(x_j,
t_j)\in\Gamma(u)\cap\overline{Q'_{r_\eta/2}},\ r_j\to 0.$$ For the functions $w_j$ defined in above this implies $$\Phi_{w_j}^{(2)}(r)\to 3/2\quad\text{as }j\to \infty,$$ for any $r>0$. Now, analyzing the proof of Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\], we realize that the same conclusions can be drawn about the sequence $w_j$ as for the sequence of rescalings $u_{r_j}$. In particular, over a subsequence, we have $w_j\to w_0$ in $L_{2,{\mathrm{loc}}}(S_\infty)$, where $w_0$ is a $3/2$-homogeneous global solution of the Signorini problem. By Proposition \[prop:homogen-glob-sol-1-2\] we conclude that for some direction $e_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$ it must be $$w_0(x,t)=C_n{\operatorname{Re}}(x'\cdot e_0+i x_n)^{3/2}.$$ Further, since $\partial_e u\geq 0$ for unit $e\in {\mathcal{C}}_\eta'$, we must have $$\partial_e w_0\geq 0,\quad\text{in }S_\infty^+,\quad e\in {\mathcal{C}}_\eta'.$$ Therefore, $$e_0\cdot e\geq 0\quad\text{for any } e\in{\mathcal{C}}_\eta' \Rightarrow e_0\cdot
e_{n-1}>0.$$ Further, note that since $u\in{\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ with $|f|\leq M$ in $S_1^+$, and $|\nabla f|\leq L$ in $Q_{1/2}^+$, we can repeat the arguments in the proof of Lemma \[lem:blowups-H1alpha-conv\] (with $\ell_0=2$) to obtain for any $R>0$ $$\label{eq:wjw0Ha}
w_j\to w_0,\quad \nabla w_j\to \nabla w_0\quad\text{in }H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(Q_R^+\cup Q'_R).$$ Going back to the construction of the functions $w_j$, note that $(\xi_j',\tau_j)\in \Gamma(w_j)$, in addition to $(\xi_j',\tau_j)\in\partial_p Q_1'$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $(\xi_j',\tau_j)\to(\xi_0',\tau_0)\in \partial_p
Q_1'$. But then the convergence implies that $w_0(\xi_0',\tau_0)=0$ and $\nabla w_0(\xi_0',\tau_0)=0$. From the explicit formula for $w_0$ it follows that $$(\xi_0',\tau_0)\in \{(x',t)\in S_\infty'\mid x'\cdot e_0=0\},$$ or equivalently, $\xi_0'\cdot e_0=|\xi_0'|e_{n-1}\cdot e_0=0$. Since $e_{n-1}\cdot e_0>0$, we must have $\xi_0'=0$. Thus, we have proved that $$|\xi_j'|=\frac{|g(x_j'',s_j)-g(x_j'',t_j)|}{\max\{|g(x_j'',s_j)-g(x_j'',t_j)|,
|t_j-s_j|^{1/2}\}}\to 0,$$ which is equivalent to $$\frac{|g(x_j'',s_j)-g(x_j'',t_j)|}{|t_j-s_j|^{1/2}}\to 0,$$ contrary to our assumption .
We next show that, following an idea in [@AC0], the regularity of the function $g$ can be improved with an application of a boundary Harnack principle.
\[thm:h1alpha-reg-set\]
In the conclusion of Theorem \[thm:lip-reg-reg-set\], one can take $\delta>0$ so that $\nabla''g\in
H^{\alpha,\frac{\alpha}2}(Q_\delta'')$ for some $\alpha>0$.
To prove this theorem we first show the following nondegeneracy property of $\partial_e u$.
\[prop:nondeg-deu\] Let $v\in{\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_1^+)$ and $u=u_k$ be as Theorem \[thm:lip-reg-reg-set\]. Then, for any $\eta>0$ there exist $\delta>0$ and $c>0$ such that $$\partial_e u\geq c\, d(x,t)\quad \text{in }Q_\delta^+,\quad\text{for
any } e\in {\mathcal{C}}_\eta',\ |e|=1,$$ where $$d(x,t)=\sup\{r\mid \tilde Q_r(x,t)\cap Q_\delta \subset
Q_\delta\setminus \Lambda(v)\}$$ is the parabolic distance from the point $(x,t)$ to the coincidence set $\Lambda(v)\cap Q_\delta'$.
The proof is based on the following improvement on Lemma \[lem:glob-local\], which is the parabolic counterpart of [@CSS]\*[Lemma 7.3]{}.
\[lem:h-nondeg\] For any $\delta_0>0$ there exist ${\varepsilon}_0>0$ and $c_0>0$, depending only on $\delta_0$ and $n$, such that if $h$ is a continuous function on $Q_1\cap\{0\leq x_n\leq c_n\}$, $c_n=1/(32\sqrt{n-1})$, satisfying
1. $(\Delta -\partial_t)h\leq {\varepsilon}_0$ in $Q_{1}\cap\{0<x_n<c_n\}$,
2. $h\geq 0$ in $Q_{1}\cap\{0<x_n<c_n\}$,
3. $h\geq \delta_0$, on $Q_1\cap\{x_n=c_n\}$,
then $$h(x,t)\geq c_0 x_n\quad\text{in }Q_{1/2}\cap\{0<x_n<c_n\}.$$
The proof is very similar to that of Lemma \[lem:glob-local\]. Let $(x_0,t_0)\in
Q_{1/2}\cap\{0<x_n<c_n\}$, and consider the auxiliary function $$w(x,t)=h(x,t)+\frac{\alpha_0}{2(n-1)}|x'-x_0'|^2+\alpha_0(t_0-t)-\left(\alpha_0+\frac{{\varepsilon}_0}2\right)x_n^2-c_0x_n,$$ with $\alpha_0=\delta_0/2c_n^2$.
As before, we have $(\Delta-\partial_t)w\leq 0$ in $Q_{1}\cap\{0<x_n<c_n\}$. We now claim that $w\geq 0$ on $U^+=Q_{3/4}\cap\{0<x_n<c_n, t<t_0\}$. This will follow once we verify that $w\geq 0$ on $\partial_p U^+$.
We consider several cases:
1\) On $\{x_n=0\}\cap \partial_p U^+$, we clearly have $w\geq 0$.
2\) On $\{x_n=c_n\}\cap \partial_p U^+$, one has $$w\geq \delta_0-\frac32\alpha_0 c_n^2-c_0 c_n= \frac12\alpha_0
c_n^2-c_0 c_n\geq 0,$$ provided ${\varepsilon}_0\leq \alpha_0$ and $c_0\leq c_n\alpha_0/2$.
3\) On $\{0<x_n<c_n\}\cap \partial_p U^+$ we have $$w\geq \frac{\alpha_0}{128(n-1)}-2\alpha_0c_n^2-c_0c_n\geq
\frac{3\alpha_0}{512(n-1)}-c_0c_n\geq 0,$$ provided $c_0<3\alpha_0/(512(n-1)c_n)$.
4\) On $\{t=-9/16\}\cap \partial_p U^+$ we have $$w\geq \frac{5\alpha_0}{16}-2\alpha_0c_n^2-c_0c_n\geq
\frac{\alpha_0}{4}-c_0c_n\geq 0,$$ provided $c_0< \alpha_0/(4 c_n)$.
In conclusion, for small enough ${\varepsilon}_0$ and $c_0$, we have $w\geq
0$ in $U$, and in particular $w(x_0,t_0)\geq 0$. This implies that $h(x_0,t_0)> c_0 (x_0)_n$, as claimed.
Considering the rescalings $u_r$ as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:lip-reg-reg-set\], and applying Lemma \[lem:h-nondeg\], we obtain $$\partial_e u_{r}\geq c_\eta |x_n|\quad\text{in }Q_{1/2},\quad e\in
{\mathcal{C}}'_\eta,$$ for $0<r=r_\eta$ small. (Here, we assume that $u$ has been extended by even symmetry in $x_n$ variable to $Q_1$.) Besides, by choosing $r$ small, we can also make $$|(\Delta-\partial_t)\partial_e u_r|\leq Cr^{\ell-\ell_0}\leq
c_\eta{\varepsilon}_n\quad\text{in }Q_{1/2}\setminus\Lambda(u_r),$$ for a dimensional constant ${\varepsilon}_n>0$ to be specified below. Let now $(x,t)\in Q_{1/4}^+$ and $d=d_{r}(x,t)$ be the parabolic distance from $(x,t)$ to $\Lambda(u_{r})\cap Q_1'$. Consider the lowest rightmost point on the boundary $\partial \tilde Q_d(x,t)$ $$(x_*,t_*)=(x+e_n d, t-d^2).$$ We have $$\partial_e u_{r}(x_*,t_*)\geq c_0 d.$$ By the parabolic Harnack inequality (see, e.g., [@Lie]\*[Theorems 6.17–6.18]{}) $$\partial_e u_{r}(x,t)\geq c_n c_0 d- C_nc_0{\varepsilon}_n d^2\geq c\,d,$$ if we take ${\varepsilon}_n$ sufficiently small. Scaling back to $u$, we complete the proof of the proposition.
A key ingredient in the proof of Theorem \[thm:h1alpha-reg-set\] is the following version of the parabolic boundary Harnack principle for domains with thin Lipschitz complements established in [@Shi]\*[Section 7]{}. To state the result, we will need the following notations. For a given $L\geq 1$ and $r>0$ denote $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta''_r&=\{(x'',t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-2}\times{\mathbb{R}}\mid |x_i|<r,
i=1,\ldots,n-2, -r^2<t\leq 0\},\\
\Theta'_r&=\{(x',t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}}\mid (x'',t)\in\Theta''_r, |x_{n-1}|<4nLr\},\\
\Theta_r&=\{(x,t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\mid (x'',t)\in\Theta'_r,
|x_{n}|<r\}.\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:BHP\] Let $$\Lambda=\{(x',t)\in \Theta_1'\mid x_{n-1}\leq g(x'',t)\}$$ for a parabolically Lipschitz function $g$ in $\Theta_1''$ with Lipschitz constant $L\geq 1$ such that $g(0,0)=0$. Let $u_1$, $u_2$ be two continuous nonnegative functions in $\Theta_1$ such that for some positive constants $c_0$, $C_0$, $M$, and $i=1,2$,
1. $0\leq u_i\leq M$ in $\Theta_{1}$ and $u_i=0$ on $\Lambda$,
2. $|(\Delta-\partial_t) u_i|\leq C_0$ in $\Theta_1\setminus
\Lambda$,
3. $u_i(x,t)\geq c_0\,d(x,t)$ in $\Theta_1\setminus\Lambda$, where $d(x,t)=\sup\{r\mid \tilde \Theta_r(x,t)\cap \Lambda=\emptyset\}$.
Assume additionally that $u_1$ and $u_2$ are symmetric in $x_n$. Then, there exists $\alpha\in (0,1)$ such that $$\frac{u_1}{u_2}\in H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(\Theta_{1/2}).$$ Furthermore, $\alpha$ and the bound on the corresponding norm $\|u_1/u_2\|_{H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(\Theta_{1/2})}$ depend only on $n$, $L$, $c_0$, $C_0$, and $M$.
We note that, unlike the elliptic case, Lemma \[lem:BHP\] above cannot be reduced to the other known results in the parabolic setting (see, e.g., [@Kem], [@FGS] for parabolically Lipschitz domains, or [@HLN] for parabolically NTA domains with Reifenberg flat boundary). We also note that this version of the boundary Harnack is for functions with nonzero right-hand side and therefore the nondegeneracy condition as in iii) is necessary. The elliptic version of this result has been established in [@CSS].
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[thm:h1alpha-reg-set\].
Fix $\eta>0$ and let $\theta=\theta_\eta$ be such that $e=(\cos\theta)e_{n-1}+(\sin\theta)e_j\in {\mathcal{C}}'_\eta$ for $j=1,\ldots,n-2$. Consider two functions $$u_1=\partial_{e}u\quad\text{and}\quad u_2=\partial_{e_{n-1}}u.$$ Then, by Proposition \[prop:nondeg-deu\], the conditions of Lemma \[lem:BHP\] are satisfied for some rescalings of $u_1$ and $u_2$. Hence, applying Lemma \[lem:BHP\] and scaling back, we obtain that for a small $\delta>0$, and $\alpha\in (0,1)$, $$\frac{\partial_e u}{\partial_{e_{n-1}}u}\in
H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(\Theta_{\delta}).$$ This gives $$\frac{\partial_{e_j} u}{\partial_{e_{n-1}}u}\in
H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(\Theta_{\delta}),\quad j=1,\ldots, n-2.$$ Hence, the level surfaces $\{u={\varepsilon}\}\cap \Theta'_{\delta}$ are given as graphs $$x_{n-1}=g_{\varepsilon}(x'',t),\quad x''\in \Theta_{\delta}'',$$ with uniform in ${\varepsilon}$ estimates on $\langle\nabla''g_{\varepsilon}\rangle^{(\alpha)}_{\Theta_{\delta}''}$ for small ${\varepsilon}>0$. Consequently, we obtain $$\nabla'' g\in H^{\alpha,\alpha/2}(\Theta_{\delta}''),$$ and this completes the proof of the theorem.
Free boundary: Singular set {#sec:free-bound-sing}
===========================
We now turn to the study of a special class of free boundary points, called *singular points*, that are characterized by the property that the coincidence set has a zero density at those points with respect to the $\mathcal{H}^{n}$ measure in the thin space. In the time-independent Signorini problem the analysis of the singular set was carried in the paper [@GP].
\[def:parab-sing-points\] Let $v\in {\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_1^+)$ with ${\varphi}\in H^{\ell,\ell/2}(Q_1')$, $\ell\geq 2$. We say that $(x_0,t_0)\in \Gamma_*(v)$ is *singular* if $$\lim_{r\to 0+}\frac{\mathcal{H}^{n}(\Lambda(v)\cap
Q_r'(x_0,t_0))}{\mathcal{H}^n(Q_r')}=0.$$ We will denote the set of singular points by $\Sigma(u)$ and call it the *singular set*. We can further classify singular points according to the homogeneity of their blowup, by defining $$\Sigma_\kappa(v):=\Sigma(v)\cap \Gamma_\kappa^{(\ell)}(v),\quad
\kappa\leq\ell.$$
Since we are going to work with the blowups, we will write $\ell=k+\gamma$, for $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $0<\gamma\leq 1$, and construct the functions $u_k\in {\mathfrak{S}}^{f_k}(S_1^+)$ as in Proposition \[prop:uk-def\]. By abusing the notation, we will write $0\in \Sigma_\kappa(u_k)$ whenever $0\in \Sigma_\kappa(v)$. Also, for technical reasons, similarly to what we did in the study of the regular set, we will assume that $\ell\geq 3$ for most of the results in this section.
The following proposition gives a complete characterization of the singular points in terms of the blowups and the generalized frequency. In particular, it establishes that $$\Sigma_\kappa(v)=\Gamma_\kappa(v)\quad\text{for }\kappa=2m<\ell,\
m\in{\mathbb{N}}.$$
\[prop:char-sing-point\] Let $u\in{\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ with $|f(x,t)|\leq M \|(x,t)\|^{\ell-2}$ in $S_1^+$, $|\nabla f(x,t)|\leq L\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-3}$ in $Q_{1/2}^+$, $\ell\geq 3$ and $0\in \Gamma^{(\ell)}_\kappa(u)$ with $\kappa<\ell$. Then, the following statements are equivalent:
1. $0\in \Sigma_\kappa(u)$.
2. any blowup of $u$ at the origin is a nonzero parabolically $\kappa$-homogeneous polynomial $p_\kappa$ in $S_\infty$ satisfying $$\Delta p_\kappa-\partial_t p_\kappa=0,\quad p_\kappa(x',0,t)\geq
0,\quad p_\kappa(x',-x_n, t)=p_\kappa(x',x_n,t).$$ We denote this class by ${\mathfrak{P}}_\kappa$.
3. $\kappa=2m$, $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
\(i) $\Rightarrow$ (ii) Recall that the rescalings $u_r$ satisfy $$\Delta u_r-\partial_t u_r=f_r+2(\partial_{x_n}^+ u_r)
\mathcal{H}^{n}\big|_{\Lambda(u_r)}\quad\text{in }S_{1/r},$$ in the sense of distributions, after an even reflection in $x_n$ variable. Since $u_r$ are uniformly bounded in $W^{2,1}_2(Q_{2R}^+)$ for small $r$ by Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\], $\partial_{x_n}^+ u_r$ are uniformly bounded in $L_2(Q_R')$. On the other hand, if $0\in \Sigma(u)$, then $$\frac{\mathcal{H}^n(\Lambda(u_r)\cap
Q_R')}{R^n}=\frac{\mathcal{H}^n(\Lambda(u)\cap Q_{Rr})}{(Rr)^n}\to
0\quad\text{as }r\to 0,$$ and therefore $$(\partial_{x_n}^+ u_r) \mathcal{H}^{n}\big|_{\Lambda(u_r)}\to
0\quad\text{in }Q_R.$$ in the sense of distributions. Further, the bound $|f(x,t)|\leq M
\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-2}$ implies that $$\begin{aligned}
|f_r(x,t)|&=\frac{r^2|f(rx,r^2t)|}{H_u(r)^{1/2}}\leq \frac{M
r^{\ell}}{H_u(r)^{1/2}}\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-2}\\
&\leq C r^{\ell-\ell_0} R^{\ell-2}\to 0\quad\text{in }Q_R,\end{aligned}$$ where $\ell_0\in (\kappa,\ell)$ and we have used the fact that $H_u(r)\geq r^{2\ell_0}$ for $0<r<r_u$. Hence, any blowup $u_0$ is caloric in $Q_R$ for any $R>0$, meaning that it is caloric in the entire $S_\infty={\mathbb{R}}^n\times(-\infty,0]$. On the other hand, by Proposition \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\](iv), the blowup $u_0$ is homogeneous in $S_\infty$ and therefore has a polynomial growth at infinity. Then by the Liouville theorem we can conclude that $u_0$ must be a homogeneous caloric polynomial $p_\kappa$ of a certain integer degree $\kappa$. Note that $p_\kappa=u_0\not\equiv 0$ by construction. The properties of $u$ also imply that that $p_\kappa(x',0,t)\geq 0$ for all $(x',t)\in S_\infty'$ and and $p_\kappa(x',-x_n,t)=p_\kappa(x',x_n,t)$ for all $(x',x_n,t)\in
S_\infty$.
\(ii) $\Rightarrow$ (iii) Let $p_\kappa$ be a blowup of $u$ at the origin. Since $p_\kappa$ is a polynomial, clearly $\kappa\in{\mathbb{N}}$. If $\kappa$ is odd, the nonnegativity of $p_\kappa$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times\{0\}\times\{-1\}$ implies that $p_\kappa$ vanishes there identically, implying that $p_\kappa\equiv 0$ on $S_\infty'$. On the other hand, from the even symmetry in $x_n$ we also have that $\partial_{x_n} p_\kappa\equiv 0$ on $S_\infty'$. Since $p_\kappa$ is caloric in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $S_\infty'$ is not characteristic for the heat operator, Holmgren’s uniqueness theorem implies that $p_\kappa\equiv
0$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, contrary to the assumption. Thus, $\kappa\in\{2m\mid
m\in{\mathbb{N}}\}$.
\(iii) $\Rightarrow$ (ii) The proof of this implication is stated as a separate Liouville-type result in Lemma \[lem:2m-homogen\] below.
\(ii) $\Rightarrow$ (i) Suppose that $0$ is not a singular point and that over some sequence $r=r_j\to 0+$ we have $\mathcal{H}^{n}(\Lambda (u_r)\cap Q_1')\geq \delta>0$. By Lemma \[lem:blowups-H1alpha-conv\], taking a subsequence if necessary, we may assume that $u_{r_j}$ converges locally uniformly to a blowup $u_0$. We claim that $$\mathcal{H}^{n}(\Lambda (u_0)\cap Q_1')\geq \delta>0.$$ Indeed, otherwise there exists an open set $U$ in $S_\infty'$ with $\mathcal{H}^{n}(U)<\delta$ such that $\Lambda (u_0)\cap
\overline{Q_1'} \subset U$. Then for large $j$ we must have $\Lambda
(u_{r_j})\cap \overline{Q_1'} \subset U$, which is a contradiction, since $\mathcal{H}^{n}(\Lambda (u_{r_j})\cap \overline{Q_1'})\geq
\delta > \mathcal{H}^{n}(U)$. Since $u_0=p_\kappa$ is a polynomial, vanishing on a set of positive $\mathcal{H}^{n}$-measure on $S_\infty'$, it follows that $u_0$ vanishes identically on $S_\infty'$. But then, applying Holmgren’s uniqueness theorem one more time, we conclude that $u_0$ must vanish on $S_\infty$, which is a contradiction. This completes the proof of the theorem.
The implication (iii) $\Rightarrow$ (ii) in Proposition \[prop:char-sing-point\] is equivalent to the following Liouville-type result, which is the parabolic counterpart of Lemma 1.3.3 in [@GP].
\[lem:2m-homogen\] Let $v$ be a parabolically $\kappa$-homogeneous solution of the parabolic Signorini problem in $S_\infty$ with $\kappa=2m$ for $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Then $v$ is a caloric polynomial.
This, in turn, is a particular case of the following lemma, analogous to Lemma 1.3.4 in [@GP] in the elliptic case, which stems from Lemma 7.6 in [@Mon2].
\[lem:Monn-homogen-harm\] Let $v\in
W^{1,1}_{2,{\mathrm{loc}}}(S_\infty)$ be such that $\Delta v-\partial_t v\leq
0$ in $S_\infty$ and $\Delta v-\partial_t v=0$ in $S_\infty\setminus
S'_\infty$. If $v$ is parabolically $2m$-homogeneous, $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, and has a polynomial growth at infinity, then $\Delta v-\partial_t v=0$ in $S_\infty$.
Consider $\mu:=\Delta v-\partial_tv$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n\times(-\infty,0)$. By the assumptions, $\mu$ is a nonpositive measure, supported on $\{x_n=0\}\times(-\infty,0)$. We are going to show that in fact $\mu=0$. To this end, let $P(x,t)$ be a parabolically $2m$-homogeneous caloric polynomial, which is positive on $\{x_n=0\}\times(-\infty,0)$. For instance, one can take $$P(x,t)=\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}{\operatorname{Re}}(x_j+i
x_n)^{2m}+(-1)^m\sum_{k=0}^m\frac{m!}{(m-k)!(2k)!} x_n^{2k}t^{m-k}.$$ It is straightforward to check that $P$ is caloric. Moreover on $\{x_n=0\}\times(-\infty,0)$ we have $$P=\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} x_j^{2m}+(-t)^m,$$ so it is positive on $\{x_n=0\}\times(-\infty,0)$. Further, let $\eta\in C^\infty_0((0,\infty))$, with $\eta\geq 0$, and define $$\Psi(x,t)=\eta(t) G(x,t)=\frac{\eta(t)}{(-4\pi t)^{n/2}}e^{|x|^2/4t}.$$ Note that we have the following identity (similar to that of $
G(x,t)$) $$\nabla\Psi=\frac{x}{2t}\Psi.$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\Delta v,\Psi P\rangle &=-\int_{-\infty}^0\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\nabla v\cdot\nabla(\Psi P)\,dx\,dt\\
&=-\int_{-\infty}^0\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} [\Psi\nabla v\cdot\nabla P+P\nabla v\cdot\nabla\Psi]\,dx\,dt\\
&=\int_{-\infty}^0\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}[\Psi v\Delta P+v\nabla\Psi\cdot\nabla P-P\nabla v\cdot\nabla\Psi]\,dx\,dt\\
&=\int_{-\infty}^0\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left[v\Delta P+\frac{1}{2t}
v(x\cdot\nabla P)-\frac{1}{2t}P(x\cdot\nabla
v)\right]\Psi\,dx\,dt.\end{aligned}$$ We now use the identities $\Delta P-\partial_t P=0$, $x\cdot\nabla
P+2t\partial_t P=2m P$, $x\cdot\nabla v+2t\partial_t v=2m v$ to arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\Delta v,\Psi P\rangle
&=\int_{-\infty}^0\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left[2m P v-P(x\cdot\nabla v)\right]\frac{\Psi}{2t}\,dx\,dt\\
&=\int_{-\infty}^0\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\partial_t v\Psi P\,dx\,dt\\
&=\langle\partial_t v,\Psi P\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $\langle\mu,\Psi P\rangle=\langle\Delta v-\partial_t v,\Psi
P\rangle=0$. Since $\mu$ is a nonpositive measure, this implies that actually $\mu=0$ and the proof is complete.
\[def:Pk\] Throughout the rest of the paper we denote by ${\mathfrak{P}}_\kappa$, $\kappa=2m$, $m\in {\mathbb{N}}$, the class of $\kappa$-homogeneous harmonic polynomials described in Proposition \[prop:char-sing-point\](ii).
In the rest of this section we state our main results concerning the singular set: $\kappa$-differentiability at singular points (Theorem \[thm:k-diff-sing-p\]) and a structural theorem on the singular set (Theorem \[thm:sing-points-nonzero\]). The proofs will require additional technical tools (two families of monotonicity formulas) that we develop in the next section. The proofs themselves will be given in Section \[sec:struct-sing-set\].
\[thm:k-diff-sing-p\] Let $u\in{\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ with $|f(x,t)|\leq M\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-2}$ in $S_1^+$, $|\nabla f(x,t)|\leq L\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-3}$ in $Q_{1/2}^+$, $\ell\geq 3$, and $0\in\Sigma_\kappa(u)$ for $\kappa=2m<\ell$, $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Then, there exists a nonzero $p_\kappa\in{\mathfrak{P}}_\kappa$ such that $$u(x,t)=p_\kappa(x,t)+o(\|(x,t)\|^{\kappa}),\quad t\leq 0.$$ Moreover, if $v\in{\mathfrak{S}}^{\varphi}(Q_1^+)$ with ${\varphi}\in
H^{\ell,\ell/2}(Q_1')$, $(x_0,t_0)\in\Sigma_\kappa(v)$ and $u^{(x_0,t_0)}_k$ is obtained as in Proposition \[prop:uk-def\] for $v^{(x_0,t_0)}=v(x_0+\cdot, t_0+\cdot)$, then in the Taylor expansion $$u^{(x_0,t_0)}_k(x,t)=p_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}(x,t)+o(\|(x,t)\|^{\kappa}),\quad
t\leq 0,$$ the mapping $(x_0,t_0)\mapsto p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa$ from $\Sigma_\kappa(v)$ to ${\mathfrak{P}}_\kappa$ is continuous.
\[rem:Pk-norm\]Note that since ${\mathfrak{P}}_\kappa$ is a convex subset of a finite-dimensional vector space, namely the space of all $\kappa$-homogeneous polynomials, its topology can be induced from any norm on that space. For instance, the topology can be induced from the embedding of ${\mathfrak{P}}_\kappa$ into $L_2(S_1^+, G)$, or even into $L_2(Q_1')$, since the elements of ${\mathfrak{P}}_\kappa$ can be uniquely recovered from their restriction to the thin space.
\[rem:taylor-cntrex\] We want to emphasize here that the asymptotic development, as stated in Theorem \[thm:k-diff-sing-p\], does not generally hold for $t>0$. Indeed, consider the following example. Let $u:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a continuous function such that
- $u(x,t)=-t-x_n^2/2$ for $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $t\leq 0$.
- In $\{x_n\geq0,t\geq0\}$, $u$ solves the Dirichlet problem $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\Delta u-\partial_tu&=0,&\quad& x_n>0,t>0,\\
u(x,0)&=-x_n^2, && x_n\geq 0,\\
u(x',0,t)&=0 && t\geq 0.
\end{aligned}$$
- In $\{x_n\leq0,t\geq0\}$, we extend the function by even symmetry in $x_n$: $$u(x',x_n,t)=u(x',-x_n,t).$$
It is easy to see that $u$ solves the parabolic Signorini problem with zero obstacle and zero right-hand side in all of ${\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}$. Moreover, $u$ is homogeneous of degree two and clearly $0\in\Sigma_2(u)$. Now, if $p(x,t)=-t-x_n^2/2$, then $p\in{\mathfrak{P}}_2$ and we have the following equalities: $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
&u(x,t)=p(x,t),&\quad&\text{for }t\leq 0,\\
&u(x',0,t)=0,\quad p(x',0,t)=-t &\quad&\text{for } t\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ So for $t\geq 0$ the difference $u(x,t)-p(x,t)$ is not $o(\|(x,t)\|^2)$, despite being zero for $t\leq 0$.
We next want to state a structural theorem for the singular set, similar to the ones in [@Ca] for the classical obstacle problem and [@GP] for the thin obstacle problem. In order to do so, we define the spatial dimension $d=d_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}$ of $\Sigma_\kappa(v)$ at a given point $(x_0,t_0)$ based on the polynomial $p_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}$.
\[def:dim-sing-point\] For a singular point $(x_0,t_0)\in\Sigma_\kappa(v)$ we define $$\begin{gathered}
d_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}=\dim\{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\mid \xi\cdot
\nabla_{x'}\partial_{x'}^{\alpha'}\partial_t^jp_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}=0\\
\text{for any $\alpha'=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1})$ and $j\geq
0$ such that } |\alpha'|+2j=\kappa-1\},
\end{gathered}$$ which we call the *spatial dimension* of $\Sigma_\kappa(v)$ at $(x_0,t_0)$. Clearly, $d_{\kappa}^{(x_0,t_0)}$ is an integer between $0$ and $n-1$. Then, for any $d=0,1,\ldots,n-1$ define $$\Sigma_\kappa^d(v):=\{(x_0,t_0)\in\Sigma_\kappa(v) \mid
d^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa=d\}.$$
The case $d=n-1$ deserves a special attention.
\[lem:timelike-blowup\] Let $(x_0,t_0)\in
\Sigma^{n-1}_\kappa(v)$, $\kappa=2m<\ell$. Then $$p_{\kappa}^{(x_0,t_0)}(x,t)=C(-1)^m\sum_{k=0}^m
\frac{t^{m-k}}{(m-k)!}\frac{x_n^{2k}}{2k!},$$ for some positive constant $C$. In other words, $p_{\kappa}^{(x_0,t_0)}$ depends only on $x_n$ and $t$ and is unique up to a multiplicative factor. We call such singular points *time-like*.
The condition $d_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}=n-1$ is equivalent to the following property of $p_\kappa=p_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}$: $$\nabla_{x'}\partial_{x'}^{\alpha'}\partial_t^j p_\kappa=0,$$ for any multi-index $\alpha'=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1})$ and $j$ such that $|\alpha'|+2j=\kappa-1$. It is easy to see that this is equivalent to vanishing of $\partial_{x_i}p_\kappa$ on $S_\infty'$ for $i=1,\ldots,n-1$. On the other hand, $\partial_{x_i}p_\kappa$ is caloric in $S_\infty$ and is also even symmetric in $x_n$ variable, implying that $\partial_{x_n}\partial_{x_i}p_\kappa=0$ on $S_\infty'$. Then, by Holmgren’s uniqueness theorem $\partial_{x_i}p_\kappa$ is identically $0$ in $S_\infty$, implying that $p_\kappa(x,t)$ depends only on $x_n$ and $t$. The homogeneity of $p_\kappa$ implies that we can write it in the form $$p_\kappa(x,t)=\sum_{k=0}^{m}
a_k\frac{t^{m-k}}{(m-k)!}\frac{x_n^{2k}}{(2k)!}.$$ The rest of the proof is then elementary.
We say that a $(d+1)$-dimensional manifold $\mathcal{S}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}}$, $d=0,\ldots, n-2$, is *space-like* of class $C^{1,0}$, if locally, after a rotation of coordinate axes in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$ one can represent it as a graph $$(x_{d+1},\ldots,x_{n-1})=g(x_1,\ldots,x_d,t),$$ where $g$ is of class $C^{1,0}$, i.e., $g$ and $\partial_{x_i}g$, $i=1,\ldots,d$ are continuous.
We say that $(n-1)$-dimensional manifold $\mathcal{S}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}}$ is *time-like* of class $C^1$ if it can be represented locally as $$t=g(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1}),$$ where $g$ is of class $C^1$.
(150,150) (0,0)[![Structure of the singular set $\Sigma(v)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2\times
(-\infty,0]$ for the solution $v$ with $v(x_1,x_2,0,t)=-t(t+x_1^2)^4$, $t\leq 0$ with zero thin obstacle. Note that the points on $\Sigma_4^1$ and $\Sigma_{10}^1$ are space-like, and the points on $\Sigma_2^2$ are time-like.[]{data-label="fig:sing-set-ex"}](Sigma "fig:"){height="150pt"}]{} (120,90)[$\Sigma_2^2$]{} (60,110)[ $\Sigma_2^2$]{} (72,40)[$\Sigma_{10}^1$]{} (75,50)[(0,2)[30]{}]{} (125,30)[$\Sigma_4^1$]{} (25,50)[$\Sigma_4^1$]{} (162,40)[$t=-x_1^2$]{} (180,105)[$t=0$]{}
\[thm:sing-points-nonzero\] Let $v\in{\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_1^+)$ with ${\varphi}\in H^{\ell,\ell/2}(Q_1')$, $\ell\geq
3$. Then, for any $\kappa=2m<\ell$, $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we have $\Gamma_\kappa(v)=\Sigma_\kappa(v)$. Moreover, for every $d=0,1,\ldots, n-2$, the set $\Sigma_\kappa^d(v)$ is contained in a countable union of $(d+1)$-dimensional space-like $C^{1,0}$ manifolds and $\Sigma_{\kappa}^{n-1}(v)$ is contained in a countable union of $(n-1)$-dimensional time-like $C^1$ manifolds.
For a small illustration, see Fig. \[fig:sing-set-ex\].
Weiss and Monneau type monotonicity formulas {#sec:weiss-monneau-type}
============================================
In this section we construct two families of monotonicity formulas that will play a crucial role in the study of the singular set. They generalize the corresponding formulas in [@GP] in the study of the elliptic thin obstacle problem.
The first family of monotonicity formulas goes back to the work of Weiss [@Wei1] in the elliptic case and [@Wei2] in the parabolic case; see also [@CPS].
\[thm:Weiss\] Let $u\in{\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ with $|f(x,t)|\leq M\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-2}$ in $S_1^+$, $\ell\geq 2$. For any $\kappa\in(0,\ell)$, define the Weiss energy functional $$\begin{aligned}
W_u^\kappa(r) :=&
\frac{1}{r^{2\kappa+2}}\int_{S_r^+}\Big(|t||\nabla
u|^2-\frac\kappa2 u^2\Big) G\\
=&\frac{1}{r^{2\kappa}}\Big(I_u(r)-\frac{\kappa}{2}H_u(r)\Big),\quad0<r<1.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, for any $\sigma<\ell-\kappa$ there exists $C>0$ depending only on $\sigma$, $\ell$, $M$, and $n$, such that $$\frac{d}{dr}W_u^\kappa\geq-C r^{2\sigma-1},\quad\text{for a.e.\
}r\in (0,1).$$ In particular, the function $$r\mapsto W_u^\kappa(r)+C{r^{2\sigma}}$$ is monotonically nondecreasing for $r\in(0,1)$.
The proof is by direct computation using Proposition \[prop:diff-form-signor\]. We have $$\begin{aligned}
r^{2\kappa+1}\frac{d}{dr}W_u^\kappa(r) &= r I'_u(r)-2\kappa I_u(r)-\frac{\kappa}{2}r H'_u(r)+\kappa^2 H_u(r)\\
&\geq r\Big(\frac{1}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+}(Zu)^2 G\,dx\,dt+\frac{2}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+} t (Zu) f G\,dx\,dt\Big)-2\kappa I_u(r)\\
&\qquad-\frac{\kappa}{2} r\Big(\frac{4}{r} I_u(r)-\frac{4}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+} t u f G\,dx\,dt\Big)+\kappa^2 H_u(r)\\
&=\frac{1}{r^2}\int_{S_r^+}(Zu)^2
G\,dx\,dt+\frac{2}{r^2}\int_{S_r^+} t
(Zu) f G\,dx\,dt\\
&\qquad+\frac{2\kappa}{r^2}\int_{S_r^+} t u f G\,dx\,dt-4\kappa I_u(r)+\kappa^2 H_u(r)\\
&=\frac{1}{r^2}\int_{S_r^+}(Zu)^2 G\,dx\,dt+\frac{2}{r^2}\int_{S_r^+} t (Zu) f G\,dx\,dt+\frac{2\kappa}{r^2}\int_{S_r^+} t u f G\,dx\,dt\\
&\qquad-4\kappa\Big(\frac{1}{2r^2}\int_{S_r^+}u(Zu) G\,dx\,dt+\frac{1}{r^2}\int_{S_r^+} tuf G\,dx\,dt\Big)+\kappa^2\frac{1}{r^2}\int_{S_r^+}u^2\,dx\,dt\\
&=\frac{1}{r^2}\int_{S_r^+}(Zu+tf-\kappa u)^2
G\,dx\,dt-\frac{1}{r^2}\int_{S_r^+} t^2 f^2 G\,dx\,dt.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, using the integral estimate on $f$ as at the beginning of Section \[sec:class-free-bound\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dr}W_u^\kappa(r) &\geq-\frac1{r^{2\kappa+3}}\int_{S_r^+} t^2 f^2 G\,dx\,dt\\
&\geq-C\frac{r^{2\ell+2}}{r^{2\kappa+3}}\\
&\geq -Cr^{2\sigma-1},
\end{aligned}$$ which yields the desired conclusion.
Note that in Theorem \[thm:Weiss\], we do not require $0\in
\Gamma_\kappa^{(\ell)}(u)$. However, if we do so, then we will have the following fact.
\[lem:W0+\] Let $u$ be as in Theorem \[thm:Weiss\], and assume additionally that $0\in\Gamma^{(\ell)}_\kappa(u)$, $\kappa<\ell$. Then, $$W^\kappa_u(0+)=0.$$
The proof will require the following growth estimate, which we will use a few more times in the remaining part of the paper.
\[lem:HuMr2kappa\] Let $u\in {\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ with $|f(x,t)|\leq M\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-2}$, $\ell\geq2$, and $0\in\Gamma_\kappa^{(\ell)}(u)$ with $\kappa<\ell$ and let $\sigma<\ell-\kappa$. Then $$H_r(u)\leq C\big( \|u\|_{L_2(S_1^+, G)}^2+M^2\big) r^{2\kappa},\quad
0<r<1,$$ with $C$ depending only on $\sigma$, $\ell$, $n$.
Take $\mu(r)=\big(\|u\|_{L_2(S_1^+, G)}^2+M^2\big)r^{2\ell-2\sigma}$ and proceed as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:HuMr3\]. We omit the details.
We can now prove Lemma \[lem:W0+\].
Since $\kappa < \ell$, by Lemma \[lem:Hu-mu\] we have $$\lim_{r\to 0+}\frac{I_u(r)}{H_u(r)} =\frac{\kappa}{2}.$$ Further, by Lemma \[lem:HuMr2kappa\] above, we will have $$H_u(r)\leq Cr^{2\kappa}.$$ Hence, we obtain $$\lim_{r\to 0+} W_u^\kappa(r) =\lim_{r\to
0}\frac{H_u(r)}{r^{2\kappa}}\Big(\frac{I_u(r)}{H_u(r)}-\frac{\kappa}{2}\Big)
= 0.\qedhere$$
The next monotonicity formula is specifically tailored for singular points. It goes back to the paper of Monneau [@Mon] for the classical obstacle problem. The theorem below is the parabolic counterpart of the Monneau-type monotonicity formula in [@GP].
\[thm:monneau\] Let $u\in{\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ with $|f(x,t)|\leq M\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-2}$ in $S_1^+$, $|\nabla f(x,t)|\leq L\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-3}$ in $Q_{1/2}^+$, $\ell\geq 3$. Suppose that $0\in \Sigma_{\kappa}(u)$ with $\kappa=2m<\ell$, $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Further, let $p_\kappa$ be any parabolically $\kappa$-homogeneous caloric polynomial from class ${\mathfrak{P}}_\kappa$ as in Definition \[def:Pk\]. For any such $p_\kappa$, define Monneau’s functional as $$\begin{aligned}
M^\kappa_{u,p_\kappa}(r) :&=
\frac{1}{r^{2\kappa+2}}\int_{S_r^+}(u-p_\kappa)^2 G,\quad 0<r<1,\\
&=\frac{H_w(r)}{r^{2\kappa}},\quad\text{where }w=u-p_\kappa.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, for any $\sigma<\ell-\kappa$ there exists a constant $C$, depending only on $\sigma$, $\ell$, $M$, and $n$, such that $$\frac{d}{dr}M^\kappa_{u,p_\kappa}(r)\geq-C\Big(1+\|u\|_{L_2(S_1^+,
G)}+\|p_\kappa\|_{L_2(S_1^+, G)} \Big) r^{\sigma-1}.$$ In particular, the function $$r\mapsto M_{u,p_\kappa}^\kappa(r)+C r^\sigma$$ is monotonically nondecreasing for $r\in (0,1)$ for a constant $C$ depending $\sigma$, $\ell$, $M$, $n$, $\|u\|_{L_2(S_1^+, G)}$, and $\|p_\kappa\|_{L_2(S_1^+, G)}$.
First note that $W_{p_\kappa}^\kappa(r)$ is constant in $r$, which follows easily from the homogeneity of $p_\kappa$. Then, since also $0\in\Gamma_\kappa^{(\ell)}(p_\kappa)$, by Lemma \[lem:W0+\] we have $W^\kappa_{p_\kappa}(0+)=0$, implying that $$W_{p_\kappa}^\kappa(r) \equiv 0.$$ Therefore, integrating by parts, we have $$\begin{aligned}
W_u^\kappa(r) &= W_u^\kappa(r)-W_{p_\kappa}^\kappa(r)\\
&= W_w^\kappa(r)-\frac{2}{r^{2\kappa+2}}\int_{S_r^+} t \nabla w \nabla p_\kappa G-\frac{\kappa}{r^{2\kappa+2}}\int_{S_r^+} wp_\kappa G\\
&= W_w^\kappa(r)+\frac{2}{r^{2\kappa+2}}\int_{S_r^+} tw(\Delta p_\kappa G+\nabla p_\kappa\nabla G)-\frac{\kappa}{r^{2\kappa+2}}\int_{S_r^+}wp_\kappa G\\
&=W_w^\kappa(r)+\frac1{r^{2\kappa+2}}\int_{S_r^+}2tw\Big(\partial_t
p_\kappa+\nabla
p_\kappa \frac{x}{2t}\Big) G-\frac{\kappa}{r^{2\kappa+2}}\int_{S_r^+}wp_\kappa G\\
&= W_w^\kappa(r)+\frac{1}{r^{2\kappa+2}}\int_{S_r^+}w(Zp_\kappa-\kappa p_\kappa) G\\
&= W_w^\kappa(r).
\end{aligned}$$ Next, we want to compute the derivative of $M_{u,p_\kappa}^\kappa$. With this objective in mind, we remark that we can compute the derivative of $H_w$ by a formula similar to that in Lemma \[lem:differentiation-formulae-smooth\]: $$H'_w(r)=\frac{4}{r} I_w(r)-\frac{4}{r^3}\int_{S_r^+} twf
G-\frac{4}{r^3}\int_{S_r'} tw_{x_n}w G,$$ for a.e. $r\in(0,1)$. Indeed, we first note that Lemma \[lem:differentiation-formulae-smooth\] holds for smooth functions with a polynomial growth at infinity, since the same spatial integration by parts used to derive Lemma \[lem:differentiation-formulae-smooth\] is still valid. Then, as in Proposition \[prop:diff-form-signor\] approximate $u$ by the solutions $u^{\varepsilon}$ of the penalized problem, apply Lemma \[lem:differentiation-formulae-smooth\] for $(H^\delta_{w^{\varepsilon}})'(r)$, where $w^{\varepsilon}=u^{\varepsilon}\zeta-p_\kappa$, and then pass to the limit as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ and $\delta\to 0$ as in Proposition \[prop:diff-form-signor\]. We thus arrive at the formula for $H'_w(r)$ given above.
We therefore can write $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dr}M_{u,p_\kappa}^\kappa(r) &= \frac{H'_w(r)}{r^{2\kappa}}-\frac{2\kappa}{r^{2\kappa+1}} H_w(r)\\
&= \frac{4}{r^{2\kappa+1}} I_w(r)-\frac{4}{r^{2\kappa+3}}\int_{S_r^+}twf G-\frac{4}{r^{2\kappa+3}}\int_{S'_r} tw_{x_n}w G-\frac{2\kappa}{r^{2\kappa+1}} H_w(r)\\
&= \frac{4}{r} W_w^\kappa(r)-\frac{4}{r^{2\kappa+3}}\int_{S_r^+}twf
G+\frac{4}{r^{2\kappa+3}}\int_{S'_r} tu_{x_n}p_\kappa G.\end{aligned}$$ We now estimate each term on the right hand side.
To estimate the first term we use that, in view of Theorem \[thm:Weiss\], for an appropriately chosen $C$, the function $W_u^\kappa(r)+Cr^{2\sigma}$ is nondecreasing, and therefore $$W_w^\kappa(r)=W_u^\kappa(r)\geq
W_u^\kappa(0+)-Cr^{2\sigma}=-Cr^{2\sigma},$$ where in the last equality we have used Lemma \[lem:W0+\].
The second term can be estimated by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, the integral estimate on $f$ at the beginning of Section \[sec:class-free-bound\], and Lemma \[lem:HuMr2kappa\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{r^{2\kappa+3}}\int_{S_r^+}twf G &\leq \frac{1}{r^{2\kappa+3}}\Big(\int_{S_r^+}w^2 G\Big)^{1/2}\Big(\int_{S_r^+} t^2 f^2 G\Big)^{1/2}\\
&\leq \frac{C r}{r^{2\kappa+3}}
\big(H_u(r)^{1/2}+H_{p_\kappa}(r)^{1/2}\big) C r^{\ell+1}\\
&\leq C\Big(1+\|u\|_{L_2(S_1^+, G)}+\|p_\kappa\|_{L_2(S_1^+, G)}\Big) r^{\ell-\kappa-1}\\
&\leq C\Big(1+\|u\|_{L_2(S_1^+, G)}+\|p_\kappa\|_{L_2(S_1^+,
G)}\Big) r^{\sigma-1}.\end{aligned}$$ For the last term, just notice that on $S'_1$, $$t\leq 0,\quad u_{x_n}\leq0,\quad p_\kappa\geq 0$$ and thus, $$\int_{S'_r} t u_{x_n}p_\kappa G\geq 0.$$ Combining all these estimates, we obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dr}M_{u,p_\kappa}^\kappa(r) &\geq-Cr^{2\sigma-1}-C\Big(1+\|u\|_{L_2(S_1, G)}+\|p_\kappa\|_{L_2(S_1^+)} \Big) r^{\sigma-1}\\
&\geq -C\Big(1+\|u\|_{L_2(S_1^+, G)}+\|p_\kappa\|_{L_2(S_1^+, G)}
\Big) r^{\sigma-1},\end{aligned}$$ which is the desired conclusion.
Structure of the singular set {#sec:struct-sing-set}
=============================
In this section, we prove our main results on the singular set, stated at the end of Section \[sec:struct-sing-set\] as Theorems \[thm:k-diff-sing-p\] and \[thm:sing-points-nonzero\].
We start by remarking that in the following proofs it will be more convenient to work with a slightly different type of rescalings and blowups, than the ones used up to now. Namely, we will work with the following $\kappa$-*homogeneous rescalings* $$u^{(\kappa)}_r(x,t):=\frac{u(rx,r^2t)}{r^\kappa}$$ and their limits as $r\to 0+$. The next lemma shows the viability of this approach.
\[lem:nondeg-sing-nonzero\] Let $u\in{\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ with $|f(x,t)|\leq M \|(x,t)\|^{\ell-2}$ in $S_1^+$, $|\nabla f(x,t)|\leq
L\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-3}$ in $Q_{1/2}^+$, $\ell\geq 3$, and $0\in\Sigma_\kappa (u)$ for $\kappa<\ell$. Then, there exists $c=c_u>0$ such that $$H_u(r)\geq c\,r^{2\kappa},\quad\text{for any } 0<r<1.$$
Assume the contrary. Then for a sequence $r=r_j\to 0$ one has $$H_u(r)=\frac1{r^2}\int_{S_1^+}u^2 G=o(r^{2\kappa}).$$ Since $0$ is a singular point, by Proposition \[prop:char-sing-point\], we have that, over a subsequence, $$u_r(x,t)=\frac{u(rx,r^2t)}{H_u(r)^{1/2}}\to q_\kappa(x,t),$$ as described in Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\], for some nonzero $q_\kappa\in{\mathfrak{P}}_\kappa$. Now, for such $q_\kappa$ we apply Theorem \[thm:monneau\] to $M^\kappa_{u,q_\kappa}(r)$. From the assumption on the growth of $u$ is is easy to recognize that $$M^\kappa_{u,q_\kappa}(0+)=\int_{S_1^+}q_\kappa^2
G=\frac{1}{r^{2\kappa+2}} \int_{S_r^+} q_\kappa^2 G.$$ Therefore, using the monotonicity of $M^\kappa_{u,q_\kappa}(r)+C\,r^\sigma$ (see Theorem \[thm:monneau\]) for an appropriately chosen $C>0$, we will have that $$C\,r^\sigma+\frac{1}{r^{2\kappa+2}} \int_{S_r^+} (u-q_\kappa)^2
G\geq \frac{1}{r^{2\kappa+2}} \int_{S_r^+} q_\kappa^2 G,$$ or equivalently $$\frac{1}{r^{2\kappa+2}}\int_{S_r^+} (u^2-2 u q_\kappa) G\geq
-C\,r^\sigma.$$ After rescaling, we obtain $$\frac{1}{r^{2\kappa}}\int_{S_1^+} (H_u(r)u_r^2-2H_u(r)^{1/2}
r^{\kappa} u_r q_\kappa) G\geq - C\,r^\sigma,$$ which can be rewritten as $$\int_{S_1^+} \Big(\frac{H_u(r)^{1/2}}{r^\kappa} u_r^2-2u_r
q_\kappa\Big) G\geq -C\,\frac{r^{\kappa+\sigma}}{H_u(r)^{1/2}}.$$ Now from the arguments in the proof of Lemma \[lem:Hu-est\], we have $H_u(r)> c\,r^{2\kappa'}$, for any $\kappa'>\kappa$, for sufficiently small $r$. Hence, choosing $\kappa'<\kappa+\sigma$, we will have that $r^{\kappa+\sigma}/H_u(r)^{1/2}\to 0$. Thus, passing to the limit over $r=r_j\to 0$, we will arrive at $$-\int_{S_1^+} q_\kappa^2\geq 0,$$ which is a contradiction, since $q_\kappa\not\equiv 0$.
One consequence of the nondegeneracy at singular points is that the singular set has a topological type $F_\sigma$; this will be important in our application of Whitney’s extension theorem in the proof of Theorem \[thm:sing-points-nonzero\].
\[lem:sing-set-F-sigma-nonzero\] For any $v\in
{\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_1^+)$ with ${\varphi}\in H^{\ell,\ell/2}(Q_1')$, the set $\Sigma_\kappa(v)$ with $\kappa=2m<\ell$, $m\in {\mathbb{N}}$, is of topological type $F_\sigma$, i.e., it is a union of countably many closed sets.
For $j\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $j\geq 2$, let $E_j$ be the set of points $(x_0,t_0)\in \Sigma_\kappa(v)\cap \overline{Q_{1-1/j}}$ satisfying $$\label{eq:Ej}
\begin{aligned}&\tfrac1j\, r^{2\kappa}\leq H_{u^{(x_0,t_0)}_k}(r) \leq
j\,r^{2\kappa}\\&\qquad\text{for every $0<r<\min\{1-|x_0|,\sqrt{1+t_0}\}$}.
\end{aligned}$$ By Lemmas \[lem:HuMr2kappa\] and \[lem:nondeg-sing-nonzero\], we have that $$\Sigma_\kappa(v)\subset \bigcup_{j=2}^\infty E_j.$$ So to complete the proof, it is enough to show that $E_j$ are closed. Indeed, if $(x_0,t_0)\in \overline E_j$, then it readily satisfies . That, in turn, implies that $(x_0,t_0)\in
\Gamma_\kappa^{(\ell)}(v)$ and by Proposition \[prop:char-sing-point\] that $(x_0,t_0)\in
\Sigma_\kappa(v)$. Hence $(x_0,t_0)\in E_j$. This completes the proof.
We next show the existence and uniqueness of blowups with respect to $\kappa$-homogeneous rescalings.
\[thm:uniq-blowup-sing-nonzero\] Let $u\in{\mathfrak{S}}^f(S_1^+)$ with $|f(x,t)|\leq M\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-2}$ in $S_1^+$, $|\nabla
f(x,t)|\leq L\|(x,t)\|^{\ell-3}$ in $Q_{1/2}^+$, $\ell\geq 3$, and $0\in\Sigma_\kappa(u)$ with $\kappa<\ell$. Then there exists a unique nonzero $p_\kappa\in{\mathfrak{P}}_\kappa$ such that $$u_r^{(\kappa)}(x,t):=\frac{u(rx,r^2t)}{r^\kappa}\to p_\kappa(x,t).$$
By Lemmas \[lem:HuMr2kappa\] and \[lem:nondeg-sing-nonzero\], there are positive constants $c$ and $C$ such that $$c\,r^{\kappa}\leq H_u(r)^{1/2}\leq C\, r^\kappa,\quad 0<r<1.$$ This implies that any limit $u_0$ of the $\kappa$-homogeneous rescalings $u_r^{(\kappa)}$ over any sequence $r=r_j\to 0+$ is just a positive multiple of a limit of regular rescalings $u_r(x,t)=u(rx,r^2t)/H_u(r)^{1/2}$, since over a subsequence $H_u(r)^{1/2}/r^\kappa$ converges to a positive number. Since the limits of rescalings $u_r$ are polynomials of class ${\mathfrak{P}}_\kappa$, we obtain also that $u_0\in{\mathfrak{P}}_\kappa$.
To show the uniqueness of $u_0$, we apply Theorem \[thm:monneau\] with $p_\kappa=u_0$. This result implies that the limit $M^\kappa_{u,u_0}(0+)$ exists and can be computed by $$M^\kappa_{u,u_0}(0+)=\lim_{r_j\to 0+}
M^\kappa_{u,u_0}(r_j)=\lim_{j\to\infty} \int_{S_1^+}
(u^{(\kappa)}_{r_j}-u_0)^2 G=0.$$ The latter equality is a consequence of Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\], and of the argument at the beginning of this proof. In particular, we obtain that $$\int_{S_1^+} (u^{(\kappa)}_r-u_0)^2 G= M^\kappa_{u,u_0}(r)\to 0$$ as $r\to 0+$ (not just over $r=r_j\to 0+$!). Thus, if $u_0'$ is a limit of $u_r^{(\kappa)}$ over another sequence $r=r_j'\to 0$, we conclude that $$\int_{S_1^+} (u_0'-u_0)^2 G=0.$$ This implies that $u_0'=u_0$ and completes the proof of the theorem.
\[thm:cont-dep-blowup-nonzero\] Let $v\in{\mathfrak{S}}_{\varphi}(Q_1^+)$ with ${\varphi}\in H^{\ell,\ell/2}(Q_1')$, $\ell\geq 3$, and $\kappa=2m<\ell$, $m\in {\mathbb{N}}$. For $(x_0,t_0)\in\Sigma_\kappa(v)$, let $u_k^{(x_0,t_0)}$ be as constructed in Proposition \[prop:uk-def\] for the function $v^{(x_0,t_0)}=v(x_0+\cdot,t_0+.)$, and denote by $p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa$ the $\kappa$-homogeneous blowup of $u^{(x_0,t_0)}_k$ at $(x_0,t_0)$ as in Theorem \[thm:uniq-blowup-sing-nonzero\], so that $$u^{(x_0,t_0)}_k(x,t)=p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa(x,t)+o(\|(x,t)\|^{\kappa}).$$ Then, the mapping $(x_0,t_0)\mapsto p_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}$ from $\Sigma_\kappa(v)$ to ${\mathfrak{P}}_\kappa$ is continuous. Moreover, for any compact subset $K$ of $\Sigma_\kappa(v)$ there exists a modulus of continuity $\sigma=\sigma^K$, $\sigma(0+)=0$ such that $$|u^{x_0,t_0}_k(x,t)-p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa(x,t)|\leq \sigma
(\|(x,t)\|)\|(x,t)\|^{\kappa},\quad t\leq 0.$$ for any $(x_0,t_0)\in K$.
Given $(x_0,t_0)\in \Sigma_\kappa(v)$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$ fix $r_{\varepsilon}=r_{\varepsilon}(x_0,t_0)>0$ such that $$M^\kappa_{u^{(x_0,t_0)}_k,
p_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}}(r_{\varepsilon})=\frac{1}{r_{\varepsilon}^{2\kappa+2}}\int_{S_{r_{\varepsilon}}^+}
\big(u^{(x_0,t_0)}_k- p_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}\big)^2 G<{\varepsilon}.$$ Then, there exists $\delta_{\varepsilon}=\delta_{\varepsilon}(x_0,t_0)$ such that if $(x_0',t_0')\in\Sigma_\kappa(u)$ and $\|(x_0'-x_0,t_0'-t_0)\|<\delta_{\varepsilon}$ one has $$M^\kappa_{u^{(x_0',t_0')}_k,
p_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}}(r_{\varepsilon})=\frac{1}{r_{\varepsilon}^{2\kappa+2}}\int_{S_{r_{\varepsilon}}^+}
\big(u^{(x_0',t_0')}_k- p_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}\big)^2 G<2{\varepsilon}.$$ This follows from the continuous dependence of $u^{(x_0,t_0)}_k$ on $(x_0,t_0)\in\Gamma(v)$ in $L_2(S_{r_{\varepsilon}}^+, G)$ norm, which is a consequence of $H^{\ell,\ell/2}$ regularity of the thin obstacle ${\varphi}$. Then, from Theorem \[thm:monneau\], we will have that $$M^\kappa_{u^{(x_0',t_0')}_k,
p_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}}(r_{\varepsilon})=\frac{1}{r_{\varepsilon}^{2\kappa+2}}\int_{S_{r_{\varepsilon}}^+}
\big(u^{(x_0',t_0')}_k- p_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}\big)^2 G < 2{\varepsilon}+
C\,r_{\varepsilon}^\sigma,\quad 0<r<r_{\varepsilon},$$ for a constant $C=C(x_0,t_0)$ depending on $L_2$ norms of $u^{(x_0',t_0')}_k$ and $p_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}$, which can be made uniform for $(x_0',t_0')$ in a small neighborhood of $(x_0,t_0)$. Letting $r\to 0$ we will therefore obtain $$M^\kappa_{u^{(x_0',t_0')}_k,
p_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}}(0+)=\int_{S_{1}^+}
\big(p^{(x_0',t_0')}_\kappa- p_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}\big)^2 G\leq
2{\varepsilon}+C\,r_{\varepsilon}^\sigma.$$ This shows the first part of the theorem (see Remark \[rem:Pk-norm\]).
To show the second part, we notice that we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|u^{(x_0',t_0')}_k-p^{(x_0',t_0')}_\kappa\|_{L_2(S_r^+, G)}&\leq
\|u^{(x_0',t_0')}_k-p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa\|_{L_2(S_r^+, G)}\\
&\qquad +
\|p^{(x_0',t_0')}_\kappa-p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa\|_{L_2(S_r^+,
G)}\\&\leq 2(2{\varepsilon}+C\,r_{\varepsilon}^\sigma)^{1/2}r^{\kappa+1},
\end{aligned}$$ for $\|(x_0'-x_0,t_0'-t_0)\|<\delta_{\varepsilon}$, $0<r<r_{\varepsilon}$, or equivalently $$\label{eq:w-p-L2-nonzero}
\|w^{x_0',t_0'}_r-p^{(x_0',t_0')}_\kappa\|_{L_2(S_1^+, G)}\leq 2(2{\varepsilon}+C r_{\varepsilon}^\sigma)^{1/2},$$ where $$w^{(x_0',t_0')}_r(x,t):=\frac{u^{(x_0',t_0')}_k(rx,r^2t)}{r^\kappa}$$ is the homogeneous rescaling of $u^{(x_0',t_0')}_k$. Making a finite cover of the compact $K$ with full parabolic cylinders $\tilde
Q_{\delta_{\varepsilon}(x_0^i,t_0^i)}(x_0^i,t_0^i)$ for some $(x_0^i,t_0^i)\in K$, $i=1,\ldots,N$, we see that is satisfied for all $(x_0',t_0')\in K$, $r<r_{\varepsilon}^K:=\min\{r_{\varepsilon}(x_0^i,t_0^i)\mid i=1,\ldots,N\}$ and $C=C^K:=\max\{C(x_0^i,t_0^i)\mid i=1,\ldots, N\}$.
Now note that $w^{(x_0',t_0')}_r$ solves the parabolic Signorini problem in $Q_1^+$ with zero thin obstacle and the right-hand side $$\big|g^{(x_0',t_0')}_r(x,t)\big|=\Big|\frac{f^{(x_0',t_0')}(rx,r^2t)}{r^{\kappa-2}}\Big|\leq
M r^{\ell-\kappa}\quad\text{in }Q_1^+.$$ Besides, $p^{(x_0',t_0')}_\kappa$ also solves the parabolic Signorini problem with zero thin obstacle, and zero right-hand side. This implies $$(\Delta-\partial_t)\Big(w^{(x_0',t_0')}_r(x,t)-p^{(x_0',t_0')}_\kappa(x,t)\Big)_\pm\geq
-M r^{\ell-\kappa}\to 0\quad\text{in }Q_1,$$ and therefore using the $L_\infty-L_2$ bounds as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:exist-homogen-blowups\](iii), we obtain that $$\|w^{(x_0',t_0')}_r-p^{(x_0',t_0')}_\kappa\|_{L_\infty(Q_{1/2})}\leq
C_{\varepsilon},$$ for all $(x_0',t_0')\in K$, $r<r_{\varepsilon}^K$ and $C_{\varepsilon}\to 0$ as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$. It is now easy to see that this implies the second part of the theorem.
We are now ready to prove Theorems \[thm:k-diff-sing-p\] and \[thm:sing-points-nonzero\].
Simply combine Theorems \[thm:uniq-blowup-sing-nonzero\] and \[thm:cont-dep-blowup-nonzero\].
*Step 1: Parabolic Whitney’s extension.* For any $(x_0,t_0)\in\Sigma_\kappa(v)$ let the polynomial $p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa\in{\mathfrak{P}}_\kappa$ be as in Theorem \[thm:cont-dep-blowup-nonzero\]. Write it in the expanded form $$p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa(x)=\sum_{|\alpha|+2j=\kappa}
\frac{a_{\alpha,j}(x_0,t_0)}{\alpha!j!}x^\alpha t^j.$$ Then, the coefficients $a_{\alpha,j}(x,t)$ are continuous on $\Sigma_{\kappa}(v)$. Next, for any multi-index $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n)$ and integer $j=0,\ldots,m$, let $$f_{\alpha,j}(x,t)=\begin{cases} 0, & |\alpha|+2j<\kappa\\
a_{\alpha,j}(x,t), & |\alpha|+2j=\kappa,
\end{cases}\qquad (x,t)\in\Sigma_\kappa(v).$$ Then, we have the following compatibility lemma.
\[lem:Whitney-compat-nonzero\] Let $K=E_j$ for some $j\in{\mathbb{N}}$, as in Lemma \[lem:sing-set-F-sigma-nonzero\]. Then for any $(x_0,t_0),
(x,t)\in K$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:compat-1-nonzero}
f_{\alpha,j}(x,t)=\sum_{|\beta|+2k\leq
\kappa-|\alpha|-2j}\frac{f_{\alpha+\beta,j+k}(x_0,t_0)}{\beta!k!}(x-x_0)^\beta
(t-t_0)^j\\ +R_{\alpha,j}(x,t;x_0,t_0)
\end{gathered}$$ with $$\label{eq:compat-2-nonzero}
|R_{\alpha,j}(x,t;x_0,t_0)|\leq \sigma_{\alpha,j}(\|(x-x_0,t-t_0\|)\|(x-x_0,t-t_0)\|^{\kappa-|\alpha|-2j},$$ where $\sigma_{\alpha,j}=\sigma_{\alpha,j}^K$ is a certain modulus of continuity.
1\) In the case $|\alpha|+2j=\kappa$ we have $$R_{\alpha,j}(x,t;x_0,t_0)=a_{\alpha,j}(x,t)-a_{\alpha,j}(x_0,t_0)$$ and the statement follows from the continuity of $a_{\alpha,j}(x,t)$ on $\Sigma_\kappa(v)$.
2\) For $0\leq |\alpha|+2j<\kappa$ we have
$$\begin{aligned}
R_\alpha(x,t,x_0,t_0)&=-\sum_{\substack{(\gamma,k)\geq
(\alpha,j)\\|\gamma|+2k=\kappa}}
\frac{a_{\gamma,k}(x_0,t_0)}{(\gamma-\alpha)!(k-j)!}(x-x_0)^{\gamma-\alpha}(t-t_0)^{k-j}\\
&= - \partial^\alpha_x\partial_t^j p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa
(x-x_0,t-t_0).\end{aligned}$$
Suppose now that there exists no modulus of continuity $\sigma_{\alpha,j}$ such that is satisfied for all $(x_0,t_0),(x,t)\in K$. Then, there exists $\eta>0$ and a sequence $(x_0^i,t_0^i), (x^i,t^i)\in K$, with $$\max\{|x^i-x_0^i|,|t^i-t_0^i|^{1/2}\}=:\delta_i\to 0,$$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:compat-contr-nonzero}
\Big|\sum_{\substack{(\gamma,k)\geq(\alpha,j)\\|\gamma|+2k=\kappa}}
\frac{a_{\gamma,k}(x_0^i)}{(\gamma-\alpha)!(k-j)!}(x^i-x_0^i)^{\gamma-\alpha}(t^i-t_0^i)^{k-j}\Big|\\\geq
\eta \|(x^i-x_0^i,t^i-t_0^i)\|^{\kappa-|\alpha|-2j}.\end{gathered}$$ Consider the rescalings $$w^i(x,t)=\frac{u^{(x_0^i,t_0^i)}_k(\delta_i x,\delta_i
t^2)}{\delta_i^\kappa},\quad
(\xi^i,\tau^i)=\Big(\frac{x^i-x_0^i}{\delta_i},\frac{t^i-t_0^i}{\delta_i^2}\Big).$$ Without loss of generality we may assume that $(x_0^i,t_0^i)\to
(x_0,t_0)\in K$ and $(\xi^i,\tau^i)\to (\xi_0,\tau_0)\in \partial
\tilde Q_1$. Then, by Theorem \[thm:cont-dep-blowup-nonzero\], for any $R>0$ and large $i$ we have for a modulus of continuity $\sigma=\sigma^K$ $$|w^i(x,t)-p^{(x_0^i,t_0^i)}_\kappa(x,t)|\leq
\sigma(\delta_i\|(x,t)\|)\|(x,t)\|^\kappa,\quad (x,t)\in S_R,$$ and therefore $$\label{eq:wip}
w^i(x,t)\to p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa(x,t)\quad\text{in } L_\infty(Q_R).$$ Note that we do not necessarily have the above convergence in the full parabolic cylinder $\tilde Q_R$. Next, consider the rescalings at $(x^i,t^i)$ instead of $(x_0^i,t_0^i)$ $$\tilde w^i(x,t)=\frac{u^{(x^i,t^i)}_k(\delta_i x,\delta_i^2
t)}{\delta_i^\kappa}.$$ Then, by the same argument as above $$\label{eq:wip'}
\tilde w^i(x,t)\to p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa(x,t)\quad\text{in } L_\infty(Q_R).$$ We then claim that the $H^{\ell,\ell/2}$ regularity of the thin obstacle ${\varphi}$ implies that $$\label{eq:wixi}
w^i(x+\xi^i,t+\tau^i)-\tilde w^i(x,t)\to 0\quad\text{in } L_\infty(\tilde
Q_R)$$ for any $R>0$, or equivalently $$\label{eq:wixi'}
w^i(x,t)-\tilde w^i(x-\xi^i,t-\tau^i)\to 0\quad\text{in } L_\infty(\tilde
Q_R).$$ Indeed, if $q^{(x_0,t_0)}_k(x',t)$ (as usual) denotes the $k$-th parabolic Taylor polynomial of the thin obstacle ${\varphi}(x')$ at $(x_0,t_0)$, then[^5] $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{q^{(x_0^i,t_0^i)}_k(\delta_i(x'+\xi^i),\delta_i^2(t+\tau^i))-q^{(x^i,t^i)}_k(\delta_i
x',\delta_i^2t)}{\delta_i^\kappa}\\&=\frac{{\varphi}(x_0^i+\delta_i(x'+\xi^i),t_0^i+\delta_i^2(t+\tau^i))+O(\delta_i^\ell\|(x'+\xi^i,t+\tau^i)\|^\ell)}{\delta_i^\kappa}\\
&\qquad -\frac{{\varphi}(x^i+\delta_ix',t^i+\delta_i^2t)+O(\delta_i^\ell\|(x',t)\|^\ell)}{\delta_i^\kappa}\\
&=O(\delta_i^{\ell-\kappa})\to 0\end{aligned}$$ and this implies the convergence , if we write the explicit definition of $w^i$ using the construction in Proposition \[prop:uk-def\].
To proceed further, we consider two different cases:
1\) There are infinitely many indexes $i$ such that $\tau^i\geq 0$.
2\) There are infinitely many indexes $i$ such that $\tau^i\leq 0$.
In both cases, passing to subsequences we may assume that $\tau^i\geq
0$ $(\leq 0)$ for all indexes $i$.
In case 1) we proceed as follows. If we take any $(x,t)\in Q_1$, because of the nonpositivity of $\tau_i$ we have $(x-\xi^i,t-\tau^i)\in Q_2$. Passing to the limit in , , and , we thus obtain $$\label{eq:p-translate}
p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa(x,t)=p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa(x-\xi_0,t-\tau_0),\quad
\text{for any }(x,t)\in Q_1.$$ Because of the real analyticity of polynomials, it follows that holds in fact for all $(x,t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}$. But then, we also obtain $$\label{eq:p+translate}
p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa(x+\xi_0,t+\tau_0)=p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa(x,t),\quad
\text{for any }(x,t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}.$$ In particular, this implies that $$\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^j
p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa(\xi_0,\tau_0)=\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^j
p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa(0,0)=0,\quad |\alpha|+2j<\kappa.$$ On the other hand, dividing both sides of by $\delta_i^{\kappa-|\alpha|-2j}$ and passing to the limit, we obtain $$|\partial^\alpha_x\partial_t^j
p^{(x_0,t_0)}_\kappa(\xi_0,\tau_0)|=\Big|\sum_{\substack{(\gamma,k)\geq(\alpha,j)\\|\gamma|+2k=\kappa}}
\frac{a_{\gamma,k}(x_0)}{(\gamma-\alpha)!}\xi_0^{\gamma-\alpha}\tau_0^{k-j}\Big|\geq
\eta>0,$$ a contradiction.
In case 2), when there are infinitely many indexes $i$ so that $\tau^i\leq 0$, passing to the limit in , , and , we obtain for $(x,t)\in Q_1$. Again by real analyticity, we have the same conclusion for all $(x,t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}$. Then, we complete the proof arguing as in case 1).
So in all cases, the compatibility conditions – are satisfied and we can apply the parabolic Whitney’s extension theorem that we have proved in Appendix \[sec:parab-whitn-extens\], see Theorem \[thm:parab-Whitney\]. Thus, there exists a function $F\in
C^{2m,m}({\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}})$ such that $$\partial^\alpha_x\partial_t^j F=f_{\alpha,j}\quad\text{on } K,$$ for any $|\alpha|+2j\leq \kappa$.
*Step 2: Implicit function theorem.* Suppose now $(x_0,t_0)\in \Sigma_\kappa^d(v)\cap K$.
We will consider two subcases: $d\leq n-2$ and $d=n-1$.
1\) $d\in \{0,1,\ldots,n-2\}$. Then, there are multi-indexes $(\beta'_i,k_i)$ with $|\beta_i'|+2k_i=\kappa-1$, for $i=1,\ldots,n-1-d$ such that $$v_i=\nabla \partial_{x'}^{\beta'_i}\partial_t^{k_i}F(x_0,t_0)=\nabla \partial_{x'}^{\beta'_i}\partial_t^{k_i}p_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}$$ are linearly independent.
On the other hand, $$\Sigma_\kappa^d(v)\cap K \subset \bigcap_{i=1}^{n-1-d}
\{\partial^{\beta_i'}_{x'}\partial_t^{k_i} F=0\}.$$ Therefore, in view of the implicit function theorem, the linear independence of $v_1,\ldots,v_{n-1-d}$ implies that $\Sigma_\kappa^d(v)\cap K$ is contained in a $d$-dimensional space-like $C^{1,0}$ manifold in a neighborhood of $(x_0,t_0)$. Finally, since $\Sigma_k(u)=\bigcup_{j=1}^{\infty} E_j$ this implies the statement of the theorem in the case $d\in
\{0,1,\ldots, n-2\}$.
2\) Suppose now $d=n-1$. In this case, by Lemma \[lem:timelike-blowup\], we have $$\partial_t^{m}F(x_0,t_0)=\partial_t^{m}p_\kappa^{(x_0,t_0)}\not=0.$$ On the other hand, $$\Sigma_\kappa^d(v)\cap K \subset\{\partial_t^{m-1} F=0\}.$$ Thus, by the implicit function theorem we obtain that $\Sigma_\kappa^d(v)\cap K$ in a neighborhood of $(x_0,t_0)$ is contained in a time-like $(n-1)$-dimensional $C^1$ manifold, as required. This completes the proof of the theorem.
Estimates in Gaussian spaces: Proofs {#sec:est-gauss-proofs}
====================================
In this section we give the proofs of the estimates stated in Section \[sec:estimates-w2-1\_2s\_1+\].
[\[step:1-W21-gauss\]($^\circ$)]{} For the given $\rho>0$, choose $\rho<\tilde\rho<1$. Then, note that without loss of generality we may assume that $u(\cdot,-1)=0$, by multiplying $u$ with a smooth cutoff function $\eta(t)$ such that $\eta=1$ on $[-\tilde\rho^2,0]$ and $\eta=0$ near $t=-1$.
Next, fix a cutoff function $\hat \zeta_0\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and let $R$ be so large that $\hat\zeta_0$ vanishes outside $B_{R-1}$ and $u$ vanishes outside $B_{R-1}\times(-1,0]$. Then, approximate $u$ with the solutions of the penalized problem $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta u^{\varepsilon}-\partial_t u^{\varepsilon}=f^{\varepsilon}&\quad\text{in }
B_R^+\times(-1,0],\\
\partial_{x_n}u^{\varepsilon}=\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})&\quad\text{on } B_R'\times(-1,0],\\
u^{\varepsilon}=0&\quad\text{on }(\partial B_R)^+\times(-1,0],\\
u^{\varepsilon}(\cdot, -1)=0&\quad\text{on }B_R^+,
\end{aligned}$$ where $f^{\varepsilon}$ is a mollification of $f$.
Let now $r\in [\rho,\tilde\rho]$ be arbitrary. Then, for any small $\delta>0$ and $\eta\in W^{1,0}_2(B_R^+\times(-r^2,-\delta^2])$, vanishing on $(B_R^+\setminus B_{R-1}^+)\times(-r^2,-\delta^2]$, we will have $$\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+} [\nabla u^{\varepsilon}\nabla
\eta+u_t^{\varepsilon}\eta+ f^{\varepsilon}\eta] dxdt=-\int_{S_r'\setminus
S_\delta'}\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})\eta dx'dt.$$ Now, for the cutoff function $\hat\zeta_0$ as above, define the family of homogeneous functions in $S_1$ by letting $$\zeta_k(x,t)=|t|^{k/2}\hat\zeta_0(x/\sqrt{|t|}).$$ Then, choosing $\eta=u^{\varepsilon}\zeta_1^2 G$, we will have $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}|\nabla u^{\varepsilon}|^2\zeta_1^2
G+(u^{\varepsilon}\nabla u^{\varepsilon}\nabla G\zeta_1^2+ u^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon}_t\zeta_1^2 G)+2u^{\varepsilon}\zeta_1\nabla u^{\varepsilon}\nabla\zeta_1 G+f^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon}\zeta_1^2 G\\
&\qquad=-\int_{S_r'\setminus
S_\delta'}\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})u^{\varepsilon}\zeta_1^2 G
dx'dt\leq 0,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that $s\beta_{\varepsilon}(s)\geq 0$. Next, recalling that $\nabla G=\frac{x}{2t} G$ and that $Z((u^{\varepsilon})^2)=2
u^{\varepsilon}(Zu^{\varepsilon})=2u^{\varepsilon}(x\nabla u^{\varepsilon}+2t\partial_t
u^{\varepsilon})$, we can rewrite the above inequality as $$\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}|\nabla u^{\varepsilon}|^2\zeta_1^2
G+\frac{1}{4t}Z((u^{\varepsilon})^2)\zeta_1^2 G+2u^{\varepsilon}\zeta_1 \nabla
u^{\varepsilon}\nabla \zeta_1 G+f^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon}\zeta_1^2 G\leq 0.$$ We then can use the standard arguments in the proof of energy inequalities, except that we need to handle the term involving $Z((u^{\varepsilon})^2)$. Making the change of variables $t=-\lambda^2$, $x=\lambda y$ and using the identities $$G(\lambda x,-\lambda^2)=\lambda^n G(x,-1),\quad \zeta_1(\lambda
y,-\lambda^2)=\lambda \hat\zeta_0(y),$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}\frac{1}{2t}Z((u^{\varepsilon})^2)\zeta_1^2 G dxdt\\
&\qquad =-\int_{\delta}^r\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \lambda
Z((u^{\varepsilon})^2)(\lambda y,-\lambda^2)\hat\zeta_0^2(y) G(y,-1)
dyd\lambda\\
&\qquad =
-\int_\delta^r\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\lambda^2\left[\frac{d}{d\lambda}(u^{\varepsilon}(\lambda
y,-\lambda^2)^2)\right]\hat\zeta_0^2(y) G(y,-1)dyd\lambda\\
&\qquad= -\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} [r^2u^{\varepsilon}(ry,-r^2)^2-\delta^2
u^{\varepsilon}(\delta
y,-\delta^2)^2]\hat\zeta_0^2(y) G(y,-1)dy\\
&\qquad\qquad+\int_\delta^r\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}
2\lambda u^{\varepsilon}(\lambda y,-\lambda^2)^2\hat\zeta_0^2 G(y,-1)dyd\lambda\\
&\qquad \geq -r^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}
u^{\varepsilon}(ry,-r^2)^2\hat\zeta_0^2(y) G(y,-1)dy\\
&\qquad=-r^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}
u^{\varepsilon}(\cdot,-r^2)\zeta_0^2G(\cdot,-r^2)dy,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used integration by parts is $\lambda$ variable. Thus, using Young’s inequality, we conclude that $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}|\nabla u^{\varepsilon}|^2\zeta_1^2 G\leq
C_{n,\rho}\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} u^{\varepsilon}(\cdot,-r^2)^2\zeta_0^2
G(\cdot,-r^2)\\+\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}
[(u^{\varepsilon})^2(|\nabla \zeta_1|^2+\zeta_0^2) +
(f^{\varepsilon})^2\zeta_2^2] G\Big).\end{gathered}$$ Now, integrating over $r\in[\rho,\tilde \rho]$, we obtain $$\int_{S_\rho^+\setminus S_\delta^+}|\nabla u^{\varepsilon}|^2\zeta_1^2
G\leq C_{n,\rho}\int_{S_{\tilde \rho}^+\setminus S_\delta^+}
[(u^{\varepsilon})^2(|\nabla \zeta_1|^2+\zeta_0^2) +
(f^{\varepsilon})^2\zeta_2^2] G.$$ Letting first ${\varepsilon}\to 0+$, then letting the support of the cutoff function $\hat\zeta_0$ sweep ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, $\delta\to 0$, and replacing the integral over $S_{\tilde\rho}^+$ by $S_1^+$, we conclude that $$\int_{S_{\rho}^+}|t||\nabla u|^2 G\leq C_{n,\rho} \int_{S_1^+}(u^2
+|t|^2f^2)G.$$
[\[step:2-W21-gauss\]($^\circ$)]{} Let $\hat\zeta_0$, $R$, homogeneous functions $\zeta_k$, the approximations $u^{\varepsilon}$, $r\in[\rho,\tilde \rho]$, and $\delta$ be as above. Then, choosing as a test function $\eta_{x_i}$, $i=1,2,\ldots, n-1$, with $\eta\in
W^{2,1}_2(S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+)$ vanishing in $(B_R^+\setminus
B_{R-1}^+)\times(-r^2,-\delta^2]$ and integrating by parts, we obtain $$\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}[\nabla u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}\nabla
\eta+u^{\varepsilon}_{x_it}
\eta+f^{\varepsilon}\eta_{x_i}]dxdt=-\int_{S_r'\setminus
S_\delta'}\beta_{\varepsilon}'(u^{\varepsilon})u^{\varepsilon}_{x_i}\eta dx'dt.$$ Then, plugging $\eta=u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}\zeta^2_2 G$ in the above identity, we will have $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+} |\nabla
u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}|^2\zeta_2^2 G+(u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}\nabla
u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}\nabla G\zeta_2^2+u_{x_it}^{\varepsilon}u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}\zeta_2^2 G)+2u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}\zeta_2\nabla
u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}\nabla \zeta_2 G\\
&\qquad+\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+} f^{\varepsilon}u_{x_ix_i}\zeta_2^2 G+ 2f^{\varepsilon}u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}\zeta_2(\zeta_2)_{x_i} G+f^{\varepsilon}u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}\zeta_2^2 G_{x_i}\\
&\qquad=-\int_{S_r'\setminus S_\delta'}
\beta'_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})(u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon})^2\zeta_2^2 G \leq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Then, again using the identity $\nabla G=\frac{x}{2t} G$, we may rewrite the above inequality as $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+} |\nabla
u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}|^2\zeta_2^2 G+\frac{1}{4t}
Z((u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon})^2)\zeta_2^2 G +2u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}\zeta_2\nabla
u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}\nabla \zeta_2 G\\
&\qquad\leq \int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+} |f^{\varepsilon}|
|u_{x_ix_i}^{\varepsilon}|\zeta_2^2 G+ 2|f^{\varepsilon}|
|u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}||\zeta_2||\nabla \zeta_2| G+|f^{\varepsilon}|
|u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}|\zeta_2^2\frac{|x|}{2|t|} G.\end{aligned}$$ Arguing as in step [(\[step:1-W21-gauss\]$^\circ$)]{} above, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{S_r^+\setminus
S_\delta^+}\frac{1}{2t}Z((u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon})^2)\zeta_2^2
G&=-\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}
[r^4u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}(ry,-r^2)^2-\delta^4u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}(\delta
y,-\delta^2)^2]\hat\zeta_0(y)^2 G(y,-1)
\\
&\qquad+4\int_\delta^r\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}\lambda^3(u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon})^2\hat\zeta_0^2
G\\&\geq -r^4\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}
u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}(ry,-r^2)^2\hat\zeta_0(y)^2 G(y,-1)dy \\&=
-r^2\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}(\cdot,-r^2)^2\zeta_1^2
G(\cdot,-r^2).\end{aligned}$$ We further estimate, by the appropriate Young inequalities, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{S_r^+\setminus
S_\delta^+}|f^{\varepsilon}||u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}|\zeta_2^2\frac{|x|}{2|t|}
G&\leq C_{n,\rho}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}
(f^{\varepsilon})^2\zeta_2^2 G+c_{n,\rho}\int_{S_r^+\setminus
S_\delta^+}|\nabla
u^{\varepsilon}|^2\zeta_1^2\frac{|x|^2}{t} G\\
&\leq C_{n,\rho}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}
(f^{\varepsilon})^2\zeta_2^2 G \\
&\qquad+c_{n,\rho}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}[ |\nabla
u^{\varepsilon}|^2(\zeta_1^2+|\nabla \zeta_2|^2)+|D^2 u|^2\zeta_2^2]G,\end{aligned}$$ with a small constant $c_{n,\rho}>0$, where in the last step we have used that the following claim.
\[clm:v2x2t\] For any $v\in W^1_2({\mathbb{R}}^n, G)$ and $t<0$ we have $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} v^2\frac{|x|^2}{|t|} G(x,t)\leq C_n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}
(v^2+|t||\nabla v|^2) G.$$
Using that $\nabla G=\frac{x}{2t} G$, and then integrating by parts, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} v^2\frac{|x|^2}{2|t|} G&=-\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}v^2x\cdot \nabla
G=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}{\operatorname{div}}(x v^2) G \\
&=n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} v^2 G+\int 2v (x\nabla v) G\\
&\leq n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} v^2 G+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}v^2\frac{|x|^2}{4|t|}
G+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}4|t||\nabla v|^2 G,
\end{aligned}$$ which implies the desired estimate.
Combining the estimates above, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+} |\nabla u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}|^2\zeta_2^2 G\\
&\qquad\leq C_{n,\rho}\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+} u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}(\cdot,
-r^2)^2\zeta_1^2 G(\cdot,-r^2)+\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}
[|\nabla u^{\varepsilon}|^2(\zeta_1^2+|\nabla \zeta_2|^2)+
(f^{\varepsilon})^2\zeta_2^2] G\Big)\\
&\qquad\qquad+c_{n,\rho}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+} |D^2
u^{\varepsilon}|^2\zeta_2^2 G.\end{aligned}$$
[\[step:3-W21-gauss\]($^\circ$)]{} Using the notations of the previous step, taking a test function $\eta_{x_n}$ and integrating by parts, we will obtain $$\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}[\nabla u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}\nabla
\eta+u^{{\varepsilon}}_{x_nt}\eta+f^{\varepsilon}\eta_{x_n}]
dxdt=-\int_{S_r'\setminus S_\delta'} [u_t^{\varepsilon}\eta+\nabla'u^{\varepsilon}\nabla'\eta]dx'dt.$$ Plugging $\eta=u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}\zeta_2^2 G$, we will have $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}|\nabla
u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}|^2\zeta_2^2 G+(u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}\nabla
u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}\nabla G\zeta_2^2+u_{x_nt}^{\varepsilon}u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}\zeta_2^2 G)+2u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}\zeta_2\nabla
u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}\nabla \zeta_2 G\\
&\qquad+\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+} f^{\varepsilon}u_{x_nx_n}\zeta_2^2 G+ 2f^{\varepsilon}u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}\zeta_2(\zeta_2)_{x_n} G+f^{\varepsilon}u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}\zeta_2^2 G_{x_n}\\
&\qquad=-\int_{S_r'\setminus S_\delta'} [\nabla'u^{\varepsilon}\nabla'
G\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})\zeta_2^2+u_t^{\varepsilon}\beta_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})\zeta_2^2 G]+|\nabla'
u^{\varepsilon}_{x_i}|^2\beta'_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})\zeta_2^2 G\\
&\qquad\qquad-\int_{S_r'\setminus
S_\delta'}2u^{\varepsilon}_{x_n}\nabla'u^{\varepsilon}\nabla'\zeta_2\zeta_2
G.\end{aligned}$$ We therefore have $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}|\nabla
u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}|^2\zeta_2^2 G+\frac{1}{4t} Z
((u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon})^2)\zeta_2^2 G +2u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}\zeta_2\nabla
u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}\nabla \zeta_2 G\\
&\qquad+\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+} f^{\varepsilon}u_{x_nx_n}\zeta_2^2 G+ 2f^{\varepsilon}u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}\zeta_2(\zeta_2)_{x_n} G+f^{\varepsilon}u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}\zeta_2^2 G_{x_n}\\
&\qquad\leq-\int_{S_r'\setminus S_\delta'} \frac{1}{4t}
Z(\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon}))\zeta_2^2
G+2u^{\varepsilon}_{x_n}\nabla'u^{\varepsilon}\nabla'\zeta_2\zeta_2 G
=J_1+J_2.\end{aligned}$$ To estimate $J_1$ we argue as before, however we now take into account that the spatial dimension is less by one: $$\begin{aligned}
J_1&=-\int_{S_r'\setminus S_\delta^+} \frac{1}{4t}
Z(\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon}))\zeta_2^2 G\\
&
=\frac12\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}}[r^3\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon}(ry',-r^2))-\delta^3\mathcal{B_{\varepsilon}}(u^{\varepsilon}(\delta
y',-\delta^2))]\hat\zeta_0(y')^2 G(y',-1)dy'\\
&\qquad -\frac32\int_\delta^r\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}}\lambda^2\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon}(\lambda y',-\lambda^2))\hat\zeta_0(y')^2G(y'-1)dy'd\lambda\\
&\leq C_{n,\rho}{\varepsilon},\end{aligned}$$ since $\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon}(s)\geq0$ for any $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and we have used that $\mathcal{B}_{\varepsilon}(u^{\varepsilon})\leq C_{n,\rho}{\varepsilon}$ on $B_{R-1}'\times[\rho,\tilde \rho]$. For more details see the proof of Proposition \[prop:diff-form-signor\], step [(\[step:3.3.2-diff-form\]$^\circ$)]{}.
In order to estimate $J_2$ we write it as a solid integral $$\begin{aligned}
J_2&=\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}\partial_{x_n}
(u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}u_{x_i}(\zeta_2^2)_{x_i} G)\\
&=\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}u^{\varepsilon}_{x_nx_n}
u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}(\zeta_2^2)_{x_i} G+ u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}u_{x_ix_n}^{\varepsilon}(\zeta_2^2)_{x_i} G+u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}(\zeta_2^2)_{x_ix_n} G\\
&\qquad+\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}(\zeta_2^2)_{x_i} G_{x_n}=J_{21}+J_{22}.\end{aligned}$$ The terms in $J_{21}$ are estimated in a standard way by the appropriate Young inequalities. The integral $J_{22}$ is estimated by using Claim \[clm:v2x2t\]: $$\begin{aligned}
|J_{22}|&\leq \int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+} |\nabla u^{\varepsilon}|^2
\zeta_2 |\nabla
\zeta_2|\frac{x_n}{t} G dxdt\\
&\leq C_{n,\rho}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}|\nabla
u^{\varepsilon}|^2|\nabla \zeta_2|^2 G+c_{n,\rho}\int_{S_r^+\setminus
S_\delta^+}|\nabla
u^{\varepsilon}|^2\zeta_1^2\frac{|x|^2}{|t|} G\\
&\leq C_{n,\rho}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}|\nabla
u^{\varepsilon}|^2|\nabla \zeta_2|^2 G+c_{n,\rho}\int_{S_r^+\setminus
S_\delta^+}[ |\nabla u^{\varepsilon}|^2(\zeta_1^2+|\nabla \zeta_2|^2)
G+|D^2 u|^2\zeta_2^2 G],\end{aligned}$$ for a small constant $c_{n,\rho}>0$.
We further treat the term $$\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+}\frac1{4t} Z
((u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon})^2)\zeta_2^2 G$$ analogously to the similar term with $u_{x_i}^{\varepsilon}$ in [(\[step:2-W21-gauss\]$^\circ$)]{}. Collecting all estimates in this step, combined with appropriate Young inequalities, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+} |\nabla
u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}|^2\zeta_2^2 G&\leq C_{n,\rho}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n_+}
u_{x_n}^{\varepsilon}(\cdot,
-r^2)^2\zeta_1^2 G(\cdot,-r^2)\\
&\qquad+C_{n,\rho}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+} [|\nabla
u^{\varepsilon}|^2(\zeta_1^2+|\nabla \zeta_2|^2+|D^2\zeta_3|^2)+
(f^{\varepsilon})^2\zeta_2^2] G\\
&\qquad+c_{n,\rho}\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+} |D^2
u^{\varepsilon}|^2\zeta_2^2 G + C_{n,\rho}{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
[\[step:4-W21-gauss\]($^\circ$)]{} Now combining the estimates in [(\[step:2-W21-gauss\]$^\circ$)]{} and [(\[step:3-W21-gauss\]$^\circ$)]{} above and integrating over $r\in[\rho,\tilde \rho]$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{S_\rho^+\setminus S_\delta^+} |D^2 u^{\varepsilon}|^2\zeta_2^2 G&
\leq C_{n,\rho}\int_{S_{\tilde \rho}^+\setminus S_\delta^+}[|\nabla
u^{\varepsilon}|^2(\zeta_1^2+|\nabla
\zeta_2|^2+|D^2\zeta_3|^2) +(f^{\varepsilon})^2\zeta_2^2] G\\
&\qquad+C_{n,\rho}{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ As before, passing to the limit as ${\varepsilon}\to0$, increasing the support of $\hat\zeta_0$, and then letting $\delta\to 0$, we conclude that $$\int_{S_{\rho}^+} |t|^2|D^2u|^2 G\leq C_{n,\rho}\int_{S_1^+}
(|t||\nabla u|^2 +|t|^2 f^2) G.$$ Finally noticing that $u_t=\Delta u-f$, we obtain the desired integral estimate for $u_t$ as well. The proof is complete.
The proof is very similar to part [(\[step:1-W21-gauss\]$^\circ$)]{} of the proof of Lemma \[lem:w212\]. Indeed, for approximations $u_i^{\varepsilon}$, $i=1,2$, we have the integral identities $$\int_{S_r^+\setminus S_\delta^+} [\nabla u_i^{\varepsilon}\nabla
\eta+\partial_tu_i^{\varepsilon}\eta+ f_i^{\varepsilon}\eta]
dxdt=-\int_{S_r'\setminus S_\delta'}\beta_{\varepsilon}(u_i^{\varepsilon})\eta
dx'dt.$$ Taking the difference, choosing $\eta=(u_1^{\varepsilon}-u_2^{\varepsilon})\zeta_1^2 G$, and using the inequality $$[\beta_{\varepsilon}(u_1^{\varepsilon})-\beta_{\varepsilon}(u_2^{\varepsilon})](u_1^{\varepsilon}-u_2^{\varepsilon})\geq
0,$$ we complete the proof as in step [(\[step:1-W21-gauss\]$^\circ$)]{} of the proof of Lemma \[lem:w212\].
Parabolic Whitney’s extension theorem {#sec:parab-whitn-extens}
=====================================
Let $E$ be a compact subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}$ and $f:E\to {\mathbb{R}}$ a certain continuous function. Here we want to establish a theorem of Whitney type (see [@Whi]) that will allow the extension of the function $f$ to a function of class $C^{2m,m}({\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}})$, $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$. In fact, for that we need to have a family of functions $\{f_{\alpha,j}\}_{|\alpha|+2j\leq m}$, where $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n)$ and $j$ is a nonnegative integer.
\[thm:parab-Whitney\] Let $\{f_{\alpha,j}\}_{|\alpha|+2j\leq m}$ be a family of functions on $E$, with $f_{0,0}\equiv f$, satisfying the following compatibility conditions: there exists a family of moduli of continuity $\{\omega_{\alpha,j}\}_{|\alpha|+2j\leq 2m}$, such that $$f_{\alpha,j}(x,t)=\sum_{|\beta|+2k\leq 2m-|\alpha|-2j}
\frac{f_{\alpha+\beta,j+k}(x_0,t_0)}{\beta!k!}(x-x_0)^\beta(t-t_0)^k+R_{\alpha,j}(x,t;
x_0,t_0)$$ and $$|R_{\alpha,j}(x,t; x_0,t_0)|\leq
\omega_{\alpha,j}(\|(x-x_0,t-t_0)\|)\|(x-x_0,t-t_0)\|^{2m-|\alpha|-2j}.$$ Then, there exists a function $F\in C^{2m,m}({\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}})$ such that $F=f$ on $E$ and moreover $\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^j
F=f_{\alpha,j}$ on $E$, for $|\alpha|+2j\leq 2m$.
The construction of the extension is done in the following four steps.
*Step 1:* Parabolic Whitney cube decomposition of $E^c=({\mathbb{R}}^{n}\times{\mathbb{R}})\setminus E$. We say that $Q$ is a parabolic ($k$-)dyadic cube if it has a form $$Q=[a_1 2^{-k}, (a_1+1)2^{-k}]\times\cdots\times [a_n 2^{-k},
(a_n+1)2^{-k}]\times[b2^{-2k},(b+1)2^{-2k}],$$ where $a_i, b\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. We will call $2^{-k}$ the size of $Q$ and denote it by $\ell(Q)$. We will also call $((a_1+\frac12)2^{-k},\ldots, (a_n+\frac12)2^{-k},
(b+\frac12)2^{-2k}]$ the center of $Q$.
The proof of the following lemma is very similar to its Euclidean counterpart and is therefore omitted. (A slightly different version of this lemma can be found in [@FS]\*[Lemma 1.67]{}, for more general homogeneous spaces.)
For any closed set $E$ there exists a family $\mathcal{W}=\{Q_i\}$ of parabolic dyadic cubes with the following properties:
1. $\bigcup_i Q_i=\Omega=E^c$,
2. $Q_i^\circ\cap Q_j^\circ=\emptyset$ for $i\not=j$,
3. $c_n\ell(Q_i)\leq {\operatorname{dist}}_p(Q_i,E)\leq C_n \ell(Q_i)$ for some positive constants $c_n, C_n$ depending only on the dimension $n$.
For every $Q_i$ let $(x_i,t_i)$ be the center and $\ell_i$ the size of the parabolic cube $Q_i$. Then let $Q_i^*=\delta_{1+{\varepsilon}}[Q_i-(x_i,t_i)]+(x_i,t_i)$, where $\delta_\lambda: (x,t)\mapsto (\lambda x, \lambda^2t)$ is the parabolic dilation. Clearly, the family of $\{Q_i^*\}$ is no longer disjoint, however, we every point in $E^c$ has a small neighborhood that intersects at most $N=N_n$ cubes $Q_i^*$, provided $0<{\varepsilon}<{\varepsilon}_n$ is small. Then define $${\varphi}_i(x,t)={\varphi}\left(\frac{x-x_i}{\ell_i},\frac{t-t_i}{\ell_i^2}\right),$$ where ${\varphi}\in C^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}})$ such that $${\varphi}\geq 0,\quad {\varphi}>0\text{ on } I_1,\quad {\operatorname{supp}}{\varphi}\subset
I_{1+{\varepsilon}},$$ where $$I_\lambda=[-\lambda/2,\lambda/2]\times\cdots\times[-\lambda/2,/2]\times[-\lambda^2/2,\lambda^2/2].$$ We also observe that $$ |\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^j {\varphi}_i(x,t)|\leq A_{\alpha,j} \ell_i^{-|\alpha|-2j},$$ for some constants $A_{\alpha,j}$. Next, we define a partition of unity $\{{\varphi}_i^*\}$ subordinate to $\{Q_i^*\}$ as follows. Let $${\varphi}_i^*(x,t)=\frac{{\varphi}_i(x,t)}{\Phi(x,t )},\quad
\Phi(x,t)=\sum_{k}{\varphi}_k(x,t), \quad (x,t)\in E^c.$$ Note that in the definition of $\Phi$, the sum is locally finite and therefore $C^\infty$ in $E^c$, and also satisfies $1\leq \Phi\leq N$. Then ${\varphi}_i^*$ are also $C^\infty$ in $E^c$ and we have $$\sum_{i}{\varphi}_i^*=1\quad\text{in }E^c,$$ where again the sum is locally finite. Moreover, it is easy to see that, similarly to ${\varphi}_i$, we have the estimates $$\label{eq:WE-dphi*-est}
|\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^j {\varphi}_i^*(x,t)|\leq A_{\alpha,j}^* \ell_i^{-|\alpha|-2j}.$$
*Step 2:* For every $(x_0,t_0)\in E$ let $$P(x,t; x_0,t_0)=\sum_{|\alpha|+2j\leq 2m}
\frac{f_{\alpha,j}(x_0,t_0)}{\alpha!j!}(x-x_0)^\alpha (t-t_0)^j.$$ In addition to $P$, it is convenient to introduce $$P_{\alpha,j}(x,t; x_0,t_0)=\sum_{|\beta|+2k\leq 2m-|\alpha|-2j}
\frac{f_{\alpha+\beta,j+k}(x_0,t_0)}{\beta!k!}(x-x_0)^\beta(t-t_0)^k$$ for $|\alpha|+2j\leq 2m$. Note that in fact $P_{\alpha,j}(x,t;x_0,t_0)=\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^j
P(x,t;x_0,t_0)$. Then by definition $$f_{\alpha,j}(x,t)=P_{\alpha,j}(x,t; x_0,t_0)+R_{\alpha,j}(x,t;
x_0,t_0),$$ for any $(x,t), (x_0,t_0)\in E$.
\[lem:WE-diff\] For any $(x_0,t_0), (x_1,t_1)\in E$ and $(x,t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}$, we have $$P(x,t;x_1,t_1)-P(x,t;x_0,t_0)=\sum_{|\beta|+k\leq 2m}
R_{\beta,k}(x_1,t_1;x_0,t_0)
\frac{(x-x_1)^\beta}{\beta!}\frac{(t-t_1)^k}{k!}$$ and more generally $$\begin{gathered}
P_{\alpha,j}(x,t;x_1,t_1)-P_{\alpha,j}(x,t;x_0,t_0)=\\\sum_{|\beta|+k\leq
2m-|\alpha|-2j} R_{\alpha+\beta,j+k}(x_1,t_1;x_0,t_0)
\frac{(x-x_1)^\beta}{\beta!}\frac{(t-t_1)^k}{k!}.\end{gathered}$$
We will prove the latter formula. It is enough to check that the partial derivatives $\partial_x^\beta\partial_t^k$ of both sides equal to each other for $|\beta|+2k\leq 2m-|\alpha|-2j$, as both sides are polynomials of parabolic degree $ 2m-|\alpha|-2j$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_x^\beta\partial_t^k P_{\alpha,j}(x,t;
x_1,t_1)\big|_{(x,t)=(x_1,t_1)}&=f_{\alpha+\beta,j+k}(x_1,t_1)\\
\partial_x^\beta\partial_t^k P_{\alpha,j}(x,t;
x_0,t_0)\big|_{(x,t)=(x_1,t_1)}&=P_{\alpha+\beta,j+k}(x_1,t_1;x_0,t_0),
\end{aligned}$$ which implies the desired equality.
*Step 3:* We are now ready to define the extension function $F$. For every $Q_i$ let $(y_i,s_i)\in E$ be such that ${\operatorname{dist}}_p(Q_i,E)={\operatorname{dist}}_p(Q_i,(y_i,s_i))$. Note that $(y_i,s_i)$ is not necessarily unique. Then define $$F(x,t)=
\begin{cases}
f(x,t)=f_{0,0}(x,t), & (x,t)\in E\\
\displaystyle{\sum_{i} P(x,t;y_i,s_i){\varphi}^*_i(x,t)}, &(x,t)\in E^c.
\end{cases}$$ From the local finiteness of the partition of unity, it is clear that $F$ is $C^\infty$ in $E^c$. Then we can define $$F_{\alpha,j}(x,t)=
\begin{cases}
f_{\alpha,j}(x,t), & (x,t)\in E\\
\partial^\alpha_x\partial^j_t F(x,t), &(x,t)\in E^c,
\end{cases}$$ for $|\alpha|+2j\leq 2m$.
\[lem:WE-F-P\] There exist moduli of continuity $\tilde\omega=\tilde\omega_{0,0}$ and $\tilde\omega_{\alpha,j}$, $|\alpha|+2j\leq 2m$, such that for $(x,t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}$ and $(x_0,t_0)\in E$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
|F(x,t)-P(x,t;x_0,t_0)|&\leq \tilde\omega
(\|(x-x_0,t-t_0)\|)\|(x-x_0,t-t_0)\|^{2m},\\
\intertext{and more generally}
|F_{\alpha,j}(x,t)-P_{\alpha,j}(x,t;x_0,t_0)|&\leq
\tilde\omega_{\alpha,j}(\|(x-x_0,t-t_0)\|)\|(x-x_0,t-t_0)\|^{2m-|\alpha|-2j},
\end{aligned}$$ for $|\alpha|+2j\leq 2m$.
Note that for $(x,t)\in E$, the estimates follows from the compatibility assumptions. For $(x,t)\in E^c$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&|F(x,t)-P(x,t;x_0,t_0)|=\big|\sum_i [P(x,t;y_i,s_i)-P(x,t;x_0,t_0)]{\varphi}_i^*(x,t)\big|\\
&\qquad\leq\sum_{i} \sum_{|\alpha|+2j\leq
2m}|R_{\alpha,j}(y_i,s_i;x_0,t_0)
|\frac{|x-y_i|^\alpha}{\alpha!}\frac{|t-s_i|^j}{j!}{\varphi}_i^*(x,t)\\
&\qquad\leq \sum_{i, |\alpha|+2j\leq
2m}\omega_{\alpha,j}(C_n\|(x-y_i,t_0-s_i)\|)\|(x-y_i,t-s_i)\|^{2m-|\alpha|-2j+|\alpha|+2j}{\varphi}_i^*(x,t)\\
&\qquad\leq \tilde\omega(\|(x-x_0,t-t_0)\|)\|(x-x_0,t-t_0)\|^{2m},
\end{aligned}$$ using that $$\|(x_0-y_i,t_0-s_i)\|\leq C_n\|(x-y_i,t-s_i)\|\leq
C_n^2\|(x-x_0,t-t_0)\|$$ for $(x,t)\in Q_i^*$.
The second estimate in the lemma is obtained in a similar way. Indeed, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
&|F_{\alpha,j}(x,t)-P_{\alpha,j}(x,t)|=|\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^j
[F(x,t)-P(x,t;x_0,t_0]|\\
&\qquad=|\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^j\sum_i
[P(x,t;y_i,s_i)-P(x,t;x_0,t_0)]{\varphi}_i^*(x,t)|\\
&\qquad=\sum_{i,\beta\leq \alpha, k\leq j}
C^{\alpha,j}_{\beta,k}[P_{\beta,k}(x,t;y_i,s_i)-P_{\beta,k}(x,t;x_0,t_0)]\partial_x^{\alpha-\beta}\partial_t^{j-k}{\varphi}_i^*(x,t)\end{aligned}$$ and then we argue as above by using Lemma \[lem:WE-diff\] and the estimates .
Note that Lemma \[lem:WE-F-P\] implies that $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\partial_x^\beta
F_{\alpha,j}(x,t)&=F_{\alpha+\beta,j}(x,t),&\quad&\text{for
$|\beta|=1$,
if $\alpha|+2j\leq 2m-1$}\\
\partial_t F_{\alpha,j}(x,t)&=F_{\alpha,j+1}(x,t),&\quad&\text{if
$\alpha|+2j\leq 2m-2$}
\end{aligned}$$ at every $(x,t)\in E$. The same equalities hold also in $E^c$, by the definition of $F_{\alpha,j}$. Thus, arguing by induction in the order of the derivative $|\alpha|+2j\leq 2m$ and using Lemma \[lem:WE-F-P\], we prove that everywhere in ${\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}$ $$\partial_x^\alpha\partial_t^j F=F_{\alpha,j},\quad |\alpha|+2j\leq 2m.$$ We also note that $F_{\alpha,j}$ are continuous by Lemma \[lem:WE-F-P\]. The proof is complete.
[^1]: D.D. was supported in part by NSF grant DMS-1101246
[^2]: N.G. was supported in part by NSF grant DMS-1001317
[^3]: A.P. was supported in part by NSF grant DMS-1101139
[^4]: We will prove later that $\kappa\geq 3/2$, but the information $\kappa\geq 0$ will suffice in this proof.
[^5]: just note that the arguments inside ${\varphi}$ are the same
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this article, we construct spherical thin–shell wormholes with charge in dilaton gravity. The exotic matter required for the construction is provided by a generalized Chaplygin gas. We study the stability under perturbations preserving the symmetry. We find that the increase of the coupling between the dilaton and the electromagnetic fields reduces the range of the parameters for which stable configurations are possible.\
PACS number(s): 04.20.Gz, 04.40.Nr, 98.80.Jk\
Keywords: Lorentzian wormholes; stability; generalized Chaplygin gas
author:
- |
Cecilia Bejarano$^{1,2}$[^1], Ernesto F. Eiroa$^{1,3}$[^2]\
[$^1$ Instituto de Astronomía y Física del Espacio, C.C. 67, Suc. 28, 1428, Buenos Aires, Argentina]{}\
[$^2$ Departamento de Ciencias Exactas, Ciclo Básico Común,]{}\
[Universidad de Buenos Aires, Ciudad Universitaria Pab. III, 1428, Buenos Aires, Argentina]{}\
[$^3$ Departamento de Física, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales,]{}\
[Universidad de Buenos Aires, Ciudad Universitaria Pab. I, 1428, Buenos Aires, Argentina]{}
title: |
Dilaton thin–shell wormholes supported by\
a generalized Chaplygin gas
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Since the seminal paper by Morris and Thorne [@mothor] traversable Lorentzian wormholes have attracted great interest. As solutions of the equations of gravity, these objects describe geometries which have two regions, either in the same universe or in different universes, connected by a throat [@mothor; @visser]. In static spacetimes, it is possible to define the throat as a minimal area surface satisfying a flare-out condition [@hochvis97]. Within the framework of General Relativity, traversable wormholes must be threaded by exotic matter that violates the null energy condition [@mothor; @visser; @hochvis97; @hochvis98]. The amount of exotic matter required at the throat can be made infinitesimally small by appropriately choosing the geometry of the wormhole [@viskardad]. Although it may imply that the throat should suffer large stresses [@eisi05; @zas]. Discussions about the energy conditions in the context of wormholes can be find in Refs. [@barvis02-ro].
Thin–shell wormholes are mathematical constructions made by cutting and pasting two manifolds to form a geodesically complete one, with a shell located at the joining surface, which corresponds to the throat where the exotic matter is present [@visser; @vis89]. The junction-condition formalism is used for their study [@:junction:]. The stability analysis, under perturbations that preserve the symmetries, has been widely performed for a variety of thin–shell wormholes. Poisson and Visser carried out a linear analysis of the stability of wormholes constructed by joining two equal Schwarzschild geometries [@poisvis]. Barceló and Visser studied wormholes built using branes with negative tensions [@barvis00]. Ishak and Lake analyzed transparent spherically symmetric thin–shells and wormholes [@ishla]. Eiroa and Romero extended the linearized stability study to Reissner-Nordström wormhole spacetimes [@eiro]. Lobo and Crawford did the same analysis with wormhole geometries with a cosmological constant [@locraw04]. Thin–shell wormholes were studied within the context of dilaton gravity in Refs. [@eisi05; @ei08]. Cylindrical thin–shell wormholes have been also analyzed in Refs. [@:cyl-sym:]. For other recent interesting articles see Refs. [@:recent:].
The requirement of matter that violates the energy conditions is not only a feature of wormholes. If General Relativity is assumed as the gravity theory to describe the large scale of the Universe, the accelerated expansion violates the strong energy condition (see Refs. [@:obs-data:] for observational data analysis). Therefore several models of exotic matter, which have been proposed in the cosmological context [@:cosmo:], have been also used for wormholes. Phantom energy has been considered in a variety of wormhole articles. A Chaplygin gas [@:chaply-orig:; @:chaply-cosmo:] was used as the exotic matter in wormhole spacetimes [@lo06; @eisi07; @:chaply-wh:; @ei09; @:chaply-wh-n:]. In particular, a generalized Chaplygin gas within a finite region around the throat, has been adopted by Lobo [@lo06] as the exotic matter supporting wormholes, and by Eiroa [@ei09] for thin–shell wormholes, in which the exotic matter is located at the joining surface.
In the present paper, we construct and analyze the stability under perturbations preserving the symmetry of thin–shell wormholes supported by a generalized Chaplygin gas in dilaton gravity. That is, wormholes constructed by cutting and pasting geometries associated to a charged black holes with dilaton and Maxwell fields. In Sec. \[sec:tswh\], we review the basic aspects of construction and stability of thin–shell wormholes with a generalized Chaplygin gas. In Sec. \[sec:dil-wh\], we perform the study of thin–shell wormholes in dilaton gravity. In Sec. \[sec:conclu\], the results are summarized. Units such that $c=G=1$ are adopted throughout this work.
Basic equations {#sec:tswh}
===============
In this Section, we review the formalism developed in Ref. [@ei09] for a wide class of spherically symmetric thin–shell wormholes with a generalized Chaplygin gas. We start from the general metric $$ds^2=-f(r)dt^2+f(r)^{-1}dr^2+h(r) (d\theta ^2+\sin^2\theta d\varphi^2),
\label{e1}$$ where $r>0$ is the radial coordinate, $0\le \theta \le \pi$ and $0\le \varphi<2\pi $ are the angular coordinates, and the functions $f(r)$ and $h(r)$ are positive from a given radius. From this geometry, we take two identical copies of a region with radius $r \geq a$ assuming $a >\mathrm{max}\{r_{h},r_{s}\}$ in order to avoid the presence of horizons (at $r_{h}$) and/or singularities (at $r_{s}$): $\mathcal{M}^{\pm }=\{X^{\alpha }=X^{\alpha }(t,r,\theta,\varphi)/r\geq a\}$, and we paste them at the hypersurface $\Sigma \equiv \Sigma ^{\pm }=\{X/F(r)=r-a=0\}$, to create a new manifold $\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{M}^{+}\cup \mathcal{M}^{-}$. If $h'(a)>0$ (condition of flare-out), this construction creates a geodesically complete manifold representing a wormhole with two regions connected by a throat of radius $a$, where the surface of minimal area is located. In such a way that the area of a surface at fixed radius is $\mathcal{A}=4 \pi h(r)$, with $h(r)$ an increasing function for $r \in [a,a+\delta)$, being $\delta > 0$. Thus the area has a minimum at $r=a$ and the manifold $\mathcal{M}$ represents a wormhole with throat $\Sigma$. On this manifold it is possible to define a new radial coordinate $l=\pm \int_{a}^{r}\sqrt{1/f(r)}dr$ (the signs correspond, respectively, to $\mathcal{M}^{+}$ and $\mathcal{M}^{-}$) that represents the proper radial distance to the throat, which is situated at $l=0$. On the wormhole throat, which is a synchronous timelike hypersurface, we define coordinates $\xi ^{i}=(\tau ,\theta,\varphi )$, with $\tau $ the proper time on the shell.
For the stability analysis, under perturbations preserving the symmetry, we let the radius of the throat be a function of proper time $\tau$. Outside the throat, the geometry remains static. The lack of gravitational waves is guarantee by the Birkhoff theorem (see Refs. [@bronkov-bronmel] for the conditions that should be satisfied in a spherically symmetric geometry). Following the Darmois-Israel formalism [@:junction:], the second fundamental forms (or extrinsic curvature) associated with the two sides of the shell are given by $$K_{ij}^{\pm }=-n_{\gamma }^{\pm }\left. \left( \frac{\partial ^{2}X^{\gamma
} } {\partial \xi ^{i}\partial \xi ^{j}}+\Gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{\gamma }
\frac{ \partial X^{\alpha }}{\partial \xi ^{i}}\frac{\partial X^{\beta }}{
\partial \xi ^{j}}\right) \right| _{\Sigma },
\label{e4}$$ where $n_{\gamma }^{\pm }$ are the unit normals ($n^{\gamma }n_{\gamma }=1$) to $\Sigma $ in $\mathcal{M}$: $$n_{\gamma }^{\pm }=\pm \left| g^{\alpha \beta }\frac{\partial F}{\partial
X^{\alpha }}\frac{\partial F}{\partial X^{\beta }}\right| ^{-1/2}
\frac{\partial F}{\partial X^{\gamma }}.
\label{e5}$$ Using the orthonormal basis $\{ e_{\hat{\tau}}=e_{\tau }, e_{\hat{\theta}}=[h(a)]^{-1/2}e_{\theta }, e_{\hat{\varphi}}=[h(a)\sin^2 \theta ]^{-1/2} e_{\varphi }\} $, we obtain for the geometry (\[e1\]) that $$K_{\hat{\theta}\hat{\theta}}^{\pm }=K_{\hat{\varphi}\hat{\varphi}}^{\pm
}=\pm \frac{h'(a)}{2h(a)}\sqrt{f(a)+\dot{a}^2},
\label{e6}$$ and $$K_{\hat{\tau}\hat{\tau}}^{\pm }=\mp \frac{f'(a)+2\ddot{a}}{2\sqrt{f(a)+\dot{a}^2}},
\label{e7}$$ where a prime and the dot represent, respectively, the derivatives with respect to $r$ and $\tau$. Defining $[K_{_{\hat{\imath}\hat{\jmath}}}]\equiv K_{_{\hat{\imath}\hat{\jmath}}}^{+}-K_{_{\hat{\imath}\hat{\jmath}}}^{-}$, $K=tr[K_{\hat{\imath}\hat{\jmath }}]=[K_{\; \hat{\imath}}^{\hat{\imath}}]$ and introducing the surface stress-energy tensor $S_{_{\hat{\imath}\hat{\jmath} }}={\rm diag}(\sigma ,p_{\hat{\theta}},p_{\hat{\varphi}})$, where $\sigma$ is the surface energy density and $p_{\hat{\theta}} = p_{\hat{\varphi}} = p$ are the transverse pressures, the Einstein equations on the shell (the well-known Lanczos equations) are $$-[K_{\hat{\imath}\hat{\jmath}}]+Kg_{\hat{\imath}\hat{\jmath}}=8\pi
S_{\hat{\imath}\hat{\jmath}},
\label{e8}$$ so we get $$\sigma=-\frac{\sqrt{f(a)+\dot{a}^2}}{4\pi }\frac{h'(a)}{h(a)},
\label{e9}$$ and $$p=p_{\hat{\theta}}=p_{\hat{\varphi}}=\frac{\sqrt{f(a)+\dot{a}^2}}{8\pi}\left[ \frac{2\ddot{a}+f'(a)}{f(a)+\dot{a}^2}+\frac{h'(a)}{h(a)}\right] .
\label{e10}$$ The negative sign in Eq. (\[e9\]) plus the flare-out condition ($h'(a)>0$) implies that $\sigma <0$, indicating the presence of exotic matter at the throat.
We adopt a generalized Chaplygin gas as the exotic matter in the shell $\Sigma $. For this gas, the pressure has opposite sign to the energy density, resulting in a positive pressure. Then, the equation of state for the exotic matter at the throat can be written in the form $$p=\frac{A}{|\sigma |^{\alpha}},
\label{e11}$$ where $A>0$ and $0<\alpha\le 1$ are constants. The original Chaplygin gas [@:chaply-orig:] with equation of state $p=-A/\sigma$ is recovered for $\alpha=1$, and it has the property that the squared sound speed is always positive, even in the case of exotic matter. Then, by replacing Eqs. (\[e9\]) and (\[e10\]) in Eq. (\[e11\]), we obtain the differential equation that should be satisfied by the throat radius of thin–shell wormholes threaded by exotic matter with the equation of state of a generalized Chaplygin gas: $$\{ [2\ddot{a}+f'(a)]h(a)+[f(a)+\dot{a}^2]h'(a) \}[h'(a)]^{\alpha}-2A[4\pi h(a)]^{\alpha +1}[f(a)+\dot{a}^2]^{(1-\alpha)/2}=0.
\label{e12}$$ For the static solutions with throat radius $a_{0}$, the surface energy density and pressure are given by $$\sigma_{0}=-\frac{\sqrt{f(a_{0})}}{4\pi}\frac{h'(a_{0})}{h(a_{0})},
\label{e13}$$ and $$p_{0}=\frac{\sqrt{f(a_{0})}}{8\pi}\left[ \frac{f'(a_{0})}{f(a_{0})}+\frac{h'(a_{0})}{h(a_{0})}\right] .
\label{e14}$$ The throat radius of the static solutions, $a_{0}$, should fulfill Eq. (\[e12\]), that is $$[f'(a_{0})h(a_{0})+f(a_{0})h'(a_{0})][h'(a_{0})]^{\alpha}-2A[4\pi h(a_{0})]^{\alpha +1}[f(a_{0})]^{(1-\alpha)/2}=0,
\label{e15}$$ with the condition $a_{0}>$max$\{r_{h},r_{s}\}$ (if the metric has an event horizon or a singularity).
Following the standard potential approach, we study the stability of the static solution, under perturbations that preserve the symmetry. From Eqs. (\[e9\]) and (\[e10\]) (and recalling that the area of the wormhole throat is $\mathcal{A}=4\pi h(a)$), the energy conservation equation is found: $$\frac{d}{d\tau }\left( \sigma \mathcal{A}\right) +p\frac{d\mathcal{A}}{d\tau }=
\left\lbrace \left[ h'(a)\right]^2 -2h(a)h''(a)\right\rbrace \frac{\dot{a}\sqrt{f(a)+ \dot{a}^2}}{2h(a)}.
\label{p1}$$ The first term in the left hand side is the internal energy change of the throat and the second the work done by the internal forces of the throat, while the right hand side represents a flux. If $[h'(a)]^2 -2h(a)h''(a)=0$, the flux term is zero and Eq. (\[p1\]) takes the form of a simple conservation equation. This occurs when $h(a)=C(a+D)^2$ (with $C>0$ and $D$ constants) or $h(a)=C$ (this case is unphysical, since there is no throat [@ei09]). It is straightforward to see that Eq. (\[p1\]) can be written in the form $$h(a)\sigma '+h'(a)(\sigma +p)+\left\lbrace \left[ h'(a)\right]^2 -2h(a)h''(a)\right\rbrace
\frac{\sigma }{2 h'(a)}=0,
\label{p3}$$ where it was used that $\sigma '=\dot{\sigma }/\dot{a}$. Since the pressure $p$ is a function of $\sigma $ given by the equation of state, Eq. (\[p3\]) is a first order differential that can be recast in the form $\sigma '(a)=\mathcal{F}(a, \sigma (a))$, for which a unique solution with a given initial condition always exists, provided that $\mathcal{F}$ has continuous partial derivatives. Then, Eq. (\[p3\]) can be formally integrated to obtain $\sigma (a)$. If we replace $\sigma (a)$ in Eq. (\[e9\]), the dynamics of the wormhole throat is completely determined by a single equation: $$\dot{a}^{2}=-V(a),
\label{p4}$$ with $$V(a)=f(a)-16\pi ^{2}\left[ \frac{h(a)}{h'(a)}\sigma (a)\right] ^{2}.
\label{p5}$$ Replacing the surface energy density and the pressure corresponding to the static solutions (Eqs. (\[e13\]) and (\[e14\])) and using that $V(a_{0})=V'(a_{0})=0$, a Taylor expansion to second order of the potential $V(a)$ around the static solution yields [@ei09]: $$V(a)=\frac{1}{2}V''(a_{0})(a-a_{0})^{2}+O[(a-a_{0})^{3}],
\label{p11}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
V''(a_{0})&=& f''(a_{0})+\frac{(\alpha -1)[f'(a_{0})]^2}{2f(a_{0})}+\left[ \frac{(1-\alpha )h'(a_{0})}{2h(a_{0})}+\frac{\alpha h''(a_{0})}{h'(a_{0})}\right] f'(a_{0}) \nonumber \\
& & +(\alpha +1)\left[ \frac{h''(a_{0})}{h(a_{0})} -\left( \frac{h'(a_{0})}{h(a_{0})} \right) ^{2}\right] f(a_{0}).
\label{p12}\end{aligned}$$ As usual, if the dynamics of the system is completely determined by an equation like Eq. (\[p4\]), the stability under radial perturbations is guaranteed if and only if $V''(a_{0})>0$.
Dilaton wormholes {#sec:dil-wh}
=================
The four-dimensional modified Einstein action in dilaton gravity includes the (scalar) dilaton field $\phi$ and the electromagnetic field $F^{\mu\nu}$, and in the Einstein frame has the form [@:dil-grav:] $$S=\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left(-R+2(\nabla \phi)^2+e^{-2b\phi}F^2\right),
\label{emd}$$ where $R$ is the Ricci scalar of the spacetime. The parameter $b$ represents the coupling between the dilaton and the Maxwell field and it will be restricted within the range $0 \leq b \leq 1$. For $b=0$, the action corresponds to the usual Einstein–Maxwell scalar theory. For $b=1$, the action was obtained in the context of low energy string theory with a Maxwell field, but with all other gauge fields and the antisymmetric field set to zero. The action given by Eq. (\[emd\]) leads to the Einstein equations with the dilaton and the Maxwell fields as the sources [@:dil-grav:]: $$\nabla _{\mu }\left( e^{-2b\phi }F^{\mu \nu }\right) =0,$$ $$\nabla ^{2}\phi +\frac{b}{2}e^{-2b\phi }F^{2}=0,$$ $$R_{\mu \nu }=2\nabla _{\mu }\phi \nabla _{\nu }\phi +2e^{-2b\phi }
\left( F_{\mu \alpha }F_{\nu }^{\; \alpha }-\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }F^{2}\right) .
\label{feq}$$ Assuming $\phi = \phi(r)$, which means that the dilaton field does not depend on time, these field equations admit spherically symmetric black hole solutions [@:dil-grav:; @gibmae] in the form of Eq. (\[e1\]), with metric functions, in Schwarzschild coordinates, given by $$\begin{aligned}
f(r) & = &\left( 1-\frac{A}{r}\right)\left( 1-\frac{B}{r}
\right)^{(1-b^2)/(1+b^2)}, \label{d1a}\\
h(r) & = &r^2\left( 1-\frac{B}{r}\right)^{2b^2/(1+b^2)},
\label{d1b}\end{aligned}$$ where the constants $A,B$ are related with the parameter $b$, and the mass and charge of the black hole by $$A=M+\sqrt{M^2-(1-b^2)Q^2},
\label{d3a}$$ and $$B=\frac{(1+b^2)Q^2}{M+\sqrt{M^2-(1-b^2)Q^2}}.
\label{d3b}$$ In the case of electric charge, the electromagnetic field tensor has non-null components $F_{tr}=-F_{rt}=Q/r^{2}$, and the dilaton field is given by $\phi =b(1+b^2)^{-1}\ln( 1-B/r)$, where the asymptotic value of the dilaton $\phi_{0}$ was taken as zero. For magnetic charge, the metric is the same, with the electromagnetic field $F_{\theta \varphi}=-F_{\varphi \theta}=Q\sin \theta $ and the dilaton field obtained replacing $\phi $ by $-\phi $.
We can distinguish three cases: i) $b=0$, ii) $0< b < 1$, and iii) $b=1$. In the first case, the geometry corresponds to Reissner-Nordström metric, with $f(r)=1-2M/r+Q^2/r^2$ and $h(r)=r^{2}$. If $|Q|/M< 1$, the constants $A$ and $B$ represent, respectively, the radii of the outer (event) and the inner horizons; if $|Q|/M=1$ both horizons have the same radius; and if $|Q|/M>1$ there is only a naked singularity at $r_s=0$. In the second case, the metric has an event horizon for $r_{h}=A$ and a singular surface for $r_s=B$, and there are two possibilities: if $0 \leq |Q|/M \leq (1+b^{2})^{1/2}$, then $A \geq B$ which implies that $r_{h} \geq r_{s}$; if $ (1+b^{2})^{1/2} < |Q|/M \leq (1-b^{2})^{-1/2}$, we have $A < B$ and the event horizon is located inside the singularity radius (so called naked singularity). It is worthy of mention that there is a maximum value for the charge: $(1-b^{2})^{-1/2}$, otherwise the geometry is not well defined. In the third case, one obtains $f(r)=1-2M/r$ and $h(r)=r^{2}[1-Q^2/(2Mr)]$. The event horizon at $r_{h}=A=2M$ is outside or inside the singularity at $r_{s}=B=Q^2/(2M)$, accordingly to $|Q| \leq \sqrt{2}M$ or $|Q| > \sqrt{2}M$, respectively.
Reissner-Nordström wormholes ($b=0$) with a generalized Chaplygin gas were previously studied by one of the authors [@ei09]. In the present work, we focus on dilaton wormholes ($ 0< b \le 1$). As it was done in a previous work [@eisi05], we construct thin–shell wormholes in dilaton gravity, assuming that the throat has a radius $a$ greater than $A$ and $B$ to eliminate the presence of horizons and singularities. For the geometry represented by the metric (\[e1\]), the static solutions with throat radius $a_{0}$ are obtained replacing $f(a_{0})$ and $h(a_{0})$ in Eqs. (\[e13\]) and (\[e14\]), thus we reobtain the surface energy density and pressure found in Ref. [@eisi05] $$\sigma _{0}=-\frac{1}{2\pi a_{0}^2}\left( 1-\frac{A}{a_{0}}\right)^{1/2}\left( 1-\frac{B}{a_{0}}
\right)^{(1-b^2)/(2+2b^2)}\left[ a_{0}+\frac{b^2B}{1+b^2}\left( 1-\frac{B}{a_{0}}
\right)^{-1}\right],
\label{d4}$$ $$p_{0}=\frac{1}{8\pi a_{0}^{2}}\left( 1-\frac{A}{a_{0}}\right) ^{1/2}\left( 1-\frac{B}{a_{0}}
\right) ^{(1-b^2)/(2+2b^2)}\left[ 2a_{0}+A\left( 1-\frac{A}{a_{0}}\right) ^{-1}+B
\left( 1-\frac{B}{a_{0}}\right) ^{-1}\right].
\label{d5}$$ But now the pressure and the surface energy density are related by the generalized Chaplygin gas equation of state, instead of the linearized equation of state adopted in Ref. [@eisi05]. It is straightforward to see that the surface energy density and pressure corresponding to the Reissner–Nordström thin–shell wormholes studied in Ref. [@ei09] are recovered when $b=0$.
![Dilaton wormholes with $b=0.1$ supported by a generalized Chaplygin gas with $\alpha =0.2$: the dashed curves represent the unstable static solutions with throat radius $a_{0}$ for given parameters $A$, $M$ and $Q$; there are not stable static solutions. The darker (lighter) gray zones are unphysical, corresponding to a throat radius smaller than the horizon (singularity) radius of the original manifold. The event horizon and the naked singularity match for a critical value of charge $|Q_{c}|/M=(1+b^{2})^{1/2}$ and the geometry is not well defined for $|Q|/M>|Q_{m}|/M=(1-b^{2})^{-1/2}$.[]{data-label="f1"}](f1.eps){width="15cm"}
![Dilaton wormholes with $b=0.1$ supported by a generalized Chaplygin gas with $\alpha =0.6$: the dashed curves represent the unstable static solutions with throat radius $a_{0}$ for given parameters $A$, $M$ and $Q$; the solid curves represent the stable static solutions. The meaning of the gray zones and the charges $Q_c$ and $Q_m$ are explained in Fig. \[f1\].[]{data-label="f2"}](f2.eps){width="15cm"}
![Dilaton wormholes with $b=0.1$ supported by a generalized Chaplygin gas with $\alpha =1$: the dashed curves represent the unstable static solutions with throat radius $a_{0}$ for given parameters $A$, $M$ and $Q$; the solid curve represent the stable static solutions. The meaning of the gray zones and the charges $Q_c$ and $Q_m$ are explained in Fig. \[f1\]. Note that the horizontal scale has changed.[]{data-label="f3"}](f3.eps){width="15cm"}
![Dilaton wormholes with $b=0.5$ supported by a generalized Chaplygin gas with $\alpha =0.2$: the dashed curves represent the unstable static solutions with throat radius $a_{0}$ for given parameters $A$, $M$ and $Q$; there are not stable static solutions. The meaning of the gray zones and the charges $Q_c$ and $Q_m$ are explained in Fig. \[f1\].[]{data-label="f4"}](f4b.eps){width="15cm"}
![Dilaton wormholes with $b=0.5$ supported by a generalized Chaplygin gas with $\alpha =0.6$: the dashed curves represent the unstable static solutions with throat radius $a_{0}$ for given parameters $A$, $M$ and $Q$; there are not stable static solutions. The meaning of the gray zones and the charges $Q_c$ and $Q_m$ are explained in Fig. \[f1\].[]{data-label="f5"}](f5.eps){width="15cm"}
![Dilaton wormholes with $b=0.5$ supported by a generalized Chaplygin gas with $\alpha =1$: the dashed curves represent the unstable static solutions with throat radius $a_{0}$ for given parameters $A$, $M$ and $Q$; the solid curve represent the stable static solutions (see the magnified region). The meaning of the gray zones and the charges $Q_c$ and $Q_m$ are explained in Fig. \[f1\]. Note that the horizontal scale has changed. []{data-label="f6"}](f6.eps){width="15cm"}
When $0 < b < 1$, we assume that the throat radius satisfy that $a_{0}>A>B$ for $0 \leq |Q| < |Q_{c}|$, since the event horizon contain the singularity, and $a_{0}>B \geq A$ for $|Q_{c}| \leq |Q| < |Q_{m}|$, because of the event horizon is inside of the singular surface (thus is a naked singularity); we have labeled the critical value of charge, for which the event horizon and the singularity have the same radial coordinate, as $|Q_{c}|/M=(1+b^{2})^{1/2}$. As we pointed out above, the charge cannot take values greater than what we have called $|Q_{m}|/M=(1-b^{2})^{-1/2}$ as the maximum possible value of charge for which the geometry is well defined. In the particular case of $b=1$ there is no maximum value of charge since the geometry is always well defined in our wormhole construction.
The throat radii of the static solutions are obtained by replacing Eqs. (\[d1a\]) and (\[d1b\]) in Eq. (\[e15\]), and solving it numerically; these solutions are stable when satisfy that the second derivative of the potential, given by Eq. (\[p12\]), is positive. For a given set of parameters, the complexity of the expression of $V''(a_{0})$ compel us to find the range of $a_0$ for which $V''(a_{0})>0$ in a numerical form and display the results graphically. In Figs. \[f1\]–\[f3\] we show the results obtained for values of dilaton parameter $b=0.1$ which is close to the Reissner-Nordström case (i.e. $b=0$), and $\alpha =0.2$, $\alpha =0.6$, $\alpha =1$, respectively. In Figs. \[f4\]–\[f6\] we display the results found for $b=0.5$, corresponding to an intermediate value of dilaton parameter, and $\alpha =0.2$, $\alpha =0.6$, $\alpha =1$, respectively. The values of charge adopted were chosen to be representative in each case. In all plots, the solid curves correspond to stable solutions while the dashed lines to unstable ones.
As shown in Fig. \[f1\] (where $b=0.1$ and $\alpha =0.2$), for small values of $\alpha$ there are not stable solutions. This is a very important difference with the Reissner-Nordström wormholes, studied in Ref. [@ei09]. We can summarize the results as follows:
- When $0 \leq |Q| < |Q_{c}|$ there is one unstable solution with a throat radius $a_{0}/M$ which decreases with $AM^{\alpha +1}$ and approaches to the event horizon radius of the original manifold for large values of $AM^{\alpha+1}$.
- If $|Q| = |Q_{c}|$ there is one unstable solution for small values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$, there are two unstable solutions for intermediate values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$, and there are no solutions for large values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$, because the throat radius $a_{0}/M$ reaches the singularity of the original manifold at a finite value of $AM^{\alpha +1}$.
- When $|Q| > |Q_{c}|$ there is one unstable solution for small values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$, there are three unstable solutions for intermediate values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$, and there is one unstable solution for large values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$, with the throat radius $a_{0}/M$ approaching asymptotically to the singularity of the original manifold.
As shown in Fig. \[f2\] (where $b=0.1$ and $\alpha =0.6$), for intermediate values of $\alpha$ there are stable solutions for properly chosen values of the parameters. The main results are:
- For $0 \leq |Q| < |Q_{c}|$ there is one unstable solution with a throat radius $a_{0}/M$ that asymptotically approaches to the radius of the event horizon of the original manifold for large values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$, faster than in the case of the small values of $\alpha$.
- For $|Q| \geq |Q_{c}|$ there are three solutions at small values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$: the larger and the smaller ones are unstable and the middle one is stable, while for large values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$ there is only one unstable solutions with a throat radius $a_{0}/M$ that tends asymptotically to the singularity of the original manifold.
Note that all cases have solution for any value of $AM^{\alpha +1}$.
As shown in Fig. \[f3\] (where $b=0.1$ and $\alpha =1$), the case of the ordinary Chaplygin gas presents stable solutions. We find that:
- When $0 \le |Q| < |Q_{c}|$ and $|Q|$ is not very close to $|Q_{c}|$, for small values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$ there is only an unstable solution. The throat radius $a_{0}/M$ decreases with $AM^{\alpha +1}$ and it cuts the horizon radius of the original manifold at a finite value of $AM^{\alpha +1}$, so there are no solutions for intermediate and large values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$.
- If $|Q|<|Q_{c}|$ and $|Q|$ is very close to $|Q_{c}|$, for small values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$ there are two solutions with throat radius $a_{0}/M$: the larger one is unstable and the smaller one is stable. The throat radius cuts the horizon radius of the original manifold at a finite and very close to zero value of $AM^{\alpha +1}$, so there are no solutions for intermediate and large values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$.
- If $|Q|=|Q_{c}|$, for small values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$ there are three solutions with throat radius $a_{0}/M$: the larger and the smaller ones are unstable, and the intermediate one is stable. For intermediate and large values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$ there are no solutions since the throat radius reaches the singularity of the original manifold at very small values of $AM^{\alpha + 1}$.
- When $|Q_{c}|<|Q|<|Q_{m}|$, for small values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$ there are three solutions with throat radius $a_{0}/M$: the larger and the smaller are unstable, the middle one is stable; while for intermediate and large values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$ there is only one unstable solution that asymptotically approaches to the singularity of the original manifold.
In Fig. \[f4\] (where $b=0.5$ and $\alpha =0.2$), the solutions are unstable for all values of charge. The throat radius is a decreasing function of $AM^{\alpha +1}$ that presents asymptotic behavior for large values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$. Sufficiently closer to the critical value of charge, there are three unstable solutions for a very small interval of $AM^{\alpha +1}$. In Fig. \[f5\] (where $b=0.5$ and $\alpha =0.6$), for all values of charge the solutions are unstable. The throat radius approaches asymptotically to the event horizon of the original manifold or to the singularity of the original manifold (depending on the value of charge), in a faster way than the previous case, with a small value of $\alpha$. Sufficiently closer to the critical value of charge, there are three unstable solutions for a narrow interval of $AM^{\alpha +1}$. For both, $\alpha =0.2$ and $\alpha =0.6$, there are solutions for any value of $AM^{\alpha +1}$.
In Fig. \[f6\] (where $b=0.5$ and $\alpha =1$) there is one stable configuration, and the main results are the following:
- When $0 \le |Q| < |Q_{c}|$ and $|Q|$ is not very close to $|Q_{c}|$, for small values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$ there is only an unstable solution. The throat radius $a_{0}/M$ decreases with $AM^{\alpha +1}$ and it cuts the horizon radius of the original manifold at a finite value of $AM^{\alpha +1}$, so there are no solutions for intermediate and large values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$.
- If $|Q|<|Q_{c}|$ and $|Q|$ is very close to $|Q_{c}|$, but not too much close, for small values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$ there are two solutions with throat radius $a_{0}/M$: the larger one is unstable and the smaller one is stable. The throat radius reaches the horizon radius of the original manifold for a finite and very close to zero value of $AM^{\alpha +1}$, so there are no solutions for intermediate and large values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$. Note that the horizontal scale was reduced in the plots in order to obtain a better visualization of the little region of the stability.
- When $|Q|<|Q_{c}|$ and $|Q|$ is near enough to $|Q_{c}|$ there are two unstable solutions for small values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$. The throat radius cuts the horizon radius of the original manifold at a finite and very close to zero value of $AM^{\alpha +1}$, so there are no solutions for intermediate and large values of $AM^{\alpha +1}$.
- If $|Q| \geq |Q_{c}|$, there is only one unstable solution with a throat radius that tends asymptotically to the singularity of the original manifold.
When $b=0.5$ and $0 < \alpha < 1$, we have found that there are not stable solutions. Only the case $\alpha = 1$, that is the ordinary Chaplygin gas, presents stable configurations.
In all cases analyzed, when there are both stable and unstable static configurations, the throat radius $a_{0}/M$ of the stable solution is an increasing function of $AM^{\alpha +1}$, while the unstable branch decreases with $AM^{\alpha +1}$. As the value of the dilaton parameter increases, we find that the interval of $a_{0}/M$ for which $V''(a_{0})>0$ reduces. We observe that there are no roots of $V''(a_{0})$ for $0< \alpha <1$ when the dilaton parameter is such that $b\gtrsim 0.22$. So that the second derivative remains negative for all possible values of $AM^{\alpha+1}$, which means that the dilaton wormholes have no stable static solutions for $0< \alpha <1$ if $b\gtrsim 0.22$. In the specific case of $\alpha=1$, which corresponds to the ordinary Chaplygin gas, we obtain a very small stable region for some values of the charge close enough to $Q_{c}$ (but not too much close). The interval of $a_{0}/M$ for which there are stable static solutions is smaller as far as the value of the dilaton coupling parameter increases. In particular, for the uppermost value $b=1$, we encountered a very small interval, for a very narrow range of values of charge, where the wormholes have stable behavior (the plots are not shown here for brevity).
Conclusions {#sec:conclu}
===========
In this work, we have studied the stability under perturbations preserving the spherical symmetry of thin–shell wormholes in dilaton gravity supported by a generalized Chaplygin gas. For the construction we have performed the usual cut and paste procedure; so the surface energy density and the pressure at the throat have been obtained following the junction formalism. For the stability analysis we have implemented the standard potential approach. We have found that for a fixed value of the dilaton coupling parameter $b$, the possibility of obtaining a static stable solution increases as far as the exponent $\alpha$ in the equation of state grows, i.e. as the generalized Chaplygin gas gets closer to the ordinary one (with $\alpha = 1$). The same result was previously found for Reissner–Nordström thin–shell wormholes (which correspond to $b=0$) in Ref. [@ei09]. On the other hand, as the dilaton coupling $b$ increases, the values of the parameters for which stable static solutions exist lie in a smaller range, so the dilaton field reduces the presence of stable configurations.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work has been supported by CONICET and Universidad de Buenos Aires.
[99]{}
M.S. Morris and K.S. Thorne, Am. J. Phys. **56**, 395 (1988).
M. Visser, *Lorentzian Wormholes* (AIP Press, New York, 1996).
D. Hochberg and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D **56**, 4745 (1997).
D. Hochberg and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. Lett. **81**, 746 (1998); D. Hochberg and M. Visser, Phys. Rev D **58**, 044021 (1998).
M. Visser, S. Kar and N. Dadhich, Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 201102 (2003).
E.F. Eiroa and C. Simeone, Phys. Rev. D **71**, 127501 (2005).
O.B. Zaslavskii, Phys. Rev. D **76**, 044017 (2007).
C. Barceló and M. Visser, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D **11**, 1553 (2002); T.A. Roman, Proceedings of the Tenth Marcel Grossmann, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20-26 July 2003, edited by M. Novello, S.P. Bergliaffa, and R. Ruffini (World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, 2006) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0409090\].
M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D **39**, 3182 (1989); M. Visser, Nucl. Phys. **B328**, 203 (1989).
N. Sen, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) **73**, 365 (1924); K. Lanczos, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) **74**, 518 (1924); G. Darmois, Mémorial des Sciences Mathématiques, Fascicule XXV, Chap. V (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1927); W. Israel, Nuovo Cimento **44B**, 1 (1966); **48B**, 463(E) (1967); for a review see P. Musgrave and K. Lake, Class. Quantum Grav. **13**, 1885 (1996).
E. Poisson and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D **52**, 7318 (1995).
C. Barceló and M. Visser, Nucl. Phys. **B584**, 415 (2000).
M. Ishak and K. Lake, Phys. Rev. D **65**, 044011 (2002).
E.F. Eiroa and G.E. Romero, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. **36**, 651 (2004).
F.S.N. Lobo and P. Crawford, Class. Quantum Grav. **21**, 391 (2004).
E.F. Eiroa, Phys. Rev. D **78**, 024018 (2008).
E.F. Eiroa and C. Simeone, Phys. Rev. D **70**, 044008 (2004); C. Bejarano, E.F. Eiroa and C. Simeone, Phys. Rev. D **75**, 027501 (2007); E.F. Eiroa and C. Simeone, Phys. Rev. D **81**, 084022 (2010).
F.S.N. Lobo and P. Crawford, Class. Quantum Grav. **22**, 4869 (2005); J.P.S. Lemos and F. S. N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D **78**, 044030 (2008); K.A. Bronnikov and A.A. Starobinsky, Mod. Phys. Lett. A **24**, 1559 (2009); K.A. Bronnikov and J.P.S. Lemos, Phys. Rev. D **79**, 104019 (2009); G.A.S. Dias and J.P.S. Lemos, Phys. Rev. D **82**, 084023 (2010); E.F. Eiroa and C. Simeone, Phys. Rev. D **83**, 104009 (2011).
A. Riess et al., Astron. J. **116**, 1009 (1998); S. J. Perlmutter et al., Astroph. J. **517**, 565 (1999); N.A. Bahcall, J. P. Ostriker, S.J. Perlmutter and P.J. Steinhardt, Science **284**, 1481 (1999).
V. Sahni and A.A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D **9**, 373 (2000); P.J. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. **75**, 559 (2003); T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rep. **380**, 235 (2003).
S. Chaplygin, Sci. Mem. Moscow Univ. Math. Phys. **21**, 1 (1904); H. -S-Tien, J. Aeron. Sci. **6**, 399 (1939); T. von Karman, J. Aeron. Sci. **8**, 337 (1941).
A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella and V. Pasquier, Phys. Lett. **B511**, 265 (2001); N. Bilić, G.B. Tupper and R.D. Viollier, Phys. Lett. **B535**, 17 (2002); M.C. Bento, O. Bertolami and A.A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D **66**, 043507 (2002); for a review see V. Gorini, A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella and V. Pasquier, gr-qc/0403062.
F.S.N. Lobo, Phys. Rev. D **73**, 064028 (2006).
E.F. Eiroa and C. Simeone, Phys. Rev. D **76**, 024021 (2007).
F. Rahaman, M. Kalam and K. A. Rahman, Mod. Phys. Lett. A **23**, 1199 (2008); V. Gorini, U. Moschella, A.Yu. Kamenshchik, V. Pasquier, and A.A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D **78**, 064064 (2008); S. Chakraborty and T. Bandyopadhyay, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D **18**, 463 (2009); M. Jamil, M.U. Farooq and M.A. Rashid, Eur. Phys. J. C **59**, 907 (2009); P.K.F. Kuhfittig, Gen. Relativ. Grav. **41**, 1485 (2009).
E.F. Eiroa, Phys. Rev. D **80**, 044033 (2009).
V. Gorini, A.Yu. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, O.F. Piattella, and A.A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D **80**, 104038 (2009).
K.A. Bronnikov and M.A. Kovalchuk, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., **13**, 187 (1980); K.A. Bronnikov and V.N. Melnikov, Gen. Relat. Grav. **27**, 465 (1995).
D. Garfinkle, G.T. Horowitz and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. D **43**, 3140 (1991); Phys. Rev. D **45**, 3888(E) (1992); J.H. Horne and G.T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. D **46**, 1340 (1992).
G.W. Gibbons and K. Maeda, Nucl. Phys. **B298**, 741 (1988).
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the discretized version of the compact Randall-Sundrum model. By studying the mass eigenstates of the lattice theory, we demonstrate that for warped space, unlike for flat space, the strong coupling scale does not depend on the IR scale and lattice size. However, strong coupling does prevent us from taking the continuum limit of the lattice theory. Nonetheless, the lattice theory works in the manifestly holographic regime and successfully reproduces the most significant features of the warped theory. It is even in some respects better than the KK theory, which must be carefully regulated to obtain the correct physical results. Because it is easier to construct lattice theories than to find exact solutions to GR, we expect lattice gravity to be a useful tool for exploring field theory in curved space.'
---
UCB-PTH-05/18\
LBNL-57913\
[**[Discretizing Gravity in Warped Spacetime]{}**]{}
[Lisa Randall$^a$[^1], Matthew D. Schwartz$^b$[^2], and Shiyamala Thambyahpillai$^a$[^3]\
]{}
Introduction
============
Warped geometries, such as the background used in Randall-Sundrum model [@rs1; @rs2], have provided many insights into general relativity and holography. However, it is very difficult to find exact solutions to Einstein’s equations, so only a handful of warped geometries are known. It would be useful to have a tool for constructing theories that reproduce the features of the warped geometries without having to find and stabilize an appropriate gravitational source. Discrete gravitational dimensions could be such a tool [@orig; @d1; @d2; @d3]. If we work in the effective field theory framework with a cutoff, we may be able to learn a lot about general realtivity without needing exact solutions, as long as the discrete theory can be trusted. Of course, this will not tell us about the energy-momentum tensor to generate such a background, but we can use the discrete model as a tool for investigating stability of the system, the existence of ghosts, and the strong coupling scale, for example. In this paper, we study the the discretization of a single extra dimension in which we impose the exponential warp factor of the Randall-Sundrum model. Although previous work discussed discrete nongravitational extra dimensions for RS [@rsw; @Abe:2002rj; @falk; @Katz:2004qa; @Bhattacharya:2005xa; @Andreev:2004sy], so far gravity has not been included in the discretized model. We will find that many of the features of the continuum gravitational theory are correctly reproduced, and that some of the problems with flat space lattice gravity are ameliorated.
The discretized model has a number of sites, each of which has a separate four-dimensional metric, and, in the minimal case, has only nearest neighbor links. In the case of flat space, it has been shown that the there is a limit to how small the lattice spacing can be that depends on the overall size of the lattice. This implies that there is no good continuum limit and it is impossible to reproduce 5D gravity all the way up to the five dimensional Planck scale. The absence of the continuum limit in the flat case could be connected to the absence of a simple local holographic description. It seems reasonable that a four-dimensional discretized theory should exist for the warped case, which does have a dual lower-dimensional description.
The flat space strong coupling problems result from two properties of the Kaluza-Klein spectrum: there is a very light mode and that mode couples equally over the entire theory space. Both of these properties are the result of the discretized kinetic term, which introduces large mixing between the additional scalars that were originally associated with a single site. The mixing leads to a light highly delocalized mode, whose strong interactions invalidate a low-energy description at a strong coupling scale that lies well below the top of the KK tower. This is a less severe problem in the warped geometry, because the strong warp-factor dependence in the kinetic term keeps the modes localized on only a few sites. The absence of strong mixing means that the localized modes are not lighter than you would naively expect.
However, the warp factor only protects against mixing of modes that are localized on sites further apart than the AdS curvature scale. When the theory is discretized on smaller scales, the theory resembles flat space. Within the AdS curvature scale, modes do mix and get delocalized. So although it is possible to reproduce many of the features of the continuum theory with the discretized version, it is still not possible to achieve the true continuum limit. Nevertheless, we find that the dangerous UV/IR problem is absent: the lattice is self-consistent for any number of sites.
Set-up
======
We will be concerned with the Poincare patch of $\mathrm{AdS}_5$, which is described by the metric $$d s^2 = e^{- 2 k y} g_{\mu \nu} ( x, y ) d x^{\mu} d x^{\nu} + d y^2 .$$ As in RS, we impose orbifold boundary conditions at $y = 0$ and $y = \pi R$. The 5D gravitational Lagrangian in this background is $$\mathcal{L =} M^3_5 \sqrt{g_5} ( R_5 - 12 k^2 )$$ $$= M^3_5 \sqrt{g} \left[ e^{- 2 k y} R_4 - 12 k^2 + \partial_y ( e^{- 2 k y}
g_{\mu \nu} ) ( g^{\mu \rho} g^{\nu \sigma} - g^{\mu \nu} g^{\rho \sigma} )
\partial_y ( e^{- 2 k y} g_{\rho \sigma} ) \right] .$$ We are interested in linear fluctuations so we expand $g_{\mu \nu} = \eta_{\mu
\nu} + h_{\mu \nu}$. Then, the terms quadratic in $h$, after some integration by parts, are $$\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{4} M^3_5 \left\{ e^{- 2 k y} \left[ h_{\mu \nu} \Box
h_{\mu \nu} + 2 h_{\mu \nu, \alpha}^2 - 2 h_{\mu \nu, \mu} h_{, \mu} + h_{,
\mu}^2 \right] + e^{- 4 k y} \left[ ( \partial_y h_{\mu \nu} )^2 - (
\partial_y h )^2 \right] \right\}\label{contlag} .$$ To discretize the fifth dimension, we choose points evenly spaced in the $y$-coordinate: $$y_j = j a, \quad j = 0 \cdots N ,$$ where $N$ is the number of lattice sites and $a = R/N$ is the lattice spacing. This is not the only possibility, and discretizing in a different coordinate may result in a drastically different lattice theory. However, $y$ is in some sense the natural choice, since it is a geodesic coordinate for the Poincare patch (unlike, say, the conformal coordinate $z$). But more importantly, we can justify using $y$ *a posteriori* because this discretization will lead to a lattice theory with some of the holographic features of AdS that we expect to see. We replace derivatives in the $y$ direction by differences. For example $$e^{- 4 k y} ( \partial_y h_{\mu \nu} )^2 \rightarrow \frac{1}{a^2} e^{- 4 k
j a} ( h_{\mu \nu}^{j + 1} - h_{\mu \nu}^j )^2 .$$ This brings out additional ambiguities related to the evaluation of the warping prefactor, and to boundary terms which appear if we integrate by parts before discretizing. However, again, our choices will be justified *a posteriori*. In any case, if the lattice theory is to be trusted, we should expect that these ambiguities are irrelevant in the continuum limit, which we discuss below.
Thus we get $$\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{4} M^2 \sum_j e^{- 2 k a j} h_{\mu \nu}^j \Box h_{\mu
\nu}^j + e^{- 4 k a j} \left[ \frac{1}{a^2} ( h_{\mu \nu}^{j + 1} - h_{\mu
\nu}^j )^2 - \frac{1}{a^2} ( h^{j + 1} - h^j )^2 \right] ,$$ with $M=\sqrt{M_5^3 a}$ the effective 4D Planck scale on the sites. Going to canonical normalization $$\widehat{h_j} = M e^{- k a j } h_j$$ we get a standard lattice action $$\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{4} \sum_j \hat{h}_{\mu \nu}^j \Box \hat{h}_{\mu
\nu}^j + M_{i j} ( \hat{h}^i_{\mu \nu} \hat{h}^j_{\mu \nu} - \hat{h}^i
\hat{h}^j )$$ with mass matrix $$M_{i j} = \frac{1}{a^2} e^{- 2 k a ( j - 1 )} \left[ ( e^{2 k a} + e^{- 2
k a} ) \delta_{i j} - e^{ k a} \delta_{i + 1, j} - e^{- k a} \delta_{i -
1, j} \right] .$$ Note that this is essentially the same mass matrix as for a gauge boson [@rsw; @falk; @Katz:2004qa; @Bhattacharya:2005xa].
At this point it is helpful to think about the values for $a,
k,$and $M$ that we would like to study, which are determined by the continuum limit in which we are interested. As in flat space, we would like to know whether we can have $N \rightarrow \infty$ in such a way that the lattice matches the continuum between any two scales $\Lambda_{\mathrm{UV}}$ and $\Lambda_{\mathrm{IR}}$. In the case of the compact Randall-Sundrum model relevant for the standard model, which has $k \sim M$ and $R \sim 30 M^{-1}$, the limitation $a > M^{- 1}$ implies that $N = R / a < 30$ in this particular case. This is simply because in RS1 the fifth dimension is only about 30 Planck units wide. Nonetheless, discretization on the scale of $M^{-1}$ would be sufficient in principle to achieve a theory that is valid up to the scale $M$, the same scale as the continuum limit.
In flat space, large $N$ allows you to make a theory that is valid deeper in the infrared. This is also true for the RS model, but only by taking a larger “volume" (that is *R*). In this case, $\Lambda_{\mathrm{IR}}$ would be smaller. We will allow $k$, $N$, and $a$ to be free parameters, with the understanding that $a$ will always be greater than $M^{-1}$ and $N$ will be taken as large as necessary to achieve any desired IR cutoff.
Mass eigenstates
================
In this section, we will develop insight into the mass eigenstates of $M_{i j}$. We are working in the regime with $a \approx M^{- 1}$ and $k
\lesssim M$ so that the space is highly curved. First, we make some quick observations about the mass matrix that will uncover the important qualitative features of the warped lattice. We will afterwards perform a more careful analysis.
Rough, local flat space approximation \[secrough\]
--------------------------------------------------
Since $k a < 1$, the mass matrix is crudely approximated by $$M_{i j} \approx N_{i j} \approx \frac{1}{a^2} e^{- 2 k a j} \left[ 2
\delta_{i j} - \delta_{i-1, j } - \delta_{i + 1, j} \right] \label{crude} .$$ We have set $e^{k a}=1$ but not $e^{kaj}$, since $j$ may be large. This mass matrix scales with position and is almost diagonal. The only non-diagonal entries are next to the diagonal, because of the nearest-neighbor lattice structure we have assumed. But since the position dependence of the warp factor is exponential, the mass eigenvalues will be geometrically spaced: $$m_n \approx \frac{1}{a} e^{- k a n} .$$ We confirm this geometric spacing numerically in Figure \[figevals\].
This geometric spacing of the masses is very different from the linear spacing of eigenvalues for the KK modes in RS. However, the linear RS spacing is deceptive, since there are only of order $M/k$ relevant at any site. The remaining modes are above the local cutoff, and are in fact localized further in the UV. That is, even though the classical KK tower of RS has an infinite number of linearly spaced modes, no calculation should ever involve more than $M/k$ of them. In fact, the linearized RS regime does appear, and the geometric spacing is actually quite natural, reproducing the modes localized throughout the bulk with masses determined by the local (warped) AdS scale.
To see this, consider the elements of this matrix around $M_{j_n j_n}$ for some fixed site $j_n$. From Eq. (\[crude\]), $$M_{j_n - i, j_n - j} \approx \frac{1}{a^2} e^{- 2 k a j_n } e^{2 k a j}
\left[ 2 \delta_{i j} - \delta_{i-1, j } - \delta_{i + 1, j} \right] .
\label{flatapp}$$ For $j < ( k a )^{- 1}$ the $e^{2 k aj}$ term is approximately $1$. Then in this region the mass matrix looks like flat space. So the eigenstates $H^{( j )}$ (for this $j_n$) are roughly $$H^{( j )}_i \sim \sin ( \pi k a i j ), \quad j_n - \frac{1}{k a} < i < j_n +
\frac{1}{k a}$$ with eigenvalues $$m_n \approx j ( k e^{- k a j_n } ) .$$ For example, if we look at the lightest modes, with $j_n = N$ they are linearly spaced just as in RS. This linear spacing breaks down around $j\sim 1/(k a) \sim M/k$. This is exactly what we expect because the $M / k$ mode has a mass of the local Planck scale. The linear spacing for the low modes is evident in Figure (\[figevals\]).
In the approximation (\[flatapp\]), the prefactor $e^{- 2 k aj_n}$ implies that there will be little mixing between modes from an expansion around different sites $j_1$ and $j_2$ if $j_1 - j_2
> 1 / ( k a )$. The linear spacing is reconciled with the geometric spacing which is transparent in the exponential prefactor, because the linear spacing appears only when the exponential is roughly constant. We will see that the lack of mixing between modes localized more than of order $k^{-1}$ apart is the reason for the larger regime of validity of the warped discretization, and allows $N$ and $R$ to be taken as large as desired.
The interesting thing about this way of approximating the modes is that it applies for modes centered around *any* site $j_n$. Of course, this is not surprising because of the conformal scaling of RS as we move from the IR to the UV. But it is remarkable that we can get information about a dynamical feature of RS, that the relevant modes change with energy, from a fixed lattice. Indeed, the modes near a site $j_1$ and those near a site $j_2$ decouple, if $j_1 - j_2 > 1 / (ka)$. This is very different from what happens to the KK modes $\chi_n(y)$ of the continuum RS. If we take two KK modes with masses matching the lattice modes, we find that they do have significant overlap in even if their masses are very different. Of course, the KK picture is not valid at all energies, so we should never be considering two widely spaced modes at the same time. On the lattice we can just use all the modes, and the widely spaced ones naturally decouple from each other. Although to use this rough flat-space approximation, we have to concentrate on a single site or a single mode, we will see that with a more careful analysis of the lattice eigenstates, the same qualitative features still hold.
Improved solutions
------------------
Even though this flat space approximation tells us most of what we want to know about the lattice theory, it is instructive to have a representation of the mass eigenstates in the region away from where they have most of their support. This both justifies our approximation, and will be used in the strong coupling calculations below.
We want to develop a better understanding of the mass eigenstates of the lattice theory. We are looking for the eigenstates of $$M_{i j} = \frac{1}{a^2} e^{- 2 k a ( j - 1 )} \left[ ( e^{2 k a} + e^{- 2
k a} ) \delta_{i j} - e^{ k a} \delta_{i + 1, j} - e^{- k a} \delta_{i -
1, j} \right] ,$$ for $k a \lesssim 1$. Let us define a matrix $\eta$ which goes from position eigenstates to mass eigenstates $$h_j = \eta_j^n H_n \label{htobigH} .$$ We have already observed from the flat space approximation, that $\eta^n_j \sim sin( n j)$ for $|j-j_n| < 1/(ka)$. Now we will confirm this and also approximate the $\eta^n_j$ in other regions.
One approach is to use the bulk Kaluza-Klein modes to guide the search for the $H_n$. The KK equation following from the Lagrangian (\[contlag\]), with $h(x,y)=\sum H_n(x) \chi_n(y)$, is $$\chi'' ( y ) - 4 k \chi' ( y ) + m_n^2 e^{2 k y} \chi ( y )
= 0 \label{contkkeq}.$$ It is not hard to see that the equation (\[contkkeq\]) maps directly onto the eigenvalue equation for $M_{i j}$. The small parameter $k a$ is the step size for the dimensionless continuum variable $\hat{y} = k y$. Then, expanding the derivatives, (\[contkkeq\]) becomes $$\frac{1}{( k a )^2} [ \chi ( \hat{y} + k a ) - 2 \chi ( \hat{y} ) + \chi
( \hat{y} - k a ) ] - \frac{4 k}{( k a )} \frac{1}{2} \left[ \chi ( \hat{y}
+ k a ) - \chi ( \hat{y} - k a ) \right] + m_n^2 e^{2 \hat{y}} \chi (
\hat{y} ) = 0.
\label{kkexp}$$ For the first derivative, we have taken two steps to symmetrize with respect to $\pm$.
On the other hand, we can invert (\[htobigH\]) $$H_n = \eta_n^j e^{-2k a j} h_j \label{Htoh} .$$ We have used the fact that $H_n$ and $\hat{h}_j = e^{-kaj} h_j$ are canonically normalized, so $\eta_n^j e^{-kaj}$ is unitary. Then, hitting $H_n$ with $M_{i j}$, and projecting out the $h_j$ component we find $$\frac{1}{a^2} e^{- 2 k a ( j - 1 )} \left[ ( e^{2 k a} + e^{- 2 k a} )
\eta^n_j - e^{-2k a} \eta^n_{j + 1}- e^{2k a} \eta^n_{j - 1} \right]
- m_n^2 \eta^n_j = 0 \label{eveq}.$$ For small $k a$ this becomes $$\frac{1}{a^2} \left[ \eta_{j + 1}^n - 2 \eta_j^n + \eta_{j - 1}^n
- 2 k a ( \eta_{j+1}^n - \eta_{j-1}^n ) \right] + e^{2 k a ( j - 1 )}
m_n^2 \eta_j^n = 0,
\label{smallka}$$ which is the same as (\[kkexp\]) for $\eta_j^n = \chi_n (k a j)$.
In the continuum, the solutions to (\[contkkeq\]) are KK modes: $$\chi_n ( y ) = e^{2 k y} \mathcal{J}_2 ( \frac{m_n}{k} e^{k y} ) .$$ The corresponding discrete modes are $$\eta_j^n = e^{2 k a j} \mathcal{J}_2 ( \frac{m_n}{k} e^{k a j} ) .$$ We cannot really manipulate these discrete Bessel functions, but we do expect them to satisfy approximately the same relations as the continuum Bessel functions. For example, the relation $$\chi_n' ( y ) = e^{3 k a j} \frac{m_n}{k} \mathcal{J}_1 ( \frac{m_n}{k} e^{k
a j} )$$ implies $$\eta_{j + 1}^n - \eta_j^n \approx k a \frac{m_n}{k} e^{3 k a j}
\mathcal{J}_1 ( \frac{m_n}{k} e^{k a j} ) .$$ Then it is rather trivial to show the modes are eigenstates – they must be because the equations match up.
But note that matching the continuum solutions onto the lattice works because we are using only the first term in the Taylor series, in going from (\[contkkeq\]) to (\[kkexp\]). This is, in fact, all we can do, because we have only included nearest-neighbor links in the discretization. And that means that the solution will break down when the first derivative is no longer a good approximation, i.e. when $$1 \approx k a \mathcal{J'} ( \frac{m_n}{k} e^{k y} ) \approx m_n a e^{k a
j} .$$ So these solutions should be good until $m_n e^{k a j} \approx 1 / a$. In fact, the exact eigenstates of this matrix really look like the continuum KK Bessel functions only in this limited regime. The lattice does not just take a selection of the KK modes, but presents a fundamentally different structure. However, this structure actually reproduces the correct physics, as the heavier KK modes in the continuum theory would be cutoff by the local strong coupling scale.
The Bessel solutions apply for small $j <j_n$. That is, they approximate the light KK modes at positions corresponding to energies above their mass. The Bessel functions peak and are localized when $$m_n e^{k a j_n} = k ,$$ which defines $j_n$. So, the Bessel approximation is good through the localization region. We also see that the width of the peak is determined by the width of the exponential, that is $\Delta j \approx 1 / (ka)$, so the region where the Bessel function peaks is the same as the region where the flat space approximation applies.
In the flat space region, we can take $$\eta^n_j = e^{2 k a j} \sin(\frac{\pi}{3} j) \sim e^{2 k a j_n} \sin(j) ,$$ which satisfies the small $ka$ equation, following from (\[smallka\]): $$2 \eta^n_j- \eta^n_{j+1} -\eta^n_{j-1}= e^{2 k a j} (a m_n)^2 \eta^n_j ,$$ with the eigenvalues $m_n \sim (1/a)e^{- k a n}$.
These are not quite the same flat space solutions as the ones derived in the previous subsection from looking at the modes around a particular site. The difference is that in the rough approximation, the heavier modes have higher frequency, because they are the excited states of a box around a particular site. We have seen here that the actual eigenstates all have the same frequency because each one is effectively the zero mode of a different box, centered around the site where the mode is localized. Nonetheless, the important point is that modes of both approximations have the same qualitative features: oscillating behavior with roughly constant amplitude over around $1/(ka)$ sites.
Now we have solutions for small $j$, in the Bessel regime, and for $j \sim j_n$, in the flat space regime. For large $j$, so that $m_n a e^{k a j} \gg 1$ the solutions are $$\eta_j^n \approx ( - 1 )^j e^{- k a j^2} e^{- k a j} ( m_n a )^{- 2 j} .$$ We can check $$\eta_{j + 1}^n = - e^{- 2 k a j} e^{- 2 k a} ( m_n a )^{- 2} \eta_j^n$$ $$\eta_{j - 1}^n = - e^{2 k a j} ( m_n a )^2 \eta_j^n .$$ So in this regime $\eta_{j - 1}^n \gg \eta_j^n \gg \eta_{j + 1}^n$ and thus (\[eveq\]) reduces to $$- \frac{1}{a^2} e^{- 2 k a j} \eta^n_{j - 1} - m_n^2 \eta^n_j = 0 ,$$ which is satisfied by our ansatz.
In summary, the solutions for the eigenstates are (up to normalization) $$\eta^n_j \propto
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
e^{2 k a j} \mathcal{J}_2 ( \frac{m_n}{k} e^{k a j} ),
\quad \quad \quad\quad \quad \quad &j < j_n\\
\sin ( j ),
& j \sim j_n\\
( - 1 )^j e^{- k a j^2} e^{- k a j} ( m_n a )^{- 2 j},
& j > j_n
\end{array} \right. . \label{bigapprox}$$ To align and normalize the solutions, note that the Bessel solution is exponentially growing $$e^{2 k a j} \mathcal{J}_2 ( \frac{m_n}{k} e^{k a j} ) \approx (
\frac{m_n}{k} )^2 e^{4 k a j} .$$ And in the third, large $j$, regime, $\eta^n_j$ dies as $\exp ( - k a j^2 )$. So in both of these regimes, the modes have most of their support towards the middle. This means that the normalization is determined almost entirely from the flat space approximation.
Thus we are led back to our original guess. We only need the flat space approximation. If we are looking near a site $j_n$ associated with a mode $n$ then $$\eta^m_j \approx \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\sqrt{k a} \sin ( j ), &|j - j_n| < 1/(ka)\\
0, & |j - j_n| > 1/(ka)
\end{array} \right. \label{simpsum} .$$ Some exact eigenvectors are plotted in Figure \[figexact\], and the approximation (\[bigapprox\]) is shown in Figure \[figapprox\].
Strong coupling
===============
Now that we understand the eigenstates of the lattice theory, we can ask whether there is any limit in which the lattice is a good approximation to the continuum. First, let us recall some difficulties that are encountered in flat space [@d2; @d3].
Flat space
----------
To trust the predictions of the lattice theory, it is essential to know the scale at which it becomes nonperturbative and the effective theory breaks down. In a gravitational system, as in a gauge theory, the easiest way to find this scale is to introduce Goldstone bosons restoring a non-linear symmetry, *a la* CCWZ [@Coleman:1969sm]. This procedure is explained in detail in [@d1], and we will only briefly review it here. For a massless graviton, this means restoring general coordinate invariance with vector ($A_{\alpha}$) and scalar ($\phi$) Goldstones: $$h_{\mu \nu} = g_{\mu \nu} - \eta_{\mu \nu} \rightarrow g_{\mu \nu} -
\partial_{\mu} Y^{\alpha} \partial_{\nu} Y^{\beta} \eta_{\alpha \beta}$$ $$Y_{\alpha} \equiv A_{\alpha} + \phi_{, \alpha} .$$ Then the Fierz-Pauli mass term generates a kinetic term for the scalar $$h_{\mu \nu}^2 - h^2 \rightarrow h_{\mu \nu}^2 - h^2 + \phi_{, \mu, \nu}^2 -
( \Box \phi )^2 + 2 \phi_{, \mu, \nu} ( h_{\mu \nu} - \eta_{\mu \nu} h ) + (
\Box \phi )^3 + \cdots .$$ The two four-derivative terms for $\phi$ cancel after integration by parts, leaving a proper two-derivative kinetic term for $\phi$ after the $h, \phi$ kinetic matrix is diagonalized. The $\phi$ self-interactions are the strongest and indicate where the theory breaks down. The scales are $$\mathcal{L} = M_P^2 h \Box h + M_P^2 m^2 h^2 + M_P^2 m^2 \phi \Box h + M_P^2
m^2 ( \Box \phi )^3 .$$ So the canonically normalized fields are $h^c = M_P h$ and $\phi^c
= M_P m^2 \phi$ leading to $$\mathcal{L} = h^c \Box h^c + \phi^c \Box h^c + ( M_P m^4 )^{- 1} ( \Box \phi
)^3 ,$$ from which we read that the cutoff is $\Lambda = \Lambda_5 \equiv ( M_P m^4
)^{1 / 5}$.
On the flat space lattice, there are many massive gravitons. So we introduce many Goldstones via $\Delta h_j \rightarrow \Delta h_j +
\Box\phi_j + \cdots$. Then $$\mathcal{L} = \sum_j M^2 h_{\mu \nu}^j \Box h_{\mu \nu}^j + \frac{M^2}{a^2}
\left[ ( h_{\mu \nu}^{j + 1} - h_{\mu \nu}^j )^2 + ( h_{\mu \nu}^{j + 1} -
h_{\mu \nu}^j ) \Box \phi^j + ( \Box \phi^j )^3 \right] .$$ Barring any unforeseen cancellations the strong coupling scale is determined by the interactions of the lightest mode. On the lattice, the effective higher-dimensional modes (the KK modes) get contributions from all the site modes, so there is a corresponding $1 / N$ suppression of the interactions. For example, with $h_j =
\exp ( 2 \pi i j n / N ) H_n$ $$\sum_j M^2 h_{\mu \nu}^j \Box h_{\mu \nu}^j \rightarrow
\sum_n N M^2 H^n_{\mu \nu} \Box H_{\mu \nu}^n ,$$ so the Planck scale associated with the sites is lower by a factor of $\sqrt{N}$ than the Planck scale of the modes. For the gravity case, there is an additional $N$-dependence for the scalar longitudinal modes because they get their kinetic term from mixing with differences. Then, $$\sum_j \frac{M^2}{a^2} ( h_{\mu \nu}^{j + 1} - h_{\mu \nu}^j )
\Box \phi^j \rightarrow \sum_n N \frac{M^2}{a^2} \frac{1}{N} H \Box \Phi .$$ Thus with $H^c = \sqrt{N} M H$ we get $\Phi^c = M / (
\sqrt{N} a^2 ) \Phi$. This means that the strongest interaction, from the lightest mode, is $$\sum_j \frac{M^2}{a^2} ( \Box \phi^j )^3 \rightarrow N \frac{N^{3 / 2}
a^4}{M} ( \Box \Phi^c_1 )^3 = \frac{1}{N M_P m_1^4} ( \Box \Phi^c_1
)^3 ,$$ where $m_1 = 1 / N a$ and $M_P = \sqrt{N} M$. Thus the strong interaction for the flat space lattice is at a scale $$\Lambda_{\mathrm{flat}}= (M N^{-5/2} a^{-4})^{1/5}= ( N M_P m_1^4 )^{1 / 5}.$$ Since this $M_P$ is the low energy Planck scale, and $m_1$ is the physical mass, we can see that this scale is higher by a factor of $N^{1 / 5}$ than that of a single massive graviton.
The fact that the strong coupling scale is heavier than the mass of the light mode tells us that this is a good effective theory for the light mode. But for a real lattice description of flat space, this must be a good effective theory all the way up to the 5D Planck scale, $M_5^3 = M_P^2 R^{- 1}$. Since $R = m_1^{- 1}$ we can write the cutoff as $\Lambda_{\mathrm{flat}} = ( M_5^3 R^{- 5}
a^{- 2} )^{1 / 10}$. Then for $\Lambda_{\mathrm{flat}} > M_5$ we would need $M_5 a < ( R M_5 )^{- 5 / 2}$. But since $R M_5 \gg 1$ this means that $a \ll M_5^{- 1}$ – the lattice spacing has to be much smaller than the Planck length. But this does not make sense. For the lattice to cut off the divergences from gravity, we must take $a> M_5^{-1}$.
Another way to understand the difficulty is to observe that with the lattice spacing at its limit, $a=M_5^{-1}$, we get $\Lambda_{\mathrm{flat}} =\sqrt{M_5/R} \ll M_5$. So there will be new effects at distances much much larger than the Planck length. These non-local effects are most apparent if we work directly in the continuum limit $$a^{- 2} ( \Delta h_j + \Box \phi_j + ( \Box \phi_j )^2 )^2 \rightarrow (
\partial_y h )^2 + a^{- 1} ( \partial_y \phi ) ( \Box h ) + a^{- 2} ( \Box
\phi )^3 + \cdots .$$ An integration by parts has been performed on the middle term. This shows that $\psi = \partial_y \phi$ is the propagating field, while $\phi$ without derivatives is producing the strong interactions. In terms of $\psi$ the Lagrangian contains $$\mathcal{L} = M_5^3 R h\Box h + M_5^3 R h \Box \psi + M_5^3 R a \left(
\frac{\Box}{\partial_y} \psi \right)^3 + \cdots .$$ The long wavelength modes with $\partial_y \sim R^{- 1}$ interact at the scale $\Lambda_{\mathrm{flat}} = ( M_5^3 R^{- 5} a^{- 2}
)^{1 / 10}$ we derived above. But we can also now see that the strong interactions are really non-local in the extra dimension. Formally, as $a \to 0$ (or $N \rightarrow \infty $), the strong coupling problem disappears, as it must if this lattice is to classically reproduce the continuum. However, $\Lambda$ does not grow with $N$ fast enough to ensure that the effective theory is consistent.
Warped space
------------
Now let us see how these observations change in the warped background. We introduce Goldstones into the warped space Lagrangian in the usual way $$\mathcal{L} = \sum_j M^2 e^{- 2 k a j} h_{\mu \nu}^j \Box h_{\mu \nu}^j +
\frac{M^2}{a^2} e^{- 4 k a j} \left[ ( h_{\mu \nu}^{j + 1} - h_{\mu \nu}^j
)^2 + ( h_{\mu \nu}^{j + 1} - h_{\mu \nu}^j ) \Box \phi^j + ( \Box \phi^j
)^3 \right] .$$ The warp factor in front of the kinetic term tells us that the Planck scale on a site is $$M_j = M e^{- k a j} .$$ This is the warping we expect from the continuum. For the KK modes, we saw that to a good approximation $1 / (k a)$ modes have support at each site so we expect this parameter to play the role of $N$ in the previous section. So the effective Planck scale for the modes will be $$M_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{k a}} M_{j_n}$$ in agreement with the observation that $1 / (k a)$ in the warped case should play the role of $N$.
In fact, because we are approximating the KK modes for warped space by mapping to a position-dependent set of flat space solutions, we can simply use the flat space results if we just complete the map. Looking at the Lagrangian, in the approximation of Section \[secrough\], we see that the warped space Lagrangian for the $1/(ka)$ modes around mode $n$ is equivalent to a flat space lattice with $$M_{\mathrm{flat}} \rightarrow M_{j_n} = M e^{- k a j_n} \quad
\frac{1}{a_{\mathrm{flat}}} \rightarrow \frac{1}{a} e^{- k a j_n} \quad
N_{\mathrm{flat}} \rightarrow \frac{1}{k a} .$$ Thus the strong coupling scale becomes $$\Lambda_{\mathrm{flat}} =
\left( \frac{M_{\mathrm{flat}}}{N^{5/2}_{\mathrm{flat}}
a_{\mathrm{flat}}^4} \right)^{1 / 5} \rightarrow
\Lambda_{\mathrm{warp}} = \left( ( k a )^{5 / 2} M_{j_n} \frac{1}{a^4} e^{- 4 ka j_n}
\right)^{1/5} = ( \frac{1}{k a} M_n m_n^4 )^{1/5} \label{lwarp} ,$$ where $m_n = k e^{-k a j_n}$ is the mass of the lowest mode in the expansion around site $j$.
This result is superficially similar to that of flat space. The strong coupling scale is a factor of $N_{flat} \sim 1 / (ka)$ above the strong coupling scale for a single massive graviton. But there is a huge difference – the strong coupling scale does not depend on the size of the space we are latticizing. There is no dependence on the total number of lattice sites $N$, or equivalently on the IR scale $R= a e^{-kaN}$. In flat space, the strong coupling was determined by the lightest mode, but in warped space, it is determined by the lightest mode with support on the site $j$. For a $j$ close to the UV brane, all the modes which live there are much heavier than the $1/R$ mode which would dominate if the space were flat.
However this is not the whole story. In warped space, there is not a single strong coupling scale; the strong coupling scale depends on the observer. In fact, there is an important difference between the scale associated with a particular mode and the scale that an observer on a particular site would see. For a mode of mass $m_n$, the strong coupling scale is the usual $$\Lambda_{\mathrm{mode}}\sim (M_n m_n^4)^{1/5} .$$ This scale is heavier than $m_n$, so the mode is weakly coupled at energies near its mass. However, an observer at site $j$ would see $1/(ka)$ modes. In particular, the mode of mass $m_n$ would be relevant even at energies as high as $m_n/(k a)$. When looking at the strong coupling scale on a site we must use $\Lambda_{\mathrm{warp}}$ of Equation (\[lwarp\]). The relevant Planck scale for the observer is $M_{j_n} = \sqrt{k a} M_n$. For example, with a lattice spacing $1/a \sim M$ we would find that $$\Lambda_{\mathrm{site}} = \Lambda_{\mathrm{warp}}
= M_{j_n} \sqrt{\frac{k}{M}} < M_{j_n} .$$ So, if we only talk about modes, there is no strong-coupling problem in warped space. But observers localized at some position in the bulk (that is, on a particular lattice site) must encounter strong coupling before the local Planck scale. In asking about the lattice theory, it makes sense to consider the site basis, since otherwise the cut-off is determined solely by the IR regime.
We can understand these results in continuum language as well. In the warped case, $$\mathcal{L} = e^{- 4 k a j } \frac{M^3_5}{a^2} ( \Delta h_{\mu \nu}^j + \Box \phi_j )^2
\rightarrow M^3_5 e^{- 4 k y} ( \partial_y h )^2
+ \frac{M^3_5}{a} e^{- 4 k y} ( \Box \phi ) ( \partial_y h ) .$$ When we integrate by parts, the $\partial_y$ term hits the warp factor, so there are two pieces $$\frac{1}{a} e^{- 4 k y} ( \partial_y \phi - 4 k \phi ) ( \Box h )
\label{k} .$$ Initially, we might expect that for the long wavelength modes, with $\partial_y \sim 1/R$, the $k\phi$ piece will dominate and prevent nonlocal effects. However, this would work only if there were modes spread out over the whole space. In warped space, there are not really any $1/R$ modes. The wavelengths in the extra dimension are in fact limited by $k <
\partial_y < 1/a$ – at each site, there are only $1/(ka)$ modes. So $\partial_y \ge k$ and we can basically ignore the $k\phi$ term in (\[k\]).
Using $\hat{h} =exp(-ky) h$, and adding the $a/(ka)=1/k$ volume factor, the Lagrangian becomes $$\mathcal{L}\supset \frac{M^3_5}{k} \hat{h}\Box\hat{h}
+\frac{M^3_5}{k}\frac{1}{a}e^{-3ky}\hat{h}\Box (\partial_y\phi )
+\frac{M^3_5}{k}\frac{1}{a^2}e^{-4ky}(\Box\phi)^3 .$$ The canonical propagating field is then $$\psi = \partial_y \phi^c =\frac{M^{3/2}_5}{k^{1/2}a}e^{-3ky}\partial_y\phi ,$$ and the cubic scalar coupling becomes $$\frac{M^3_5}{k a^2} e^{-4ky}(\Box\phi)^3 \rightarrow
\frac{a k^{1/2}}{M^{3/2}_5 \partial_y^3} e^{5ky}(\Box\phi^c )^3 .$$ For a mode of frequency $\partial_y \sim \omega$ this gives a strong coupling scale of $$\Lambda^5 = \frac{M^{3/2}_5 \omega^3 }{a k^{1/2}} e^{-5ky} .$$ If we look at the individual modes, then $\omega \sim 1/a$ (cf Eq (\[simpsum\])), and so the mode scale is $$\Lambda^5_{\mathrm{mode}} = \frac{M^{3/2}_5}{\sqrt{k}} \frac{1}{a^4}e^{-5ky} ,
\label{scale1}$$ which is the same as $M_n m_n^4$ that we derived above. An observer at position $y$ is sensitive to wavelengths as high as $\omega \sim k$, which gives $$\Lambda_{\mathrm{site}} = (M^3_5 k^5 a^{-2})^{1/10} e^{-ky} .$$ This is the same as the flat space interaction scale $\Lambda_{\mathrm{flat}} = (M_5^3 R^{-5} a^{-2} )^{1/10}$ with $k=R^{-1}$ the playing the role of the IR cutoff for the warped space.
Conclusion
==========
We have shown that a straightforward discretization of the warped AdS geometry produces a low-energy theory which is valid above the scale of local curvature at any site. This is in fact sufficient for investigating many physical features, such as the renormalization group behavior of the theory as in [@Pomarol:1999ad; @Randall:2001gc; @Randall:2001gb; @Goldberger:2002cz]. However, the discretization does not allow us to reach the UV cutoff of the continuum theory. In the energy regime between the warped AdS scale and the warped higher-dimensional Planck scale, the theory acts like flat space and the same strong coupling problems as in flat space appear. This is not surprising; at energies above the local curvature, the theory approaches flat space, and therefore we do not expect manifestly holographic behavior. But it is extremely interesting that some of the holographic behavior of warped space is also manifested on the lattice; for example, we have found that the mass eigenvalues are globally geometrically spaced, with only $M/k$ modes localized near any particular site.
An important distinction from the flat space theory is that we can take the large volume limit because the UV and IR cutoffs are independent. In flat space, the UV cutoff goes down as the size of the space, $R$, is increased. In curved space, the UV cutoff only depends on the curvature scale, $k$; the cutoff in a particular region is completely ignorant of the total volume, or equivalently, the total number of sites. This cutoff is still below the local Planck scale, so even in the warped case, the lattice cannot be used as a regulator – divergences must still be cutoff by hand, or new physics must enter at a scale below the lattice spacing.
As in any non-renormalizable theory with a dimensionful scale, there is a natural limit to the lattice spacing, and thus a natural limit to the number of sites on the lattice. In warped space, this is a particularly strong bound. For example, in RS1 [@rs1], the dimensionful scale is $M_P$, but the size of the space is set by $k e^{-kR} = TeV$ and so $N < 30$. Nonetheless, on a larger warped space, approaching RS2 [@rs2], $1/N$ effects can be parametrically ignored. Note that it is precisely because we can take the large volume limit with fixed lattice spacing that large $N$ is interesting. In flat space, because the UV cutoff decreases as the volume grows, in the large volume limit the cutoff goes to zero. In warped space, it remains above the local curvature scale.
Because the discretization of RS is sufficiently well behaved, we expect a similar discrete theory may be a useful tool for studying other geometries that exhibit holographic behavior. For example, the metric for de Sitter space and some black holes can be written in a warp-factor notation [@Randall:2002tg]. Thus their discretizations should be similar and may help unravel their holographic features. Another interesting example is local localization [@Karch:2001cw], in which the warp factor decreases to a minimum and then grows again. We expect that sites in the turnaround regime will have a low cutoff. However, modes localized on these sites will have very little support in the region where four-dimensional gravity applies. There is no reason to expect the massive mode of locally localized gravity that plays the role of the massive graviton to cause problems. Presumably locally localized gravity is far more general. The discrete version of theories with non-monotonic warp factor could be a useful tool for studying different examples of locally localized gravity, even with more than one extra dimension.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank J. Gallicchio and I. Yavin for discussing their results [@gy]. We would also like to thank Y. Shadmi and R. Mahbubani for discussions. After this work was published, we were informed that a related discussion can be found in [@Cognola:2003xr]. The work of LR was supported in part by NSF Award PHY-0201124.
[rs1]{} L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3370 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9905221\]. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4690 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9906064\]. N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen and H. Georgi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 4757 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0104005\]. N. Arkani-Hamed, H. Georgi and M. D. Schwartz, Annals Phys. [**305**]{}, 96 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0210184\]. N. Arkani-Hamed and M. D. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 104001 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0302110\]. M. D. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 024029 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0303114\].
L. Randall, Y. Shadmi and N. Weiner, JHEP [**0301**]{}, 055 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0208120\]. H. Abe, T. Kobayashi, N. Maru and K. Yoshioka, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 045019 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0205344\].
A. Falkowski and H. D. Kim, JHEP [**0208**]{}, 052 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0208058\]. A. Katz and Y. Shadmi, JHEP [**0411**]{}, 060 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0409223\]. T. Bhattacharya, C. Csaki, M. R. Martin, Y. Shirman and J. Terning, arXiv:hep-lat/0503011. O. Andreev and W. Siegel, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 086001 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0410131\].
S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev. [**177**]{}, 2239 (1969). C. G. . Callan, S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Rev. [**177**]{}, 2247 (1969).
L. Randall, V. Sanz and M. D. Schwartz, JHEP [**0206**]{}, 008 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0204038\].
A. Pomarol, Phys. Lett. B [**486**]{}, 153 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9911294\]. L. Randall and M. D. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 081801 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0108115\]. L. Randall and M. D. Schwartz, JHEP [**0111**]{}, 003 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0108114\]. W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 131601 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0204160\]. A. Karch and L. Randall, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 061601 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0105108\].
J. Gallicchio and I. Yavin, arXiv:hep-th/0507105. G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and S. Zerbini, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**19**]{}, 1435 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0312269\].
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
-
-
-
-
-
bibliography:
- 'bib/main.bib'
title: 'Worksharing Tasks: an Efficient Way to Exploit Irregular and Fine-Grained Loop Parallelism'
---
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work is supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (TIN2015-65316-P), by the Generalitat de Catalunya (2014-SGR-1051) and by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) and the H2020 funding framework under grant agreement no. H2020-FETHPC-754304 (DEEP-EST).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the azimuthal distribution of globular clusters (GCs) in early-type galaxies and compare them to their host galaxies using data from the ACS Virgo Cluster Survey. We find that in host galaxies with visible elongation ($\epsilon > 0.2$) and intermediate to high luminosities ($M_z<-19$), the GCs are preferentially aligned along the major axis of the stellar light. The red (metal-rich) GC subpopulations show strong alignment with the major axis of the host galaxy, which supports the notion that these GCs are associated with metal-rich field stars. The metal-rich GCs in lenticular galaxies show signs of being more strongly associated with disks rather than bulges. Surprisingly, we find that the blue (metal-poor) GCs can also show the same correlation. If the metal-poor GCs are part of the early formation of the halo and built up through mergers, then our results support a picture where halo formation and merging occur anisotropically, and where the present day major axis is an indicator of the preferred merging axis.'
author:
- Qiushi Wang
- 'Eric W. Peng'
- 'John P. Blakeslee'
- Patrick Côté
- Laura Ferrarese
- Andrés Jordán
- Simona Mei
- 'Michael J. West'
title: 'The ACS Virgo Cluster Survey. XVII. The Spatial Alignment of Globular Cluster Systems with Early-Type Host Galaxies'
---
Introduction
============
The classical illustration of a globular cluster system is as a spherical halo population around the host galaxy. Galaxies themselves, however, can have a wide variety of shapes, from nearly-spherical to highly anisotropic. There are many reasons why GC systems and stellar halos could be spherical. They could have formed very early in a chaotic fashion, similar to the classic “monolithic collapse”, before dissipation could collect gas into a disk. They could also have originally formed in disks but then had their orbits distributed into a spherical halo via major mergers (e.g., Toomre & Toomre 1972). It is also possible that at least some halo stars and GCs have been accreted from a more spherically distributed population of dwarf-like galaxies and halos (e.g., Searle & Zinn 1978; [Côté ]{}, Marzke, & West 1998).
It is not necessary, however, that in all cases the shape of the stellar halo and its GC system be decoupled from its host. Mergers along a preferred axis in a galaxy cluster can produce alignment between the major axis of the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) and the cluster major axis, as can intrinsic elongation of the dark matter halo (Binggeli 1982; West 1994; Hashimoto, Henry & Boehringer 2008). The distribution of satellites is also not necessarily isotropic around galaxies, as alignments between satellites and host galaxies have been found in many studies, although not always in the same sense. Holmberg (1969) and others (e.g., Zaritsky [et al. ]{}1997) found that satellites of disk galaxies tend to be close to the minor axes of their hosts, but other studies (e.g., Brainerd 2005; Yang [et al. ]{}2006; Bailin [et al. ]{}2008) have found that satellites are preferentially along the major axes of galaxies, particularly early-types.
The oldest stars in the Universe are found in stellar halos and GCs, and these populations are the oldest visible collisionless tracers within galaxies. The shapes of halo stellar populations tells us about the merging and accretion history of the galaxy over a Hubble time. Studying the outer shapes of stellar halos, however, is extremely difficult because of their low surface brightnesses. Globular clusters, however, are readily identified out to large distances using the Hubble Space Telescope ($D\lesssim100$ Mpc, e.g., Peng [et al. ]{}2011), and are present in nearly every galaxy except the faintest dwarf galaxies. GC systems in massive galaxies are also known to have bimodal color distributions, which may correspond to “metallicity subpopulations” whose mean metallicities correlates with the mass of the host galaxy (e.g., Larsen [et al. ]{}2001; Peng [et al. ]{}2006a). Although the exact interpretation of these color distributions in metallicity is currently debated (c.f., Yoon [et al. ]{}2006, 2011), it is still true that with reasonably deep imaging, GCs can be easily detected, and can provide some chemical information on the underlying stellar population.
Recent studies of extragalactic GC systems have taken advantage of surveys of early-type galaxies using [*HST*]{}, particularly in the Virgo and Fornax galaxy clusters. In this paper, we undertake a study of the azimuthal distributions of GC systems in early-type galaxies using data from the ACS Virgo Cluster Survey ([Côté ]{}[et al. ]{}2004). The high spatial resolution and depth of this survey has already been used to study GC color distributions (Peng [et al. ]{}2006a), size distributions ([Jordán ]{}[et al. ]{}2005), luminosity functions ([Jordán ]{}[et al. ]{}2006,2007), formation efficiencies (Peng [et al. ]{}2008), and color-magnitude relations (Mieske [et al. ]{}2006, 2010), as well as other dense stellar systems such as diffuse star clusters (Peng [et al. ]{}2006b), ultra-compact dwarfs ([Ha[ş]{}egan ]{}[et al. ]{}2005) and nuclear star clusters ([Côté ]{}[et al. ]{}2006; [Côté ]{}[et al. ]{}2007). This data set is well-suited to the study of star clusters in Virgo early-type galaxies, and we use the GC catalog of [Jordán ]{}[et al. ]{}(2009).
In this paper, we seek to answer the questions: 1) Can GC systems be non-spherical? 2) If so, does the major axis of the GC system have any relationship with that of the host galaxy? 3) Do the blue and red GC subpopulations have different distributions around their hosts? The GC systems of a few massive galaxies have been shown to be flattened (e.g. McLaughlin [et al. ]{}1994, 1995), but in this paper, we present the first large study of GC systems and their possible alignment with their host galaxies.
Data and Methods
================
Globular Cluster Catalog
------------------------
The ACS Virgo Cluster Survey (ACSVCS; [Côté ]{}[et al. ]{}2004) observed one hundred Virgo Cluster early-type galaxies in two filters F475W ($g$) and F850LP ($z$). We use the globular cluster catalog for all ACSVCS galaxies presented by [Jordán ]{}[et al. ]{}(2009), which gives their positions, photometry, half-light radii, and a [*class*]{} parameter which indicates the probability a given object is a GC (see [Jordán ]{}[et al. ]{}2004 for the specifics of the data reduction). By the virtue of the high resolution of Hubble Space Telescope (HST), we can measure the total magnitude $z_0$ and half light radius $r_\mathrm{h}$ of every globular cluster candidate. The GC probability is determined using these parameters in comparison to control fields customized for the observational depth for each galaxy (see Peng [et al. ]{}2006a, Figure 1). In this paper, we select objects with $class > 0.9$ as GCs. This is more similar to the stringent selection used in the GC system color gradient study of Liu [et al. ]{}(2011), which also required strict selection against background contaminants. For the dwarf galaxies in the sample (where contamination is highest and potentially a larger issue), we estimate from control fields that there should be only $\sim1.5$ contaminants per galaxy selected by our size-magnitude-color criteria. This extremely low level of contamination minimizes the effect of anisotropy in the background.
This selection does not include the objects discussed as “faint fuzzies” in Larsen & Brodie (2000) or “diffuse star clusters” (DSCs) in Peng [et al. ]{}(2006b). In cases where a distance is needed, we use the SBF distances presented in Blakeslee (2009, also see Mei [et al. ]{}2007). We use a mean distance of 16.5 Mpc to the Virgo Cluster (Mei [et al. ]{}2005).
Several galaxies in the ACSVCS sample are in close proximity to large neighboring galaxies, and their GC systems are either overwhelmed by the GC system of their neighbor, or strongly depleted in GCs, possibly due to tidal stripping. We exclude these six galaxies from our analysis: VCC 1327, VCC 1297, VCC 1279, VCC 1938, VCC 1192 and VCC 1199.
Methodology
-----------
The relatively wide field of view of the ACS/WFC ($202\arcsec\times
202\arcsec$, or $16.2\times16.2$ kpc), allows us to study the azimuthal distribution of GC systems in all but a few of the more massive galaxies in the ACSVCS sample. The image of one ACSVCS galaxy, VCC 1692, is shown in Figure \[fig:1692zoom\]. This lenticular galaxy is the twelfth brightest galaxy in the ACSVCS sample, and provides a nice example to illustrate our analysis methods. As can be seen even by eye, the globular clusters in VCC 1692 tend to align with the galaxy light, and are preferentially clustered close to the plane of the galaxy (Figure \[fig:1692zoom\], left). Our goal is to quantify this, particularly in galaxies where the geometry may not be so favorable.
To do this, we analyze the distribution of GCs in azimuth (position angle, $\phi$). This approach, rather than a more complicated fitting of isopleths, is applicable to a wide range of data, from the relative large GC system shown in Figure \[fig:1692zoom\] to the smaller ones belonging to dwarf galaxies. We use the azimuthal distribution to test for departures from circular symmetry. In cases where the azimuthal distribution appears anisotropic, we can also test for alignment between the major axis of the GC system and that of the galaxy.
This test, looking for departures from uniformity in the projected azimuthal distribution, is in many ways the simplest one we can do. Understanding the intrinsic shapes of GC system is a much more difficult question that would require incorporating inclination, not to mention many more intrinsic parameters. This paper is a simple, but interesting first step to generally study anisotropic spatial distributions in GC systems.
We analyze the azimuthal distributions of GCs using two methods. First, we use the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test to test for departures from a random (isotropic) distribution. Second, we use binned distributions in azimuth to see if the GC system has a preferred axis.
Generating Random Comparison Samples
------------------------------------
To perform these tests, we need to create control samples that mimic a random azimuthal distribution of GCs (the equivalent to an isotropic, or spherical, GC system). Because the boundary of the image is not a circle, and the center of the galaxy is not exactly at the position of the image center, the observed area in a given $\Delta\phi$ changes with azimuth ($\phi$). Therefore, an azimuthally random distribution of GCs about the galaxy will not result in a constant observed number per unit azimuth. Taking a mean surface number density as a function of $\phi$ is also problematic because this density changes as function of projected radius from the galaxy center.
For each galaxy, we create a “randomized” sample of GCs purely in azimuth, bypassing the need to know the radial density profile of the GC system. For each GC, we first assign it a random angle position while keeping its projected radius unchanged. We then see if the randomized position is within the image area of the galaxy. If not, we randomize it again as in the first step, until the resulting globular cluster is located within the image. We continue to do this for each GC in the sample until all GCs have new positions within the observed area of the image, creating a fully randomized control sample. By “randomized”, we mean that the GCs in the image randomly populate the distribution in aziumuth, modulo the varying image area, and without needing to make assumptions about the GC radial density profile. We define $N$ as the number of control samples we generate. Unless mentioned otherwise, $N$ in our study equals one thousand.
Some of the objects classified as GCs will in fact be contamination from background galaxies. Assuming that background objects are distributed isotropically in azimuth, their only effect is to dilute the signal of any alignment within the GC system. Including them in the randomized samples should not introduce a bias unless they are not isotropically distributed in the field of view. Fortunately, the GC samples are already quite clean of contaminants, with an expectation of only $\sim1.5$ background objects per galaxy (Liu [et al. ]{}2011).
We also analyze the azimuthal distributions of the GC color subpopulations. We divide the GCs into blue and red populations using their $(g-z)$ color. For the more massive GC systems, we use the two-Gaussian mixture model fits from Peng [et al. ]{}(2006a) to determine the crossover color between the two populations. For galaxies where there are fewer GCs, we choose a color of $(g-z)=1.10$ mag to separate blue from red. We ultimately performed all of our analysis using a stricter separation between the two populations ($(g-z)<1.00$ for blue GCs and $(g-z)>1.20$ for red GCs. None of our conclusions change when we change the color cuts. When analyzing the color subpopulations, we generate separate randomized samples for each one.
The HST/ACS Field of View
-------------------------
One of the main limitations of our study is the ACS/WFC field of view. This characteristic of the ACSVCS sample has been described in previous studies (particularly in Peng et al. 2008, Section 3), but we further quantify the issue in this paper. For most of the early-type dwarf galaxies in the sample, the $202\arcsec\times202\arcsec$ ACS field of view is more than adequate to cover the entire GC system, but this is not the case for galaxies with $M_z\lesssim-20$ mag. We illustrate this in Figure \[fig:fov\], where we show the fraction of the entire GC system included in the ACS/WFC field of view. This total number of GCs for larger GC systems was determined using a Sérsić fit to the spatial density profile (Peng et al. 2008). Where the ratio is exactly unity (for most dwarfs), the total number was determined to be the number observed in the ACS/WFC field. For the most luminous galaxies in our sample, only $\sim10\%$ of the GCs are being analyzed. Nevertheless, the quality of the data is high and we can still draw interesting conclusions from these inner regions. Most of our sample, however, is not particularly compromised; in only nine of our 94 galaxies do we sample less than half of the GC system. Similar analyses of the full GCS at large radii will require wide-field imaging, like those in the Next Generation Virgo Survey (Ferrarese [et al. ]{}2012).
Results
=======
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
---------------------------
We employ the two-sided Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to quantitatively study the alignment between GC systems and their host galaxies. Specifically, for each galaxy, first we create randomized samples as described above, then we use the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to compare the randomized distribution with the observed one. The result can be displayed visually in the cumulative distributions of both observed and randomized samples. These distributions for the galaxy VCC1692 are shown in figure \[1692\]. There are two evident knee-like steps in the red GCs’ cumulative azimuthal distribution, spaced $180^\circ$ apart, which indicates an alignment along an axis. The cumulative distribution of the blue GCs also show these two steps, but to a lesser degree.
The two-sided K-S test generates the $D$ statistic, which is a measure of the maximum deviation of one cumulative probability distribution from another. This statistic results in a probability that the two data sets are drawn from the same distribution. We have calculated the distribution of $D$ statistic values using our observed data and each of the 10000 azimuthally randomized samples. We find that this distribution is well-behaved and nearly Gaussian. In the case of VCC 1692, there is only a $5.6\%$ probability that its GCs are drawn from a random azimuthal distribution. The probability is even lower, $1.3\%$ for the red GCs alone. The distribution of blue GCs is much closer to that of the randomized sample, with a $81.2\%$ of being drawn from a random distribution.
In Figure \[fig:ksall\], we plot the results of the K-S test for all galaxies in the sample. For each galaxy, we plot $prob$, $prob_{blue}$, and $prob_{red}$, which are the probabilities that the entire GC system, the blue GCs, and the red GCs are drawn from a random distribution, respectively. We plot these probabilities as a function of the absolute $z$ magnitude of the galaxy ($M_z$). The galaxy magnitudes are from Ferrarese [et al. ]{}(2006) and Peng [et al. ]{}(2008).
Figure \[fig:ksall\] shows that there is a large scatter in probabilities for the ACSVCS galaxies. The brightest galaxies suffer from a small field of view, and the less luminous galaxies have few GCs, creating increased scatter. For some galaxies, however, particularly those with $-23<z<-21$ mag, the probability that the GCs are distributed in random azimuth is very small. These galaxies tend to be lenticular or elliptical galaxies with high axis ratio. To highlight this, we plot with different colors the galaxies with ellipticities $\epsilon >0.2$, which are taken from the isophotal fitting of Ferrarese [et al. ]{}(2006, see their Figure 121 for the relationship between ellipticity and luminosity).
Since some galaxies are so faint that there are too few detected globular clusters to determine the trends, we bin galaxies by their magnitudes and run the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test on the collective data sets. If GC systems are possibly aligned with the shapes of their host galaxies, then non-spherical galaxies provide a stronger test of this hypothesis, so we only include galaxies with $\epsilon >0.2$ in the binned samples. When combining galaxies, we always use a GC’s position angle from the galaxy major axis. This should enhance the signal if GC systems are aligned with the galaxy light, but would decrease the signal if GC systems are randomly oriented with respect to their hosts. We use the major axis position angles given by Ferrarese [et al. ]{}(2006), averaging the values given for the $g$ and $z$ bands.
Furthermore, we use the bootstrap to determine the errors in the probabilities produced by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The results are shown in Table \[kst\]. In Figure \[fig:ksall\], we plot the result of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for individual galaxies and binned samples (with error bars). For the binned samples of galaxies with $\epsilon >0.2$ in particular, we can clearly see the trends of GC systems. The most obviously anisotropic distributions of GCs are for the red GCs in the four most luminous galaxy bins. For this magnitude range ($M_z\lesssim -19$ mag), on average, the probability that the GCs are isotropically distributed in azimuth about the galaxy is near zero. This is also true, however, for the blue GCs in the three most luminous bins ($z\lesssim -20$ mag). Once we get down to dwarf galaxy luminosities, the alignment between the GC systems and the galaxies is less evident. This might be because dwarfs have more spherical systems, or that there are fewer GCs per galaxy so the noise reduces the signal.
[c|ccc]{} $-24,-22$ & 0.004$\pm$0.010& 0.155$\pm$0.122& 0.035$\pm$0.038\
$-22,-21$ & 0.000$\pm$0.008& 0.096$\pm$0.082& 0.000$\pm$0.022\
$-21,-20$ & 0.000$\pm$0.000& 0.015$\pm$0.014& 0.000$\pm$0.000\
$-20,-19$ & 0.377$\pm$0.173& 0.888$\pm$0.244& 0.008$\pm$0.061\
$-19,-18$ & 0.412$\pm$0.193& 0.303$\pm$0.191& 0.463$\pm$0.234\
$-18,-17$ & 0.140$\pm$0.115& 0.357$\pm$0.152& 0.085$\pm$0.052\
$-17,-16$ & 0.120$\pm$0.051& 0.105$\pm$0.047& 0.836$\pm$0.263
Azimuthal Distribution
----------------------
In order to further investigate whether the non-random distribution of GCs has something to do with the host galaxy, we plotted the histogram of GCs as a function of the azimuthal angle from the galaxy major axis. We assume that the distribution is axisymmetric in nature, and we define the major axis of the galaxy to be at $\phi^\prime = 0^\circ$, and all GCs to have $\phi^\prime$ to be within the interval $[-90^\circ,90^\circ]$. Specifically, if a given GC’s position angle is out of this interval, we add or subtract $180^\circ$. In an axisymetric system, this arrangement doubles the magnitude of the signal in the peak, if any.
Let us designate the number of observed GCs in a bin by $N_\mathrm{ob}$ and that of randomized GCs by $N_\mathrm{ran}$ which is the mean in a bin over the randomized samples. We define the “excess” quantity $E$ as: $$E=N_\mathrm{ob}-N_\mathrm{ran}$$ We assume the number of GCs in a bin observes a Possion distribution, and we can get the estimate of the deviation of $E$ where $N$ is the times we do randomization ($N=1000$):
$$\sigma=\sqrt{N_\mathrm{ob}+\frac{N_\mathrm{ran}}{N}}\label{eq2}$$
For illustration, we show the azimuthal distribution for VCC 1692 in Figure \[e1692\]. We find that the red GCs significantly align with the galaxy’s major axis, and the blue GCs also show this trend, but to a lesser extent. For most galaxies, the azimuthal histograms are quite noisy due to the low number of GCs. Therefore, like in the previous section, we determine the azimuthal distributions of the binned galaxy samples. We select our galaxies and combine the GC systems in the same way as we did for the K-S test, as shown in Table \[kst\].
The combined azimuthal GC distributions for the binned samples are plotted in Figures \[fig:z7t11\] and \[fig:z11t15\]. As with the K-S test, we find that the GC azimuthal distribution is significantly anisotropic for the brighter galaxies. In this case, we establish that the GCs are aligned along the major axis of their hosts. The galaxies that show this trend most strongly are those that have magnitudes in the range $-22<M_z<-20$, where it is seen unambiguously for both blue and red GCs.
Discussion
==========
Our results indicate that for luminous early-type galaxies with moderate to high ellipticity, the spatial distribution of GCs is aligned with the stars in the host galaxies. For galaxies with small ellipticity, the GCs tend to be more randomly distributed, but this neither proves nor disproves the hypothesis that GCs are following the galaxy light. The alignment appears strongest in our data for galaxies around intermediate luminosity ($-22<M_z<-19$). Early-type galaxies in this luminosity range are preferentially lenticular or more elongated ellipticals. They are also both small enough such that a significant fraction of their GC system is in the ACS/WFC field of view, yet luminous enough to still have substantial GC systems. They are in many ways the best targets for this study, and we see a clear signal for both the red and blue GCs.
The red, metal-rich GCs show the strongest alignment with the major axis of their host galaxies. These GCs are often hypothesized to be formed in same starburst events that formed the bulk of the galaxy (e.g., Ashman & Zepf 1992), so it is unsurprising that they should be closely associated with the bulk of the star light. On the other hand, it is not necessary for them to have been formed together, as metal-rich GCs could have been accreted along the same preferred axis. For lenticular (S0) galaxies that have both bulges and stellar disks, it is interesting to ask whether the red GCs seem to be more associated with bulges or disks. In some more edge-on galaxies where we can hope to distinguish disk populations, such as VCC 1692 shown in Figure \[fig:1692zoom\], the GCs do appear to be more disky in their distribution. VCC 1062, classified as an SB0, is another example where the red GCs almost exactly trace the disk light. In some early-type galaxies, the metal-rich GCs appear to be more associated with the stellar disk than they are with the bulge. [^1]
We also find that the blue, metal-poor GCs in the inner regions of luminous early-type galaxies also align with the major axes of their hosts. This result is more surprising, as the canonical metal-poor halo system is usually pictured as spherical. The anisotropy in the distribution of blue GCs is not as pronounced as that for the red GCs, but it is still detected at high significance. This is interesting, as metal-poor GCs often contain some of the oldest stars in the galaxy, and may form in some of the earliest collapsing dark matter overdensities (Moore [et al. ]{}2006). Metal-poor halo stars and GCs may also be the best stellar tracer of the overall matter distribution (e.g., Abadi, Navarro, & Steinmetz 2006). That the blue GCs in many of the luminous galaxies appear to have anisotropic azimuthal distributions is a clue that these galaxies did not form their old halos in an environment of isotropic merging, but perhaps were created along local filaments. Brainerd (2005) used the SDSS to find that satellite galaxies within $r_p\lesssim100$ kpc are also preferentially aligned along the major axis. If some blue GCs have their origin in merging satellites, then this is a suggestive connection. The connection between satellite dwarfs and halo GCs has been made in kinematic studies ([Côté ]{} [et al. ]{}2001, Woodley 2006), where the rotation axes of metal-poor GCs and satellite dwarfs were found to be aligned. Furthermore, a recent GC kinematic study of M87, the second most luminous galaxy in our sample, indicates that its GC system was possibly affected by a recent merger (Strader [et al. ]{}2011; Romanowsky [et al. ]{}2012).
The field of view of our data is too small to evaluate the shape of the entire GC system for the luminous galaxies, but it would be very interesting if future wide-field data could extend these studies to larger radii. If metal-poor GCs trace the total mass distribution, then this may give us a visible tracer of the flattening of dark matter halos in these galaxies. Given that these galaxies reside in a dense cluster environment, the shapes of their halos and their GC systems may be unlike that of a galaxy like the Milky Way. The tendency for the more luminous galaxies to show this alignment is similar to the trends seen in the alignment between galaxies their surrounding large scale structure (West & Blakeslee 2000; Wang [et al. ]{}2008; Faltenbacher [et al. ]{}2009).
The ACS field of view necessarily limits us to studying the “inner halo” populations of the more luminous galaxies. Wide-field imaging, such as that which will be provided by the Next Generation Virgo Cluster Survey (NGVS; Ferrarese [et al. ]{}2012), will provide information on the possible alignment of GCs in the outer regions of these galaxies.
Conclusions
===========
We have used data from the ACS Virgo Cluster Survey to study the azimuthal distribution of globular clusters around early-type galaxies. We use the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in conjunction with tailored control samples to determine the degree of anisotropy in the azimuthal GC distribtions of the sample galaxies. We also combine the GC systems of galaxies with similar luminosities. We find that:
- The azimuthal distribution of GCs is strongly anisotropic around early-type galaxies with moderate to high ellipticity ($\epsilon>0.2$) and intermediate to high luminosity ($M_z<-19$). We see no strong trends for dwarf galaxies.
- In these galaxies, the GCs are preferentially aligned along the major axis of the host galaxy.
- The red GCs exhibit the strongest correlation with galaxy light, and in some cases may be associated with the stellar disks of lenticulars. This association strengthens the idea that the formation of red GCs is linked to that of the metal-rich field star population.
- The blue GCs in these galaxies also show a significant tendency to be aligned with the host galaxy major axis, although to a lesser extent than the red GCs. That the blue GC distributions are also non-spherical in their distribution suggests that these galaxies did not experience mergers from all directions, and instead formed their halos along a direction defined by their current major axis.
E. W. P. gratefully acknowledges support from the Peking University Hundred Talent Fund (985) and grants 10873001 and 11173003 from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. A. J. acknowledges support from BASAL CATA PFB-06 and the Millennium Science Initiative, Chilean Ministry of Economy (Nucleus P07-021-F). The authors thank the anonymous referee for comments that improved the paper.
This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Facilities:
Ashman, K. M., & Zepf, S. E. 1992, , 384, 50
Bailin, J., Power, C., Norberg, P., Zaritsky, D., & Gibson, B. K. 2008, , 390, 1133
Binggeli, B. 1982, , 107, 338
Brainerd, T. G. 2005, , 628, L101
C[\^ o]{}t[' e]{}, P., Marzke, R. O., & West, M. J. 1998, , 501, 554
C[\^ o]{}t[' e]{}, P., et al. 2004, , 153, 223 (Paper I)
C[ô]{}t[é]{}, P., et al. 2006, , 165, 57
C[ô]{}t[é]{}, P., et al. 2007, , 671, 1456
Faltenbacher, A., Li, C., White, S. D. M., Jing, Y.-P., Shu-DeMao, & Wang, J. 2009, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 9, 41
Ferrarese, L., et al. 2006, , 164, 334
Ferrarese, L., C[ô]{}t[é]{}, P., Cuillandre, J.-C., et al. 2012, , 200, 4 Ha[ş]{}egan, M., et al. 2005, , 627, 203
Hashimoto, Y., Henry, J. P., & Boehringer, H. 2008, , 390, 1562
Jord[' a]{}n, A., et al. 2004a, , 154, 509 (Paper II)
Jord[á]{}n, A., et al. 2005, , 634, 1002 (Paper X)
Jord[á]{}n, A., et al. 2006, , 651, L25
Jord[á]{}n, A., et al. 2007, , 171, 101 (Paper XII)
Jord[á]{}n, A., et al. 2009, , 180, 54
Larsen, S. S., Brodie, J. P., Huchra, J. P., Forbes, D. A., & Grillmair, C. J. 2001, , 121, 2974
Liu, C., Peng, E. W., Jord[á]{}n, A., Ferrarese, L., Blakeslee, J. P., C[ô]{}t[é]{}, P., & Mei, S. 2011, , 728, 116
McLaughlin, D. E., Harris, W. E., & Hanes, D. A. 1994, , 422, 486
McLaughlin, D. E., Secker, J., Harris, W. E., & Geisler, D. 1995, , 109, 1033
Mei, S., et al. 2005, , 625, 121
Mei, S., et al. 2007, , 655, 144
Mieske, S., et al.2006, , 653, 193 (Paper XIV)
Moore, B., Diemand, J., Madau, P., Zemp, M., & Stadel, J. 2006, , 368, 563
Peng, E. W., et al. 2006a, , 639, 95
Peng, E. W., et al. 2006b, , 639, 838
Peng, E. W., et al. 2008, , 681, 197
Peng, E. W., et al. 2011, , 730, 23
Romanowsky, A. J., Strader, J., Brodie, J. P., et al. 2012, , 748, 29
Searle, L., & Zinn, R. 1978, , 225, 357
Strader, J., Romanowsky, A. J., Brodie, J. P., et al. 2011, , 197, 33
Wang, Y., Yang, X., Mo, H. J., Li, C., van den Bosch, F. C., Fan, Z., & Chen, X. 2008, , 385, 1511
West, M. J. 1994, , 268, 79
West, M. J., & Blakeslee, J. P. 2000, , 543, L27
Woodley, K. A. 2006, , 132, 2424
Yang, X., van den Bosch, F. C., Mo, H. J., Mao, S., Kang, X., Weinmann, S. M., Guo, Y., & Jing, Y. P. 2006, , 369, 1293
Yoon, S.-J., Yi, S. K., & Lee, Y.-W. 2006, Science, 311, 1129
Yoon, S.-J., Lee, S.-Y., Blakeslee, J. P., et al. 2011, , 743, 150
Zaritsky, D., Smith, R., Frenk, C., & White, S. D. M. 1997, , 478, 39
[^1]: Previously, Peng [et al. ]{}(2006b) found that diffuse star clusters in the ACSVCS galaxies tend to be found in lenticular galaxies and were spatially correlated with their disks. The GCs we study in this paper are different from the diffuse star clusters and have magnitudes and sizes typical of GCs.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'So far the most sophisticated experiments have shown no trace of new physics at the TeV scale. Consequently, new models with unexplored parameter regions are necessary to explain current results, re-examine the existing data, and propose new experiments. In this Letter, we present a modified version of the $\mu\nu$SSM supersymmetric model where a non-Universal extra U(1) gauge symmetry is added in order to restore an effective R-parity that ensures proton stability. We show that anomalies equations cancel without having to add *any* exotic matter, restricting the charges of the fields under the extra symmetry to a discrete set of values. We find that it is the viability of the model through anomalies cancellation what defines the conditions in which fermions interact with dark matter candidates via the exchange of $Z''$ bosons. The strict condition of universality violation means that LHC constraints for a $Z''$ mass do not apply directly to our model, allowing for a yet undiscovered relatively light $Z$’, as we discuss both in the phenomenological context and in its implications for possible flavour changing neutral currents. Moreover, we explore the possibility of isospin violating dark matter interactions; we observe that this interaction depends, surprisingly, on the Higgs charges under the new symmetry, both limiting the number of possible models and allowing to analyse indirect dark matter searches in the light of well defined, particular scenarios.'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
---
[**The non-Universal U(1) gauge extended $\mu\nu$SSM: anomalies cancellation and singular phenomenology** ]{}
Víctor Martín-Lozano$^{1,}$[^1], Santiago Oviedo-Casado$^{2,}$[^2]\
[ *$^1$Bethe Center for Theoretical Physics & Physikalisches Institut der Universität Bonn,\
Nu[ß]{}allee 12, 53115, Bonn, Germany\
$^2$Departamento de F[í]{}sica Aplicada, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena,\
Cartagena 30202, Spain* ]{}
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Barring the Higgs discovery [@HiggsATLAS; @HiggsCMS], no signs of new physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) have been seen so far after run 1 of the LHC. In particular, regarding Supersymmetry (SUSY), there are no signals of the coloured states [@GQATLAS], namely squarks and gluinos, that were predicted to be abundant in the TeV scale. These data impose severe constraints on the allowed SUSY models, pushing the coloured states to masses beyond 1 TeV. However, several recast analyses showed that –even in already existing experimental data– there still is much room for light SUSY states [@Arina:2016rbb; @Kowalska2016; @Buckley2017; @Han2017; @Kim:2017pvm].
The minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) is the most simple realisation of a $N=1$ SUSY model. In the MSSM construction however, the mass term responsible for the electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB),i.e. the $\mu$-term, is added *ad hoc*, not specifying its origin [@ABCSusy; @TerningModernSusy; @Drees; @Susyprimer]. Another important issue is that the MSSM is unable to explain the fact that neutrinos do have mass [@Maltoni2004; @Forero2014]. An elegant proposal to solve both problems at once comes from the so-called “$\mu$ from $\nu$” supersymmetric model ($\mu\nu$SSM)[^3], which proposes introducing right-handed neutrinos to solve the $\mu$-problem and clarifying the origin of the left-handed neutrinos masses. The superpotential reads as follows,
W = & \_[ab]{} ( Y\_u\^[ij]{} H\_2\^b Q\^a\_i u\_j\^c + Y\_d\^[ij]{} H\_1\^a Q\^b\_i d\_j\^c + Y\_e\^[ij]{} H\_1\^a L\^b\_i e\_j\^c + Y\_\^[ij]{} H\_2\^b L\^a\_i \^c\_j )\
& -\_[ab]{} \^[i]{} \^c\_iH\_1\^a H\_2\^b + \^[ijk]{} \^c\_i\^c\_j\^c\_k .
\[superpotential1\] Two new terms in the superpotential of Eq. account for these properties: The first one, $\lambda_i \hat{\nu}_i^c \hat{H}_d \hat{H}_u$, $i=1,2,3$, is a trilinear coupling between the Higgs and the three families of right-handed neutrinos. When EWSB takes place the supersymmetric partners of the right-handed neutrinos, the right-handed sneutrinos $\widetilde{\nu}_{i}^c$, develop vacuum expectation values (VEVs) giving rise to an effective $\mu$ term, $\mu\sim\lambda v_{i}^c$. The second new term in the superpotential, $\kappa_{ijk}\hat{\nu}_i^c\hat{\nu}_j^c\hat{\nu}_k^c$, provides Majorana masses to the right-handed neutrinos after EWSB takes place. As the right-handed neutrinos couple to the leptons, a low-scale see-saw mechanism is induced and the light left-handed neutrinos become massive [@munuSSMoriginal; @Fidalgo2009; @Ghosh2008; @Ghosh2010].
As a result of the heavy mixing occurring within the neutral and charged sectors, the $\mu\nu$SSM presents a very rich phenomenology, markedly different from the usual collider scenarios [@Munoz2008; @Ghosh2011; @Ghosh2012; @Ghosh2014; @Munoz2016; @Ghosh2017; @Biekotter2017]. This means not only that new parameter regions open up for SUSY searches but also that the $\mu\nu$SSM model predictions could have escaped unnoticed so far. Nonetheless the $\mu\nu$SSM has issues as well; both new terms added to the superpotential explicitly break $R$-parity ($R_p$) via the right-handed neutrinos, where such breaking is governed by the value of the neutrino Yukawa coupling, $Y_\nu$. As $R_p$ is no longer a symmetry of the model, dangerous lepton and baryon number violating terms are allowed in the superpotential. Likewise, the stability of the proton is no longer guaranteed. To recover an effective $R_p$ and at the same time allow only trilinear terms in the superpotential, one can invoke a U(1) gauge symmetry, which appears naturally in string realisations of the SM (see for example Ref. [@FARAGGI2002; @ibanez2014string; @Marchesano2007; @Shiu2005]).
The presence of an extra U(1) symmetry has already been explored both in the SM (see for example Ref. [@Langacker2009; @Martinez1; @Martinez2]), as well as in supersymmetric realisations, of which Refs. [@Loinaz1999; @Ernest2002; @Aoki1999; @Aoki2000; @Lee2008; @Erler2000; @Dobrescu1999; @Demir2005; @Japopesao] are only a few examples. In fact for the $\mu\nu$SSM it has already been tentatively explored leading to promising results [@Fidalgo2012]. The price to pay however is having to recalculate the anomalies cancellation conditions, which for the SM matter content and gauge groups are known to be “miraculously” fulfilled. For example, in Ref. [@Fidalgo2012] it was found that for the $\mu\nu$SSM to be consistent with an extra U(1) gauge symmetry, the matter content of the model has to be enlarged by several extra colour triplets, left doublets and singlet fields. Moreover, it is a general rule for all gauge extended models that exotic fields are needed for the model to be anomaly free. While the possibility of exotic fields cannot be excluded, its presence is problematic, not only due to the lack of evidence but because it disrupts the unification of coupling constants at the GUT scale. Hence a minimalist solution is always desired.
In this Letter we present a solution of the U(1) enlarged $\mu\nu$SSM which is anomaly free by means of having non-Universal charges of the superfields under the extra symmetry, with the novelty that no exotic fields are needed. We solve the anomalies equations by assuming that each family can have a different U(1)$_X$ charge, finding several groups of solutions depending on few mostly unconstrained extra charges. In addition, we explore some possible phenomenological consequences of having non-Universality in our model. Concretely, we study the extra charge dependence of the $Z'$ interaction with fermions as a result of the mixing between the extra U(1) boson and the usual $Z$ boson [@Soler2014; @Feng2014]. Such dependence implies that the production limits of a $Z'$ at the LHC are no longer valid and have to be recalculated for the specific models allowed by the anomalies cancellation, leading to scenarios where a light $Z'$ is possible, a common feature of string constructions [@Soler2014; @Ringwald2009; @Quevedo2002], but which is however bounded from below by the condition that no flavour changing neutral currents (FCNC) –common in models with extra symmetries [@Langacker2000; @Langacker2004]– have been found experimentally [@ATLASfcnc; @CMSfcnc], as we explain. Furthermore, we explore possible scenarios of $Z'$ mediated spin independent dark matter (DM) interactions [@Chun2011], finding a family of anomalies equations solutions with both scalar and vector isospin violating DM-quark interactions. For the non-Universal U(1) gauge enlarged $\mu\nu$SSM the possible isospin violating scenarios are parametrised by the Higgs fields charges under the extra symmetry, rendering a series of finite, discrete values that could be discriminated in experiments. Therefore in our model experimental detection of DM is not only conditioned by the specific realisation but could also be used to provide with clear, testable predictions to discern among DM and string compactification scenarios.
The non-Universal U(1)$\mu\nu$SSM
=================================
In this section we present the necessary conditions for anomalies cancellations and the implications for model building. In addition, we explore possible phenomenological implications and signatures particular of the model that are imposed by the extra charges assignment of the fields, which themselves are constrained by the anomalies cancellation conditions.
Non-universal anomaly cancellation in the U(1)$\mu\nu$SSM
---------------------------------------------------------
The gauge group of the U(1)$\mu\nu$SSM is $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y \times U(1)_X$, where each of the superfields composing the model’s spectrum has now an extra,$\,Q_X\,$, charge. Consequently, all anomalies equations involving the new symmetry have to be recalculated if we want the model to be anomaly free. The analysis is two-fold: On the one hand, the terms appearing in the superpotential must have vanishing total charge, and on the other hand, anomalies must also cancel. Hence, restrictive bounds are imposed on the possible values that each superfield charge $Q_X$ can have. Furthermore, we can use certain constraints to either allow certain terms in the superpotential, or to explicitly banish undesired, unphysical, or dangerous terms.
We will work under the assumption that no exotic matter is needed. To that end, we consider the same matter content as for the original $\mu\nu$SSM. The anomalies equations that must be fulfilled with this matter content are
& \_i(2Q\_[Q\_i]{}+Q\_[u\_i]{}+Q\_[d\_i]{}) = 0,\
& \_i(3Q\_[Q\_i]{}+Q\_[L\_i]{})+Q\_[H\_1]{}+Q\_[H\_2]{} = 0,\
& \_i(Q\_[Q\_i]{}+Q\_[d\_i]{}+ Q\_[u\_i]{}+Q\_[L\_i]{}+Q\_[e\_i]{})+ (Q\_[H\_1]{}+Q\_[H\_2]{}) = 0,\
& \_i(Q\_[Q\_i]{}\^2+Q\_[d\_i]{}\^2-2Q\_[u\_i]{}\^2-Q\_[L\_i]{}\^2+Q\_[e\_i]{}\^2)- Q\_[H\_1]{}\^2+Q\_[H\_2]{}\^2 = 0,\
& \_i(6Q\_[Q\_i]{}\^3+3Q\_[d\_i]{}\^3+3Q\_[u\_i]{}\^3+2Q\_[L\_i]{}\^3+Q\_[e\_i]{}\^3 + Q\_[\^c\_i]{}\^3)+ 2Q\_[H\_1]{}\^3+2Q\_[H\_2]{}\^3 = 0,\
& \_i(6Q\_[Q\_i]{}+3Q\_[u\_i]{}+3Q\_[d\_i]{}+2Q\_[L\_i]{}+Q\_[e\_i]{}+Q\_[\^c\_i]{})+2Q\_[H\_1]{} +2Q\_[H\_2]{} = 0.
\[anomalies\] To solve equations from Eq. we need a set of constraints, which we in addition use to ensure that our model has certain desired properties arising naturally. Prime among them is forbidding a bilinear $\mu$ term from appearing in the superpotential, as its absence is otherwise not automatically guaranteed. Thus, we impose $Q_{H_1} \ne - Q_{H_2}$. Furthermore, since the Higgs mass term is obtained from the right-handed sneutrinos $\nu^c$ singlet fields acquiring VEVs at the EWSB scale, a term coupling the right-handed neutrinos and the Higgs fields must also be allowed in the superpotential, which requires $Q_{H_1} + Q_{H_2} + Q_{\nu^c_i} = 0$ for at least one of the three families of right-handed neutrinos. Moreover, as the $\mu\nu$SSM was born to answer the neutrino mass problem, and the extra U(1) forbids the presence of the $\kappa_{ijk}\hat{\nu}_i^c\hat{\nu}_j^c\hat{\nu}_k^c$ term that provided Majorana masses for the right-handed neutrinos in the original $\mu\nu$SSM, we impose that Yukawa tree-level mass terms below the soft breaking scale must appear for the right-handed neutrinos, such that a see-saw mechanism is implemented in our model. It is therefore a condition that $Q_{l_i} + Q_{\nu_i^c} + Q_{H_2}$ = 0. In addition, we would like to directly forbid certain operators –such as those violating baryon number– from the superpotential, which means $Q_u \ne -2Q_d$. The remaining mass terms are *a priori* not imposed in the superpotential, permitting thus the different fields to acquire mass either at tree-level order with Yukawa couplings or at first loop, via non-holomorphic mass terms. The choice of either is to be fixed accordingly with the anomalies equations.
Giving mass to certain fields via non-holomorphic terms means that such mass must be provided by SUSY-breaking operators introduced via radiative, first loop corrections, which appear naturally in gravity mediated SUSY-breaking scenarios [@Martin2000]. It has been demonstrated that either mechanism is in principle indistinguishable in experiments but for the heaviest particles [@BORZUMATI199953], namely the top quark and the $\tau$ lepton, for which tree level Yukawa terms need to be imposed. Thus, we can impose $Q_{Q_3} + Q_{u_3} + Q_{H_2}$ = 0 and $Q_{l_3} + Q_{e_3}
+ Q_{H_1}$ = 0. With this conditions, the first, second, and sixth equations in Eq. become
&2Q\_[Q\_1]{}+2Q\_[Q\_2]{}+Q\_[Q\_3]{}+Q\_[d\_1]{}+Q\_[d\_2]{}+Q\_[d\_3]{}+Q\_[u\_1]{}+Q\_[u\_2]{}-Q\_[H\_2]{} = 0,\
& Q\_[H\_1]{} + Q\_[H\_2]{} + Q\_[L\_1]{} + Q\_[L\_2]{} + Q\_[L\_3]{} + 3Q\_[Q\_1]{} + 3Q\_[Q\_2]{} + 3Q\_[Q\_3]{} = 0,\
& 3Q\_[d\_1]{} + 3Q\_[d\_2]{} + 3Q\_[d\_3]{} + Q\_[e\_1]{} + Q\_[e\_2]{} + Q\_[H\_1]{} + Q\_[L\_1]{} + Q\_[L\_2]{}\
& + 6Q\_[Q\_1]{} + 6Q\_[Q\_2]{} + 3Q\_[Q\_3]{} + 3Q\_[u\_1]{} + 3Q\_[u\_1]{} - 4Q\_[H\_2]{} = 0,
which we can use to fix the conditions for quark charges. Should we try for all the up quarks to have tree-level mass terms, then all down quarks necessarily acquire mass through non-holomorphic terms. But from the third equation this imposes that just one lepton has tree-level Yukawa mass term. Putting everything back into the second equation it would lead to $Q_{H_1} = - Q_{H_2}$, reintroducing the $\mu$ term in the superpotential. And the same happens if we try to have both first and second families of up quarks with non-holomorphic mass terms. Consequently, the only possibility is for either the first or the second family of up quarks to have tree-level Yukawa coupling, while the other acquires its mass through a non-holomorphic term. On the contrary, the necessary condition for the down-type quarks is to have *two* of the families having non-holomorphic mass terms and one a tree-level Yukawa. There is however freedom in choosing which family acquires its mass via which mechanism, a fact that will be of importance for the phenomenology of the model as we shall see in what follows. The left leptons (L) mimic the behaviour of the up-quarks. The possibility of flavour changing neutral currents in both quark and lepton sectors can as well be disregarded as the non-diagonal flavour matrices terms can be safely made zero. Furthermore, even if the mechanism for obtaining the masses changes within the quark (or lepton) type, no problem exists in obtaining the correct masses for each of the particles.
To conclude the analysis, we must choose either of the groups of solutions, the rest being symmetric. In particular, fixing the first and third families of up-quarks with superpotential tree-level Yukawa couplings, and establishing the remaining quarks and leptons accordingly, immediately fulfils equations 1 and 6 from Eq. , and leaves the second and third the same and equal to Q\_[H\_1]{} + Q\_[H\_2]{} + Q\_[L\_1]{} + Q\_[L\_2]{} + Q\_[L\_3]{} + 3Q\_[Q\_1]{} + 3Q\_[Q\_2]{} + 3Q\_[Q\_3]{} = 0. Clearing $Q_{L_1}$ and replacing it in the non-linear anomalies we obtain for equation four in Eq. (Q\_[H\_1]{} + Q\_[H\_2]{}) (Q\_[H\_1]{} + Q\_[L\_2]{} + 3 (Q\_[Q\_1]{} + Q\_[Q\_3]{})) = 0. Choosing the first brackets to hold true would reintroduce the $\mu$ term in the superpotential, therefore is the second brackets what must cancel, fixing $Q_{L_2} = -Q_{H_1} - 3Q_{Q_1} - 3 Q_{Q_3}$, with which the fifth equation in Eq. is simplified to
&(Q\_[H\_1]{} + Q\_[H\_2]{})\
&(-2Q\_[L\_3]{} (Q\_[H\_2]{} +Q\_[L\_3]{}) + Q\_[H\_1]{}(Q\_[H\_2]{} - 3Q\_[Q\_2]{}) - 3 (Q\_[H\_2]{} + 2Q\_[L\_3]{})Q\_[Q\_2]{} - 9Q\_[Q\_2]{}\^2) = 0.
\[lastineq\]
We thus have solutions depending on $Q_{H_1}$,$Q_{H_2}$,$Q_{L_3}$,$Q_{Q_1}$,$Q_{Q_2}$,$Q_{Q_3}$, a repeating characteristic of the model independently of which fields have non-holomorphic mass term, and where any combination is valid as long as Eq. has a real solution and a term of the form $Q_{H_1} + Q_{H_2} + Q_{\nu^c_i} = 0$ is allowed. For this to happen, the corresponding $Q_{L_i}$ must be equal to $Q_{H_1}$, which means that not all right-handed neutrinos will have a tree-level coupling with the Higgs fields, being nonetheless guaranteed that some will, thus providing a natural mass term for the Higgs particle. In addition, note that by having the quark families mass terms with opposite mechanisms, it is guaranteed that no baryon number violating operator is allowed in the superpotential as long as Higgs and quarks have different charges. We thus have shown that within the framework of the U(1) extended $\mu\nu$SSM, anomalies are cancelled without the need to add exotic matter, at the price of having non-universal charges, and with the gain of forbidding most troublesome operators in the superpotential. In the appendix \[sec:app\], an specific $Q_{X}$ charge distribution for the above described family of solutions can be found, together with and an altogether different scenario with important DM phenomenological consequences. In the remaining part of the article we elaborate on the novel, particular, and potentially relevant phenomenological characteristics of the non-Universal U(1)$\mu\nu$SSM.
Phenomenological consequences of Universality violation across fermion families.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The phenomenological manifestation of an extra U(1) gauge symmetry comes, mainly, from the mixing of the massive neutral components of the vector bosons from the gauge sector, namely the $Z$ and the $Z'$ gauge bosons. For the case of the U(1) enlarged $\mu\nu$SSM, and contrary to other models where similar mixing occurs (see for example Ref. [@Bandyopadhyay:2018cwu] and references therein), the mixing happens naturally within the neutralino mixing matrix as part of the right sneutrinos acquiring vacuum expectation value. Such fact enriches greatly the phenomenology of the model and, as we will describe, imposes conditions for both collider and dark matter interactions, similar to what happens within the $\mu\nu$SSM alone [@Fidalgothesis]. The presence of the non-Universal extra gauge symmetry introduces a new dependence on the specific charge of each field under the extra symmetry which will condition the possible interactions of fermions with the $Z'$, which is responsible of a very particular phenomenology, specific of the non-Universal U(1)$\mu\nu$SSM.
The phenomenology of the model is modified according to the the mixing of the new sector. To parametrise the influence that the extra U(1) has, we define the mixing factor $R$ [@Fidalgo2012], $$R=\frac{(M_{ZZ'}^2)^2}{M^2_Z M^2_{Z'}},$$ where the entries $M_{ij}$ correspond to the terms of the mixing matrix between $Z$ and $Z'$. In principle $R$ should be smaller than $10^{-3}$ given the experimental constraints available [@Cho:2000pq], with the consequence that $M_{ZZ'}$ has to be smaller than $M_{ZZ'} \lesssim 56$ GeV [^4] when $M_{Z'}$=1 TeV, with such constraint becoming weaker as the mass of the $Z'$ gets heavier. Thus only heavier masses for the $Z'$ would fulfil such condition together with the ones coming from accelerator searches, and would require a somewhat large fine-tuning. Nonetheless, these limits are calculated for when the extra charges are Universal, which does not occur in our model. Hence the bounds presented have to be taken carefully, as the couplings of the physical states are now dependent on the $Q_X$ charges (as well as on the vacuum expectation value of $\nu^c$). However, in the rest of the paper we will consider that the mixing in the $Z-Z'$ sector is negligible.[^5]
In our model the physical coupling of the $Z'$ to the fermionic sector is $$g_\alpha^{Z'}=g' Q_X^{\alpha},
\label{eq:charge}$$ where $\alpha$ corresponds to the matter field $\psi_\alpha$, $Q_X^\alpha$ is the charge of this field under the U(1)$_X$, and $g'$ corresponds to the coupling constant of the U(1)$_X$ gauge symmetry. Thus, once the value of $g'$ is fixed, the way the $Z'$ couples to the different fermions depends strictly on the charges $Q_X$. The values these charges can have are fixed by the anomalies cancellation conditions, with only certain discrete values allowed. Moreover, since these charges break universality among fermions (see for example the models presented in the Appendix \[sec:app\]), each fermion family will have in general a different value of the charge and consequently will couple with different strength to the $Z'$, having deep phenomenological consequences.
The physical couplings of the SM particle to the $Z'$ are described as follows. According to Eq. the left and right handed components of the SM fermions do not necessarily share the same couplings to the $Z'$, as they depend on the charge assignation. Usually, the couplings of a vector boson can be expressed in its vector and axial forms. The vector coupling is defined as the sum of the left and right components, for example the vector coupling of the quarks is, $$\begin{aligned}
C_{u_i}^V = g_{u_{iL}}^{Z'} + g_{u_{iR}}^{Z'} = g' (Q_{u_{iL}}+Q_{u_{iR}}), \\
C_{d_i}^V = g_{d_{iL}}^{Z'} + g_{d_{iR}}^{Z'} = g' (Q_{d_{iL}}+Q_{d_{iR}}),
\label{veccoupling}\end{aligned}$$ where $i=1,2,3$ stands for the three families of both up and down quarks since they could have different charges. On the contrary, the axial coupling is defined as the difference of the components, $$\begin{aligned}
C_{u_i}^A = g_{u_{iL}}^{Z'} - g_{u_{iR}}^{Z'} = g' (Q_{u_{iL}}-Q_{u_{iR}}), \\
C_{d_i}^A = g_{d_{iL}}^{Z'} - g_{d_{iR}}^{Z'} = g' (Q_{d_{iL}}-Q_{d_{iR}}),\end{aligned}$$ As we see, the vector and axial couplings are different, which should not surprise us since in the SM the $Z$ boson behaves similarly. As the charges can be different in the up and down sectors the result is that $Z'$ does not couple in the same way to up and down quarks. The consequences are twofold. On the one hand, the production rates of a $Z'$ in collider experiments has to be recalculated taking into account that each of the fermion pairs that could produce a $Z'$ has a different value of the coupling, which makes the current constraints and limits invalid in this model. And on the other hand, direct dark matter searches, which are heavily dependent on the DM particle interaction with protons and neutrons, are affected by the fact that now the coupling is quark-family dependent, and will not interact the same with protons (which have more up-quark content) than with neutrons, modifying as well current experimental DM searches and imposing different limits.
In the remaining part of the section we will describe briefly the interesting phenomenological consequences that we just commented, focusing on the collider and DM.[^6]
**On the existence of unobserved flavour changing neutral currents**
The presence of flavour changing neutral currents is highly suppressed in the SM [@ATLASfcnc; @CMSfcnc]. In that sense, non-Universality can be problematic, as is the distribution of extra charges what determines the Yukawa textures, which in turn can lead to differences in the CKM matrix for quarks and in the lepton currents, introducing new $Z$’ mediated FCNC. To understand the mechanism by which the extra U(1) symmetry might introduce FCNC, it is illustrative to write the Q’s extra charges matrices associated to the Yukawa mass operators. In particular, for up-squarks, both the holomorphic ($Y_u^{ij} \, \hat H_2^b\, \hat Q^a_i \, \hat u_j^c$) and non-holomorphic ($Y_u^{ij} \, \hat H_1^b\, \hat Q^a_i \, \hat u_j^c$) charge matrices look like, Q\_[Q\_i]{} + Q\_[u\_j]{} + Q\_[H\_2]{} = (
[ccc]{} 0 & Q\_[Q\_1]{} - Q\_[Q\_2]{} + Q\_[H\_1]{} + Q\_[H\_2]{} & Q\_[Q\_1]{} - Q\_[Q\_3]{}\
Q\_[Q\_2]{} - Q\_[Q\_1]{} & Q\_[H\_1]{} + Q\_[H\_2]{} & Q\_[Q\_2]{} - Q\_[Q\_3]{}\
Q\_[Q\_3]{} - Q\_[Q\_1]{} & Q\_[Q\_3]{} - Q\_[Q\_2]{} + Q\_[H\_1]{} + Q\_[H\_2]{} & 0
), \[quarks1\] Q\_[Q\_i]{} + Q\_[u\_j]{} - Q\_[H\_1]{} = (
[ccc]{} -Q\_[H\_1]{} - Q\_[H\_2]{} & Q\_[Q\_1]{} - Q\_[Q\_2]{} & Q\_[Q\_1]{} - Q\_[Q\_3]{} -Q\_[H\_1]{} - Q\_[H\_2]{}\
Q\_[Q\_2]{} - Q\_[Q\_1]{} -Q\_[H\_1]{} - Q\_[H\_2]{} & 0 & Q\_[Q\_2]{} - Q\_[Q\_3]{} -Q\_[H\_1]{} - Q\_[H\_2]{}\
Q\_[Q\_3]{} - Q\_[Q\_1]{} -Q\_[H\_1]{} - Q\_[H\_2]{} & Q\_[Q\_3]{} - Q\_[Q\_2]{} & -Q\_[H\_1]{} - Q\_[H\_2]{}
). \[quarks2\]
The case of down squarks is symmetric to the up squarks, interchanging the tree level and non-holomorphic matrices, while for right sleptons the behaviour is the same as for up squarks (replacing the corresponding $Q_Q$ by $Q_L$, while for right sneutrinos, since we choose them to all have tree level Yukawas, no problems arise with FCNCs. What Eqs. and tell us is that in order for a Yukawa term to be allowed in the superpotential, the corresponding matrix entry must be zero. Hence, for a FCNC to appear in the superpotential, non-diagonal entries in Eqs. or , and their peers for down squarks and sleptons must be zero. Thus, for sleptons avoiding unwanted, $Z'$ mediated FCNCs is easy, as it only requires flavour changing terms to be forbidden in the Yukawa matrices, which will occur as long as $Q_{L_i} \ne Q_{L_j}$ with $ i \ne j$, since it is already guaranteed that the Higgs charges have to be different from one another. Consequently no $Z'$ mediated leptons FCNC will appear in this model. For the remaining we will thence concentrate on the possibility of FCNC in the quark sector.
$Z'$ mediated quark neutral currents are governed by the coupling of the $Z'$ to the quarks, which we assume to be diagonal in the weak basis. This is easily achieved as long as the non-diagonal terms in Eqs. and are different from zero, as it happens with sleptons. In whose case the Lagrangian looks like = -( \_L\^U\_L\_U\_L + \_R\^U\_R\_U\_R + \_L\^D\_L\_D\_L + \_R\^D\_R\_D\_R )Z\^[’]{}. Here $\tan\theta_w = g_Y/g'$, the ratio between the hypercharge and the new U(1) coupling constants, $U_{L,R} = (u,c,t)^T_{L,R}$, $D_{L,R} = (d,s,b)^T_{L,R}$, and $\delta^{U,D}_{L,R}$ is the Kronecker delta for left-right and up-down type terms, indicating that there are no non-diagonal couplings in the Lagrangian. Therefore, possible interactions which are flavour changing will come described by the rotation of the Yukawa quark matrices to the physical bases, i.e. the mass eigenstates. If these rotations were proportional to the unit matrix, then no FCNC would appear. As it stands, there is no guarantee that the interaction remains diagonal, hence the corresponding Lagrangian is [@Valencia2002; @Valencia2009]
\_[FCNC]{} &= - ( \_L\^V\^U\_L \^U\_L [V\^U\_L]{}\^U\_L + \_R\^V\^U\_R \^U\_R [V\^U\_R]{}\^U\_R\
& + \_L\^ V\^D\_L \^D\_L [V\^D\_L]{}\^D\_L + \_R\^V\^D\_R \^D\_R [V\^D\_R]{}\^D\_R )Z’\^,
where the $V_{L,R}^{U,D}$ are the usual quark diagonalisation matrices, the well known Kobayashi-Maskawa. The flavour changing neutral currents $J_{Z'}$ associated to $\mathcal{L}_{FCNC}$ in terms of the Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing terms are of the form [@Valencia2002], \_w\_X\_Z V\^[U,D]{}\_[L,R]{}[V\^[U,D]{}\_[L,R]{}]{}\^, with $\tan\theta_X = g/g'$, that is the ratio of the weak and the U(1) gauge coupling constants. $\tan 2\xi_Z = 2 M_{ZZ'}^2/(M_{Z}^2 + M_{Z'}^2)$, where the entries $M_{ij}$ correspond to the terms of the mixing matrix between $Z$ and $Z'$.
Then whether FCNC appear and are important in our model is a matter of diagonalizing the Yukawa quark matrices for specific realisations of the extra charges and obtaining the corresponding neutral currents and their specific strength. The constraint for their appearance goes like [@Valencia2013] \_w\_X\_Z V\^[U,D]{}\_[L,R]{}[V\^[U,D]{}\_[L,R]{}]{}\^10\^[-4]{}, \[eqguay\] which for typical parameters means $\frac{M_Z}{M_Z'} \lessapprox 1$.
Given the fact that the mixing between the states is almost negligible the contribution to the FCNC through the mixing will be suppressed. Apart from that, a $Z'$ with a mass in the TeV range has practically a negligible effect on FCNC, as can be deduced from Eq. [@Langacker:2008yv; @Valencia2013]. The LHC searches for a $Z'$ set the mass of this boson to be in the multi-TeV range in order not to be produced. In order to be safe from such constraints, one should invoke either a large TeV mass or a really small $U(1)'$ gauge coupling. In both scenarios, the total contribution of the $Z'$ is practically negligible since the contributions are suppressed either to a high $m_{Z'}$ or a really small coupling $g'$. As the scope of this paper is not a detailed and numerical study of the properties of this model but just a broad overview of the interesting phenomenological aspects, we leave the precision calculations and numerical results to a future and deeper study of this model [@nextone].
**Collider Phenomenology of the $Z'$**
The $Z'$ could be eventually produced in the LHC. Both ATLAS and CMS have searches on high mass resonances decaying into a pair of leptons or hadronically (see for example Ref. [@Aaboud:2017buh; @Aaboud:2017sjh; @Sirunyan:2018exx]). As no signal of a $Z'$ has yet been found, bounds can be set on the production and subsequent decay of a $Z'$, $pp\rightarrow Z' \rightarrow \psi\bar{\psi}$ for a defined mass. However, in the set of non-Universal models one can avoid such strong limits provided that different fermion families couple differently to the $Z'$. It could be the case that the up and down quark families have charges such that the effective coupling to the $Z'$ gets suppressed together with its production.
The general expression for the $Z'$ production and subsequent decay into fermions at the LHC is [@Martin-Lozano:2015vva; @Bandyopadhyay:2018cwu], $$\sigma_{f\bar{f}}\simeq \left(\frac{1}{3}\sum_q\frac{dL_{q\bar{q}}}{dm_{Z'}^2}\times \hat{\sigma}(q\bar{q}\rightarrow Z') \right) \times BR(Z'\rightarrow f\bar{f}),$$ where $dL_{q\bar{q}/dm_{Z'}^2}$ stands for the parton luminosities, $\hat{\sigma}(q\bar{q}\rightarrow Z')$ is the peak cross section for the $Z'$ boson, and $BR(Z'\rightarrow f\bar{f})$ is the branching ratio for the $Z'$ decaying into a fermion pair. As it was pointed out in Ref. [@Martin-Lozano:2015vva], one can describe those parameters as a function of the sum of the different production rates for each quark and its $Z'$ coupling, $$\sigma_{f\bar{f}}^{\rm LO}=\sum_{i=1}^{3}\left[c_{u_{i}}\tilde{\omega}_{u_{i}}(s,m_{Z'}^2)+c_{d_{i}}\tilde{\omega}_{d_{i}}(s,m_{Z'}^2)\right] \times {\rm BR}(Z'\rightarrow f\bar{f}).$$ Here, $c_{q}$ are defined as $c_{q}= (C^V_{q})^2 + (C^A_{q})^2$ and the functions $\tilde{\omega}_q(s,m_{Z'}^2)$ contain all the information related with the parton distribution function, NLO corrections, etc.[^7]
The most important part of the model in the $Z'$ collider phenomenology is the fact that all type of fermions, no matter the family or the flavour, couple differently to the $Z'$. This weakens the experimental searches of this kind of particles that ATLAS and CMS perform. The are several ways in which the $Z'$ production might be diminished. One can have small quark couplings giving a tiny production cross section in such a way that the $Z'$ is barely produced in the LHC even for light masses of the $Z'$. Together with this effect the charges to the leptonic sector could be small as well reducing the total amount of observable events. However, in this model the charge assignment is not free since it is fixed by the cancellation of anomalies. As a consequence, one cannot arbitrarily make the couplings as small as it would be required to directly avoid collider searches, and the specific model realisation completely determines the $Z'$ phenomenology, which means that clear, precise predictions for the LHC can be established; on the other hand, a $Z'$ discovery would severely constraint the possible models, thus hinting towards the specific realisation in nature of the non-Universal U(1)$\mu\nu$SSM. In that sense a deeper study will be done in the future [@nextone] to determine the consequences of such charge assignment.
**Dark Matter Phenomenology**
There are different candidates for a dark matter particle in the non-Universal U(1)$\mu\nu$SSM. Among them, the role could be played by an extra vector-doublet, inert in the SM sector, a decoupled field, such a non-interacting right-handed neutrino, or as it occurs in the $\mu\nu$SSM, the gravitino [@Fidalgothesis]. The interesting scenario occurs in the first two cases, where a DM distinctive signal comes from the $Z'$ mediated spin independent interaction with a dark matter particle $\psi$. We can parametrise the effective Lagrangian of DM particle interaction with protons $p$, and neutrons, $n$, mediated by a vector boson as, $$\mathcal{L}^{\rm SI}_{\rm V}= f_p(\bar{\psi}\gamma_\mu \psi)(\bar{p}\gamma^\mu p) + f_n (\bar{\psi}\gamma_\mu \psi)(\bar{n}\gamma^\mu n),$$ where the vector couplings $f_p$ and $f_n$ are defined through their nucleon valence quark content as [@Chun2011] $$f_p=2b_u + b_d, f_n= b_u + 2b_d,$$ with $b_{u,d}$ the effective $Z'$ mediated vector couplings $$b_{(u,d)}=\frac{g_{dm}C^V_{(u,d)}}{2m_{Z'}^2}.$$ Using the definitions for the vector coupling obtained in Eq. we have that $$b_{(u)}=\frac{g_{dm}g'}{2m_{Z'}^2}(Q_{u_L}+Q_{u_R}),$$ $$b_{(d)}=\frac{g_{dm}g'}{2m_{Z'}^2}(Q_{d_L}+Q_{d_R}),$$ such that the effective coupling of the DM particle to protons and neutrons is, $$f_p=\frac{g_{dm}g'}{2m_{Z'}^2}(2Q_{u_L}+2Q_{u_R} + Q_{d_L}+Q_{d_R}),$$ $$f_n=\frac{g_{dm}g'}{2m_{Z'}^2}(Q_{u_L}+Q_{u_R} + 2Q_{d_L}+2Q_{d_R}),$$ We can define the amount the isospin violation as the ratio $f_n/f_p$, that in our case is given by $$f_n/f_p=\frac{Q_{u_L}+Q_{u_R} + 2Q_{d_L}+2Q_{d_R}}{2Q_{u_L}+2Q_{u_R} + Q_{d_L}+Q_{d_R}}.$$ As we can see, the ratio $f_n/f_p$, depends *exclusively* on the charges of the corresponding quarks under the extra $U(1)_X$ symmetry. Having a non-Universal extra gauge symmetry means that in typical realisations these charges will not be the same, and therefore the amount of isospin violation will in general be different than the usual $\pm 1$ of Universal models, thus providing a distinctive, particular signal in the cross section of DM-nucleus elastic scattering experiments. Moreover, notice that the vector coupling ratio is independent of the value of the gauge coupling $g'$.
The striking feature of the non-Universal U(1)$\mu\nu$SSM is that the amount of isospin violation can only acquire a discrete set of values. In the non-Universal U(1)$\mu\nu$SSM there is a class of solutions for which both the up and down quarks have the same kind of mass terms (i.e, either tree-level or non-holomorphic). This means in particular that it is the opposite Higgs, namely $H_1$ or $H_2$ which gives the mass to each of them. As each Higgs has a different extra charge under the new gauge symmetry, for this class of models the amount of isospin violation is parametrised by the Higgs charges as follows = .
Hence, as long as the Higgs extra charges are different, a condition necessary in order to forbid the $\mu$ term from the superpotential, there will be isospin violation. It is important to note that the ratio $f_n/f_p$ depends *only* on the Higgs charges and not those of the up and down quark charges. For example, the model presented in the Appendix \[sec:app\] has isospin violation $\approx$ -1.75. Of utmost importance is to stress that not just any value of isospin violation is allowed but, as the extra charges must fulfil certain conditions, the number of possible models is constrained, allowing experiments to discriminate among realisations of the supersymmetric model, which could bear direct relation with the kind of low energy scale string realisation.
Conclusions
===========
In this letter, we have presented a new supersymmetric model in which, by adding a non-Universal U(1) gauge symmetry to the already explored $\mu\nu$SSM model, not only both the $\mu$ term problem and the neutrino masses problem are solved, but the stability of the proton is ensured by recovering an effective R-parity, forbidding at the same time baryon number violating operators and avoiding a possible domain wall problem. By allowing non-Universal charges in all the fields, we demonstrate that there exist families of solutions which require of no exotic matter whatsoever to cancel anomalies. Moreover, in solving the anomalies equations we find that there only is a discrete set of possible extra charges allowed, a fact that has deep implications in the possible phenomenology of the model.
Universality breaking implies, in the U(1)$\mu\nu$SSM, that the SM fermions will ordinarily have different values of the charge $Q_X$ both for each family and also between up and down doublet components. With the direct consequence that, while stringent bounds are already imposed in the possible production of a $Z'$ at accelerators, these bounds do not apply directly to our model. As the production rates are calculated assuming that all fermions will couple with the same strength to the $Z'$ boson, and such coupling depends on the specific fermion extra charge, they have to be recalculated for each specific realisation of anomalies cancellation in the non-Universal U(1)$\mu\nu$SSM, meaning that new scenarios open up in which even a light $Z'$ boson could have escaped detection at LHC. Such scenarios would be constrained only by the condition that no FCNC are observed in the model. A forthcoming work will address in detail the specifics of such scenarios [@nextone].
The extra charges dependence of fermionic coupling to a $Z'$ also modifies interaction rates with a DM particle, which is dominated by the lightest $Z'$ mass eigenstate. The conditions imposed by anomalies cancellation lead to a family of scenarios where isospin violation is realised and depends *solely* on the Higgs extra charges, a particle in principle completely unrelated with DM interactions. The implications for DM detection are profound, as the specific model realisation implies a very specific interaction rate with protons and/or neutrons, rendering particular experiments more or less suitable, and modifying the conditions for existing ones. Benchmark scenarios with concrete realisations of extra charge distributions will be analysed in [@nextone].
Summarising, the non-Universal U(1)$\mu\nu$SSM is an attractive model, which could be easily related with specific intersecting brane constructions and which, through a very particular phenomenology consequence of the discrete and constrained extra charge values, could when and if SUSY is discovered, be related directly with the kind of low energy stringy realisation.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Carlos Muñoz and Daniel E. López-Fogliani for useful discussions and comments on the manuscript. V.M.L. acknowledges support of the Consolider MULTIDARK project CSD2009-00064, the SPLE ERC project and the BMBF under project 05H15PDCAA. S.O.C. acknowledges support from MINECO FEDER funds FIS2015-69512-R and Fundaci[ó]{}n S[é]{}neca (Murcia, Spain) Project No. ENE2016-79282-C5-5-R.
Example of charge assignation {#sec:app}
=============================
We present here two examples of solutions for the anomalies equations, representative of the two main families of models presented in the main text.
**Example 1**
A minimalist charge assignment that fulfils the anomalies equations and permits the effective $\mu$ term, having a quarks fields hierarchy, and with tree-level Yukawas and non-holomorphic terms appearing at opposing families in quarks. Particularly, in the example presented is the second family of up-quarks and the first, and third families of down quarks, the ones which acquire mass via non-holomorphic terms.
$Q_Q$ $Q_u$ $Q_d$ $Q_L$ $Q_e$ $Q_{\nu^c}$
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------- ------- -------------
$1^{st}$ Family -$\frac{1}{3}$ $\frac{-2}{3}$ $\frac{4}{3}$ 2 -4 -3
$2^{nd}$ Family -$\frac{5}{3}$ $\frac{11}{3}$ -$\frac{1}{3}$ 7 -6 -8
$3^{rd}$ Family -$\frac{8}{3}$ $\frac{5}{3}$ $\frac{11}{3}$ 2 -4 -3
With this charges assignment, the fields mass terms in the superpotential below the soft breaking scale read
-\_[eff]{} &= Y\_u(u\_L)\^c q\_u H\_2 + \_c(c\_L)\^c q\_c H\_1 + Y\_t(t\_L)\^c q\_t H\_2\
& + \_d(d\_L)\^c q\_d H\_2 + Y\_s(s\_L)\^c q\_s H\_1 + \_b(b\_L)\^c q\_b H\_2\
& + Y\_e(e\_L)\^c L\_e H\_1 + \_(\_L)\^c L\_H\_2 + Y\_(\_L)\^c L\_H\_1\
& + \_[ab]{} Y\_\^[ij]{} H\_2\^b L\^a\_i \^c\_j + \^c\_eH\_1 H\_2 + + \^c\_H\_1 H\_2,
\[superpotential2\] where the tilded Y represent the Yukawas generated by non-holomorphic interactions.
**Example 2**
Now we present an example of solution for the family of models which have non-trivial violation of isospin, with consequences for the phenomenology of dark matter. In this case, the condition is that both first families of up and down quarks have the same kind of mass term. In this case, having both with a Yukawa at tree-level, a possible anomalies cancellation charges distribution is
$Q_Q$ $Q_u$ $Q_d$ $Q_L$ $Q_e$ $Q_{\nu^c}$
----------------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------
$1^{st}$ Family $\frac{1}{3}$ $\frac{4}{3}$ $\frac{-7}{3}$ -10 $\frac{25}{3}$ $\frac{35}{3}$
$2^{nd}$ Family -$\frac{-5}{3}$ $\frac{11}{3}$ 0 $\frac{8}{3}$ -$\frac{14}{3}$ -1
$3^{rd}$ Family $\frac{9}{3}$ -$\frac{4}{3}$ -$\frac{14}{3}$ 2 -4 -$\frac{1}{3}$
[^1]: lozano$@$physik.uni-bonn.de
[^2]: santiago.oviedo$@$upct.es
[^3]: See Ref. [@Fidalgothesis] and references therein for an extensive review.
[^4]: A complete description of the entries $M_{ij}$ and their dependencies with the parameter of the model can be found in Ref. [@Fidalgo2012].
[^5]: Notice nonetheless the new configuration of charges and the relation among the different vacuum expectation values can induce a sizeable mixing in the $Z-Z'$ system.
[^6]: A more detailed and involved description of the phenomenology of these models will be described in a forthcoming work [@nextone]
[^7]: For further information one can see Ref. [@Martin-Lozano:2015vva] or the Appendix of Ref. [@Bandyopadhyay:2018cwu]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate a model of epidemic spreading with partial immunization which is controlled by two probabilities, namely, for first infections, $p_0$, and reinfections, $p$. When the two probabilities are equal, the model reduces to directed percolation, while for perfect immunization one obtains the general epidemic process belonging to the universality class of dynamical percolation. We focus on the critical behavior in the vicinity of the directed percolation point, especially in high dimensions $d>2$. It is argued that the clusters of immune sites are compact for $d\leq 4$. This observation implies that a recently introduced scaling argument, suggesting a stretched exponential decay of the survival probability for $p=p_c$, $p_0\ll p_c$ in one spatial dimension, where $p_c$ denotes the critical threshold for directed percolation, should apply in any dimension $d \leq 3$ and maybe for $d=4$ as well. Moreover, we show that the phase transition line, connecting the critical points of directed percolation and of dynamical percolation, terminates in the critical point of directed percolation with vanishing slope for $d<4$ and with finite slope for $d\geq 4$. Furthermore, an exponent is identified for the temporal correlation length for the case of $p=p_c$ and $p_0=p_c-\epsilon$, $\epsilon\ll 1$, which is different from the exponent $\nu _\parallel$ of directed percolation. We also improve numerical estimates of several critical parameters and exponents, especially for dynamical percolation in $d=4,5$.'
address:
- '$^{1}$Institut für Physik, Universit[ä]{}t Duisburg-Essen, D-47048 Duisburg, Germany'
- '$^{2}$Fakultät für Physik und Astronomie, Universität Würzburg, D-97074 Würzburg, Germany'
author:
- 'Stephan M Dammer$^{1}$ and Haye Hinrichsen$^{2}$'
title: Spreading with immunization in high dimensions
---
\#1
Introduction {#intro}
============
The study of stochastic models that describe the spreading of a nonconserved agent is currently a very active field of research in nonequilibrium statistical physics [@MarroDickman; @Hinrichsen; @OdorReview]. Fundamental interest stems from the fact that these models exhibit continuous nonequilibrium phase transitions from a fluctuating active phase into one or several absorbing states. Moreover, such models are motivated by a variety of possible applications [@Brazil] such as epidemic spreading [@Mollison77; @mut], catalytic reactions [@ZGB86], or flowing sand [@HJRD99; @HJRD99b].
Usually models for epidemic spreading are defined on a lattice whose sites can be either occupied (active, infected) or empty (inactive, healthy). The dynamic rules involve two competing processes, namely, spreading of activity to neighboring sites (infection) and spontaneous decay (recovery). Depending on the relative frequency of infection and recovery the process either has a finite probability to survive in an infinite system or it will eventually die out. Since the spreading agent is not allowed to be created spontaneously, once the empty lattice is reached, the process is trapped in a so-called [*absorbing state*]{} from which it cannot escape. Usually the transition between infinite spreading and recovery is a critical phenomenon characterized by large-scale fluctuations associated with certain universality classes. Therefore, the classification of all possible types of phase transitions into absorbing states is presently one of the major goals of nonequilibrium statistical physics.
The most prominent universality class of phase transitions into an absorbing state is that of directed percolation (DP) [@Kinzel85], as described by Reggeon field theory [@Reggeon1; @Reggeon2; @Reggeon3]. Models in this class describe short-range spreading of a non-conserved agent in a medium without temporal memory effects. Additionally, it is assumed that the rates for spreading and recovery are constant in space and time (no quenched randomness).
![\[phasediag\] Phase diagram of the epidemic process with finite immunization on a square lattice in 2+1 dimensions. $p_0$ denotes the primary infection probability and $p$ the reinfection probability. The inset shows the vicinity of the DP point.](phase2d.eps){width="110mm"}
If the medium has a memory such that each site can be infected only once, the transition does no longer belong to the DP class, instead one obtains the so-called “general epidemic process” (GEP) [@Mollison77; @Grassberger83]. In the language of epidemic processes this type of memory accounts for [*perfect*]{} immunization. In contrast to DP, where sites can be reinfected without restriction, a general epidemic process can only spread in those parts of the system which have not been infected before. Nevertheless, in spatial dimensions $d \geq 2$, infinite spreading from a single infected site in a non-immune environment is still possible, provided that the susceptibility to primary infections is sufficiently large. In this case activity propagates as a front, leaving a cluster of immune sites behind. The transition between survival and extinction of the spreading agent is then described by a different type of critical behavior, belonging to the universality class of dynamical percolation (DyP) [@Stauffer]. In fact, the resulting cluster of immune sites has the same (or even identical) structure as an isotropic percolation cluster. For this reason DyP can be used as a dynamical procedure to generate isotropic percolation clusters.
As an immediate generalization one may consider an epidemic process in which the strength of immunization can be varied [@CardyGrassberger85]. For example, the initial susceptibility to infections $p_0$ may be locally set to a different value $p$ when the first infection is encountered. In the following we shall denote this process as epidemic process with finite immunization which we abbreviate for convenience as EPFI. The phase diagram of the EPFI in two spatial dimensions was studied in [@GCR97]. As shown in Fig. \[phasediag\], it comprises three different phases, including the GEP ($p=0$) and DP ($p=p_0$) as special cases.
The horizontal phase transition line in Fig. \[phasediag\] can be explained as follows. Obviously, when starting from a fully occupied lattice, all sites become immediately immune so that the infection rate is everywhere equal to $p$. Trivially, the dynamics is then precisely that of a DP process controlled by $p$. This gives rise to a DP transition at $p=p_c$, independent of $p_0$, where $p_c$ denotes the critical value of an ordinary DP process. However, starting with a localized infected seed in a non-immune environment, the situation is more subtle, though the horizontal line still exists. For example, slightly above the critical line, i.e. for $p=p_c+\epsilon$ with $\epsilon \ll 1$, the interior of a surviving cluster is essentially dominated by an ordinary supercritical DP process. Since such a DP process is characterized on large scales by a finite density of active sites, there will be a finite chance for the process to survive in the limit $t\rightarrow\infty$ [@GCR97].
The situation below the horizontal line ($p<p_c$) is different. In at least two or more dimensions this part of the phase diagram displays [*two*]{} distinct phases, namely, an absorbing phase, where the process stops after some time, and a phase of annular growth, where an expanding front of high activity survives with finite probability. Performing a field-theoretic renormalization group study close to the upper critical dimension of DyP, $d_c^{_{\rm DyP}}=6$, and computing the corresponding critical exponents, Janssen showed that the critical behavior along the line connecting the GEP and the DP point in Fig. \[phasediag\] is that of DyP [@Janssen85]. In this sense immunization is a relevant perturbation, driving the system away from the DP point in Fig. \[phasediag\] towards GEP. (We note that in the case of several competing infections with immunization, one observes a crossover back to DP [@mut]. Another four-state generalization leads to in interesting tricritical phenomenon belonging to a different universality class [@TriCrit]).
More recently epidemic spreading with immunization appeared in a different context. Studying systems with infinitely many absorbing states such as the non-diffusive pair contact process [@Jensen93; @JensenDickman93], Mu[ñ]{}oz [*et al*]{} conjectured that these models are described by the same type of field theory as the EPFI [@MGDL96; @MGD98]. Roughly speaking, the frozen absorbing configurations generated by the process provide a local memory of activity in the past which effectively acts in the same way as immunization (or weakening). Meanwhile this conjecture is widely accepted, although some questions concerning the upper critical dimension are still debated [@Wijland02; @Lubeck02].
While the mentioned field-theoretic results explain the transition line between the GEP and the DP point close to $d_c^{_{\rm DyP}}=6$, the critical properties along the horizontal line and in the vicinity of the DP point are less well understood. Simulating the Langevin equation of the EPFI at critical reinfection rate (corresponding to the horizontal line in Fig. \[phasediag\]) in 1+1 dimensions starting with a localized seed, L[ó]{}pez and Mu[ñ]{}oz initially expected continuously varying exponents [@LopezMunoz97], but refined simulations and approximations suggest that there is no power-law scaling. Instead, the activity was found to vary as a stretched exponential in 1+1 dimensions [@GCR97; @JimenezHinrichsen03].
In this paper we study the epidemic process with finite immunization, focussing on the influence of immunization in the vicinity of the DP point, especially in higher dimensions $d>2$. In Sec. \[MC-simulations\] we describe Monte Carlo simulations that are applied in the following sections to obtain numerical results. In Sec. \[pheno\] we summarize the most important phenomenological features of the process. In particular, we argue that the clusters of immune sites at the DP point are [*compact*]{} for $d \leq
3$ and [*asymptotically*]{} compact for $d=4$ (see below). Consequently, a recently introduced scaling argument that suggested a stretched exponential decay on the horizontal line for $p_0\ll p_c$ in $d=1$ [@JimenezHinrichsen03] should apply in any dimension $d \leq 3$ and maybe for $d=4$ as well, since it is based essentially on the compactness of the cluster of immune sites. This means that we expect a stretched exponential decay instead of power-law behavior not only in one but also in two, three and perhaps four spatial dimensions. Moreover, for $d<4$, primary infections and reinfections scale differently whereas they show the same scaling behavior for $d\geq 4$. As a result, we find that the phase transition line connecting the GEP and the DP point should terminate in the DP point with a [*finite*]{} slope for $d\geq 4$ (in contrast to a vanishing slope for $d<4$, as can be seen in Fig. \[phasediag\]). In Sec. \[fieldtheory\] we discuss the Langevin equation for EPFI in order to describe how the properties of the process change between the upper critical dimension of DP, $d^{_{\rm
DP}}_c=4$, and DyP, $d^{_{\rm DyP}}_c=6$. Numerically determined phase diagrams for $d>2$ are presented in Sec. \[phase\_diagrams\], which support the predictions of Sec. \[pheno\]. Though we expect the behavior along the horizontal phase transition line to be non-universal (at least for $d\leq 4$), it is nevertheless possible to identify an exponent $\mu$ for the temporal correlation length in the case of $p=p_c$ and $p_0=p_c
-\epsilon$ for $\epsilon \ll 1$. As discussed in Sec. \[temporal\_correlation\], this exponent differs from the critical exponent for the temporal correlation length of DP. The main results are summarized in Sec. \[summary\]. A heuristic argument for the value of $\mu$ that is in accordance with the numerical data is presented in \[MU\]. Numerical estimates for critical parameters and critical exponents for DP and DyP are given in \[DP\] and \[DYP\], respectively.
Monte Carlo simulations {#MC-simulations}
=======================
We perform Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of the epidemic process with finite immunization on a simple $d$-dimensional cubic lattice using the model of Ref. [@GCR97] generalized to arbitrary dimensions. The process is defined such that it reduces to directed [*bond*]{} percolation at the DP point and to dynamical [*bond*]{} percolation at the GEP point. In particular, an active lattice site $i$ at time $t$ may activate each of its $d$ nearest neighbors, denoted as $j$, at the next discrete time step $t+1$. If neighbor $j$ has never been active before, activity is transmitted from site $i$ to site $j$ with the primary infection probability $p_0$. Contrarily, if site $j$ has been active at least once in the past the infection probability is given by $p$, called reinfection probability. Each site stays active only for one time step.
The process is initialized with an active seed at the origin at time $t=0$ in a non-immune environment. Each run is stopped either when the process dies out or when it reaches a preset maximum time. We average over many runs with different realizations of randomness. The lattice is always chosen large enough so that the process never reaches its boundary. Hence, finite size effects are eliminated. As usual in such ’seed simulations’ we measure the survival probability $P_{\rm s}(t)$ that the process survives at least up to time $t$, the number of active sites averaged over all runs $N(t)$, and the mean square spreading from the origin $R^2(t)$ averaged over surviving runs. At criticality these quantities obey power-laws [@GrassbergerTorre79; @Janssen03] according to $$\label{critseed}
P_{s}(t)\sim t^{-\delta}\ \,,\ \ N(t)\sim t^\theta\ \ ,\ \ R^2(t)\sim t^{2/z}\ \,.$$ This behavior is observed for critical DP as well as for critical DyP. Of course, the exponents in Eq. (\[critseed\]) are generally different in both cases. In addition, we also measure the number of primary infections $n_{\rm p}$ (see below).
From a technical point of view, our simulations for $d\geq 3$ are based on the routine presented in [@grassberger2003]. Lattice sites are labeled by 64-bit-long integers. We do not initialize storage for a whole $L^d$ lattice since for high dimensions it is only possible to simulate small lateral lattice sizes $L$ with this method. Instead we use lists to store the individual positions of active and immune sites. To perform an update from $t$ to $t+1$ we go through all active sites at time $t$ and activate their neighbors at time $t+1$ with probability $p_0$ or $p$, respectively. The activated sites are stored in a list while the formerly active sites recover. In the case of a first infection, the site is added to the list of immune sites. In order to efficiently check whether a site is immune or not, and whether it has already been activated during the actual update step, we use a hashing algorithm as described in [@grassberger2003]. Contrarily, the simulations for $d=1,2$ are carried out in the usual way where one initializes storage for a whole lattice. However, in this case we apply bit-coding, i.e., a single 64-bit-long integer stores the states of 64 lattice sites (active/inactive or immune/non-immune).
Phenomenological properties {#pheno}
===========================
![\[cluster\] Typical cluster of immune sites generated by the EPFI in 2+1 dimensions at the DP point after 2048 updates. The colors represent linearly the time at which the sites were visited for the first time. The black line marks the final boundary of the cluster. ](cluster.eps){width="90mm"}
Let us first consider the phenomenological properties of the process near the DP point, where the effect of immunization is small. Since the DP point itself is a critical DP process, the question arises how the upper critical dimension of DP influences the generated cluster of immune sites. As a conjecture we propose that the generated cluster of immune sites at the DP point is [*compact*]{} in $d < 4$ dimensions (in the sense that its fractal dimension is $d$), while in higher dimensions $d>4$ it is not. At the DP point $p=p_0=p_c$, the influence of immunization vanishes so that the cluster of immune sites is merely given by the sites visited in the past by a critical DP process. In other words, when projecting the past activity of a critical DP cluster onto space (looking through a critical DP cluster along the temporal axis) we expect its appearance to be compact in $d<4$. Obviously, in $d=1$ the cluster of visited sites is compact by definition so that the conjecture is correct. In dimensions $d=2,3$ the statement is non-trivial. In fact, plotting the projection of a typical cluster in $d=2$ dimensions one obtains a compact object, as shown in Fig. \[cluster\].
The above conjecture can be supported numerically as follows. Assuming compactness, the number of immune sites in a surviving run should grow linearly with the volume $\xi_\perp^d$, where $\xi_\perp
\sim t^{1/z}$ is the spatial correlation length and $z=\nu_\parallel/\nu_\perp$ is the dynamical exponent of DP (see, e.g., [@Hinrichsen]). Averaging over all runs, the volume has to be multiplied with the survival probability $P_s(t) \sim t^{-\delta}$, where $\delta=\beta/\nu_\parallel$, hence the average number of immune sites $I(t)$ increases as $$\label{I}
I(t) \sim t^{d/z-\delta}\,.$$ This implies that the number of [*primary*]{} infections $n_{\rm p}$ scales as the derivative of $I(t)$, i.e., $$\label{n_f}
n_{\rm p}(t) \sim t^{d/z-\delta -1}\,.$$ As shown in Fig. \[f\_infect\] by numerical simulations, in $d=2,3$ this quantity scales indeed according to Eq. (\[n\_f\]), supporting that the generated clusters of immune sites are compact.
![\[f\_infect\] Double logarithmic plot of the number of primary infections versus time at the DP point for various dimensions. For comparison the power-law behavior predicted by Eq. (\[n\_f\]) is shown by the dashed lines for $d=2,3$. For $d=4$ the mean-field prediction of Eq. (\[n\_f\]) is $n_{\rm
p}(t)=\text{const}$.](f_infect.eps){width="110mm"}
For $d=4$ the data still exhibits a slight curvature which is presumably due to logarithmic corrections [@JanssenLog; @Lubeck04] that affect the mean-field behavior ($n_{\rm
p}=\text{const}$) at the upper critical dimension of DP, $d_c^{_{\rm
DP}}=4$. As usual, also for $d>d_c^{_{\rm DP}}$ we observe mean-field behavior and thus we expect the resulting cluster of immune sites to be non-compact.
It is also possible to support the conjecture by a scaling argument. Obviously $I(t)$ cannot be larger than the integrated past activity $\int_0^t dt'N(t') \sim
t^{1+\theta}$ [@GrassbergerTorre79], leading to the inequality $$\label{in_equ}
d/z-\delta \leq \theta +1\ .$$ as a necessary condition for compactness. In $d<4$ dimensions the initial-slip exponent $\theta$ is given by the hyperscaling relation [@GrassbergerTorre79; @munoz] $$\label{Hyperscaling}
\theta = d/z-2\delta$$ so that the inequality reduces to $\delta \leq 1$, which is indeed satisfied in $d<4$ (see Tab. \[TableDP\]). At the upper critical dimension of DP, $d_c^{_{\rm DP}}=4$, taking the mean-field exponents $\theta=0$, $z=2$, and $\delta=1$, the inequality (\[in\_equ\]) is sharply satisfied while it is violated above four dimensions. Hence, we can conclude that in $d>4$ dimensions the generated cluster is no longer compact.
To deal with the question whether clusters of immune sites in systems [*at*]{} the upper critical dimension of DP, $d_c^{_{\rm DP}}=4$, are still compact, it is worthwhile to compare the situation with a simple random walk whose upper critical dimension is $d_c^{_{\rm RW}}=2$. The random walk is [ *recurrent*]{} in $d=1,2$ while it is [*transient*]{} for $d\geq
3$ [@RW]. This means that the probability $F(t)$ to visit a given site at least once until time $t$ tends to $1$ in the limit $t\to\infty$ for $d=1,2$ while it tends to a constant $c<1$ for $d\geq 3$. Therefore, the region visited by the random walker is compact in $d\leq 2$ whereas it is not in $d\geq
3$. However, for $d=2$ the probability $1-F(t)$ that the site has not yet been visited decreases asymptotically as $1-F(t)\sim(\ln t)^{-1}$ in contrast to algebraic behavior in $d=1$, where $1-F(t)\sim t^{-1/2}$. This implies that in $d=2$ compactness is reached only slowly and we refer to this as [*asymptotically*]{} compact. Therefore, in $d=2$ and finite time the cluster of visited sites is highly non-compact at its boundaries and differs significantly from the one shown in Fig. \[cluster\]. Using this analogy, it is near at hand to speculate that the same happens in a critical DP process. Thus, we expect the cluster of visited sites to be compact at the upper critical dimension $d_c^{_{\rm DP}}=4$ as well. However, in this case compactness should be reached considerably slower than for $d<4$, i.e., we expect the clusters to be [*asymptotically*]{} compact.
The observed compactness in low dimensions leads to an important consequence regarding the critical behavior along the horizontal line in Fig. \[phasediag\], as it allows the results of [@JimenezHinrichsen03] obtained in $d=1$ to be generalized to $2$ and $3$ dimensions. In [@JimenezHinrichsen03] the expansion of an immune region in one spatial dimension was studied in the limit of a very small probability of first infections $p_0 \rightarrow 0$. Using a quasi-static approximation it was shown that the survival probability does [*not*]{} obey a power law, instead it decays as a stretched exponential $$\label{SurvProb}
P_s(t) \propto \exp\left( -A p_0^{-\alpha} t^{1-\alpha} \right),$$ giving rise to a [*finite*]{} survival time $T\sim
p_0^{\alpha/(1-\alpha)}$. Here $\alpha=\nu_\parallel/(\nu_\perp+\beta_s)$ with $\beta_s$ being the order parameter exponent next to a planar absorbing surface [@FHL01]. The main assumption made in this approximation is the compactness of the immune domain, wherefore the analysis had been restricted to $d=1$. Because of the observed compactness, the same arguments can be applied in $2$ and $3$ dimensions so that the formula Eq. (\[SurvProb\]) should be valid in these cases as well. Inserting the known values for $\beta_s$ [@FHL01] one obtains $\alpha\simeq0.947$ in 1$d$ and $\alpha\simeq 0.72$ in 2$d$ (so far there are no estimates of $\beta_s$ in 3$d$). Whether Eq. (\[SurvProb\]) is still valid at the upper critical dimension of DP, $d_c^{_{\rm DP}}=4$, where $\alpha$ would be $1/2$, is not yet clear since in this case we expect the immune region to be only asymptotically compact. The numerical verification of the stretched exponential behavior for $d=1$ and $p_0 \ll p_c$ in [@JimenezHinrichsen03] required a special enrichment method since for small $p_0$ most simulation runs terminate after a very short time. In this paper we perform ordinary Monte Carlo simulations and therefore we do not address the numerical analysis of the horizontal line for $p_0 \ll p_c$ in $d>1$. Another important consequence concerns the ratio of first infections and reinfections. In $d<4$ dimensions the average number of first infections $n_p(t)$ (controlled by the parameter $p_0$) decreases according to Eq. (\[n\_f\]) while the average number of reinfections $N(t)$ (controlled by the parameter $p$) increases as $t^\theta$ with $\theta>0$. Thus, after sufficiently long time the parameter $p$ controlling reinfections will have a much larger influence than the parameter $p_0$. As a consequence the curved phase transition line, which may be thought of as describing a situation where $p$ and $p_0$ balance each other, terminates in the DP point horizontally, i.e. with zero slope. In $d\geq 4$ dimensions, primary infections and reinfections show the same scaling behavior (for $d=4$ probably affected by logarithmic corrections), and therefore we expect the transition line to terminate with a non-vanishing slope. We will come back to this question in Sec. \[temporal\_correlation\].
Scaling properties {#fieldtheory}
==================
The previous phenomenological arguments suggested that the behavior of the model in $d<4$ dimensions differs significantly from the behavior above $4$ dimensions. This difference becomes also obvious when studying the corresponding Langevin equations.
According to Refs. [@Janssen85; @JimenezHinrichsen03] the Langevin equation for the epidemic process with finite immunization reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Langevin}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho(\xvec,t) &=& a \rho(\xvec,t) - b
\rho^2(\xvec,t) + D \nabla \rho(\xvec,t) + \xi(\xvec,t) \\ &&+ \lambda
\, \rho(\xvec,t) \, \exp\left(-w \int_0^t d\tau \, \rho(\xvec,\tau)
\right)\,, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi(\xvec,t)$ represents a density-dependent Gaussian noise with the correlations $$\langle \xi(\xvec,t) \xi(\xvec',t') \rangle = \Gamma\, \rho(\xvec,t)
\, \delta^d (\xvec-\xvec') \, \delta(t-t').$$ It consists of the usual Langevin equation for DP plus an exponential term describing the effect of immunization. Here the exponential function can be thought of as a switch: Initially, the integral is zero and hence the coefficient of the linear contributions in $\rho(\xvec,t)$ is $a+\lambda$, representing as bare parameters the reduced rate for first infections $p_0-p_c$. However, when the integrated past activity exceeds $1/w$, the exponential function decreases rapidly so that the additional term is essentially switched off. Roughly speaking, in a continuous description the parameter $w$ is needed in order to specify a threshold telling us how much activity has to be accumulated at a given site in order to declare it as immune. Once the exponential term is switched off, the linear term is controlled by the coefficient $a$ which represents the reduced reinfection rate $p-p_c$. In most lattice models, sites become immune after a single infection, hence the parameter $w$ is of the order $1$ while $\lambda
\sim p_0-p$ controls the strength of immunization.
Rescaling the DP Langevin equation by $$\xvec \to b \xvec\, \quad t \to b^z t \, \quad \rho \to b^{-\chi} \rho$$ with a scaling parameter $b$ and the exponents $z=\nu_\parallel/\nu_\perp$ and $\chi=\beta/\nu_\perp$ one immediately recognizes that simple scaling invariance at the upper critical dimension $d_c^{_{\rm DP}}=4$ can only be established if $z=\chi=2$ and $a=0$, the latter representing the critical point at the mean field level. Regarding the exponential term, scaling invariance requires the argument of the exponential function and the exponential function itself to be dimensionless, hence the coefficient $\lambda$ and $w$ have to be rescaled as $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda &\to & b^{-y_\lambda} \lambda \\ w &\to & b^{-y_w} w \nonumber\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $y_\lambda=2$ and $y_w=0$. More generally, it can be shown by a field-theoretic calculation [@JimenezHinrichsen03] that in $d\leq 4$ dimensions the two exponents are given by $$y_\lambda = \frac{1}{\nu_\perp} \,, \qquad y_w =
\frac{\nu_\parallel-\beta}{\nu_\perp}\,.$$ As $y_w$ and $y_\lambda$ are positive, the exponential term for immunization is relevant in $d \leq 4$ dimensions. Expanding the exponential function as a Taylor series, the resulting terms would be [equally]{} relevant in $d=4$ and [*increasingly relevant*]{} in $d<4$ dimensions. Therefore, in $d \leq 4$ dimensions a Taylor expansion of the exponential function in Eq. (\[Langevin\]) is meaningless in the renormalization group sense, instead it has to be kept in as a whole. This circumstance is probably responsible for the observed non-universality along the horizontal line in Fig. \[phasediag\].
In $d>4$ dimensions, however, the situation is different. Here, power counting at the upper critical dimension of DyP, $d_c^{_{\rm DyP}}=6$, yields $y_w<0$, meaning that the relevancy of the terms in the Taylor expansion decreases. In this case it is legitimate to carry out the Taylor expansion, keeping only the most relevant contribution. As the zeroth order can always be absorbed in a redefinition of $a$, the most relevant contribution is the first-order term $-\lambda w \rho(\xvec,t) \int_0^t d\tau
\rho(\xvec,\tau)$. In addition we may drop the quadratic contribution $-b\rho^2(\xvec,t)$, which is irrelevant at $d_c^{_{\rm
DyP}}=6$, leading to the Langevin equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Langevin2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho(\xvec,t) &=& (a+\lambda)
\rho(\xvec,t) + D \nabla \rho(\xvec,t) + \xi(\xvec,t)\\ &&- \lambda w\,
\rho(\xvec,t) \int_0^t d\tau \, \rho(\xvec,\tau) \,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ corresponding to the field theory studied in [@CardyGrassberger85; @Janssen85]. In contrast to Eq. (\[Langevin\]) the influence of immunization is effectively described by a single parameter, namely, by the product $\lambda w$. Assuming $y_w$ to be negative for any $d>4$ this scenario is expected to hold even in presence of fluctuation effects. Moreover, in contrast to Eq. (\[Langevin\]) the parameter now appears in the prefactor of the linear term, shifting the parameter $a$. This suggests, in accordance with the preceding section, that at least in $4<d\leq 6$ dimensions the reduced first infection and reinfection probability (here corresponding to $\lambda$ and $a$) scale identically and that the phase transition line, along which the influence of $a$ and $\lambda$ is balanced, terminates with a nonzero slope in the DP point.\
To summarize we arrive at the following picture:
- In $d \leq 4$ dimensions the EPFI is described by Eq. (\[Langevin\]), in which an expansion of the exponential function is not allowed. The exponential function is conjectured to produce non-universal features such as a stretched exponential decay of the survival probability, as observed in $d=1$ dimensions [@JimenezHinrichsen03].
- In $4 < d \leq 6$ the process is described by Eq. (\[Langevin2\]). Fluctuation effects are still present and the corresponding field theory is well-defined and renormalizable [@Janssen85].
- In $d > 6$ the mean field approximation becomes valid. The system is driven to a trivial Gaussian fixed point, which is the same for GEP and DP.
Phase Diagrams {#phase_diagrams}
==============
![ \[phasediagrams\] Phase diagrams for the EPFI for $d=3,4,5,6$, $A)$–$D)$, determined from MC simulations. The insets show the vicinity of the DP point. Circles mark the numerically determined critical points. ](phase3d.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"} ![ \[phasediagrams\] Phase diagrams for the EPFI for $d=3,4,5,6$, $A)$–$D)$, determined from MC simulations. The insets show the vicinity of the DP point. Circles mark the numerically determined critical points. ](phase4d.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"}\
![ \[phasediagrams\] Phase diagrams for the EPFI for $d=3,4,5,6$, $A)$–$D)$, determined from MC simulations. The insets show the vicinity of the DP point. Circles mark the numerically determined critical points. ](phase5d.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"} ![ \[phasediagrams\] Phase diagrams for the EPFI for $d=3,4,5,6$, $A)$–$D)$, determined from MC simulations. The insets show the vicinity of the DP point. Circles mark the numerically determined critical points. ](phase6d.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"}
Fig. \[phasediagrams\] presents phase diagrams of the epidemic process with finite immunization for spatial dimensions $d=3,4,5,6$ which were obtained obtained from MC simulations (see Sec. \[MC-simulations\]). The horizontal lines obey $p=p_c$ with the values of $p_c$ given in Tab. \[TableDP\]. The lines connecting the DP and the GEP point were determined as follows. First we performed spreading simulations at the critical point of the GEP, i.e., for $p=0$, using the critical values of bond percolation given in [@grassberger2003]. Thereby, we estimated various critical exponents for DyP which are presented in Tab. \[TableGEP\]. In order to locate the phase transition line, we then used the fact that the critical behavior along this line is that of dynamical percolation. We determined various critical points along the lines by keeping $p$ fixed and varying $p_0$ until the quantities $P_s(t)$, $N(t)$ and $R^2(t)$, see Eq. (\[critseed\]), displayed the expected slope corresponding to DyP in a log-log plot.
In accordance with the predictions of Sec. \[pheno\] the data indeed suggests that the curved phase transition line terminates at the DP point with vanishing slope for $d=3$ and with finite slope for $d\geq 4$. For $d=4$ this behavior is not so clear cut and we believe that this is caused by logarithmic corrections at the DP point.
Assuming that the curved phase transition line behaves in the vicinity of the DP point as $p_{0,c}(p)-p_c\sim
(p_c-p)^\gamma$, our data leads to $\gamma = 0.47(7)$ for $d=2$ and to $\gamma = 0.74(8)$ for $d=3$. Since the error bars are rather large, our data does only allow a rough estimate of $\gamma$ and we did not further attempt to relate its value to other critical exponents.
Temporal correlation length in the vicinity of the DP point {#temporal_correlation}
===========================================================
![ \[left\] Data collapses for $p=p_c$ and $p_0=p_c-\epsilon$ for $d=2$ (top) and $d=3$ (bottom). $N(t)$ is scaled with $t^\theta$ with the values of $\theta$ from Tab. \[TableDP\]. The time is scaled with $\epsilon ^\mu$ such that the best data collapses were obtained. The insets show the original data. ](left2d.eps){width="88mm"}
![ \[left\] Data collapses for $p=p_c$ and $p_0=p_c-\epsilon$ for $d=2$ (top) and $d=3$ (bottom). $N(t)$ is scaled with $t^\theta$ with the values of $\theta$ from Tab. \[TableDP\]. The time is scaled with $\epsilon ^\mu$ such that the best data collapses were obtained. The insets show the original data. ](left3d.eps){width="88mm"}
Off criticality but in the vicinity of the DP point, i.e., $p=p_c\pm\tilde{\epsilon}$, $p_0=p_c\pm\epsilon$, one initially observes the critical behavior of DP until the process eventually crosses over to a different type of behavior. This crossover takes place at a certain typical time scale $\xi _\parallel$. If $\tilde{\epsilon}\neq 0$ (moving vertically away from the DP point) one expects that asymptotically $\xi
_\parallel\sim\tilde{\epsilon}^{-\nu _\parallel}$ with the critical DP exponent $\nu _\parallel$ for the temporal correlation length. The reason is the following. Near the DP point, for $d < 4$, the process is dominated by reinfections that perform an ordinary DP process with parameter $p$ on a compact region (see Sec. \[pheno\]). It is only on the edge of the visited region where the first infection probability $p_0$ plays a role. Hence, the time scale associated with $\tilde{\epsilon}$ is expected to be smaller than that associated with a change $\epsilon$ of $p_0$. For $d\geq 4$, primary infections and reinfection show equal scaling behavior and therefore one expects both times to scale in the same way.
We are left with the question how the temporal correlation length behaves for $p=p_c$ and $p_0=p_c\pm\epsilon$ (moving horizontally away from the DP point) in $d<4$. Although we expect non-universal behavior on the horizontal line it may nevertheless be possible to identify an exponent $\mu$ for the temporal correlation length $$\xi_\parallel\sim \epsilon^{-\mu}$$ in the vicinity of the DP point, $\epsilon\ll 1$. In fact, as shown in Fig. \[left\], plotting $N(t)t^{-\theta}$ versus $t/\xi_\parallel$ we can produce a data collapse by tuning $\mu$. With similar simulations in $d=4,5$ (not shown here) we get the estimates $$\mu = \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
2.7(7) & \text{ in } d=2 \\
1.4(2) & \text{ in } d=3 \\
1.1(13) & \text{ in } d=4 \\
1.0(1) & \text{ in } d=5
\end{array}
\right.$$ Obviously, in $d<4$ the exponent $\mu$ differs from $\nu_\parallel$ ($\nu _\parallel=1.295$ for $d=2$ [@voigt_ziff] and $\nu _\parallel=1.105$ [@Jensen92] for $d=3$). Because of logarithmic corrections, it is likely that $\mu=1$ in $d=4$ as well. With decreasing dimension the value of $\mu$ and therewith the simulation time increases rapidly. For this reason the estimate for $d=2$ is less precise, while simulations in $d=1$ turned out to be unreliable. However, for $d=3$ the data collapse is fairly good. In App. \[MU\] we present a heuristic argument for the value of $\mu$ in accordance with the numerical data.
Summary
=======
We studied a model for spreading with finite immunization which is controlled by probabilities for first infections ($p_0$) and reinfections ($p$). We focussed in particular on the critical behavior close to the directed percolation point, especially in high dimensions $d>2$. We argued that we expect the domains of immune sites to be compact for $d\leq 4$, however, with an approach to compactness that is (logarithmically) slow at the upper critical dimension of DP, $d^{_{\rm
DP}}_c=4$. Therefore, we denoted the visited region as asymptotically compact in $d=4$. The compactness of the immune region was supported by MC-simulations. We pointed out that this compactness implies that a recently introduced scaling argument, suggesting a stretched exponential decay of the survival probability for $p=p_c$, $p_0\ll
p_c$ in one spatial dimension, should apply in any dimension $d \leq 3$ and maybe in $d=4$ as well. Furthermore, we showed that for $d<4$ the number of first infections (averaged over all runs) decreases whereas the number of reinfections increases. Contrarily, for $d\geq 4$ both quantities scale equally. From that we derived the result that the phase transition line connecting the GEP and the DP point terminates in the DP point with a [*finite*]{} slope for $d\geq 4$ and with a vanishing slope for $d<4$, which was supported by numerically determined phase diagrams. We also discussed the Langevin equation for the process, in order to study how the properties of the process change depending on the spatial dimension. Investigating the behavior for $p=p_c$ and $p_0=p_c-\epsilon$, $\epsilon\ll 1$ we were able to identify an exponent $\mu$ for the temporal correlation length which is different from $\nu _\parallel$ for DP.
[**Acknowledgments:**]{}\
Parts of the numerical simulations were carried out on the 128-node Alpha Linux Cluster Engine ALICE at the University of Wuppertal. We thank N. Eicker, T. Lippert, and B. Orth for technical support. Moreover, we are grateful to two referees for bringing references [@reweight; @ziff; @Grassberger92] to our attention.
Speculation about the value of $\mu$ {#MU}
====================================
In the following we present a heuristic argument for the value of $\mu$ in $d\leq 4$ dimensions that is in accordance with the numerical results presented above. Consider first a subcritical DP process governed by the parameter $p=p_c-\epsilon$, $\epsilon \ll
1$. Initially the system behaves as if it was critical until the hostile conditions eventually lead to extinction. This happens on a time scale $\xi _\parallel\sim\epsilon ^{-\nu_\parallel}$. During the active time the process produces active sites according to $N(t)\sim t^\theta$, see Eq. (\[critseed\]). Therefore, a subcritical DP process activates on the whole $M$ sites before it dies out, where $M$ scales as $M\sim\epsilon
^{-\nu_\parallel (\theta +1)}$. Consider now the EPFI with $p=p_c$ and $p_0=p_c-\epsilon$ which dies out on a time scale $\xi _\parallel\sim\epsilon
^{-\mu}$. In this case (for $d\leq 4$) one has basically a critical DP process in the compact interior region of the immune cluster and a subcritical process on its edge. The integrated activity on the edge scales as $I(t) \sim
t^{d/z-\delta}$, see Eq. (\[I\]). If one assumes that the critical reinfections do not introduce a time scale and that the process on the edge is subject to the same bound as subcritical DP concerning the maximal activity, one arrives at $I\sim M$ leading to $$\label{mu}
\mu = \frac{z\nu_\parallel (\theta +1)}{d-\delta z}\ .$$ With the critical exponents of DP given in Sec. \[temporal\_correlation\] and in Tab. \[TableDP\] Eq. (\[mu\]) results in $\mu \approx 2.335$ for $d=2$, $\mu = 1.437$ for $d=3$ and $\mu = 1$ for $d=4$ which is compatible with the numerical results. For $d=1$, with Tab. \[TableDP\] and $\nu _\parallel =
1.7338$ [@Jensen99] one obtains $\mu \approx 4.814$. However, this argument needs to be substantiated and therefore Eq. (\[mu\]) has to be taken with care.
DP in high dimensions {#DP}
=====================
In this Appendix we report some numerical results on directed bond percolation in high dimensions. The values are partly more precise than previously reported estimates. Similar results for directed site percolation in $d=3,4$, and $5$ dimensions were recently reported in [@Lubeck02; @Lubeck04].
$\quad d\quad $ $p_c$ $\delta$ $\theta$ $z$ Ref.
----------------- ----------------------- ------------- ------------- -------------- ---------------
$1$ 0.644700185(5) 0.159464(6) 0.313686(8) 1.580745(10) [@Jensen99]
$2$ 0.287338(3)$^\dagger$ 0.4505(10) 0.2295(10) 1.766(2) [@voigt_ziff]
$3$ 0.1774970(5) 0.737(5) 0.107(5) 1.897(5) present work
$4$ 0.1288557(5) $1^*$ $0^*$ $2^*$ present work
$5$ 0.1016796(5) 1 0 2 present work
$6$ 0.0841997(14) 1 0 2 present work
$7$ 0.07195(5) 1 0 2 present work
: \[TableDP\] Numerical results for directed bond percolation on a simple $d$-dimensional cubic lattice. For $d=4$, $^*$ denotes that the mean-field behavior is subjected to logarithmic corrections. $z=\nu _\parallel / \nu _\perp$. $\dagger$ Taken from [@Grassberger96].
Table \[TableDP\] shows the results for directed bond percolation ranging from $1$ to $7$ spatial dimensions. Our estimates for $d=3$ differ slightly from that presented previously by Dickman [@reweight], namely, $\delta = 0.7263(11)$, $\theta = 0.110(1)$ and $z=1.919(4)$. Though the error bars in [@reweight] are smaller than in our case, our data is incompatible with the values of $\delta$ and $z$ in [@reweight]. We do not conclude with respect to this issue but note that further numerical effort in this context is desirable. The value $\theta=0.107(5)$ is smaller than Dickmans result $\theta=0.110(1)$ but larger than the field-theoretic estimate $\theta=0.098$ [@Janssen81] based on a two-loop calculation.
Finally we note that our estimates in $3d$ are compatible with the DP hyperscaling relation [@GrassbergerTorre79; @munoz] where, inserting our estimates for $z$ and $\delta$, we obtain $$\theta = d/z - 2\delta = 0.107(10)$$ In $d>4$, however, the hyperscaling relation is violated.
Dynamical percolation in high dimensions {#DYP}
========================================
Here we present our numerical estimates for the values of critical thresholds and exponents for dynamical bond percolation on a $d$-dimensional cubic lattice. Note that, as far as we know, no numerical values for critical exponents for DyP in $d=4,5$ have been published before. The values presented for $d=3$ are compatible with precise estimates published previously, i.e., $p_c =0.2488126(5)$ [@ziff], $\delta =0.345(4)$, $\theta =0.494(6)$ and $1/z=0.728(2)$ where the latter values are from [@Grassberger92].
$\quad d\quad $ $p_c$ $\delta$ $\theta$ $z$ Ref.
----------------- --------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -------------------------
$2$ 0.5$^\dagger$ 0.092 0.586 1.1295 [@munoz2]$^{\ddagger}$
$3$ 0.2488125(25) 0.346(6) 0.488(7) 1.375(5) present work
$4$ 0.1601310(10) 0.595(8) 0.30(1) 1.605(9) present work
$5$ 0.1181718(3) 0.806(12) 0.134(10) 1.815(10) present work
$6$ 0.0942019(6) $1^*$ $0^*$ $2^*$ [@grassberger2003]
: \[TableGEP\] Numerical results for dynamical bond percolation on a simple $d$-dimensional cubic lattice. For $d=6$, $^*$ denotes that the mean-field behavior is subjected to logarithmic corrections. $z=\nu
_\parallel / \nu _\perp$. $^\dagger$ Taken from [@Stauffer]. $^\ddagger$ Uncertainties are in the last digit. For $d=1$ the transition is shifted to $p_c=1$.
The value of $\theta=0.488(7)$ is incompatible with the value of $\theta = 0.536$ reported in [@munoz2] based on previous estimates from [@bunde]. However, in this case $\theta$ was not directly measured but obtained via scaling relations, which presumably is the reason for the considerable difference between the two estimates.
The estimates given in Tab. \[TableGEP\] are compatible with the hyperscaling relation for DyP [@munoz; @Grassberger92]. For $d=3,4,5$ we obtain $$\theta = d/z-2\delta -1 = \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
0.49(2) & \text{for } d=3\ ,\\
0.30(3) & \text{for } d=4\ ,\\
0.14(4) & \text{for } d=5\ .
\end{array}
\right.$$
[**References**]{}\
[99]{}
Marro J and Dickman R, *Nonequilibrium phase transitions in lattice models*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999).
Hinrichsen H, *Non-equilibrium critical phenomena and phase transitions into absorbing states*, 2000 Adv. Phys. [**49**]{}, 815 \[cond-mat/0001070\].
dor G, *Universality classes in nonequilibrium lattice systems*, submitted \[cond-mat/0205644v7\].
Hinrichsen H, *On possible experimental realizations of Directed Percolation*, 2000 Braz. J. Phys. [**30**]{}, 69 \[cond-mat/9910284\].
Mollison D, *Spatial contact models for ecological and epidemic spread*, 1977 J. R. Stat. Soc. B [**39**]{}, 283.
Dammer S M and Hinrichsen H, *Epidemic spreading with immunization and mutations*, 2003 Phys. Rev. E [**68**]{}, 016114 \[cond-mat/0303467\].
Ziff R M, Gulari E, and Barshad Y, *Kinetic phase-transitions in an irreversible surface-reaction model*, 1986 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 2553.
Hinrichsen H, Jiménez-Dalmaroni A, Rozov Y, and Domany E, *Flowing sand - a physical realization of Directed Percolation*, 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4999 \[cond-mat/9908103\].
Hinrichsen H, Jiménez-Dalmaroni A, Rozov Y, and Domany E, *Flowing sand - a possible physical realization of Directed Percolation*, 2000 J. Stat. Phys. [**98**]{}, 1149 \[cond-mat/9909376\].
Kinzel W, *Phase transitions of cellular automata*, 1985 Z. Phys. B [**58**]{}, 229.
Moshe M, *Recent developments in Reggeon field theory*, 1978 Phys. Rep. C [**37**]{}, 255.
Grassberger P and Sundermeyer K, *Reggeon field theory and Markov processes*, 1978 Phys. Lett. B [**77**]{}, 220.
Cardy J L and Sugar R L, *Directed percolation and Reggeon field theory*, 1980 J. Phys. A [**13**]{}, L423.
Grassberger P, *On the critical behavior of the general epidemic process and dynamical percolation*, 1983 Math. Biosci. [**63**]{}, 157.
Stauffer D and Aharony A, *Introduction to Percolation Theory*, 2nd ed., Taylor & Francis, London (1992).
Cardy J L and Grassberger P, *Epidemic models and percolation*, 1985 J. Phys. A [**18**]{}, L267.
Grassberger P, Chat[é]{} H, and Rousseau G, *Spreading in media with long-time memory*, 1997 Phys. Rev. E [**55**]{}, 2488.
Janssen H K, *Renormalized field theory of dynamical percolation*, 1985 Z. Phys. B [**58**]{}, 311.
Janssen H K, M[ü]{}ller M, and Stenull O, *A Generalized Epidemic Process and Tricritical Dynamic Percolation*, submitted \[cond-mat/0404167\].
Jensen I, Critical behavior of the pair contact process, 1993 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1465.
Jensen I and Dickman R, *Nonequilibrium phase transitions in systems with infinitely many absorbing states*, 1993 Phys. Rev. E [**48**]{}, 1710.
Mu[ñ]{}oz M A, Grinstein G, Dickman R, and Livi R, *Critical behavior of systems with many absorbing states*, 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 451.
Mu[ñ]{}oz M A, Grinstein G, and Dickman R *Phase structure of systems with infinite numbers of absorbing states*, 1998 J. Stat. Phys. [**91**]{}, 541.
F. van Wijland, *Universality class of nonequilibrium phase transitions with infinitely many absorbing states*, 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. [89]{}, 190602.
Lübeck S and Willmann R D, *Universal scaling behaviour of directed percolation and the pair contact process in an external field*, 2002 J. Phys. A [**35**]{}, 10205.
L[ó]{}pez C and Mu[ñ]{}oz M A, *Numerical analysis of a Langevin equation for systems with infinite absorbing states*, 1997 Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{}, 4864.
Jiménez-Dalmaroni A and Hinrichsen H, *Epidemic processes with immunization*, 2003 Phys. Rev. E [**68**]{}, 036103 \[cond-mat/0304113\].
Grassberger P and de la Torre A, *Reggeon field theory (Schl[ö]{}gls first model) on a lattice – Monte-Carlo calculations of critical behavior*, 1979 Ann. Phys. [**122**]{}, 373.
Janssen H K, *Survival and Percolation Probabilities in the Field Theory of Growth Models*, submitted \[cond-mat/0304631\].
Grassberger P, *Critical percolation in high dimensions*, 2003 Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 036101.
Janssen H K and Stenull O, *Logarithmic Corrections in Directed Percolation*, 2004 Phys. Rev. E [**69**]{}, 016125.
L[ü]{}beck S and Willmann R D, *Universal scaling behavior of directed percolation around the upper critical dimension*, 2004 J. Stat. Phys [**115**]{}, 1231 \[cond-mat/0401395\].
Muñoz M A, Grinstein G and Tu Y, *Survival probability and field theory in systems with absorbing states*, 1997 Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{}, 5101.
Spitzer F, *Principles of Random Walk*, Springer-Verlag, New York, second-edition, (1976).
Fröjdh P, Howard M, and Lauritsen K B, *Directed percolation and other systems with absorbing states: Impact of boundaries*, 2001 Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**15**]{}, 1761, and references therein.
Voigt C A, Ziff R M, *Epidemic analysis of the second-order transition in the Ziff-Gulari-Barshad surface-reaction model*, 1997 Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{}, R6241.
Jensen I, *Critical behavior of the 3-dimensional contact process*, 1992 Phys. Rev. A [**45**]{}, R563.
Jensen I, *Low-density series expansions for directed percolation: I. A new efficient algorithm with applications to the square lattice*, 1999 J. Phys. A [**32**]{}, 5233.
Grassberger P and Zhang Y C, *”Self-organized” formulation of standard percolation phenomena*, 1996 Physica A [**224**]{}, 169.
Dickman R, *Reweighting in nonequilibrium simulations*, 1999 Phys. Rev. E [**60**]{}, R2441.
Janssen H K, *On the non-equilibrium phase transition in reaction-diffusion systems with an absorbing stationary state*, 1981 Z. Phys. B [**42**]{}, 151.
Lorenz C D and Ziff R M, *Precise determination of the bond percolation thresholds and finite-size scaling corrections for the sc, fcc, and bcc lattices*, 1998 Phys. Rev. E [**57**]{}, 230.
Grassberger P, *Numerical studies of critical percolation in three dimensions*, 1992 J. Phys. A [**25**]{}, 5867.
Muñoz M A, Dickman R, Vespignani A and Zapperi S, *Avalanche and spreading exponents in systems with absorbing states*, 1999 Phys. Rev. E [**59**]{}, 6175.
Bunde A and Havlin S, in *Fractals and Disordered Systems*, ed. by Bunde A and Havlin S, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, (1991).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study coarse-grained (group-level) alignment dynamics of individual-based animal group models for [*heterogeneous*]{} populations consisting of informed (on preferred directions) and uninformed individuals. The orientation of each individual is characterized by an angle, whose dynamics are nonlinearly coupled with those of all the other individuals, with an explicit dependence on the difference between the individual’s orientation and the instantaneous average direction. Choosing convenient coarse-grained variables (suggested by uncertainty quantification methods) that account for rapidly developing correlations during initial transients, we perform efficient computations of coarse-grained steady states and their bifurcation analysis. We circumvent the derivation of coarse-grained governing equations, following an equation-free computational approach.'
author:
- Sung Joon Moon$^1$
- 'B. Nabet$^2$'
- 'Naomi E. Leonard$^2$'
- 'Simon A. Levin$^3$'
- 'I. G. Kevrekidis$^1$'
title: |
Heterogeneous animal group models and their group-level alignment dynamics;\
an equation-free approach
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Coordinated motions and pattern formation have been studied for a wide range of biological organisms, from bacteria and amoebae to fish, from birds and wildebeest to humans (Ben-Jacob et al., 2000; Deneubourg et al., 2001; Parrish et al., 2002; Partridge, 1982; Wilson, 1975). Animal groups often behave as if they have a single mind, displaying remarkable self-organized behavior. At one extreme, the individuals seem to need little information transfer (e.g. fish schools), while at the other end the information exchange occurs in highly integrated ways through long-term associations among the individuals (e.g. honeybee hives and human communities). Controlling such an organized behavior in groups of artificial objects, including autonomous underwater vehicles (Leonard et al., 2006) and groups of autonomous agents (Jadbabaie et al., 2003), has received extensive attention in contemporary control theory. Challenges in both natural and engineering settings involve understanding which patterns emerge from the interaction among individual agents.
Select laboratory experiments have shed some light on the schooling mechanism (Hunter, 1966; van Olst and Hunter, 1970; Partridge and Pitcher, 1979, 1980; Pitcher et al., 1976). It still remains unclear, however, how the individual-level behavior and group-level (“macroscopic”, or coarse-grained) patterns are related. More precise experiments using three-dimensional tracking of every individual in a population should lead to better understanding of this linkage. An ultimate experimental study with precise control of every relevant detail may not be possible, yet appropriate mathematical models would provide a venue to establish behavioral cause, as one can consider different hypothetical individual-level interaction rules selectively (see e.g., Flierl et al., 1999).
Several different individual-based models have been proposed, which reproduce certain types of collective behavior in animal groups (e.g., see Aoki, 1982; Reynolds, 1987; Deneubourg and Goss, 1989). Self-organization emerges also in a wide spectrum of physical and chemical systems, some of which (e.g., crystals and ferromagnetic materials) exhibit apparent similarities with emergent patterns observed in animal groups. Vicsek et al. (1995) have introduced a discrete-time model of self-driven particles, or self-propelled particles (SPP), based on near-neighbor rules that are similar with those in the ferromagnetic XY model (Kosterlitz and Thouless, 1973). The authors analyzed statistical properties of the model, including phase transition and scaling (Vicsek et al., 1995). A long-range interaction has been incorporated into the SPP model (Mikhailov and Zanette, 1999), and continuum, “hydrodynamic” versions of this model have been introduced (Toner and Tu, 1995, 1998; Topaz et al., 2006). Recently, Couzin et al. (2002, 2005) have introduced a model to provide insights into the mechanism of decision making in biological systems, which reproduces many important observations made in the field, and provides new insights into these phenomena. A review for various models can be found in Parrish et al. (2002) and Czir[ó]{}k and Vicsek (2001).
The models of Couzin et al. (2005), and most other such models, incorporate various detailed mechanistic steps. These shed light on the role of leadership and imitation, and produce a number of surprising results, such as the influence that a few “informed” individuals can have on large collectives. What is needed now are efforts to simplify those models, and to show especially what properties of the microscopic simulators are essential to explain that behavior. For some models, closure schemes are available (Flierl et al., 1999); but more generally, though we may suspect that closures exist, we cannot derive explicit expressions for them. In such circumstances, we need methods such as those used in this paper; we perform the coarse-grained dynamical analysis by circumventing the derivation of governing equations, using an equation-free computational approach (Theodoropoulos et al., 2000; Kevrekidis et al., 2003). A particular goal is to understand how much of the specific spatial detail is fundamental to the behavior. But turning to the Kuramoto-type approximation, where the interaction is assumed to be global, we deliberately ignore local effects. To the extent that the models fail to explain observed types of behavior, we will need to turn next to more detailed models.
Most of previously proposed models concern populations of [*homogeneous*]{} (or indistinguishable) individuals. Furthermore, the dynamical analysis in the literature is often limited to a small subset of the entire parameter space, and a systematic classification of possible global dynamics remains elusive. In the current paper, we study the [*coarse-grained*]{} alignment dynamics of individual-based animal group models. The measurement of the mean angular deviation of fish schools (e.g. clupeids and scombroids; see Atz, 1953; Hunter 1966) showed that it varies continuously from no alignment to practically perfect alignment. We account for this continuous change by heterogeneity (“quenched noise”; characterized by parameters of random variables drawn from a prescribed distribution function) and the coupling strength. Our approach is flexible in that the heterogeneity can be introduced in various places in the model, and the way we analyze different heterogeneity cases does not require any significant modification.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Models for homogeneous and heterogeneous animal groups are described in Secs. \[model1\] and \[model\_extension\], and our approach, equation-free polynomial chaos, is explained in Secs. \[method1\] and \[method2\]. Coarse-grained dynamical analysis and its comparison with fine-scale dynamics, for a system of two informed individuals and a large number of heterogeneous uninformed individuals, are presented in Sec. \[results\]. The case of two groups of heterogeneous informed individuals is presented in Sec. \[results2\]. We conclude with a brief discussion in Sec. \[conclusions\].
Models and methods {#modelmethod}
==================
A “minimal” model for identical individuals {#model1}
-------------------------------------------
We briefly discuss a “minimal” model proposed by Nabet et al. (2006), which we extend in our study. It concerns the alignment dynamics of a homogeneous population of [*indistinguishable*]{} $N$ individuals with two subgroups of informed individuals (“leaders”) with populations $N_1$ and $N_2$ respectively and $N_3$ uninformed individuals (“followers”), where $N = N_1 + N_2 + N_3$: $$\begin{aligned}
{d\psi_1 \over dt} & = & \sin(\Theta_1 - \psi_1) + \frac{K}{N} N_2 \sin(\psi_2 - \psi_1) + \frac{K}{N} N_3 \sin(\psi_3 - \psi_1), \nonumber \\
{d\psi_2 \over dt} & = & \sin(\Theta_2 - \psi_2) + \frac{K}{N} N_1 \sin(\psi_1 - \psi_2) + \frac{K}{N} N_3 \sin(\psi_3 - \psi_2), \nonumber \\
{d\psi_3 \over dt} & = & \frac{K}{N} N_1 \sin(\psi_1 - \psi_3) + \frac{K}{N} N_2 \sin(\psi_2 - \psi_3).
\label{reduced}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\psi_k$ characterizes the average direction of the individuals in each of the two informed subgroups for $k=1,2$ and the average direction of the uninformed individuals for $k=3$. $\Theta_k$ is the corresponding informed, preferred direction ($\Theta_1$ can be set to zero without loss of generality) and $K (\geq 0)$ is the coupling strength. This minimal model corresponds to the reduced system of the following system of $N$ individuals (Nabet et al., 2006): $$\begin{aligned}
{d\theta_j \over dt} & = & \sin(\Theta_1 - \theta_j) + \frac{K}{N} \sum_{l=1}^N \sin(\theta_l - \theta_j),~~1\leq j \leq N_1, \label{m1} \nonumber \\
{d\theta_j \over dt} & = & \sin(\Theta_2 - \theta_j) + \frac{K}{N} \sum_{l=1}^N \sin(\theta_l - \theta_j),~~N_1+1\leq j \leq N_1 + N_2, \label{m2} \nonumber \\
{d\theta_j \over dt} & = & \frac{K}{N} \sum_{l=1}^N \sin(\theta_l - \theta_j),~~~~~~~~~~~~~N_1+N_2+1\leq j \leq N, \label{m3}
\label{nabet_full}\end{aligned}$$ where the angle $\theta_j$ characterizes the direction in which the $j$th individual is heading (we will refer to it as “orientation”). The average direction $\psi_k$ is defined as the angle of the average of the phasors (when each individual’s dynamical state is considered as a phasor of unit radius and a phase angle) of the individuals in the $k$th subgroup; $\rho_k$ is the magnitude of the average of the phasors. Formally, this is written as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_1 e^{i\psi_1} &\equiv& \frac{1}{N_1} \sum_{j=1}^{N_1} e^{i\theta_j}, \nonumber \\
\rho_2 e^{i\psi_2} &\equiv& \frac{1}{N_2} \sum_{j=N_1 +1}^{N_1+N_2} e^{i\theta_j}, \nonumber \\
\rho_3 e^{i\psi_3} &\equiv& \frac{1}{N_3} \sum_{j=N_1+N_2 +1}^{N} e^{i\theta_j}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The large population model in Eq. (\[m3\]) has a separation of time scales. Individuals within each subgroup synchronize quickly, i.e., $\rho_k$ quickly converges to 1. The slow dynamics are described by the reduced system (Eq. (\[reduced\])) where the variables $\psi_k$ characterize the [*lumped behavior*]{} of each of the three subgroups.
It is assumed that the alignment (orientational) dynamics are independent of the translational counterpart (Sepulchre et al., 2005); hence, the dynamical state of an individual can be characterized by its orientation. The functional form for mutual interaction is borrowed from the well-known Kuramoto model (Kuramoto, 1984), a prototypical model for coupled nonlinear oscillators. This simplified global interaction model is consistent with an observation that the strongest correlations are observed between the (speed and) direction of the individual and the average (speed and) direction of the entire school (Partridge, 1982): In the mean-field form of the Kuramoto model, the interaction term can be rewritten as $${1\over N}\sum_{l=1}^N \sin(\theta_l-\theta_j) = r\sin(\psi-\theta_j),$$ where $$re^{i\psi} \equiv {1\over N}\sum_{l=1}^N e^{i\theta_l}. \nonumber$$ In this alternate expression, the dependence on the difference between the individual direction and the average direction stands out explicitly. In the absence of coupling ($K=0$), each leader eventually heads for its preferred direction. Nontrivial dynamical behavior for the minimal model (Eq. (\[reduced\])) are studied in Nabet et al. (2006); bifurcations are analyzed for the global phase space in the case $N_1 = N_2$ and $N_3 = 0$.
Extension to heterogeneous populations {#model_extension}
--------------------------------------
The aforementioned models concern populations of [*homogeneous*]{} subgroups, where the individuals in each subgroup quickly synchronize, nearly perfectly ($\rho_k \sim 1$), during the initial transients (Nabet et al., 2006). In the more general case, the mean angular deviation of fish schools is finite (Atz, 1953; Hunter, 1966), which is not captured in this “minimal” model. We extend the model to account for the distribution of directions within schools, assuming it arises from the [*heterogeneity*]{} among the group members. We introduce the heterogeneity in the following two ways:\
(I) [*Two leaders and many heterogeneous followers —*]{} First we consider the cases when the population consist of two leaders (which possibly represent lumped behavior of groups of homogeneous leaders) and $N~(\gg 1)$ followers:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{microEQ1}
{d\psi_1\over dt} &=& \sin(\Theta_1-\psi_1) + {K\over N+2}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{2}\sin(\psi_j-\psi_1)+\sum_{j=1}^{N}\sin(\theta_j-\psi_1)\right], \nonumber \\
{d\psi_2\over dt} &=& \sin(\Theta_2-\psi_2) + {K\over N+2}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{2}\sin(\psi_j-\psi_2)+\sum_{j=1}^{N}\sin(\theta_j-\psi_2)\right], \\
{d\theta_i\over dt} &=& \omega_i + {K\over N+2}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{2}\sin(\psi_j-\theta_i)+\sum_{j=1}^{N}\sin(\theta_j-\theta_i)\right]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{\rm for}~1\leq i \leq N, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where the heterogeneity is accounted for through the tendency to deviate from the average direction, characterized by $\omega_i$, an i.i.d. random variable drawn from a prescribed distribution function $g(\omega)$ (of standard deviation $\sigma_{\omega}$ with mean value zero). For notational convenience, we drop a subscript of a variable to represent a random variable of a proper length ([*cf.*]{} $\omega_i$ and $\omega$). As $\Theta_1$ can be set to zero without loss of generality, $\Theta_2$ and $K$ are control parameters. In the current study, we consider $g(\omega)$ to be Gaussian, but our analysis is not limited to this particular choice.\
(II) [*Two groups of heterogeneous leaders —*]{} Secondly, we consider two groups of heterogeneous leaders without any followers, focusing only on the dynamics among leaders. The heterogeneity is accounted for by introducing randomness in the angles preferred by the leaders. The orientations of the leaders in each group are denoted by $\chi_i$’s and $\phi_i$’s (of sizes $N_1$ and $N_2$) respectively:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{for_many}
{d\chi_i\over dt} &=& \sin({\mathcal X}_i-\chi_i) + {K\over N_1 + N_2}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{N_1}\sin(\chi_j-\chi_i) + \sum_{j=1}^{N_2}\sin(\phi_j-\chi_i)\right] {\rm ~~~~~for}~1 \leq i \leq N_1, \nonumber \\
{d\phi_i\over dt} &=& \sin(\Phi_i-\phi_i) + {K\over N_1 + N_2}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{N_1}\sin(\chi_j-\phi_i) + \sum_{j=1}^{N_2}\sin(\phi_j-\phi_i)\right]~ {\rm ~~~~~for}~1 \leq i \leq N_2,\end{aligned}$$
where the preferred angles ${\mathcal X}_i$ and $\Phi_i$ are randomly drawn from prescribed distributions $g_1({\mathcal X})$ and $g_2(\Phi)$ (i.e., i.i.d. random variables of standard deviations $\sigma_{{\mathcal X}}$ and $\sigma_{\Phi}$), respectively. We set $<{\mathcal X}> = 0$, and will vary $K~(\geq 0)$ and $<\Phi>$ $(\in [0,\pi])$ as control parameters (and investigate some cases of different values of $\sigma_{{\mathcal X}}$ and $\sigma_{\Phi}$ in Sec. \[results2b\]).
![ \[correlation\] Direct integration of a system of two leaders (open circles; dashed lines indicate preferred angles) and 300 followers (dots), initialized from uniformly distributed orientations with randomly assigned heterogeneity variable (i.e., no initial correlations between $\theta$ and $\omega$), is shown for an initial transient \[(a) to (c)\], and for much longer time scales \[(d) to (f)\]. Insets illustrate time evolution of the followers’ orientations on the $\theta-\omega$ plane, where strong correlations develop during a short time $t \sim 10$. After that, the leaders and followers, the latter effectively as a “unit”, slowly drift to the stable steady state. It takes of the order of $t \sim 10^3$ for the system to asymptotically converges to this final state. ($K = 1.0;~\Theta_2 = \pi/4$). ](./fig1a.eps "fig:"){width=".32\columnwidth"} ![ \[correlation\] Direct integration of a system of two leaders (open circles; dashed lines indicate preferred angles) and 300 followers (dots), initialized from uniformly distributed orientations with randomly assigned heterogeneity variable (i.e., no initial correlations between $\theta$ and $\omega$), is shown for an initial transient \[(a) to (c)\], and for much longer time scales \[(d) to (f)\]. Insets illustrate time evolution of the followers’ orientations on the $\theta-\omega$ plane, where strong correlations develop during a short time $t \sim 10$. After that, the leaders and followers, the latter effectively as a “unit”, slowly drift to the stable steady state. It takes of the order of $t \sim 10^3$ for the system to asymptotically converges to this final state. ($K = 1.0;~\Theta_2 = \pi/4$). ](./fig1b.eps "fig:"){width=".32\columnwidth"} ![ \[correlation\] Direct integration of a system of two leaders (open circles; dashed lines indicate preferred angles) and 300 followers (dots), initialized from uniformly distributed orientations with randomly assigned heterogeneity variable (i.e., no initial correlations between $\theta$ and $\omega$), is shown for an initial transient \[(a) to (c)\], and for much longer time scales \[(d) to (f)\]. Insets illustrate time evolution of the followers’ orientations on the $\theta-\omega$ plane, where strong correlations develop during a short time $t \sim 10$. After that, the leaders and followers, the latter effectively as a “unit”, slowly drift to the stable steady state. It takes of the order of $t \sim 10^3$ for the system to asymptotically converges to this final state. ($K = 1.0;~\Theta_2 = \pi/4$). ](./fig1c.eps "fig:"){width=".32\columnwidth"}
![ \[correlation\] Direct integration of a system of two leaders (open circles; dashed lines indicate preferred angles) and 300 followers (dots), initialized from uniformly distributed orientations with randomly assigned heterogeneity variable (i.e., no initial correlations between $\theta$ and $\omega$), is shown for an initial transient \[(a) to (c)\], and for much longer time scales \[(d) to (f)\]. Insets illustrate time evolution of the followers’ orientations on the $\theta-\omega$ plane, where strong correlations develop during a short time $t \sim 10$. After that, the leaders and followers, the latter effectively as a “unit”, slowly drift to the stable steady state. It takes of the order of $t \sim 10^3$ for the system to asymptotically converges to this final state. ($K = 1.0;~\Theta_2 = \pi/4$). ](./fig1d.eps "fig:"){width=".32\columnwidth"} ![ \[correlation\] Direct integration of a system of two leaders (open circles; dashed lines indicate preferred angles) and 300 followers (dots), initialized from uniformly distributed orientations with randomly assigned heterogeneity variable (i.e., no initial correlations between $\theta$ and $\omega$), is shown for an initial transient \[(a) to (c)\], and for much longer time scales \[(d) to (f)\]. Insets illustrate time evolution of the followers’ orientations on the $\theta-\omega$ plane, where strong correlations develop during a short time $t \sim 10$. After that, the leaders and followers, the latter effectively as a “unit”, slowly drift to the stable steady state. It takes of the order of $t \sim 10^3$ for the system to asymptotically converges to this final state. ($K = 1.0;~\Theta_2 = \pi/4$). ](./fig1e.eps "fig:"){width=".32\columnwidth"} ![ \[correlation\] Direct integration of a system of two leaders (open circles; dashed lines indicate preferred angles) and 300 followers (dots), initialized from uniformly distributed orientations with randomly assigned heterogeneity variable (i.e., no initial correlations between $\theta$ and $\omega$), is shown for an initial transient \[(a) to (c)\], and for much longer time scales \[(d) to (f)\]. Insets illustrate time evolution of the followers’ orientations on the $\theta-\omega$ plane, where strong correlations develop during a short time $t \sim 10$. After that, the leaders and followers, the latter effectively as a “unit”, slowly drift to the stable steady state. It takes of the order of $t \sim 10^3$ for the system to asymptotically converges to this final state. ($K = 1.0;~\Theta_2 = \pi/4$). ](./fig1f.eps "fig:"){width=".32\columnwidth"}
Wiener polynomial chaos {#method1}
-----------------------
The Kuramoto model, a paradigm for all-to-all, phase-coupled oscillator models, has been extensively studied and used to shed light on many synchronization phenomena (Kuramoto, 1984; Acebr[ó]{}n et al., 2005, and references therein). This model has the property that, in the full synchronization regime (of large enough $K$ values), phase angles become quickly correlated with (or “sorted" according to) the natural frequencies during the initial short transients (Moon et al., 2006). Similar correlations (between the angles and heterogeneity random variables) are expected to arise in the current model (which is indeed the case, as will be shown later in Fig. \[correlation\]), since the coupling term is qualitatively similar. As in Moon et al. (2006), we choose expansion coefficients in Wiener polynomial chaos as coarse-grained “observables”, to explore low-dimensional, coarse-grained dynamics.
Wiener(-Hermite) polynomial chaos was introduced by Wiener (1938), who represented a random process in terms of functional expansions of Wiener process (historically, this method has been termed as polynomial “chaos”, because of its initial usage on homogeneous chaos, such as turbulence and Brownian motion, rather than the nature of the method). Ghanem and Spanos (1991) later extended this idea to treat random processes as functional expansions of random variables, or elements in the Hilbert space of random functions, in which a spectral representation in terms of polynomial chaos is identified. The projections (or coefficients) on the polynomial base then can be determined through a Galerkin approach. This method was subsequently applied in uncertainty quantification of various problems (e.g., see Ghanem, 1999; Jardak et al., 2002), and has been extended to general situations using the Askey scheme (Xiu et al., 2002; now known as generalized polynomial chaos).
In this method, dependent random variables ($\theta$ of the followers for the case (I), and $\chi$ and $\phi$ for the case (II)) are expanded in polynomials of independent random variables ($\omega$, or ${\mathcal X}$ and $\Phi$) using appropriately chosen basis functions. Details for the two cases are as follows:\
(I) [*Two leaders and many heterogeneous followers —*]{} For convenience, we introduce the unit Gaussian random variable $\xi \equiv \omega/\sigma_{\omega}$. Using this newly defined variable, we expand $\theta(\omega,t)$ (i.e. $\theta(\xi,t)$) in Hermite polynomials of $\xi$ \[$H_0(\xi)$ = 1, $H_1(\xi) = \xi$, $H_2(\xi) = \xi^2- 1$, $H_3(\xi) = \xi^3 - 3\xi, \cdots$\]: $$\label{expansion}
\theta(\xi,t) = \sum_{n=0}^p \alpha_n(t) H_n\left(\xi\right),$$ where $p$ is the highest order retained in the truncated series, $H_n$ is the $n$th Hermite polynomial, and the $\alpha_n$’s are the expansion coefficients which will be referred to simply as “chaos coefficients” in this paper. Wiener polynomial chaos, utilizing Hermite polynomials as basis functions, is the appropriate choice for Gaussian random variables that we consider in the present study. The probability density function of the Gaussian random variables appears as the weighting function of Hermite polynomials, and the Hermite polynomial expansion is suggested to converge exponentially for Gaussian processes (Lucor et al., 2001). For other random variables, use of different basis functions (for instance, Legendre polynomials for uniform random variables) has been suggested for fast convergence, which is the basis of the development of the generalized polynomial chaos (Xiu et al., 2002).
We choose the first few nonvanishing chaos coefficients $\alpha_n$’s, as well as the orientations of the leaders ($\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$), to be the coarse-grained “observables”. Due to symmetry, all the even order $\alpha_n$’s vanish, except for the zeroth order $\alpha_0$ that corresponds to the average direction of the followers. Geometrically, $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_3$ respectively represent a measure for the linear order spread of the angles (the “slope” between $\theta$ and $\omega$) and the cubic order measure. In the continuum limit ($N \rightarrow \infty$), the chaos coefficients can be exactly determined using the orthogonality relations for Hermite polynomials. However, in the [*finite*]{} cases of single realization we consider, $N \sim O(10^2)$, those relations hold only approximately, and the coefficients are evaluated using least squares fitting, following Moon et al. (2006).\
(II) [*Two groups of heterogeneous leaders —*]{} In the second case, we expand $\chi$ and $\phi$ in terms of ${\mathcal X}$ and $\Phi$, respectively: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expansion2}
\chi &=& \sum_{n=0}^{p} \alpha_n H_n(\zeta), \nonumber \\
\phi &=& \sum_{n=0}^{p} \beta_n H_n(\eta),\end{aligned}$$ where the chaos coefficients and are the coarse “observables” of our choice, $H_n$’s are Hermite polynomials (for Gaussian $g_1$ and $g_2$), and $\zeta \equiv {\mathcal X}/\sigma_{\chi}$ and $\eta \equiv \Phi/\sigma_{\phi}$ are unit Gaussian random variables.\
“Equation-free” computational approach {#method2}
--------------------------------------
A prerequisite to [*coarse-grained*]{} dynamical analysis (which is the main goal of the current study) is, in a traditional sense, an explicit derivation of coarse-grained governing equations. In principle, such equations for chaos coefficients, in the continuum limit ($N \rightarrow \infty$), might be obtained through a stochastic Galerkin method (Ghanem and Spanos, 1991).
In the present study, we do not even attempt to derive such equations. We circumvent their derivation by using an equation-free multiscale computational approach (Theodoropoulos et al., 2000; Kevrekidis et al., 2003, 2004). This approach enables us to explore the coarse-grained dynamics without the assumption of the continuum limit. The premise of this approach is that coarse-grained governing equations conceptually [*exist*]{}, but are not explicitly available in closed form. This approach is based on the recognition that short bursts of appropriately initialized microscopic (fine-scale) simulations during a time horizon $\Delta T$ and the projection of the results onto coarse-grained variables, say , result in time-steppers (mappings) for those variables ${\mathbf \Phi}_{\Delta T}$ (which is effectively the same as the discretization of unavailable equations): $$\label{coarse_stepper}
\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_{n+1} = {\mathbf \Phi}_{\Delta T}(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}_n).$$ One then processes the results of the short simulations to estimate various coarse-grained quantities (such as time derivatives, action of Jacobians, residuals) to perform relevant coarse-grained level numerical computations, as if those quantities were obtained from coarse-grained governing equations. For instance, one can [*integrate*]{} unavailable governing equations in time (coarse projective integration; see below), or compute the steady states of the above coarse time-stepper, by utilizing fixed point algorithms (such as Newton-Raphson or Newton-GMRES).
Equation-free computations consist of the following steps:
- Identify coarse-grained variables (“coarse observables”) that sufficiently describe both the micro- and macroscopic dynamics; in our study, they are $\alpha_n$’s (and $\beta_n$’s). For convenience, we denote the microscopic (macroscopic) descriptions by $\mathbf{\theta}$ ($\mathbf{\alpha}$).
- Choose an appropriate [*lifting*]{} operator $\mu_L$, which maps $\mathbf{\alpha}$ to one (or more) consistent description(s) $\mathbf{\theta}$ (for the purposes of variance reduction and ensemble-averaging). In the current study, this can be achieved by using the relations in Eqs. (\[expansion\]) and (\[expansion2\]); once random variables are drawn, these relations are used to obtain corresponding $\mathbf{\theta}$.
- Starting from lifted initial condition(s) $\mathbf{\theta}(t_0) = \mu_L(\mathbf{\alpha}(t_0))$, run the microscopic simulator to obtain $\mathbf{\theta}(t_0+\Delta T)$ at a later time ($\Delta T \geq 0$).
- Use an appropriate [*restriction*]{} operator $\mathcal{M}_R$ (least squares fitting, in the current study) which maps the microscopic state(s) to the macroscopic description $\mathbf{\alpha}(t_0+\Delta T) = \mathcal{M}_R(\mathbf{\theta}(t_0+\Delta T))$, which effectively results in time series of coarse observables, or their coarse time-stepper ${\mathbf \Phi}_{\Delta T}$; $\mathbf{\alpha}(t_0+\Delta T) \equiv {\mathbf \Phi}_{\Delta T}(\mathbf{\alpha}(t_0))$.
- Apply desired numerical techniques using the coarse-grained variables obtained from the step 4. and repeat some of the above steps as needed.
An extensive discussion can be found in Kevrekidis et al. (2003, 2004).
Results for Case I {#results}
==================
Direct integration of the “fine-scale” model of Eq. (\[microEQ1\]) in the strong coupling regime ($K = 1.0,
~\sigma_{\omega} = 0.1$), started from randomly assigned orientations and the heterogeneity variable (the latter is a Gaussian random variable), illustrates that a strong correlation between $\theta$ and $\omega$ develops during a short, initial transient time; the orientations of the followers quickly become a monotonically increasing function of their heterogeneity variable (Fig. \[correlation\]), after which they slowly drift as a “unit” until they settle down in the final steady state. During the latter slow drift, the system can be described as two leaders and a [*single*]{} “clump” of followers, whose coarse-grained states can be successfully described by a small number of chaos coefficients. A similar time scale separation exists in the model of homogeneous populations. In this case, followers quickly collapse asymptotically to the [*same*]{} direction (Nabet et al., 2006).
![ \[PI\] (Color online) Accelerated computation of stable steady states via coarse projective integration using five coarse-grained variables, shown here for two different time scales ($K = 1.0;~\Theta_2 = \pi/4$). Initially all the values are assigned to be 0. Both $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_3$ reach their steady state values relatively quickly (see (a)), while the others are slowly varying (see (b); they are still varying at $t = 500$). Dots represent the time intervals during which short direct integration is performed (and restricted), in the course of the projective integration using forward Euler method. Solid lines represent the trajectories of direct full integration during the entire time. Higher efficiency can be achieved by optimally choosing the time horizon for the direct integration, the projection stepsize, and projection method. ](./fig2a.eps "fig:"){width=".62\columnwidth"} ![ \[PI\] (Color online) Accelerated computation of stable steady states via coarse projective integration using five coarse-grained variables, shown here for two different time scales ($K = 1.0;~\Theta_2 = \pi/4$). Initially all the values are assigned to be 0. Both $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_3$ reach their steady state values relatively quickly (see (a)), while the others are slowly varying (see (b); they are still varying at $t = 500$). Dots represent the time intervals during which short direct integration is performed (and restricted), in the course of the projective integration using forward Euler method. Solid lines represent the trajectories of direct full integration during the entire time. Higher efficiency can be achieved by optimally choosing the time horizon for the direct integration, the projection stepsize, and projection method. ](./fig2b.eps "fig:"){width=".6\columnwidth"}
Computations of steady states
-----------------------------
We begin by accelerating the approach to a stable steady state using an equation-free algorithm, the coarse projective integration method (Gear and Kevrekidis, 2003). In contrast to a conventional, direct integration of the full fine-scale model during the [*entire*]{} time (until sufficient convergence to stable, final states), this method exploits smoothness in the coarse variables (estimated through a direct integration during a [*short*]{} time), in order to extrapolate and take a large projective time-step (compared to the original integration time-step size). This saves computational effort. The procedure consists of ($i$) [*lifting*]{} (appropriate initialization of the fine-scale simulator, an integrator of Eq. (\[microEQ1\]), consistent with prescribed coarse-grained values), ($ii$) [*direct integration*]{} of the microscopic simulator during a relatively short time interval (but long enough to accurately estimate local coarse-grained time derivatives), ($iii$) [*restriction*]{} (of fine-scale description onto coarse-grained variables), and ($iv$) [*taking a projective step*]{} (using a traditional numerical integration scheme such as forward Euler). The computational payoff of this method depends on the ratio between a short direct integration time interval, the projective time-step size, and the computational effort required for lifting/restriction procedures (see e.g., Rico-Martinez et al., 2004). More importantly, successful computation of steady states through this method naturally attests to the [*validity*]{} of the chosen coarse-grained observables in describing [*both*]{} fine-scale and coarse-grained states.
![ \[micro\] (Left panel) A bifurcation diagram observed on one leader $\psi_2$, computed using AUTO2000 ($K = 1.0$). Solid (dashed) lines represent stable (unstable) branches. There exist a few other unstable branches that are not shown here. At some critical value of $\Theta_2$, an unstable state in the upper branch undergoes a forward pitchfork bifurcation; two unstable states coincide. The lower branch of “trivial” solutions does not exhibit any bifurcation. (Right panels) Snapshots of two (symmetric) stable states in the bistable regime ($\Theta_2 = 2.0$), marked by dots in the left panel. ](./fig3.eps){width=".8\columnwidth"}
iteration $\psi_1$ $\psi_2$ $\alpha_0$ $\alpha_1$ $\alpha_3$ residuals
----------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- --------------------------
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
1 3.421$\times 10^{-5}$ 4.143$\times 10^{-1}$ 3.478$\times 10^{-5}$ 5.963$\times 10^{-2}$ 2.969$\times 10^{-9}$ 2.680$\times 10^{-3}$
2 8.871$\times 10^{-4}$ 3.900$\times 10^{-1}$ 9.293$\times 10^{-4}$ 8.632$\times 10^{-2}$ 2.435$\times 10^{-5}$ 8.135$\times 10^{-4}$
3 1.245$\times 10^{-3}$ 3.969$\times 10^{-1}$ 1.991$\times 10^{-3}$ 9.819$\times 10^{-2}$ 9.387$\times 10^{-5}$ 2.056$\times 10^{-4}$
4 1.338$\times 10^{-1}$ 5.275$\times 10^{-1}$ 2.679$\times 10^{-1}$ 1.010$\times 10^{-1}$ 8.338$\times 10^{-4}$ 3.820$\times 10^{-5}$
5 1.959$\times 10^{-1}$ 5.896$\times 10^{-1}$ 3.929$\times 10^{-1}$ 1.010$\times 10^{-1}$ 1.754$\times 10^{-4}$ 3.660$\times 10^{-7}$
6 1.958$\times 10^{-1}$ 5.896$\times 10^{-1}$ 3.927$\times 10^{-1}$ 1.010$\times 10^{-1}$ 1.760$\times 10^{-4}$ 6.513$\times 10^{-12}$
Projective integration using five coarse-grained variables ($\psi_1, \psi_2$, and the first three non-vanishing $\alpha_n$’s; $\alpha_0$, $\alpha_1$, and $\alpha_3$) follows virtually the same trajectories of the full, direct integration (Fig. \[PI\]), even if $\omega$ is [*newly*]{} drawn at each lifting; the agreement is even better if the same $\omega$ were used (hence the dynamics are fully deterministic). Both [*lifting*]{} (simply using Eq. (\[expansion\])) and [*restriction*]{} (least squares fitting) operations require minimal computational efforts. Therefore, the computational efficiency in the present case is nearly exclusively determined by the projective step size, which is a factor of about four in Fig. \[PI\]; with a more sophisticated projection algorithm, a higher efficiency can be obtained. We see that both $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_3$ reach their steady state values quickly ($t \sim 5$), showing that the correlation between $\theta$ and $\omega$ are fully developed by then. However, the other chaos coefficient $\alpha_0$ (representing the average direction) slowly drifts towards the steady state, and so do $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ (note that it is still varying at $t = 500$); the computation of an asymptotic, steady state requires a very long time integration.
Direct integration (including projective integration) cannot compute unstable steady states and are inappropriate for stability computations and parametric bifurcation studies. Both stable and [*unstable*]{} steady state values can be systematically (and much more efficiently than the projective integrations) computed by applying coarse-grained fixed point algorithms to the steady state condition of Eq. (\[coarse\_stepper\]), i.e., $\mbox{\boldmath $x$} - {\mathbf \Phi}_{\Delta T}(\mbox{\boldmath $x$}) = 0$, in [*much lower*]{} dimension than that of individual level. We use the coarse Newton-GMRES (Kelley, 1995), a matrix-free, method to compute coarse-grained fixed points. We observe that the algorithm accurately converges within a few steps (Tab. \[GMRES\]); the converged values are accurately consistent with the restricted values of the fixed point solution of the detailed (i.e., ($N$+2)-dimensional) problem, within prescribed convergence tolerance. By combining a coarse fixed point algorithm with pseudo-arclength continuation (Keller, 1987), we numerically compute coarse-grained bifurcation diagrams in the following sections. The computational efficiency of the coarse fixed point algorithm varies with the choice of the initial guess for the iteration. With a totally uneducated guess, it could take even longer than the direct integration (note that the latter never computes the exact solutions); however, during the continuation computation shown below, a good initial guess is always available from the previous parameter value(s), and even several orders of magnitude of computational efficiency can be achieved.
![ \[macroTh2\] (a) A bifurcation diagram observed on one (arbitrarily chosen) follower, as a function of $\Theta_2$ ($K = 1.0$), computed using AUTO2000 (the same case as in Fig. \[micro\]). Superscript ‘f’ has been added to emphasize that this is the orientation of [*a follower*]{}. A few other existing unstable branches are not included here. The upper branch undergoes a pitchfork bifurcation and becomes stable. (b) A coarse bifurcation diagram observed on $\alpha_0$ (average direction), obtained by the coarse Newton-GMRES method with pseudo arc-length continuation. Only a blowup around the bifurcation point is shown. Coarse-grained dynamics exhibit the same structure as in the fine-scale level. Filled (open) circles represent stable (unstable) steady states. ](./fig4a.eps "fig:"){width=".6\columnwidth"} ![ \[macroTh2\] (a) A bifurcation diagram observed on one (arbitrarily chosen) follower, as a function of $\Theta_2$ ($K = 1.0$), computed using AUTO2000 (the same case as in Fig. \[micro\]). Superscript ‘f’ has been added to emphasize that this is the orientation of [*a follower*]{}. A few other existing unstable branches are not included here. The upper branch undergoes a pitchfork bifurcation and becomes stable. (b) A coarse bifurcation diagram observed on $\alpha_0$ (average direction), obtained by the coarse Newton-GMRES method with pseudo arc-length continuation. Only a blowup around the bifurcation point is shown. Coarse-grained dynamics exhibit the same structure as in the fine-scale level. Filled (open) circles represent stable (unstable) steady states. ](./fig4b.eps "fig:"){width=".6\columnwidth"}
Types of fine-scale dynamical behavior
--------------------------------------
We first analyze the detailed $(N+2)$-dimensional fine-scale model in the full synchronization regime, in order to obtain insights on fine-scale dynamics to be compared with our coarse-grained analysis below. We use AUTO2000 (Doedel et al., 2000) to compute the fine-scale bifurcation diagrams as functions of $\Theta_2$ at a fixed value of $K$; only projections for one leader ($\psi_2$) are shown in Fig. \[micro\] and for one follower in Fig. \[macroTh2\] (a). All the other followers exhibit essentially the same dynamical behavior as the one shown here (except for some quantitative differences).
The interaction between the individuals causes the steady state directions of the leaders to deviate from the preferred angles $0$ and $\Theta_2$, respectively. Such deviation can occur in two directions, either toward the region bounded by $[0,\Theta_2]$ (an “obvious” steady state where followers are directed in between the directions of the leaders; see Fig. \[micro\] (b)) or the other way around (e.g., Fig. \[micro\] (a)). The analysis shows that for small $\Theta_2$ values only the former state is stable, while for large values, both of these states become stable. The branches for “obvious” stable steady states, which correspond to lower straight solid lines, exhibit no bifurcations (see Figs. \[micro\] and \[macroTh2\] (a)). On the other branches, forward pitchfork bifurcations at some critical value of $\Theta_2$ give birth to another stable branch (a state on this stable branch is shown in Fig. \[micro\] (a)), as well as two unstable asymmetric solution branches, hence the population becomes bistable. The critical value of $\Theta_2$ for the onset of the bistability depends on $K$ (precisely speaking, $K/\sigma_{\omega}$); the critical value is $\Theta_2 \sim 0.45~(2.2)$ at $K = 1.0~(0.5)$. As $K$ decreases further, the critical value monotonically increases until fully synchronized steady states lose stability at some critical value of $K$.
Coarse-grained dynamics
-----------------------
We now compute coarse-grained steady state solutions. A coarse-grained bifurcation diagram for $\alpha_0$ (representing the average direction of the followers) is compared with the corresponding diagram observed for [*one*]{} follower, in Figs. \[macroTh2\] (b) and (a); (b) is a blowup of the region around the bifurcation. Both sides of the bifurcation point can be described by the [*same*]{} set of coarse-grained observables, which clearly summarize group level dynamical behavior of the followers before and after the bifurcation.
As $K$ decreases in the Kuramoto model, oscillators get desynchronized (Kuramoto, 1984), starting with the oscillator with the maximum value of $|\omega_i|$ (the “extreme” oscillator) through a saddle-node (actually a “sniper”) bifurcation on a limit cycle (Moon et al., 2006). We expect the same type of bifurcation to occur in this model. However, when we try to compute the coarse-grained steady states as functions of $K$ using the previously mentioned five coarse variables (via coarse Newton-GMRES method and pseudo arc-length continuation, neither a bifurcation nor an unstable branch is appropriately identified. The computation, initialized at large $K$ steady states, accurately follows stable branches down to some critical value of $K$ (where the transition occurs), and then fails to converge. Our coarse-grained observables are not sufficient to describe the states on the “other side” of the bifurcation point, as we will explain below.
![ \[turningPT\] (Color online) (a) A bifurcation diagram observed on a few followers, including the one with the maximum of $|\omega_i|$ (the “extreme” follower), as a function of $K$ ($\Theta_2 = \pi/4$), computed using AUTO2000. A critical value where the extreme individual gets desynchronized corresponds to a saddle-node bifurcation point on a limit cycle (a “sniper” bifurcation). Except for the extreme follower, stable and unstable branches nearly coincide (see the inset). (b) In order to capture the fine-scale bifurcation, the angle of the extreme follower has to be discounted from the chaos expansion and considered as an [*extra*]{} coarse-grained variable (see text). We distinguish these chaos coefficients (from the ones used so far) by adding a prime. It was computed via the coarse Newton-GMRES method with continuation. ](./fig5a.eps "fig:"){width=".6\columnwidth"} ![ \[turningPT\] (Color online) (a) A bifurcation diagram observed on a few followers, including the one with the maximum of $|\omega_i|$ (the “extreme” follower), as a function of $K$ ($\Theta_2 = \pi/4$), computed using AUTO2000. A critical value where the extreme individual gets desynchronized corresponds to a saddle-node bifurcation point on a limit cycle (a “sniper” bifurcation). Except for the extreme follower, stable and unstable branches nearly coincide (see the inset). (b) In order to capture the fine-scale bifurcation, the angle of the extreme follower has to be discounted from the chaos expansion and considered as an [*extra*]{} coarse-grained variable (see text). We distinguish these chaos coefficients (from the ones used so far) by adding a prime. It was computed via the coarse Newton-GMRES method with continuation. ](./fig5b.eps "fig:"){width=".6\columnwidth"}
A fine-scale bifurcation diagram (computed using AUTO2000) obtained by starting from a stable steady state on the lower branch in Fig. \[micro\] is shown in Fig. \[turningPT\] (a). Here the diagrams for two leaders and only a few followers, including the extreme one, are shown. We find that both stable and unstable branches for each angle nearly coincide for all the individuals (see inset of Fig. \[turningPT\] (a)), except for the extreme one. As the difference between stable and unstable branches (at the same value of $K$) is appreciable [*only*]{} when observed on this extreme oscillator, a smooth mapping between $\theta$ and $\omega$ does not prevail for unstable states, and the previously used chaos coefficients are not appropriate any more.
Taking these observations into account, it is easy to remedy the situation as follows: The fact that stable and unstable branches nearly coincide, discounting the extreme follower, suggests that all the individuals [*except for the extreme follower*]{} can be again described by the same set of chaos coefficients. Thus we treat the orientation of the extreme one separately (introducing it as an additional coarse-grained variable), and discount it from the polynomial chaos expansion. (From the fact that the extreme follower gets desynchronized at the transition, one can also intuitively see that followers have to be considered as a combination of a clump of synchronized “bulk” and a separate, extreme one.) We compute the solutions with continuation, using this new set of [*six*]{} coarse variables, which captures the bifurcation and appropriately describes the unstable steady states (Fig. \[turningPT\] (b)); we have analyzed exactly the same realization used in Fig. \[turningPT\] (a) for direct comparison. When bifurcation diagrams are computed for ensembles of many realizations, an uncertainty will arise in the exact quantification of the bifurcation point, due to the fluctuation of finite-dimensional random variables among realizations, while the results are qualitatively the same as those of a single realization (Xiu et al., 2005).
The coarse bifurcation results shown in Fig. \[turningPT\] (b) illustrate that the steady state directions of the leaders and the average direction of followers ($\alpha_0'$, discounting the extreme one; a prime is added to distinguish it from the previously used notation) are virtually the same for a range of $K$. Only higher order chaos coefficients (only $\alpha_1'$ is shown in Fig. \[turningPT\]) appreciably vary as a function of $K$, which means that individuals spread more widely as $K$ decreases, until the extreme one eventually starts to oscillate freely, while the average steady state direction remains the same.
![ \[microK2.4\] Lines: A bifurcation diagram observed on $\psi_1$ in the minimal model (the first two ODEs in Eq. (\[reduced\]) with $N_1 = N_2 = 1,
~N_3 = 0$), for varying $\Theta_2$ at a fixed value of $K = 2.4$, obtained by AUTO2000. For large enough preferred angles ($\Theta_2/\pi > \sim 0.7$), the system becomes bistable through a forward pitchfork bifurcation. Circles: A coarse bifurcation diagram near the pitchfork bifurcation, observed on $\alpha_0$, as a function of $<\Phi>/\pi$, computed by the coarse Newton-GMRES method. Filled (open) circles represent stable (unstable) steady states. ](./fig6NEW.eps){width=".6\columnwidth"}
Results for Case II {#results2}
===================
Dynamics of statistically similar groups {#results2a}
----------------------------------------
Here we explore both the fine-scale and coarse-grained dynamics of a model for two groups of [*heterogeneous*]{} leaders (with no followers) shown in Eq. (\[for\_many\]), and compare the results of the two different scales. One notable difference from the Kuramoto model is that “oscillators” in Eq. (\[for\_many\]) do not have finite random variables (natural frequencies), hence there is no onset of the synchronization that occurs at a finite value of $K$ (or, they can be alternatively seen as Kuramoto-like oscillators of zero natural frequencies, which result in the onset at $K = 0$, hence they get synchronized for all $K$ values). The analysis of the minimal model (the first two of Eq. (\[reduced\]) with $N_1 = N_2,~N_3 = 0$) reveals that for large enough $\Theta_2~(>\sim \pi/2)$ the system exhibits bistability for a certain range of $K$ (Nabet et al., 2006), as in the previous case in Sec. \[results\]. Here we will vary $<\Phi>$ as the main parameter for two different values of $K$. For large coupling strengths ($K > 2.0$), the bistability in the minimal model appears through a forward pitchfork bifurcation, when $\Theta_2$ is varied as a parameter (Fig. \[microK2.4\]). This minimal model can be seen as a special case of the current model, where both ${\mathcal X}$ and $\Phi$ are assumed to be delta functions and each group consists of identical individuals.
![ \[macroK2.4\] Coarse-grained bifurcation diagrams observed on the first two chaos coefficients: (a) $\alpha_0$; the average direction of the first group of leaders, and (b) $\alpha_1$; the “slope” between $\chi$ and ${\mathcal X}$, as functions of $<\Phi>$. These are blowups of the region around the forward pitchfork bifurcation point in Fig. \[microK2.4\]. ](./fig7a.eps "fig:"){width=".6\columnwidth"} ![ \[macroK2.4\] Coarse-grained bifurcation diagrams observed on the first two chaos coefficients: (a) $\alpha_0$; the average direction of the first group of leaders, and (b) $\alpha_1$; the “slope” between $\chi$ and ${\mathcal X}$, as functions of $<\Phi>$. These are blowups of the region around the forward pitchfork bifurcation point in Fig. \[microK2.4\]. ](./fig7b.eps "fig:"){width=".6\columnwidth"}
We begin by asking whether our model for heterogeneous groups exhibits similar types of dynamical behavior. One can also do accelerated computations of steady states using the coarse projective integration, but here we skip such computations and present only the coarse bifurcation analysis results. [*Coarse*]{} bifurcation diagrams obtained through the coarse Newton-GMRES method (Kelley, 1995) and pseudo arc-length continuation (Keller, 1987) (for Gaussian distributions of ${\mathcal X}$ and $\Phi$; $\sigma_{{\mathcal X}} = \sigma_{\Phi} = 0.1$, $N_1 = N_2 = 100$) show that the heterogeneous groups indeed exhibit the same qualitative type of coarse dynamical behavior around the pitchfork bifurcation point (Fig. \[macroK2.4\]). As we consider symmetric unimodal distribution functions, all the even order chaos coefficients (except for $\alpha_0$ and $\beta_0$) virtually vanish. The diagram for $\alpha_0$ of the first group $<\chi>$ (average direction) exhibits reasonably good quantitative agreement with the corresponding diagram for the minimal model, within fluctuations of finite-size random variables, shown in Figs. \[microK2.4\] and \[micromacroK1.8\]. It is interesting to note that at the critical point, all the followers are headed for the same direction ($\alpha_1 = 0$, which corresponds to the “slope” between ${\mathcal X}$ and $\chi$); see Fig. \[macroK2.4\] (b).
![ \[micromacroK1.8\] Lines: A bifurcation diagram for the minimal model of two leaders, for varying $\Theta_2$ at a fixed value of $K = 1.8$, obtained by AUTO2000. For large enough preferred angles ($\Theta_2/\pi > \sim 0.75$), the system becomes bistable, but the nature of the bifurcation is different from that of higher $K$ value cases (a saddle-node vs. a pitchfork bifurcation; see Fig. \[microK2.4\]). Circles: A coarse bifurcation diagram observed on the average direction of the first group of leaders ($\alpha_0$) around the saddle-node bifurcation, as a function of $<\Phi>/\pi$, computed via the coarse Newton-GMRES method with continuation. Filled (open) circles represent stable (unstable) steady states. ](./fig8NEW.eps){width=".6\columnwidth"}
![ \[vary\_std\] (Color online) Coarse-grained bifurcation diagrams near a turning point in Fig. \[micromacroK1.8\], for ${\mathcal X}$ distributions of three different widths (the standard deviation $\sigma_{{\mathcal X}}$ = 0.1 for circles; 0.2 for squares; 0.3 for triangles), obtained via the coarse Newton-GMRES method and continuation. The standard deviation for the second group, $\sigma_{\Phi}$, is kept the same at 0.1 ($K = 1.8,~N_1 = N_2 = 100$). Filled and open symbols represent stable and unstable states, respectively. (a) The first chaos coefficients $\alpha_0$ (average direction of the first group) are nearly the same for the three cases. The difference between the cases becomes apparent in higher order coefficients that reflect the degree of spreading; see $\alpha_1$ in (b). ](./fig9a.eps "fig:"){width=".62\columnwidth"} ![ \[vary\_std\] (Color online) Coarse-grained bifurcation diagrams near a turning point in Fig. \[micromacroK1.8\], for ${\mathcal X}$ distributions of three different widths (the standard deviation $\sigma_{{\mathcal X}}$ = 0.1 for circles; 0.2 for squares; 0.3 for triangles), obtained via the coarse Newton-GMRES method and continuation. The standard deviation for the second group, $\sigma_{\Phi}$, is kept the same at 0.1 ($K = 1.8,~N_1 = N_2 = 100$). Filled and open symbols represent stable and unstable states, respectively. (a) The first chaos coefficients $\alpha_0$ (average direction of the first group) are nearly the same for the three cases. The difference between the cases becomes apparent in higher order coefficients that reflect the degree of spreading; see $\alpha_1$ in (b). ](./fig9b.eps "fig:"){width=".6\columnwidth"}
The Hermite polynomial expansion converges so quickly that the expansions can be accurate even when truncated at the third order. Due to the reflection symmetry (about $<\Phi>$/2), coefficients have similar structures as the ones, after proper reflection and translation. Only results on are presented here. As the coupling strength decreases across $K = 2.0$, the nature of the bifurcation changes (from a pitchfork) to a saddle-node bifurcation (Fig. \[micromacroK1.8\]) at $K = 2.0$, which also occurs in the model for homogeneous populations; the nature of the transition between these different bifurcations, a higher codimension bifurcation, has been discussed in Nabet et al. (2006).
Statistically different groups {#results2b}
------------------------------
So far we have considered statistically similar groups, namely $N_1 = N_2$ and $\sigma_{{\mathcal X}} = \sigma_{\Phi}$; they differed only by average preferred directions. It is natural to ask how the dynamics change as the parameters concerned with the distributions (for the preferred directions) are varied. It is readily expected that the essential dynamics of two different-size groups can be reflected in the minimal model using two different coupling strengths, which is considered in Nabet et al. (2006). Here we consider only the cases with varying width of the distributions ($\sigma_{\Phi} \neq \sigma_{{\mathcal X}}$), which has no analog in the minimal model.
Coarse bifurcation diagrams for three different Gaussian distributions for ${\mathcal X}$ ($\sigma_{{\mathcal X}}$ is varied while $\sigma_{\Phi}$ is kept at 0.1; see Fig. \[vary\_std\]) show that the average directions ($\alpha_0$’s) hardly vary with the width of the distributions; the primary parameter that affects on the average direction is the [*group size*]{}. For the distributions of different widths, the fixed point computation with continuation fails to converge at different values of $\alpha_0$’s; points marked by arrows in Fig. \[vary\_std\] are the last points the Newton-GMRES computations converged in each case, when approached from the stable branches. Such a failure of convergence can be expected, because the steady states on this unstable branch overlap with another nearby unstable branch (which is not shown in this figure, but was shown in Fig. \[micromacroK1.8\]); characterizing the distribution with a few Wiener chaos coefficients does not provide an accurate description any more. The differences between the three cases (of different distribution widths) manifest themselves clearly in higher order chaos coefficients. While the average behavior remains nearly the same (Fig. \[vary\_std\] (a)), individuals in the group spread more widely (as reflected in $\alpha_1$ and higher order coefficients; Fig. \[vary\_std\] (b)), as the width of the random variable (distribution) increases.
Conclusions
===========
We have demonstrated a computational venue (an equation-free polynomial chaos approach) to study coarse-grained dynamics of individual-based models accounting for the [*heterogeneity*]{} among the individuals in animal group alignment models. We considered [*finite*]{} populations of (I) two “leaders” (which have direct knowledge on preferred directions) and $N (\gg 1)$ uninformed, heterogeneous “followers”, and (II) two groups of heterogeneous “leaders”. We explored the [*coarse-grained*]{}, group level (low-dimensional) dynamics using the polynomial chaos expansion coefficients as coarse-grained observables; these observables account for rapidly developing correlations between random variables, and sufficiently specify both fine-scale and coarse-grained (group-level) dynamical states.
All the analysis in our study was done expressively avoiding the derivation of coarse-grained governing equations, following a [*nonintrusive*]{}, equation-free computational approach wrapped around the direct system simulator. It should be noted that we have not assumed that $N$ is infinitely large (so-called the “continuum limit”). Our approach can be used for systems of any finite, large number of populations, and it can be equally applied to various types of random variables (following generalized polynomial chaos) and/or various heterogeneity. We compared our results with those of minimal models that do not account for heterogeneity among the individuals. They show good agreement in the lowest order (i.e., average directions), which clearly highlights the correspondence between the individual- and group-level dynamics (Figs. \[microK2.4\] and \[micromacroK1.8\]). Indeed this implies that the results in Nabet et al. (2006), where no heterogeneity is explicitly accounted for, are more robust than demonstrated in that paper alone.
In order to analyze different coarse-grained bifurcations, it became necessary to use different sets of coarse-grained variables, even if the model is [*the same*]{} in the fine-scale level (Fig. \[turningPT\]). This clearly shows that an appropriate choice of coarse-grained observables (in terms of which one can obtain useful closures) is an essential step; different coarse-grained observables are required, as the same fine-scale model closes differently.
In the present study, we assumed that the orientational dynamics can be separated from their translational counterpart, and considered the simplest nontrivial cases of all-to-all (“all-visible”), sinusoidal coupling. Our future work will involve the incorporation of the translational dynamics and more complicated coupling/network topology, including heterogeneous couplings. Our work presented here is the first step of our effort toward the development of more detailed (and biologically more plausible) models and their [*coarse-graining*]{}.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
S.J.M. and I.G.K. were financially supported by DOE and NSF grant EF–0434319. S.A.L. was supported in part by NSF grant EF–0434319 and DARPA grant HR0011–05–1–0057. B.N. and N.E.L. were supported in part by ONR grants N00014–02–1–0826 and N00014–04–1–0534.
[00]{}
Acebrón, J. A., Bonilla, L. L., Pérez Vicente, C. J., Ritort, F., Spigler, R., 2005. The Kuramoto model: A simple paradigm for synchronization phenomena. Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 137-185.
Aoki, I., 1982. A simulation study on the schooling mechanism in fish. Bull. Jap. Soc. Sci. Fish 48, 1081-1088.
Atz, J. W., 1953. Orientation in schooling fishes, In proceedings of a conference on orientation in animals. Office of Naval Research, pp. 103-130. Department of the Navy, Washington, D. C., Section 2.
Ben-Jacob, E., Cohen, I., Levine, H., 2000. Cooperative self-organization of microorganisms. Adv. Phys. 49, 395-554.
, Ed. S. Camazine, J.-L. Deneubourg, N. R. Franks, J. Sneyd, G. Theraulaz, and E. Bonabeau, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford (2001).
Couzin, I. D., Krause, J., James, R., Ruxton, G. D., Franks, N. R., 2002. Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups. J. theor. Biol. 218, 1-11.
Couzin, I. D., Krause, J., Franks, N. R., Levin, S. A., 2005. Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature 433, 513-516.
A. Czirók and T. Vicsek, “Collective motion”, in [*Fluctuations and Scaling in Biology*]{}, Ed. T. Viscek, pp. 177-242, Oxford University Press (2001).
Deneubourg, J. L., and Goss, S., 1989. Collective patterns and decision making. Ethology, Ecology, Evolution 1, 295-311.
Doedel, E. J. et al., 2000. A numerical bifurcation analysis software freely available from http://indy.cs.concordia.ca/auto/
Flierl, G., Grünbaum, D., Levin, S., Olson, D., 1999. From individuals to aggregations: the interplay between behavior and physics. J. theor. Biol. 196, 397-454.
Gear, C. W., Kevrekidis, I. G., 2003. Projective methods for stiff differential equations: Problems with gaps in their eigenvalue spectrum. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 24 (4), 1091-1106.
Ghanem, R., Spanos, P., 1991. [*Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Ghanem, R., 1999. Ingredients for a general purpose stochastic finite elements formulation. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 168, 19-34.
Hunter, J. R., 1966. Procedure for analysis of schooling behavior. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 23(4), 547-562.
Jadbabaie, A., Lin, J., Stephen Morse, A., 2003. Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules. IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 48, 988-1000.
Jardak, M., Su, C.-H., Karniadakis, G. E., 2002. Spectral polynomial chaos solutions of the stochastic advection equation. J. Sci. Comp. 17, 319-338.
Keller, H. B., 1987. [*Lectures on Numerical Methods in Bifurcation Theory*]{}, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Lectures on Mathematics and Physics, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Kelley, C. T., 1995 [*Iterative Methods for Linear and Nonlinear Equations (Frontiers in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 16)*]{}, SIAM, Philadelphia.
Kevrekidis, I. G., Gear, C. W., Hyman, J. M., Kevrekidis, P. G., Runborg, O., Theodoropoulos, C., 2003. Equation-free coarse-grained multiscale computation: enabling microscopic simulators to perform system-level tasks. Comm. Math. Sciences 1 (4), 715-762; e-print physics/0209043.
Kevrekidis, I. G., Gear, C. W., Hummer, G., 2004. Equation-free: the computer-assisted analysis of complex, multiscale systems. AIChE J. 50, 1346-1355.
Kosterlitz, J. M., Thouless, D. J., 1973. Ordering, metastability and phase transitions in two-dimensional systems. J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 6, 1181-1203.
Kuramoto, Y., 1984. [*Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Leonard, N. E., Paley, D., Lekien, R., Sepulchre, R., Fratantoni, D. M., Davis, R., 2006. Collective motion, sensor networks and ocean sampling. Proceedings of the IEEE, special issue on “The Emerging Technology of Networked Control Systems”, to appear.
Lucor, D., Xiu, D., Karniadakis, G., 2001. Spectral representations of uncertainty in simulations: Algorithms and applications. in Proceedings of the International Conference on Spectral and High Order Methods (ICOSAHOM-01), Uppsala, Sweden.
Mikhailov, A. S., Zanette, D., 1999. Noise-induced breakdown of collective coherent motion in swarms. Phys. Rev. E 60, 4571-4575.
Moon, S. J., Ghanem, R., Kevrekidis, I. G., 2006. Coarse-graining the dynamics of coupled oscillators. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 144101.
Nabet, B., Leonard, N. E., Couzin, I. D., Levin, S. A., 2006. Leadership in animal group motion: A bifurcation analysis. Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems, Kyoto, Japan, July 2006.
Parrish, J. K., Viscido, S. V., Grünbaum, D., 2002. Self-organized fish schools: An examination of emergent properties. Biol. Bull. 202, 296-305.
Partridge, B. L., Pitcher, T. J., 1979. Evidence against a hydrodynamic function for fish schools. Nature 279, 418-419.
Partridge, B. L., Pitcher, T. J., 1980. The sensory basis of fish schools: relative role of lateral line and vision. J. Comp. Physiol. 135, 315-325.
Partridge, B. L., 1982. The structure and function of fish schools. Sci. Am. 246, 90-99.
Pitcher, T. J., Partridge, B. L., Wardle, C. S., 1976. A blind fish can school. Science 194, 963-965.
Reynolds, C., 1987. Flocks, birds, and schools: A distributed behavioral model. Comput. Graph. 21 (4), 25-34.
Rico-Martinez, R., Gear, C. W., Kevrekidis, I. G., 2004. Coarse projective k[MC]{} integration: [F]{}orward/reverse initial and boundary value problems. J. Comp. Phys., 196, 474-489.
Sepulchre, R., Paley, D., Leonard, N. E., 2005. Collective motion and oscillator synchronization, in Cooperative Control: A Post-Workshop Volume, 2003 Block Island Workshop on Cooperative Control, eds. V. Kumar, N. Leonard and A.S. Morse, Springer-Verlag.
Theodoropoulos, C., Qian, Y. H., and Kevrekidis, I. G., 2000. “[C]{}oarse” stability and bifurcation analysis using time-steppers: [A]{} reaction-diffusion example, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 9840-9843.
Toner, J., Tu, Y., 1995. Long-range order in a two-dimensional dynamical XY model: How birds fly together. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4326-4329.
Toner, J., Tu, Y., 1998. Flocks, herds, and schools: A quantitative theory of flocking. Phys. Rev. E 58, 4828-4858.
Topaz, C. M., Bertozzi, A. L., Lewis, M. A., 2006. A nonlocal continuum model for biological aggregation. Bull. Math. Biol. 68, 1601-1623.
van Olst, J. C., Hunter, J. R., 1970. Some aspects of the organization of fish schools. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 27, 1225-1238.
Vicsek, T., Czirók, A., Ben-Jacob, E., Cohen, I., Shochet, O., 1995. Novel Type of Phase Transition in a System of Self-Driven Particles. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1226-1229.
Weidlich, W., 1991. Physics and social science — The approach of synergetics. Phys. Rep. 204, 1-163.
Wiener, N., 1938. The homogeneous chaos. Am J. Math. 60, 897-936.
Wilson, E. O., 1975. [*Sociobiology: The New Synthesis*]{}, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Xiu, D., Karniadakis, G. Em., 2002. The Wiener-Askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 24, 619-644.
Xiu, D., Kevrekidis, I. G., Ghanem, R., 2005. An equation-free, multiscale approach to uncertainty quantification. Comput. in Sci. & Engg. 7, 16-23.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The timing patterns of human communication in social networks is not random. On the contrary, communication is dominated by emergent statistical laws such as non-trivial correlations and clustering. Recently, we found long-term correlations in the user’s activity in social communities. Here, we extend this work to study collective behavior of the whole community. The goal is to understand the origin of clustering and long-term persistence. At the individual level, we find that the correlations in activity are a byproduct of the clustering expressed in the power-law distribution of inter-event times of single users. On the contrary, the activity of the whole community presents long-term correlations that are a true emergent property of the system, i.e. they are not related to the distribution of inter-event times. This result suggests the existence of collective behavior, possible arising from nontrivial communication patterns through the embedding social network.'
author:
- 'Diego Rybski$^{1,2}$, Sergey V. Buldyrev$^{3}$, Shlomo Havlin$^{4}$, Fredrik Liljeros$^{5,6}$, and Hernán A. Makse$^{1}$'
date: '– '
title: 'Communication activity in a social network: relation between long-term correlations and inter-event clustering'
---
Various constituents of social systems have been found to follow remarkable statistical regularities. Only the recent availability of relevant data made it possible to unravel such features. Tracking bank notes or cell phones it has been shown that humans follow simple and reproducible mobility patterns [@BrockmannHG2006; @GonzalezHB2008]. The communication via e-mails occurs in bursts, exhibiting a broad distribution of times between successive messages of individuals (inter-event times) [@BarabasiAL2005; @MalmgrenSMA2008]. Recently, we have found that the act of sending messages of individual users in two online communities present long-term correlations [@RybskiBHLM2009] characterized by power-law correlation functions obtained via standard Detrended Fluctuation Analysis.
In the present work we examine the relation between the two empirical findings of broad inter-event time distributions [@BarabasiAL2005; @MalmgrenSMA2008] and the long-term persistence identified in the communication activity [@RybskiBHLM2009]. Therefore, we investigate the communication activity of actants in a social online community with special consideration of the timing and study long-term correlations in the communication as well as clustering of successive messages.
Long-term correlations have been found in the dynamics of many physical, technological, and natural systems. They are characterized by a divergent correlation time, i.e. a power-law decaying auto-correlation function (for a review see [@KantelhardtJW2010]). Such correlations lead to a pronounced mountain-valley-structure on all time scales – comprising indeterministic epochs of small and large values [@makse-pre]. This type of persistence represents a surprising regularity since it is present in many different data such as DNA-sequences, human heartbeat, climatological temperature, etc. [@PengBGHSSS1992; @PengMHHSG1993; @KoscielnyBundeBHRGS98]. Long-term persistence in human related data has been reported for highway traffic [@TadakiKNNSSY2006; @XiaoYanZHM2007], Wikipedia access [@KaempfTKM2011], Ethernet traffic [@LelandTWW1994], finance and economy [@LiuGCMPS1999; @MantegnaS1999; @LuxA2002], written language [@SchenkelZZ1993; @KosmidisKA2006], as well as physiological records [@PengMHHSG1993; @IvanovBAHFBSG1999; @BundeHKPPV00], Human brain activity [@LinkenkaerHansenNPI2001; @AllegriniMBFGGWP2009; @brain] and human motor activity [@IvanovHHSS2007] also comprise long-term correlations as well as city growth [@makse-city; @makse-perco; @rozenfeld-pnas; @rozenfeld-aer], biological networks [@galvao] and the spreading of disease [@obesity].
The distributions of inter-event times (times between successive messages) have been found to be rather broad, described by power-laws [@BarabasiAL2005]. If many short intervals are separated by few long ones, the activity as messages per unit time comprises persistence, i.e. epochs of large and small activity. Since such distributions have been described with power-laws, we wish to investigate the relation between the long-term correlations in activity [@RybskiBHLM2009] and the broad (power-law) distribution of inter-event times [@BarabasiAL2005]. We will test two possible scenarios: (i) In the first scenario, the long-term correlations found in the communication activity [@RybskiBHLM2009] result from Levy type distributions, i.e. correlations are only due to the power-law inter-event time distribution (with exponents in the specific range) [@ShlesingerFK1987]. In the second scenario, (ii) the activity comprises ’real’ correlations, i.e. the inter-event time distributions do not follow a power-law, but the communication activity is temporally not independent, namely long-term correlated.
We study the activity of sending messages based on detailed temporal data from a social online community and obtain the long-term correlation exponent $H$ via DFA. The exponent $H$ depends on the overall activity of the members; the more active the members the larger the fluctuation exponents. This exponents reaches a value $H\approx 0.90$ for the most active users from an uncorrelated value $H\approx 0.5$ for the less active ones. Then, we compare the value of $H$ with the corresponding exponents of randomized data and a theoretical prediction relating correlations with clustering in the inter-event times. From the consistency of the comparison of this three measures, we conclude that the long-term correlations found in the activity of sending messages for single users is a direct consequence of the power-law distributed inter-event time of the individuals. Thus, the burstiness in the user activity explains the long-range correlations.
More interesting results are found when we consider the activity of the whole community as a sum of the activity of its members. Again we find non-trivial long-range correlations with exponents $H$ in the same range as the individual users. However, the origin of this correlations is not related to the inter-event activity. This is probed by shuffling the activity data but preserving the distribution of inter-event times. In this case, this shuffling destroys the long-range correlations, implying that the correlations are not a byproduct of the broad distribution of inter-event times. We conclude that the whole system acts as a true long-term correlated system where correlations are not directly related to the Levy distributions of events.
We analyze the data of an online community (www.pussokram.com, POK, [@HolmeP2003; @HolmeLEK2003; @HolmeEL2004]) covering the complete lifetime of the community over $492$days from February 2001 until June 2002. We record the activity among almost $30,000$ members with more than 500,000 messages sent. This internet-site has been used for general social interactions and dating. The data consist of the time when the messages are sent and anonymous identification numbers of the senders and receivers. The data has been analyzed by us in [@RybskiBHLM2009; @RybskiBHLM5b]. In contrast to similar network data sets consisting only of snapshots, i.e. temporally aggregated social networks expressing who sent messages to whom, the advantage of this data set is that it provides the exact time when the messages were sent. For a discussion see [@GallosRLHM2011].
Before shutdown, the members could log in and meet virtually. In such communities, there are different ways of interacting. Usually, it is possible to choose favorites, i.e. certain members, that a person somehow feels committed to. Such platforms also offer the possibility to discuss in groups with other members about specific topics. We focus on messages sent among the members – they are similar to e-mails but have the advantage that they are sent within a closed community where there are no messages coming from or going outside. Figure \[fig:pokillu\] illustrates patterns of sending messages for typical single users \[a-d\] and for the whole community \[e\]. The data is publically available. We would like to note that we do not consider here the QX dataset which we analyzed in [@RybskiBHLM2009; @RybskiBHLM5b], since it covers only $2$ months and the scaling of the distribution of inter-event times is not reliable and we could not measure the shape of this distribution consistently.
Results {#sec:analysis .unnumbered}
=======
Study of correlations in individual activity {#study-of-correlations-in-individual-activity .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------
Applying DFA [@PengBHSSG94; @BundeHKPPV00; @KantelhardtKRHB01] we have found in [@RybskiBHLM2009; @RybskiBHLM5b] that the individual activity records, $x(t)$, i.e. messages per unit time (records of messages per day or per week), exhibit long-term correlations. The fluctuation function provided by DFA scales as $$F(\Delta t)\sim (\Delta t)^H,
\label{dfa}$$ where the exponent $H$ is also known as the Hurst exponent. In the case of long-term correlations – which are characterized by a power-law decaying auto-correlation function: $$\begin{aligned}
C(\Delta t) & = & \frac{1}{\sigma_x^2}\left\langle
\left[x(t)-\langle x(t)\rangle\right]
\left[x(t+\Delta t)-\langle x(t)\rangle\right]
\right\rangle \nonumber \\
& \sim & (\Delta t)^{-\gamma} \nonumber
\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle \cdot \rangle$ denotes the average, $\sigma_x$ is standard deviation of $x(t)$, and $\gamma$ is the correlation exponent ($0\le\gamma\le 1$) – one finds $1/2\le H\le 1$, whereas larger exponents correspond to more pronounced long-term correlations. For uncorrelated or short-term correlated records ($\gamma \ge 1$, or in general $\gamma \ge d$, $d$ is the substrate dimension) the asymptotic fluctuation exponent is $H=1/2$. In the range $0 \le \gamma \le 1$ both exponents are related via $$\label{eq:h1g2}
\gamma=2-2H
\, .$$ For an overview, we refer to [@KantelhardtKRHB01; @KantelhardtJW2010]. DFA$n$ removes polynomial trends of the order $n-1$ from the original record $x(t)$, i.e. DFA2 copes with linear trends.
It is important to note that the DFA fluctuation function Eq. (\[dfa\]) is not applied to the activity $x(t)$, but to the integrated signal $y(t) = \sum^t x(t')$. Thus $x(t)$ would be the analogous to the steps in a random walk and $y(t)$ the displacement. DFA incorporates an additional detrending of the data. The integration leads to the appearance of long range correlation when the interval between each step is power-law distributed. We will come back to this result when explaining the long-term correlations in terms of the burstiness.
We have measured the fluctuation exponents by applying least squares fits to $\log F(\Delta t)$ vs. $\log \Delta t$ on the scales $10<\Delta t<70$weeks conditional to the member’s activity level, e.g. their total number of messages, $M$ [@RybskiBHLM2009]. Figure \[fig:dfaaveallbinfitiet\] depicts the DFA results. We find that the less active members, sending only one or two messages in the period of data acquisition, exhibit uncorrelated behavior. The more messages the members send, the more correlated is their activity. The fluctuation exponent $H$ increases with $M$ and reaches values up to $H=0.91 \pm 0.04$ (value obtained for sending messages, we disregard the last points, $M>400$, which have too large errors bars). The uncorrelated behavior– $H\approx 0.5$– for small activity can be understood since when $M\approx 1-10$ there is not enough time in the data acquisition window to capture long-term correlations. In [@RybskiBHLM5b] we propose a model which reproduces the dependence of the fluctuation exponents on the activity level of the members. For receiving messages we find almost identical results [@RybskiBHLM5b]. We use weekly resolution in order to cope with possible weekly oscillations [@GolderWH2006; @LeskovecH2008; @MalmgrenSMA2008; @MalmgrenSCA2009].
Similar long-term correlations have been found in [@EislerK2006; @EislerBK2008] in traded values of stocks and e-mail communication. The fluctuation exponent increases with the mean trading activity of the corresponding stock or with the average number of e-mails similarly as in our results.
Study of clustering in individual activity {#study-of-clustering-in-individual-activity .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------
The timing of human communication activity has been found to comprise bursts where many events occur in relatively short periods which are separated by long periods with few or no events at all. Such patterns can be characterized with the inter-event times, i.e. the times, ${\rm
d}t$, between successive messages. For e-mail communication it has been argued that their probability density follows a power-law, $$\label{eq:pdtdelta}
P({\rm d}t)\sim ({\rm d}t)^{-\mu}
\, ,$$ with exponent $\mu\approx 1$ [@BarabasiAL2005; @JohansenA2004; @JohansenA2006]. As an origin for such heavy tails in human dynamics a queuing model has been suggested [@BarabasiAL2005] according to which each individual performs tasks from a priority list. It has been confirmed that such a process can reproduce bursts of activity or clustering, see e.g. [@VazquezA2005; @VazquezODGKB2006]. In contrast, analyzing the same e-mail data, a log-normal distribution has been found to be more appropriate to describe the inter-event time distribution [@StoufferMA2005; @BarabasiGV2005]. We would like to remark that fitting fat tailed distributions is disputed [@NewmanM2005; @GabaixI2006; @ClausetRSN2007; @MalevergnePS2009]. There is neither a consensus on a typical functional form nor on a proper fitting technique. Recently, a cascading Poisson process based on daily and weekly cycles has been proposed as origin of slower-than-exponential decays of $P({\rm d}t)$ [@MalmgrenSMA2008; @MalmgrenSCA2009]. We studied the cascading Poisson process in [@RybskiBHLM5b].
In [@GohB2008], memory in the sequences of ${\rm d}t$ has been studied for different data sets, characterizing the inter-event times in terms of a burstiness parameter, which is based on the distribution, and in terms of a memory coefficient, which is the auto-correlation function at lag $1$. In addition, the authors locate the corresponding data sets in a phase diagram defined by these two quantities. Nevertheless, we would like to note that the quantification of long-term correlations in the ${\rm d}t$ can be hindered by noise [@EichnerKBH2007; @LennartzB2009].
Next, we study the POK data, i.e. the inter-event times ${\rm d}t$ between successive messages of individual members, and relate their statistics to the long-term correlations. The finding of long-term correlations opens the question of the origin of such a persistence pattern in the social communication. From a statistical physics point of view, we consider two possible scenarios:
1. In the first scenario, the intervals between the messages follow a power-law [@BarabasiAL2005; @GersteinM1964]. Accordingly, the activity pattern comprises many short intervals and few long ones, implying persistent epochs of small and large activity. This fractal-like clustering in the activity can – depending on the exponent – lead to long-term correlations with $H>1/2$ (see the analogous problem of the origin of long-term correlations in DNA sequences as discussed in [@BuldyrevGHPSS1993]). This scenario implies a direct link between the correlations in the activity and the distribution of inter-event times which can be obtained analytically [@BuldeyrevSV2010]. We call this scenario “Levy correlations” since the actual activity may not be correlated per-se, but correlations arise as a byproduct of integrating a signal with a power-law distribution of inter-events in the DFA formalism.
2. In the second scenario, the intervals between the messages may or may not follow a power-law distribution, but the values of the inter-event times are not independent of each other and comprise ’real’ long-term persistence. For example, the distribution of inter-event times could be stretched exponential (see recent work on the study of extreme events of climatological records exhibiting long-term correlations [@BundeEKH2005; @EichnerKBH2007]) and then the only way to explain long-term correlations in the activity are correlations in the inter-event times. We call this scenario “true correlations” since the correlations are not related to the distribution of inter-events but they reflect ’real’ correlations in the dynamics of the communication activity.
A possible way to discern between these two scenarios is to shuffle the temporal activity, keeping the inter-event distribution intact. While in the case of Levy type correlations shuffling the inter-event times should not influence the long-term correlation properties of $x(t)$, in the case of ’real’ long-term correlations shuffling the inter-event times should destroy the (asymptotic) long-term correlations since the memory is due to the arrangement of the inter-event times. In what follows, we investigate the activity of individual members and the activity of the whole POK community.
Study of inter-event distribution of individual members {#study-of-inter-event-distribution-of-individual-members .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:dfaaveallbinfitiet\] exhibits the fluctuation exponents for individual members when we shuffle the data but preserve the distribution of inter-event times. The corresponding exponents also reach high values, almost as high as for the original data, and do not drop for very active members. This agreement is a first indication of Levy correlations in single user activity.
Further evidence is found by studying the distribution of inter-event times in the activity of each individual. Figure \[fig:ietall\] shows the probability density, $P({\rm d}t)$, of times between messages of the same users sent in the online community. A power-law regime of approximately two decades can be seen with an exponent $\mu\approx
1.5$, which differs from the exponent reported for e-mail communication [@BarabasiAL2005; @JohansenA2006], i.e. $\mu\approx
1$. A reason for these different findings might be that in the case of [@BarabasiAL2005] only one user is considered and that $\mu$ depends on the activity level of the users, as we show below. In addition, here we study all messages from a closed community. The exponent we find is closer to the one reported for reply times (waiting times), i.e. the time individuals spend between receiving and sending to the same communication partner. For reply times of e-mails and land mail $\mu_{\rm w}\approx 1.5$ has been reported [@BarabasiAL2005; @OliveiraB2005].
Since we found a dependence of the fluctuation exponent $H$ on the activity level $M$, i.e. the total number of messages each member sends, we suspect that also $\mu$ might depend on $M$. Thus, in Fig. \[fig:oc2iet\] we plot for sending messages in POK (daily resolution) the $P({\rm d}t)$ for groups of different activities, i.e. different total number of messages $M$. We find that for the most active members $P({\rm d}t)$ decays rather steeply, while for the least active members $P({\rm d}t)$ decays much slowly. Due to the finite size of the data it is not quite clear which functional form the curves follow. If one assumes a power-law decay then the exponents are roughly in the range $1\le\mu\le 3$.
As discussed above, the power-law distribution of inter-event times, Eq. (\[eq:pdtdelta\]), can lead to long-term correlations in activity, without requiring temporal dependencies between the intervals themselves. It can be shown that the long-term persistence properties of this point process are characterized by the fluctuation exponent which theoretically depends on $\mu$ according to [@ShlesingerFK1987; @ThurnerLFHFT1997; @AllegriniMBFGGWP2009; @BuldeyrevSV2010]: $$\label{eq:hdelta}
H_\mu=
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
\mu/2 & \mbox{ for }1<\mu<2\\
2-\mu/2 & \mbox{ for }2<\mu<3\\
1/2 & \mbox{ else}
\end{array}\right.
\, ,$$ see Fig. \[fig:prediction\]. Apart from detrending, DFA provides an integration of the original record. So if there are long periods of no activity due to power-law inter-event times, then, this is reflected in long persistence in the signal calculated by DFA. Thus, the existence of long-term correlations is due to the long periods distributed via Levy distributions as expressed by the direct relation between correlations and Levy inter-event activity, Eq. (\[eq:hdelta\]).
Applying least squares fits (in the straight range) to the $P({\rm
d}t)$ for sending in POK (Fig. \[fig:oc2iet\]) we obtain values for $\mu$ as a function of the activity level $M$ and determine the corresponding fluctuation exponents, $H_\mu$, as expected from Eq. (\[eq:hdelta\]). We would like to note that the curves in Fig. \[fig:oc2iet\] are not always straight lines leading to large uncertainty regarding the estimated values of $\mu$.
Figure \[fig:dfaaveallbinfitiet\] depicts the fluctuation exponents $H_\mu$ from Eq. (\[eq:hdelta\]) in comparison with the values obtained from DFA. We find $H\approx H_\mu$ for a big part of the $M$ range. The exponents $H_\mu$ are also close to $H$ of the shuffled records where the inter-event times are preserved. The fact that when we shuffle the signal, respecting the corresponding distribution of inter-event, gives rise to the same correlation function, indicates that the origin of the long-term correlation obtained in DFA are due to the Levy correlations. This is further corroborated by the agreement between $H$ from DFA and the prediction $H_\mu$. From Fig. \[fig:dfaaveallbinfitiet\] we see that the three curves are in a reasonable agreement. This supports that the correlations in single user activity can be due to the power-law distribution of the inter-event times, which is in favor of Levy type correlations.
Study of whole community activity {#study-of-whole-community-activity .unnumbered}
---------------------------------
Next, we investigate the activity of the community as a whole. While we have studied the activity of single users, it is of interest to investigate the activity of the whole community by considering the number of messages sent by all members in a specified period of time. Figure \[fig:pokillu\](e) shows such activity temporally aggregated to one day. The interest arises since we would like to test the existence of correlations arising from collective behavior in the communication patterns at the level of the whole community.
For this study, we disregard who sends the messages to whom and only consider the instants when any message was sent. In order to have a sufficiently long record to apply DFA, we aggregate the data to messages per hour (instead of daily or weekly resolution). As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:pokillu\](e), the record contains oscillations [@MalmgrenSMA2008]. Since such periodicities lead to erratic fluctuation functions [@KantelhardtKRHB01], we subtract the hourly averages over all days: $x_{\rm tot}(t) \rightarrow x_{\rm tot}(t)-
\langle x_{\rm tot}\rangle_{t\,{\rm mod}\,24}$.
The DFA fluctuation functions are shown in Fig. \[fig:pokrecall3600seadfa\]. The hump on scales around $20$ hours in the results of DFA1 and DFA2 are residual oscillations, i.e. they were not completely removed. On larger scales this effect vanishes and we find a fluctuation exponent $H_{\rm tot}\approx
0.9$. The straight line in the case of DFA0 is due to the fact that the maximum exponent is 1 [@KantelhardtKRHB01]. More importantly, when the record of the whole community is shuffled but preserving the inter-event distribution, the asymptotic scaling is $F\sim (\Delta
t)^{1/2}$. That is, in contrast to the result for individual activity, when the shuffle the signal of the whole community, we obtain the uncorrelated exponent: $H\simeq 0.5$ (dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:pokrecall3600seadfa\]). The fact that the correlations vanish ($H=0.9$ $\rightarrow$ $H=0.5$) when the data is shuffled indicates that the long-term correlations found in the activity of the community as a whole are not due to Levy correlations. Instead, correlations in the whole community are “true correlations” appearing as a manifestation of collective behavior of the scale of the entire community.
Another surprise appears when we calculate the distribution of inter-event times for the whole community. Here we define inter-event the time between the sending of two consecutive messages of any member in the community. This contrasts with the same study done at the single user level (Fig. \[fig:oc2iet\]) when inter-event is defined as the time between two events of the same user. In a sense, $P({\rm d}t)$ for the entire community captures the collective behavior emerging from the entire community as the information travels through the whole network.
In Fig. \[fig:pokietalldathst\] the resulting probability density is displayed. We find a plateau up to $50$ seconds followed by a power-law decay according to Eq. (\[eq:pdtdelta\]) with $\mu\approx
2.25$. Thus, the distribution of inter-event activity of the community as a whole is also a Levy type like the single user activity, albeit with a larger exponent. Such a larger exponent reflects the fact that $P({\rm d}t)$ is narrower for the community than for the individuals, as expected.
When we convert the exponent $\mu\approx 2.25$ to the $H_\mu$ through the Levy distribution model, Eq. (\[eq:hdelta\]), we find $H_\mu\approx 0.88$. Thus surprisingly, Eq. (\[eq:hdelta\]) may also explain the persistence as in the individual activity. However, the main evidence of Fig. \[fig:pokrecall3600seadfa\], that is, the fact that the correlations vanish when we shuffle the data, probe that, even if Eq. (\[eq:hdelta\]) provides a good estimation of $H$, the long-term correlations are due to ’real’ correlations and are not an artifact of the integration of a Levy type activity with DFA.
The long-term correlations found in the behavior of the entire community is more understandable than in the activity of single members, since the activity of the community is based on the communication patterns of the messages and information flowing through the whole system. The existence of $H\approx 0.9$ at the whole level and the indications that the correlations are real ones is an interesting instance of the emergence of critical behavior in the collective dynamics of the system as a whole.
We conclude that while at the individual level we find Levy correlations, the activity of the whole community comprises ’real’ correlations, which is due to the (possibly correlated) superposition of the individuals activity into a collective self-organized information flow in the system. Such a behavior is reminiscent of critical systems in phase transitions.
Discussion {#sec:conclusions .unnumbered}
==========
We have studied the timing of communication in a social online community and find long-term persistence in the activity of sending messages at the single user level and the whole community level. Furthermore, we have addressed the question of the origin of these long-term correlations and whether these are Levy type or ’real’ correlations. While in the case of Levy type correlations the inter-event times need to be power-law distributed, ’real’ long-term correlations are independent of the distributions, since they are due to interdependencies in the activities.
Our work, then, still leaves unanswered the question of the cause of the long-term persistence in the communication patterns at the whole level. One possibility is that the temporal correlations are related to correlations in the network structure [@KentsisA2006; @RybskiRK2010]. The persistence could also be due to social effects, i.e. the dynamics in the social network [@StehleBB2010] induces persistent fluctuations, such as cascades. An example could be that a group of friends tries to make an appointment and therefore sends many subsequent messages in a relatively short time [@PallaBV2007]. After agreeing, the communication activity among the group drops. The activity patterns of individuals could be understood as a superposition of many such cascades. On the other hand, it could be purely due to a state of mind [@AllegriniMBFGGWP2009], solipsistic, emerging from moods. More research is needed to thoroughly understand the interesting properties of human activity and its motives.
In conclusion, we have determined $3$ exponents to characterize communication activity: (i) $H$, the fluctuation exponent of the original data, (ii) $H_{\rm shuf}$, the fluctuation exponent when the data is shuffled preserving the inter-event times, (iii) $H_\mu$, the fluctuation exponent which is expected from power-law distributed inter-event times. We find that $H\approx H_{\rm shuf}\approx
H_\mu\approx 0.9$ which supports the hypothesis of Levy correlations in the single user activity, while we find $H\approx 0.9 \ne H_{\rm
shuf}\approx 0.5$ for the collective behavior of the whole community revealing non-trivial long-term correlations and self-organization at the level of the whole system.
We should mention a third scenario which we leave for future work. It is possible that the correlations comprise more complex features. It has been shown that nonlinear correlations in multifractal data sets lead to power-law distributed inter-event times (of peaks over threshold) [@BogachevEB2007]. In fact, the authors of [@BogachevEB2007] find in their Fig. 1(c) a similar dependence of $\mu$ on the total number of events as we do for $H_\mu$ in our Fig. \[fig:dfaaveallbinfitiet\]. Additional analysis is needed to fully characterize the multifractal properties [@KantelhardtZKHBS02; @KantelhardtRZBKLHB03; @KantelhardtKBRBBH2005] of communication activity via e-mails or messages in online communities.
[10]{}
D. Brockmann, L. Hufnagel, and T. Geisel. The scaling laws of human travel. , 439(7075):462–465, 2006.
M. C. Gonzalez, C. A. Hidalgo, and A.-L. Barab[á]{}si. Understanding individual human mobility patterns. , 453(7196):779–782, 2008.
A.-L. Barab[á]{}si. The origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics. , 435(7039):207–211, 2005.
R. D. Malmgren, D. B. Stouffer, A. E. Motter, and L. A. N. Amaral. A poissonian explanation for heavy tails in e-mail communication. , 105(47):18153–18158, 2008.
D. Rybski, S. V. Buldyrev, S. Havlin, F. Liljeros, and H. A. Makse. Scaling laws of human interaction activity. , 106(31):12640–12645, 2009.
J. W. Kantelhardt. , chapter entry 00620: Fractal and Multifractal Time Series. Springer, 2009.
H. A. Makse, S. Havlin, M. Schwartz, and H. E. Stanley. Method for generating long-range correlations for large systems. , 53:5445–5449, 1996.
C.-K. Peng, S. V. Buldyrev, A. L. Goldberger, S. Havlin, F. Sciortino, M. Simons, and H. E. Stanley. Long-range correlations in nucleotide sequences. , 356(6365):168–170, 1992.
C.-K. Peng, J. Mietus, J. M. Hausdorff, S. Havlin, H. E. Stanley, and A. L. Goldberger. Long-range anticorrelations and non-gaussian behavior of the heartbeat. , 70(9):1343–1346, 1993.
E. Koscielny-Bunde, A. Bunde, S. Havlin, H. E. Roman, Y. Goldreich, and H.-J. Schellnhuber. Indication of a universal persistence law governing atmospheric variability. , 81(3):729–732, 1998.
S. Tadaki, M. Kikuchi, A. Nakayama, K. Nishinari, A. Shibata, Y. Sugiyama, and S. Yukawa. Power-law fluctuation in expressway traffic flow: Detrended fluctuation analysis. , 75(3):034002, 2006.
Z. Xiao-Yan, L. Zong-Hua, and T. Ming. Detrended fluctuation analysis of traffic data. , 24(7):2142–2145, 2007.
M. Kämpf, S. Tismer, J. W. Kantelhardt, and L. Muchnik. Burst event and return interval statistics in wikipedia access and edit data. , 2011.
W. E. Leland, M. S. Taqqu, W. Willinger, and D. V. Wilson. On the self-similar nature of ethernet traffic (extended version). , 2(1):1–15, 1994.
Y. Liu, P. Gopikrishnan, P. Cizeau, M. Meyer, C.-K. Peng, and H. E. Stanley. Statistical properties of the volatility of price fluctuations. , 60(2):1390–1400, 1999.
R. N. Mantegna and H. E. Stanley. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
F. Lux and M. Ausloos. , chapter 13. Market Fluctuations I: Scaling, Multiscaling, and Their Possible Origins, pages 373–409. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002.
A. Schenkel, J. Zhang, and Y.-C. Zhang. Long range correlations in human writings. , 1(1):47–57, 1993.
K. Kosmidis, A. Kalampokis, and P. Argyrakis. Language time series analysis. , 370(2):808–816, 2006.
P. Ch. Ivanov, A. Bunde, L. A. N. Amaral, S. Havlin, J. Fritsch-Yelle, R. M. Baevsky, H. E. Stanley, and A. L. Goldberger. Sleep-wake differences in scaling behavior of the human heartbeat: Analysis of terrestrial and long-term space flight data. , 48(5):594–600, 1999.
A. Bunde, S. Havlin, J. W. Kantelhardt, T. Penzel, J.-H. Peter, and K. Voigt. Correlated and uncorrelated regions in heart-rate fluctuations during sleep. , 85(17):3736–3739, 2000.
K. Linkenkaer-Hansen, V. V. Nikouline, J. M. Palva, and R. J. Ilmoniemi. Long-range temporal correlations and scaling behavior in human brain oscillations. , 21(4):1370–1377, 2001.
P. Allegrini, D. Menicucci, R. Bedini, L. Fronzoni, A. Gemignani, P. Grigolini, B. J. West, and P. Paradisi. Spontaneous brain activity as a source of ideal $ 1/f $ noise. , 80(6):061914, 2009.
L. K. Gallos, H. A. Makse, and M. Sigman. A small-world of weak ties provides optimal global integration of self-similar modules in functional brain networks. , 109:2825–2830, 2012.
P. Ch. Ivanov, K. Hu, M. F. Hilton, S. A. Shea, and H. E. Stanley. Endogenous circadian rhythm in human motor activity uncoupled from circadian influences on cardiac dynamics. , 104(52):20702–20707, 2007.
H. A. Makse, S. Havlin, and H. E. Stanley. Modelling urban growth patterns. , 377:608–612, 1995.
H. A. Makse, J. S. Andrade, M. Batty, S. Havlin, and H. E. Stanley. Modeling urban growth patterns with correlated percolation. , 58:7054–7062, 1998.
H. D. Rozenfeld, D. Rybski, J. S. Andrade Jr., M. Batty, H. E. Stanley, and H. A. Makse. Laws of population growth. , 105:18702–18707, 2008.
H. D. Rozenfeld, D. Rybski, and H. A. Gabaix, X. Makse. The area and population of cities: New insights from a different perspective on cities. , 101:560–580, 2011.
G. Galvao, J. G. V. Miranda, R. F. S. Andrade, J. S. Andrade Jr., L. K. Gallos, and H. A. Makse. Modularity map of the network of humn cell differentiation. , 107:5750–5755, 2010.
L. K. Gallos, P. Barttfeld, S. Havlin, M. Sigman, and H. A. Makse. Collective behavior in the spatial spreading of obesity. , 2012.
M. F. Shlesinger, B. J. West, and J. Klafter. Lévy dynamics of enhanced diffusion: Application to turbulence. , 58(11):1100–1103, 1987.
P. Holme. Network dynamics of ongoing social relationships. , 64(3):427–433, 2003.
P. Holme, F. Liljeros, C. R. Edling, and B. J. Kim. Network bipartivity. , 68(5):056107, 2003.
P. Holme, C. R. Edling, and F. Liljeros. Structure and time evolution of an internet dating community. , 26(2):155–174, 2004.
D. Rybski, S. V. Buldyrev, S. Havlin, F. Liljeros, and H. A. Makse. Communication activity in social networks: growth and correlations. , 84(1):147–159, 2011.
L. K. Gallos, D. Rybski, F. Liljeros, S. Havlin, and H. A. Makse. How people interact in evolving online affiliation networks. , 2011.
C.-K. Peng, S. V. Buldyrev, S. Havlin, M. Simons, H. E. Stanley, and A. L. Goldberger. Mosaic organization of dna nucleotides. , 49(2):1685–1689, 1994.
J. W. Kantelhardt, E. Koscielny-Bunde, H. H. A. Rego, S. Havlin, and A. Bunde. Detecting long-range correlations with detrended fluctuation analysis. , 295(3–4):441–454, 2001.
S. Golder, D. M. Wilkinson, and B. A. Huberman. Rhythms of social interaction: messaging within a massive online network. , arXiv:cs/0611137v1 \[cs.CY\], 2006.
J. Leskovec and E. Horvitz. Planetary-scale views on an instant-messaging network. , arXiv:0803.0939v1 \[physics.soc-ph\], 2008.
R. D. Malmgren, D. B. Stouffer, A. S. L. O. Campanharo, and L. A .N Amaral. On universality in human correspondence activity. , 325(5948):1696–1700, 2009.
Z. Eisler and J. Kertész. Scaling theory of temporal correlations and size-dependent fluctuations in the traded value of stocks. , 73(4):046109, 2006.
Z. Eisler, I. Bartos, and J. Kertész. Fluctuation scaling in complex systems: Taylor’s law and beyond. , 57(1):89–142, 2008.
A. Johansen. Probing human response times. , 338(1–2):286–291, 2004.
A. Johansen. Comment on [A]{}.-[L]{}. [B]{}arabasi, [N]{}ature [**435**]{} 207-211 (2005). , arXiv:physics/0602029v1 \[physics.soc-ph\], 2006.
A. Vázquez. Exact results for the barabasi model of human dynamics. , 95(24):248701, 2005.
A. Vázquez, J. G. Oliveira, Z. Dezsö, K. I. Goh, I. Kondor, and A.-L. Barabási. Modeling bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics. , 73(3):036127, 2006.
D. B. Stouffer, R. D. Malmgren, and L. A. N. Amaral. Comment on “[T]{}he origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics” by [B]{}arabasi, [N]{}ature [**435**]{}, 207 (2005). , arXiv:physics/0510216v1 \[physics.data-an\], 2005.
A.-L. Barabási, K.-I. Goh, and A. Vazquez. Reply to comment on “the origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics”. , arXiv:physics/0511186v1 \[physics.data-an\], 2005.
M. E. J. Newman. Power laws, [P]{}areto distributions and [Z]{}ipf’s law. , 46(5):323–351, 2005.
X. Gabaix and R. Ibragimov. Log(rank-1/2): a simple way to improve the ols estimation of tail exponents. Discussion Paper 2106 (26), Harvard Institute of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, February 2006.
A. Clauset, C. R. Shalizi, and M. E. J. Newman. Power-law distributions in empirical data. , 51(4):661–703, 2009.
Y. Malevergne, V. Pisarenko, and D. Sornette. Gibrat’s law for cities: uniformly most powerful unbiased test of the [P]{}areto against the lognormal. , arXiv:0909.1281v1, 2009.
K.-I. Goh and A.-L. Barab[á]{}si. Burstiness and memory in complex systems. , 81(4):48002, 2008.
J. F. Eichner, J. W. Kantelhardt, A. Bunde, and S. Havlin. Statistics of return intervals in long-term correlated records. , 75(1):011128, 2007.
S. Lennartz and A. Bunde. Eliminating finite-size effects and detecting the amount of white noise in short records with long-term memory. , 79(6):066101, 2009.
G. L. Gerstein and B. Mandelbrot. Random walk models for spike activity of single neuron. , 4(1P1):41–68, 1964.
S. V. Buldyrev, A. L. Goldberger, S. Havlin, C.-K. Peng, M. Simons, and H. E. Stanley. Generalized [L]{}évy-walk model for [DNA]{} nucleotide sequences. , 47(6):4514–4523, 1993.
S. V. Buldyrev. , volume Fractals and multifractals, chapter Fractals in Biology. Springer, 2010.
A. Bunde, J. F. Eichner, J. W. Kantelhardt, and S. Havlin. Long-term memory: A natural mechanism for the clustering of extreme events and anomalous residual times in climate records. , 94(4):048701, 2005.
J. G. Oliveira and A.-L. Barab[á]{}si. arwin and [E]{}instein correspondence patterns. , 437(7063):1251–1251, 2005.
S. Thurner, S. B. Lowen, M. C. Feurstein, C. Heneghan, H. G. Feichtinger, and M. C. Teich. Analysis, synthesis, and estimation of fractal-rate stochastic point processes. , 5(4):565–595, 1997.
A. Kentsis. Mechanisms and models of human dynamics. , 441(7092):E5–E5, 2006.
D. Rybski, H. D. Rozenfeld, and J. P. Kropp. Quantifying long-range correlations in complex networks beyond nearest neighbors. , 90(2):28002, 2010.
J. Stehle, A. Barrat, and G. Bianconi. Dynamical and bursty interactions in social networks. , 81(3):035101, 2010.
G. Palla, A.-L. Barab[á]{}si, and T. Vicsek. Quantifying social group evolution. , 446(7136):664–667, 2007.
M. I. Bogachev, J. F. Eichner, and A. Bunde. Effect of nonlinear correlations on the statistics of return intervals in multifractal data sets. , 99(24):240601, 2007.
J. W. Kantelhardt, S. A. Zschiegner, E. Koscielny-Bunde, S. Havlin, A. Bunde, and H. E. Stanley. Multifractal detrended fluctuation analysis of nonstationary time series. , 316(1–4):87–114, 2002.
J. W. Kantelhardt, D. Rybski, S. A. Zschiegner, P. Braun, E. Koscielny-Bunde, V. Livina, S. Havlin, and A. Bunde. Multifractality of river runoff and precipitation: comparison of fluctuation analysis and wavelet methods. , 330(1–2):240–245, 2003.
J. W. Kantelhardt, E. Koscielny-Bunde, D. Rybski, P. Braun, A. Bunde, and S. Havlin. Long-term persistence and multifractality of precipitation and river runoff records. , 111(D1):D01106, 2006.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank C. Briscoe, J.F. Eichner, L.K. Gallos, and H.D. Rozenfeld for useful discussions. This work was supported by National Science Foundation Grants NSF-SES-0624116 and NSF-EF-0827508 and ARL. F.L. acknowledges financial support from The Swedish Bank Tercentenary Foundation. S.H. thanks the European EPIWORK project, the Israel Science Foundation, ONR and DTRA for financial support.
Author contributions {#author-contributions .unnumbered}
====================
All authors contributed equally to the work presented in this paper.
Additional information {#additional-information .unnumbered}
======================
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
FIG. \[fig:pokillu\]. Examples of activity of sending messages and overall activity in POK. The vertical lines in (a) and (c) represent the instants when the messages have been sent by two arbitrary members. The panels (b) and (d) show the records of number of messages per day, $x(t)$, of the same two members. The record of the total number of messages sent by all members per day within POK is depicted in (e). (a) and (b): member 326 ($M=1023$); (c) and (d): member 9414 ($M=100$).
FIG. \[fig:dfaaveallbinfitiet\]. Fluctuation exponents of the communication activity sending messages. The exponents are plotted as a function of the activity level $M$ (final number of messages) for the original data (green circles), shuffled data preserving the individual inter-event times (blue squares), as well as the exponents expected from Eq. (\[eq:hdelta\]) (brown triangles down) and from the distribution of inter-event times as characterized by power-law fits to the curves of Fig. \[fig:oc2iet\] providing the exponent $\mu$.
FIG. \[fig:ietall\]. Probability density of inter-event times ${\rm d}t$ between successive messages sent by a single member of POK, in daily resolution. The values are extracted by considering every single individual sending messages in the period of data acquisition and then joined from all members. The dotted line in the top corresponds to the exponent $\mu=1.5$.
FIG. \[fig:oc2iet\]. Probability density of inter-event times ${\rm d}t$ between successive messages sent by all individual members of POK in daily resolution. The values are extracted for the individuals and unified among members according to their activity level $M$. The curve for the most active members is in the bottom, while the one for the least active is in the top. The dotted lines correspond to the exponents $-1$ (top) and $-3$ (bottom).
FIG. \[fig:prediction\]. Levy correlations and persistence. Theoretical relation between the inter-event time distribution exponent $\mu$ and the fluctuation exponent $H_\mu$ according to Eq. (\[eq:hdelta\]).
FIG. \[fig:pokrecall3600seadfa\]. Fluctuation function of the record of messages sent by any member of POK. The record is the same as in Fig. \[fig:pokillu\](e) but in hourly resolution. Prior to applying DFA, the record has been deseasoned according to $x_{\rm
tot}(t) \rightarrow x_{\rm tot}(t)-\langle x_{\rm
tot}\rangle_{t\%24}$. The different curves differ in the DFA-order (DFA0-DFA2, from top to bottom), which determines the capability of detrending. DFA2 eliminates linear trends in $x_{\rm tot}(t)$ [@KantelhardtKRHB01]. The dotted line in the bottom corresponds to a power-law with exponent $H=0.5$ and serves as guide to the eye while the continuous line at the top represents $H=0.9$.
FIG. \[fig:pokietalldathst\]. Probability density of inter-event times ${\rm d}t$ between successive messages sent by any member of POK in seconds. The dotted straight line has corresponds to a power-law with exponent $\mu=-2.25$ and serves as guide to the eye.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The interplay of topological constraints and Coulomb interactions in static and dynamic properties of charged polymers is investigated by numerical simulations and scaling arguments. In the absence of screening, the long-range interaction localizes irreducible topological constraints into tight molecular knots, while composite constraints are factored and separated. Even when the forces are screened, tight knots may survive as local (or even global) equilibria, as long as the overall rigidity of the polymer is dominated by the Coulomb interactions. As entanglements involving tight knots are not easy to eliminate, their presence greatly influences the relaxation times of the system. In particular, we find that tight knots in open polymers are removed by diffusion along the chain, rather than by opening up. The knot diffusion coefficient actually decreases with its charge density, and for highly charged polymers the knot’s position appears frozen.'
author:
- 'Paul G. Dommersnes'
- Yacov Kantor
- Mehran Kardar
title: Knots in Charged Polymers
---
Introduction
============
A polymer chain can be easily deformed, but since it cannot cross itself, it is subject to topological constraints. These constraints can be temporary, such as entanglements between linear polymers, or permanent if the chains are closed (ring polymers) or cross-linked. Understanding the influence of topological entanglements on static and dynamic properties of polymers is a long-standing issue [@degennesSC; @edwards], which has recently found renewed interest in the context of [*knotted biopolymers*]{}. DNA in the cell can change its topology by the [*topoisomerase*]{} enzymes that pass one strand through another, in the process either creating or removing knots [@topo]. Synthetic RNA trefoil knots have been used to prove the existence of a similar (previously unknown) topology changing enzyme [@wang]. There is also much interest in developing artificial biopolymers, for example as molecular building blocks or for DNA-based computing, and in this quest complex knots and links have been created in both [*single*]{} and [*double*]{} stranded DNA [@seeman]. Tight knots have been tied in single molecule experiments on both DNA and actin filaments using optical tweezers [@arai].
Several theoretical approaches have addressed the influence of topological constraints in polymer networks and solutions. In particular, the [*tube*]{} model [@edwards] in which the constraints are replaced by a hard confining tube, is quite successful in predicting relaxation dynamics of polymeric solutions. In a complementary approach, topological constraints are described in terms of [*localized*]{} entanglements or knots, that perform collective motions along the polymers [@iwata]. Single molecule experiments are now able to probe polymers of specified topology, and to examine the influence of knot complexity on basic physical properties such as the radius of gyration $R_{\rm g}$. A simple scaling picture [@quake] suggests that $R_{\rm g}$ is reduced as a power of the knot complexity, measured by the minimal number of crossings in a projection. Indeed, a Flory mean field theory of knotted ring polymers [@grosberg; @rabin] incorporating this knot invariant predicts various scaling dependences on knot complexity. A topological localization effect is also suggested, in which knots segregate in a single relatively compact domain while the rest of the polymer ring expels all the entanglements and swells freely. Recent Monte Carlo simulations in Refs. [@guiter; @katrich; @orlandini; @farago] support the idea that entropic factors localize topological constraints. This is bolstered by analytical arguments on slip-linked polymers [@metz], and experiments on vibrated granular chains [@Ben-Naim].
Many biopolymers are highly charged. The effect of electrostatics on knotting probability of double stranded DNA has been studied in the case where the screening length is smaller than the persistence length of the polymer. The effect of the Coulomb interactions is then to renormalize the effective thickness of the polymer [@rybenkov-shaw; @tesi]. However synthetic polymers and single stranded DNA both have an intrinsic persistence length of the order $\ell_{\rm p}\sim 1$nm [@tinland] which could be small compared to the electrostatic screening lengths. In this paper we explore the influence of topological constraints on charged polymers in cases where the screening length is large or comparable to the intrinsic persistence length. In Sec. \[ideal\] we start by considering the idealized case of unscreened Coulomb interactions. This case demonstrates that under long-range interactions the topological constraints are pulled into tight knots. As discussed in Sec. \[real\], this conclusion has to be re-examined in real systems due to finite rigidity of the polymer, thermal fluctuations, and, most importantly, finite screening. Surprisingly, we find that tight knots are rather resilient: They remain as global equilibrium solutions as long as the overall shape of the polymer is dominated by the (screened) Coulomb interactions. Tight knots can also remain as metastable states for shorter screening lengths, as long as the electrostatic bending rigidity is larger than the intrinsic one. Such long-lived tight knots have strong influence on the relaxation dynamics of the polymers as discussed in Sec. \[dynamics\]. In particular, we find that the most likely way for eliminating topological entanglements is by diffusion of tight knots along the chain; interestingly stronger Coulomb interactions lead to tighter knots that are less mobile.
Unscreened interactions {#ideal}
=======================
We first consider a simple model of a charged polymer in which monomers repel each other via [*unscreened*]{} Coulomb interactions. The interaction between two charges $e$, in a solvent with dielectric constant $\varepsilon$, separated by distance $r$ is $e^2/\varepsilon r$, and consequently the overall electrostatic energy of a polymer of $N$ monomers is $V_c=(e^2/\varepsilon)\sum_{i>j}^{N}1/|{\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j|$, where ${\bf r}_i$ is the position of $i$-th monomer. Given a typical separation between adjacent monomers of $a$, it is convenient to introduce the energy scale $\epsilon_o\equiv e^2/\varepsilon a$. Initially, we focus on configurations in which the monomers are locally stretched to form smooth straight segments, gradually curving at a larger length scale $R$ set by the overall shape. For such configurations the Coulomb energy has the form $$\label{Ec}
E_c(N)=\epsilon_o \left[N\ln\left(\frac{R}{a}\right)+c\,\frac{aN^2}{R}\right]\ ,$$ where $c$ is a numerical constant of order unity, and we note the following:
- For any smooth curve, the integral of the $1/r$–potential leads to a logarithmic divergence, and consequently the energy of the polymer is [*overextensive*]{}, and, consequently, the tension on the polymer increases as $\ln N$. Therefore, thermal fluctuations are irrelevant for a sufficiently long polymer, whose shape is determined by minimizing the energy.
- The second term in Eq. \[Ec\] can be regarded as the Coulomb interaction between charges (or order $N$) on remote parts of the polymer (distances of order $R$). Since typically $R\propto Na$, the partition of the energy between the two parts is not precise, and can be changed by redefining $R$.
- The Coulomb interaction prefers to keep the charges far apart, and the polymer minimizes its energy by assuming a shape with maximal $R$. Thus, open polymers simply form straight lines, while unknotted ring-polymers form circles.
![\[trefoil\_tight\]The initial (left) and equilibrium (right) conformations of a 64-monomer charged polymer, at $\tilde{T}=1.4$, forming a trefoil knot. (The right figure is reduced by a factor of 2). ](figA.eps){width="8cm"}
The above argument can be misleading in the case of a knotted polymer, as illustrated in Fig. \[trefoil\_tight\]. Here, we used Monte Carlo (MC) off-lattice simulations to determine the shape of knotted polymers at finite temperature. Our model polymer consisted of hard sphere monomers connected by “tethers”[@KKN] that have no energy but limit the distance of a connected pair to 1.05 of the hard sphere diameter $a$. Fig. \[trefoil\_tight\] depicts the results of a simulation for a trefoil knot: As an initial conformation (left) in this simulation (as well as in the subsequent simulations of more complex knots) we used a harmonic representation [@trautwein] in which coordinates of the monomers are given as polynomials in $\cos(t)$ and $\sin(t)$, where $t$ parametrizes the curve. (This provides a relatively clear visualization of the knot.) Since the hard core and tether potentials do not have an energy scale, the temperature $T$ appears in the simulations in the combination $k_BT/\epsilon_o$, which we will denote as dimensionless temperature $\tilde{T}$. All simulations described in this section were performed for $\tilde{T}=1.4$. It is customary to represent the strength of the electrostatic potential by the [*Bjerrum length*]{} $\ell_B=e^2/\varepsilon k_BT$. (In water at room temperature $\ell_B$=0.7nm.) In our notation, the Bjerrum length is simply related to the dimensionless temperature by $\ell_B\equiv a/\tilde{T}$. (Note that for the moderate values of $N=64$ used in this simulation, the polymer shape on the right of Fig. \[trefoil\_tight\] is somewhat ‘wiggly’; an effect that should disappear for $N\to\infty$ due to the overextensivity of the energy.)
Figure \[trefoil\_tight\] clearly shows that in equilibrium the trefoil assumes an almost circular shape, with the topological details concentrated on a very small portion. (The scale of the right side part of Fig. \[trefoil\_tight\] has in fact been reduced by a factor 2 relative to the left figure, and the actual linear extent of the equilibrated knot is almost twice its initial size.) This behavior can be explained by comparing the long and short-ranged contributions to the Coulomb interaction: By expanding its radius, the long-range part of the Coulomb energy is reduced by a factor of $\delta(N^2/R)\propto N$. This comes at the cost of bringing several charges close together in the tight portion, but the latter energy is independent of $N$, and can be easily tolerated for sufficiently long polymers.
Because of the highly curved portion, Eq. \[Ec\] does not apply to tight knots. For a semi-quantitative understanding of the tension that creates such objects, consider a simpler example of an $N$-monomer closed chain folded into a shape consisting of a large circle of $N-n$ monomers, and a small loop of $n$ monomers, as depicted in Fig. \[simplify\]. For $n\ll N$, the electrostatic energy can be decomposed as $E_c(N-n)+E_c(n)+E_i$, where $E_c$ is given in Eq. \[Ec\], while $E_i$ is the interaction energy between the small loop and the large circle. Assuming that the curved strands are separated by a distance of the order $na$, the latter is of the order of $2\epsilon_on[\ln(N/n)+c']$, where $c'$ is a constant depending on the details of the shape. The leading $n$–dependent part of the total energy is then
$$E(N,n)\simeq \epsilon_o\, n\ln\left(\frac{N}{n}\right) ,
\label{En}$$
representing a tension that grows logarithmically with the length of the polymer. This conclusion is not limited to the shape depicted in Fig. \[simplify\], but should apply to any smooth linear curve consisting of two portions of very different sizes. Equation \[En\] thus indicates that from purely electrostatic energy considerations $n$ should take the smallest possible value, as indeed happens in the case of a tight knot in Fig. \[trefoil\_tight\].
![\[simplify\] A closed loop ($N$–monomer polymer) folded into a shape that can be approximately described as two circles consisting of $N-n$ and $n$ monomers, separated from each other by a distance of order $n$ monomer sizes.](figB.eps){width="8cm"}
![\[prime\_knots\]The initial (left) and equilibrium (right) shapes of knots formed by 128-monomer polymers at $\tilde{T}=1.4$ ($\ell_{\rm B}=0.7a$). A selection of prime knots of varying degrees of complexity is depicted. (The figures in the right column have been scaled down.) The numbers in the left column are the standard notations for knot types.](figC.eps){width="6.2cm"}
The tightness observed for a trefoil knot also occurs in more complicated topologies. Figure \[prime\_knots\] depicts the results of equilibration of 128-monomer polymers beginning from a harmonic shape on the left, to equilibrium shapes (on the right) at $\tilde{T}=1.4$. Below each figure we indicate the type of the knot in the standard notation ${\cal C}_k$, where ${\cal C}$ is the minimal number of crossings the knot can have in a planar projection [@knotbook]. Since for a given number of crossings there can exist several different knots, an additional subscript $k$ labels the standard ordering of these knots. (For ${\cal C}=3$ and 4 there is only one knot, while for ${\cal C}=8$ there are 21 distinct knots [@knotbook].) Despite the increasing topological complexity of the knots in Fig. \[prime\_knots\], their eventual (collapsed-knot) state is reliably represented by the semi-quantitative description based on the energetics of Fig. \[simplify\].
![“Coulomb factorization” of composite knots on a 128-monomer polymer at $\tilde{T}=1.4$. Original (left) and equilibrium (right) configurations (scaled down) are shown.[]{data-label="comp_knot"}](figD.eps){width="8cm"}
The above arguments indicate the energetic advantage of compressing any [*indivisible*]{} topological constraint into a tight shape (as opposed to leaving it as an expanded structure). However, similar considerations suggest that, [*if possible*]{}, any concentrated region of charge should split into smaller elements placed as far as possible from each other. Such a reduction is not possible for the [*prime knots*]{} considered in Fig. \[prime\_knots\], which (by definition) cannot be separated into several parts connected by a single line. In contrast, [*composite knots*]{} are formed by joining several prime factors together, and Fig. \[comp\_knot\] presents initial and final (equilibrium) states of several such knots on 128-monomer polymers. The notation below each knot indicates its constituent prime components. The Coulomb interaction clearly “factorizes” any composite knot, separating its elements as far as possible. However, since the typical interaction energies between the prime factors are only a few $\epsilon_o$, thermal fluctuations ($\tilde{T}=1.4$) in the distances between these tight regions are quite pronounced.
Beyond ‘Ideal’ Knots {#real}
====================
Many of the results in the previous section are in fact known to knot theorists, who have investigated long-range repulsive interactions with the aim of finding a knot-invariant energy [@idealknots; @hoidn]. The basic question is whether a properly scaled energy of the ground state configuration (the [*ideal*]{} state) for certain choices of interaction functions can be used as a means of distinguishing different knot types. An example of such an interaction is Simon’s ‘minimal distance’ between the strands function, or a repulsive $1/r^2$ type interaction [@simon] which produces symmetric spread out ground states. In Ref. [@kusner] it was conjectured that minimizing knot-invariant energies should decompose a knot into prime sub-knots and simulations with $1/r^2$ interactions support this [@kauffman]. Electrostatic interactions do not generate useful knot-invariant energies, since, in the absence of excluded volume interactions, knots on a continuous curve are collapsed to a point [@ohara], providing no (cut-off independent) way of identifying knots. (Indeed, in the simulations of the previous section knots were tightened into compact objects whose extent was determined by the monomer size.) While this conclusion may be disappointing to a knot–theorist, it is encouraging from the perspective of polymer science, since it is easier to describe the properties of tight entanglements, without having to worry about their precise topology. However, this is the case only if we can demonstrate that tight knots survive for realistic polymers subject to electrostatic interactions in actual solvents. Accordingly, in this section we shall include additional attributes present in such situations, and consider the effects of bending rigidity, thermal fluctuations, and (most importantly) of a finite screening length. In these circumstances the size of the knot can be significantly larger than in its maximally tight state; nevertheless, tight knots can still remain.
Bending rigidity {#ell-p}
----------------
Many microscopic aspects of polymers are captured at a mesoscopic scale by a curvature energy, describing its resistance to bending. In a charged polymer one should distinguish between the [*intrinsic*]{} bending rigidity, and an [*effective*]{} rigidity which includes the electrostatic contributions. The latter arises because bending a straight segment brings the monomers closer and thus increases the Coulomb energy. The former can be represented by a length $\ell_p$ at which, in the absence of other interactions, the transverse thermal fluctuations of the polymer become of the same order as the length-scale itself, or at which orientations of the bonds become uncorrelated. Simple analysis relates $\ell_p$ to the bending rigidity $\kappa$ and temperature by $\kappa\equiv k_BT\ell_p$. In charged polymers, $\ell_p$ should be measured in the presence of high salt content, so that electrostatic contributions to rigidity are screened out. It is reasonable that the bending rigidity, rather than monomer size, should determine the size of a tight knot. The energy for bending a segment of length $\ell$, with radius of curvature also of order of $\ell$, is $\kappa/\ell$ with a dimensionless shape-dependent prefactor. For the shape depicted in Fig. \[simplify\], there is now a bending cost of $E_b\approx \kappa/na$ which competes with the electrostatic energy in Eq. \[En\]. By minimizing the sum of these energies, we find that the optimal knot size is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nk}
n_k &\approx& \sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{\epsilon_o \ln (N/n_k)}}
\approx \sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{\epsilon_o \ln(N^2\epsilon_o/\kappa)}}\nonumber \\
&=& \sqrt{\frac{\ell_{\rm p}}{\ell_{\rm B} \ln(N^2\ell_{\rm B}/\ell_{\rm p})}} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where we have omitted numerical prefactors of order unity. This result indicates that the knot in stiff polymers of moderate size $N$ can be as large as $\sqrt{\kappa/\epsilon_o}=\sqrt{\ell_{\rm
p}/\ell_{\rm B}}$, and becomes compact only for $N\sim\exp(\kappa/\epsilon_o)$.
Thermal Fluctuations {#temp}
--------------------
![Equilibrium configurations of a 128-monomer trefoil knot: (a) a tight ($\sim20$ monomer) knot at $\tilde{T}=5$, and (b) an expanded ($\sim60$ monomer) knot at $\tilde{T}=10$.[]{data-label="finite_T_blobs"}](figE.eps){width="8cm"}
At high temperatures, entropic factors (which favor crumpled states) compete with electrostatic effects. While the latter dominate on sufficiently long length-scales, at short length-scales fluctuations are important. This competition can be visualized by a simple [*blob*]{} picture [@degennesSC]. If a strong external force $f$ is applied to a self-avoiding polymer without electrostatic interactions, it is stretched to a linear form. This linear object, however, has a finite width $R_b$, and can be regarded as a chain of blobs of this size. On length–scales shorter than the blob size, the external force has negligible effect, and we can relate $R_b$ to the number of monomers $N_b$ forming the blob via the usual relation for self–avoiding polymers[@degennesSC]: $R_b\approx aN_b^\nu$ with $\nu\approx0.59$. Consequently, the linear extent of the entire polymer is approximately $R_b(N/N_b)$. If a weak force $f$ is applied to a segment of spatial extent $R_b$, that segment is stretched[@degennesSC] by an amount $X\approx R_b^2f/k_BT$. The size of a blob is determined by requirement that $X\approx R_b$, leading to $R_b\approx k_BT/f$. An open charged polymer can also be viewed as a stretched chain formed from such blobs [@degennes76; @pfeuty78], while a ring-polymer is a circle of such blobs. The force stretching a blob in an object of this type is $\epsilon_o a (N_b/R_b)^2\ln(N/N_b)$. By substituting this force into the expression for blob size, and solving it, we extract the number of monomers in each blob as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Nb}
N_b&\approx&\left[\frac{k_BT}{\epsilon_o\ln(N/N_b)}\right]^\frac{1}{2-\nu}
\approx \left[\frac{\tilde{T}}{\ln(N/\tilde{T}^\frac{1}{2-\nu})}\right]^\frac{1}{2-\nu}\nonumber
\\
&=&\left[\frac{a/\ell_{\rm B}}{\ln{N(a/\ell_{\rm B})^\frac{1}{2-\nu}}}\right]^\frac{1}{2-\nu}.\end{aligned}$$ Of course, the blob picture is meaningful only if $N_b$ is larger than unity. Thus blobs can appear only for temperatures $\tilde{T}\gg \ln N$; and for $N=128$ we expect to see the blobs for $\tilde{T}\agt5$. Fig. \[finite\_T\_blobs\] depicts equilibrium shapes of a trefoil knot at $\tilde{T}=5$ and $\tilde{T}=10$, and we see the appearance of a wiggly structure in the higher temperature regime. At such high temperatures, we expect knots to have a size typical of that in a non–charged polymer consisting of $N_b$ monomers. The exact size of the knot region in non–charged polymers in three–dimensional space is not known; simulations suggest that knots are localized [@katrich; @orlandini], but not compact [@farago]. The size of the blob in Fig. \[finite\_T\_blobs\] is too small for any kind of quantitative study, but we clearly see that the knot is no longer maximally compact.
Screened Interactions {#screen}
---------------------
A charged polymer in solution is accompanied by neutralizing counterions, and potentially other charged ions due to added salt. In general, the effect of these additional ions on the charged polymer is quite complicated, and dependent on the intrinsic stiffness, strength of the charge, and valency of counterions [@polyel_pers]. However, in many cases the net effect can be approximated by a screened Coulomb potential $V=(e^2/\varepsilon r)\exp{(- r/\lambda)}$, where $\lambda$ is the Debye screening length [@debye]. Since the previous arguments for the tightness of charged knots rely on the long-ranged part of the Coulomb interaction, we may well question if and when tight knots survive with screened forces.
It is important to realize that Coulomb interactions affect the polymer on scales much larger than $\lambda$, due to increased bending rigidity. Curving a straight polymer to a radius $R$ brings its charges closer, resulting in an extra energy cost of order $(e^2/\varepsilon R)\tilde{\lambda}^2$ for screened Coulomb interactions, where $\tilde{\lambda}\equiv\lambda/a$ is the reduced screening length. This can be regarded as an effective bending rigidity, which (in the presence of thermal fluctuations) leads to the Odijk–Skolnick–Fixman persistence length [@OSF] of $\ell_c=\lambda^2e^2/(\varepsilon k_BT a^2)=\ell_{\rm B}\tilde{\lambda}^2$. The electrostatic persistence length is in general much larger than the screening length. In terms of our reduced variables $\tilde{\ell}_c\equiv\ell_c/a=\tilde{\lambda}^2/\tilde{T}$. This expression is valid provided that the length scales considered are larger than the screening length, and $\tilde{T}< \tilde{\lambda}$.
For very large $\lambda$, comparable to the size of the polymer, the effects of screening are not very important: E.g., Eq. \[En\] for electrostatic energy of a knot remains valid if $N$ is replaced by $\tilde{\lambda}$, and similar replacements should be made in Eq. \[nk\] for the knot size in a stiff polymer, or in Eq. \[Nb\] for the blob size. In all these expressions, the number of monomers enters only in a logarithm, and, consequently, its replacement by $\tilde{\lambda}$ does not significantly change the result. Eq. \[nk\] for the optimal knot size is valid (with $N$ replaced by $\tilde{\lambda}$) only if the knot is smaller than the screening length. This condition, $\lambda> an_k$, leads to the cross-over boundary $$\lambda > a\sqrt{\frac{\ell_{\rm p}}{\ell_{\rm B}}},$$ which is equivalent to $\ell_{\rm c}> \ell_{\rm p}$. We thus conclude that a tight knot can exist only when the overall bending rigidity is dominated by electrostatic contributions. For smaller values of $\lambda$, the short range repulsion can no longer bend the knot into a tight shape.
![Radius of gyration, $R_{\rm g}$, of the ground state configuration of a trefoil knot, as a function of the screening length $\lambda$ for a 128-monomer polymer. $R_{\rm G}$ has been normalized by the length of the polymer $Na$.[]{data-label="Rg"}](figF.eps){width="8cm"}
Note that the analysis leading to Eq. \[nk\] only demonstrates the local stability of a tight knot. The global energy minimum could still occur for a spread out configuration. To decide on the latter requires estimates of the energy difference between the two configurations, and depends on microscopic details, as well as the length of the polymer. A circle with a tight knot, and the spread out knotted shape, both have a bending energy (at large scales) of the order of $k_{\rm B}T \ell_{\rm c}/R$. Since the circular shape has a larger radius, it has a lower energy, the energy difference scaling as $k_{\rm B}T \ell_{\rm c}/(Na)$, if both radii are proportional to the polymer length. The tight knot in the former has an additional local energy cost, which is of the order of $k_BT(\ell_{\rm B}/a)$ (possibly with logarithmic corrections), but independent of $N$. Thus, we expect the configuration with a spread-out knot to have a lower energy only for $\ell_{\rm c}/N<\ell_{\rm B}$, i.e. for screening lengths $$\lambda\leq \lambda_c\approx a \sqrt{N}.$$ Note that the limiting value of $\lambda$ still corresponds to a persistence length of the order of the extended polymer, i.e. the polymer shape is determined by energy considerations, and thermal fluctuations have little effect, at this point. We verified this conclusion by numerically determining the shape of the trefoil that minimizes the screened Coulomb interactions. Figure \[Rg\] shows the radius of gyration as a function of the screening length. For screening lengths larger than $\lambda_c\sim 0.4 aN^{1/2}$, the knot switches from a loose to a tight configuration.
Let us briefly explore the possibility of tight knots in nucleic acids. Double stranded DNA has a bare persistence length of $\ell_{p}\sim 50$nm, which is much larger than typical screening lengths, and consequently is not likely to incorporate any knots tightened by Coulomb interactions. However, measurements on [*single stranded*]{} DNA in high salt concentrations [@tinland] suggest a much smaller intrinsic $\ell_{p}\sim 1$nm, and presumably a similar (or smaller) value applies to single stranded RNA. Tight knots should then occur for single stranded nucleic acids for reasonable screening lengths of the order $\lambda\sim 10$nm. This could for example be relevant to the experiments of Ref. [@wang], where artificial knots in single stranded RNA were used to demonstrate the existence of a topology changing enzyme. Knotted polymers are often distinguished from unknotted ones by electrophoresis [@wang]. However, if the knot is tight, the knotted polymer may have an electrophoretic mobility close to that of a ring polymer, making such detection problematic.
Tight Knots and Dynamics {#dynamics}
========================
Tight knots are created whenever a polymer is under tension; the source of tension need not be long-range repulsions. For example, it has been argued that tight molecular knots appear in polymer systems undergoing crystallization, as crystallization at one point may create tension in other parts of the chain [@degennes]. Polymers in a strong shear flow are also subject to tension [@degennes; @degennes_book], and may even undergo a coil-stretch transition as a result [@degennes2]. It is plausible that stretching could tighten loose knots in the chain. Once created, such molecular knots should be quite stable and thus account for long-time memory effects observed in polymer melts [@degennes]. However, molecular dynamics simulations suggest that once the tension is removed a tight knot opens up in a short time [@mansfield]. Without being systematic, here we examine a couple of dynamical issues pertaining to charged tight knots, namely their creation in a high temperature quench, and their relaxation by diffusion along the chain.
Tightening by Quench
--------------------
It is quite likely that when topological entanglements are first formed, e.g. in the process of cyclization of a polymer, they are spread out over the whole chain. Subsequent tightening then occurs upon increasing tension. In the case of charged knots, this process is illustrated in Fig. \[tight\]. Here, the initial configurations are the spread out harmonic representations, which soon evolve into loops separated by tight elements. The relaxation process then slows down as one of the loops grows at the expense of the others. A universal last stage is the appearance of a structure reminiscent of Fig. \[simplify\], with two loops separated by a tight ‘slip-link.’ We observed the same sequence in simulations where the initial configurations was an equilibrated (random walk) knot. The formation of the two loops separated by a slip-link was again relatively fast, and the rate limiting step was the sliding of one loop through the tightly packed monomers at the slip-link.
![\[tight\]Time evolution (using Monte Carlo dynamics) of (a) $3_1$ and (b) $8_{19}$ knots, from the initial (harmonic) geometry (top) through an intermediate state when the knot “strangles” the loop close its middle, and to a final state (bottom) when the knot is localized. A similar sequence takes place for all other prime knots in the simulations of Fig. \[prime\_knots\].](figG.eps){width="7cm"}
![\[unknot\_lin\]Unknotting of a charged polymer with $N=64$ monomers and unscreened Coulomb interaction of strength $\tilde{T}=1.4$ ($\ell_{\rm B}=0.7a$). The initial configuration is a tight knot in the middle of the chain. Rather than open up gradually, the knot slides along the polymer and remains localized until it reaches the end.](figH.eps){width="8cm"}
Diffusion of Tight Knots
------------------------
As demonstrated in the previous situation, tight knots slow down the relaxation of the polymer to its eventual equilibrium state. Here we study such relaxation more explicitly for a knot in an open charged polymer. In this case there is no topological constraint, and the polymer is expected to unknot to achieve its equilibrium state. Does a tight knot in an open chain relax by becoming loose and opening up, or by sliding (diffusing) to one end. As demonstrated in Fig. \[unknot\_lin\], the latter is the case: The initial configuration (in a chain of $N=64$ monomers with unscreened interaction) remains tight, indicating that the stretching force from the monomers at the ends of the chain is larger than from those forming the knot. In the simulation, the knot’s position fluctuates for some time in the middle, before moving to one direction. The eventual unknotting occurs when the diffusing tight knot reaches the end of the polymer.
A tight knot in the middle of an open chain is in a meta-stable state. We can estimate a potential energy for the tight knot by considering a charge $Q=n e$ along a charged chain of $N$ monomers. The Coulomb energy then depends on the position of this charge $N_1$, as $E=k_{\rm B}T(\ell_{\rm B}/a) n \ln[N_1(N-N_1)]$. This energy is minimal when the charge $Q$ is at either endpoint of the polymer, i.e. for $N_1=0$ or $N$. Note that the force pushing the extra charge towards the end scales with $\ell_{\rm B}$, and we may naively expect that the resulting relaxation becomes faster as the Coulomb energy is increased. In fact, the opposite occurs for charge knots, with relaxation slowing down as Coulomb interactions become more dominant. The reason is that increased charging energy leads to a higher tension and more closely packed monomers in the knot. Any motion of the knot requires some internal rearrangements of these monomers, accompanied by pulling in some monomers from the straight portions of the chain. This necessitates overcoming an energy barrier of $\sim \ell_{\rm B}\ln{N}$, and consequently higher charged knots are tight and harder to move. Since rearrangements require a large activation energy, the knot remains stuck in position. This is quite similar to what happens to a knot in a polymer under strong tension [@degennes].
![\[unknot\_scr\] Monte Carlo dynamics of a tight knot in a chain with $N=128$ monomers and screened interactions. The screening length is $\lambda=6a$, roughly the size of the knot. The knot shows no sign of opening up, it remains tight till it reaches the end of the polymer. ](figI.eps){width="8cm"}
While with unscreened Coulomb interactions the tight knot feels a potential that drives it to one end, there is no such force when the interactions are screened (unless the distance between the knot and the endpoint of the polymer is of the order of the screening length). The energy barrier preventing the loosening of the knot is also finite in this case. The resulting dynamics for a chain of 128 monomers with a screening length of $\lambda=6a$ is demonstrated in Fig. \[unknot\_scr\]; despite the screening the knot remains tight until it diffuses to one end. The characteristic time scales for the relaxation of the knot can be estimated as follows. The time for diffusion over a distance $Na$ scales as $a^2N^2/D_{knot}$, with the knot diffusion coefficient behaving as $D_{knot}\propto D\exp{(-{\cal E}_D/k_{\rm B}T)}$. Here, $D$ is the diffusion constant for a single monomer, while the activation energy for local rearrangements necessary for motion of the tight region is roughly ${\cal E}_D\approx k_{\rm B}T(\ell_{\rm B}/a) \log(\lambda/a)$. There is also the possibility that the knot becomes loose, escaping the local minimum of the tight configuration. The energy barrier for the latter is ${\cal E}_b\approx k_BT\ell_{\rm B}\lambda/a^2$, with a corresponding time scale of $\tau \approx (a^2/D)\exp{({\cal E}_b/k_{\rm B}T)}$. In time $\tau$, the knot can diffuse a distance $L \approx \sqrt{D_{knot} \tau}$. We thus estimate a “processivity length” over which a tight knot diffuses, before opening up, by $$L_{\rm p}\propto a \exp{\left( C\; \ell_{\rm B}\lambda/a^2\right)},$$ where $C$ is a constant of order unity. The processivity length increases strongly with the screening length $\lambda$ and quickly reaches a macroscopic length, indicating that the relaxation of a tight knot will be by diffusion along the chain, even for very long chains. Also note that $L_{\rm p}$ is in general much larger than the electrostatic persistence length which only grows quadratically with the screening length ($\ell_{\rm c}\approx \ell_{\rm B}\lambda/a^2$).
Discussion
==========
We have shown that long-ranged Coulomb forces generate a tension that tightens topological constraints into dense localized regions, leaving the rest of the polymer unentangled. For knots on ring polymers, we confirm the “factorization" of composite knots into their prime components. Tight knots remain, even when the Coulomb interaction is screened, as long as the electrostatic contributions dominate the rigidity of the polymer. Once formed, tight knots drastically slow down the equilibration of the polymer (or polymer solution), as they typically relax by diffusion along the backbone. If the Coulomb interactions are strong enough, the knot is pulled so tight that it is unable to diffuse, and its position appears frozen. This is different from uncharged polymers where molecular dynamics simulations in ref. [@mansfield] find that tight knots in short uncharged polymers open up rapidly. Our results predict that tight knots in polyelectrolytes can be very stable and cause long relaxation times. While we have focused on single polymers, it is natural to speculate about similar behavior in solutions of many chains. It is indeed quite likely that [*inter-chain*]{} entanglements are also tightened in polyelectrolyte solutions and gels.
Additional consequences of tight knots are in their influence on mobility (electrophoresis), and on the mechanical strength of polymers. It has been shown recently by direct measurement on DNA and actin filaments that knots significantly weaken the strand [@arai]. Similarly, molecular dynamics simulations of knotted polyethylene chains also find that the strands becomes weaker, and typically break at the entrance point where the straight segment ends and the tight knot begins [@saitta]. Single stranded DNA is relatively fragile and sometimes breaks during electrophoresis or when subject to flow; tight knots may well be responsible for this phenomenon.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank Ralf Metzler and Andreas Hanke for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation grants DMR-01-18213 and PHY99-07949, and by US-Israel Binational Science Foundation grant 1999-007. P.G.D. acknowledges support from the Research Council of Norway.
[25]{}
P. G. de Gennes, [*Scaling Concepts in Polymers Physics*]{} (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 1979).
M. Doi and S. F. Edwards, [*The Theory of Polymer Dynamics*]{} (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986).
S. A. Wasserman and N. R. Cozzarelli, Science [**232**]{}, 951 (1986).
H. Wang, R. J. Di Gate, and N. C. Seeman, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (USA) [**93**]{}, 9477 (1996).
N. C. Seeman [*et al.*]{}, Nanotechnology [**9**]{}, 257 (1998).
T. Arai, R. Yasuda, K.-I. Akashi, Y. Harada, H. Miyata, K. Kinosita Jr., and H. Itoh, Nature [**399**]{}, 446 (1999).
K. Iwata and S. F. Edwards, Macromolecules [**21**]{}, 2901 (1988); K. Iwata and M. Tanaka, J. Phys. Chem. [**96**]{}, 4100 (1992).
S. R. Quake, , 3317 (1994).
A. Y. Grosberg, A. Feigel, and Y. Rabin, , 6618 (1996).
Y. Rabin, A. Y. Grosberg, and T. Tanaka, Europhys. Lett. [**32**]{}, 505 (1995).
E. Guiter and E. Orlandini, J. Phys. A [**32**]{}, 1359 (1999).
V. Katritch, W. K. Olson, A. Vologodskii, J. Dubochet, and A. Stasiak, , 5545 (2000).
E. Orlandini, M. C. Tesi, E. J. Janse van Rensburg, and S. G. Whittington, J. Phys. A [**31**]{}, 5953 (1998).
O. Farago, Y. Kantor, and M. Kardar, cond-mat/0205111.
R. Metzler, A. Hanke, P. G. Dommersnes, Y. Kantor, and M. Kardar, , 188101 (2002)\[cond-mat/0110266\]; and , 61103 (2002)\[cond-mat/0202075\].
E. Ben-Naim, Z. A. Daya, P. Vorobieff, and R. E. Ecke, , 1414 (2001); M. B. Hastings, Z. A. Daya, E. Ben-Naim, and R. E. Ecke, cond-mat/0110612.
V. V. Rybenkov, N. R. Cozzarelli, and A. V. Vologodskii, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. [**90**]{}, 5307 (1993); S. Y. Shaw and J. C. Wang, Science [**260**]{}, 533 (1993).
M. C. Tesi, E. J. Janse van Rensburg, E. Orlandini, D. W. Sumners, and S. G. Whittington, , 868 (1994).
B. Tinland, A. Pluen, J. Sturm and G. Weill, Macromolecules [**30**]{}, 5763 (1997).
Y. Kantor, M. Kardar, and D. R. Nelson, , 791 (1986); and , 3056 (1987).
A. K. Trautwein, p. 353 in Ref. [@idealknots].
C. C. Adams, [*The Knot Book: An Elementary to the Mathematical Theory of Knots*]{} (W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1994).
, K & E Series on Knots and Everything, vol. 19, ed. by A. Stasiak, V. Katrich and L. H. Kauffman (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998).
P. Hoidn, R. B. Kusner, and A. Stasiak, New J. Phys. [**4**]{}, 20.1 (2002).
J. Simon, p. 151 in Ref. [@idealknots]
R. B. Kusner and J. M. Sulivan, p. 315 in Ref. [@idealknots].
R. P. Grzeszczuk, M. Huang, and L. H. Kauffman, p. 183 in Ref. [@idealknots].
J. O’Hara, Topology [**30**]{}, 241 (1991).
P.-G. de Gennes, P. Pincus, R. M. Velasco, F. Brochard, J. Phys. (Paris), [**37**]{} 1461 (1976).
P. Pfeuty, J. Phys. (Paris), [**39**]{} C2-149 (1978).
G. Ariel and D. Andelman, cond-mat/0112337; and references therein.
L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii [*Electrodynamics of Continuous Media*]{} (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1995).
T. Odijk, J. Polym. Sci. [**15**]{}, 477 (1977); J. Skolnick and M. Fixman, Macromolecules [**10**]{}, 944 (1977).
P.-G. de Gennes, Macromolecules [**17**]{}, 703, (1984).
P.-G. de Gennes, [*Simple Views on Condensed Matter*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998).
P.-G. de Gennes, , 5030 (1974).
M. L. Mansfield, Macromolecules [**31**]{}, 4030 (1997).
A. M. Saitta, P. D. Soper, E. Wasserman, and M. L. Klein, Nature [**399**]{}, 46 (1999).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
=-6pt -0.5 in 9.5in 6.2in
\#1[0=\#1-0to0[*/*]{}]{} \#1[\#1]{}
MRI-P-001202\
[hep-ph/0012309]{}
[**$B$-physics constraints on baryon number violating couplings: grand unification or $R$-parity violation**]{}
[Debrupa Chakraverty$^{1}$ and Debajyoti Choudhury${^2}$]{}
[Mehta Research Institute, Chhatnag Road, Jhusi, Allahabad 211 019, India.\
E-mail: $^[email protected], $^[email protected]]{}\
We investigate the role that baryon number violating interactions may play in $B$ phenomenology. Present in various grand unified theories, supersymmetric theories with $R$-parity violation and composite models, a diquark state could be quite light. Using the data on $B$ decays as well as $B - {\bar B}$ mixing, we find strong constraints on the couplings that such a light diquark state may have with the Standard Model quarks.
Introduction
============
It is now widely accepted that the Standard Model (SM), despite its great success, is only an effective theory. The ills plaguing it may be cured only in the context of a more fundamental theory operative at higher energies. The quest to find such a theory has, over the years, inspired many a model going beyond the SM. Two of the most attractive classes of such models are those incorporating grand unification [@GUT] and/or supersymmetry [@SUSY]. The exact nature of such a theory, however, is a matter of intense debate, occasioned, not in the least, by the absence of any experimental signature yet. It is not surprising, thus, that the search for new physics effects constitutes a major component of research in high energy physics. Such efforts can be broadly classified into two categories. On the one hand there are the direct searches typified by high energy collider experiments where new particles are sought to be produced on-shell and detected through their subsequent decays. The other approach concentrates on indirect effects as can be deduced from possible deviations from the SM predictions for low-energy observables. In this article we shall focus on one such set of low and intermediate energy experiments.
The next decade will see a blossoming of experimental facilities planning to explore $B -{\bar B}$ mixing as well as $B$-meson decays with greater accuracy and for an increasing number of different final states. In light of these upcoming experiments (CLEO, BaBar, BELLE, HERAB, BTEV and LHCB), it is of importance to examine their sensitivity to new physics beyond the SM.
In this paper, we investigate the possible influence that a baryon number violating interaction may have on $B$- phenomenology. Within the SM, baryon ($\hat B$) and lepton ($\hat L$) number conservations come about due to accidental symmetries. In other words, such conservations are not guaranteed by any principle, but are rather the consequences of the choice of the particle content [^1]. In extensions of the SM, such an accidental occurrence is obviously not guaranteed. For example, even in the simplest grand unified theories (GUTs), both the gauge and the scalar sector interactions violate each of $\hat B$ and $\hat
L$. The corresponding particles, namely the diquarks [@diquarks] and leptoquarks [@leptoquarks] have been studied in the literature to a considerable extent.
Simultaneous breaking of both $\hat B$ and $\hat L$ symmetry is obviously a recipe for disaster as this combination is more than likely to lead to rapid proton decay. Within GUTs, gauge boson-mediated proton decay could be naturally suppressed by postulating the symmetry breaking scale to be very large. However, there do exist a class of GUTs [@frampton], where the next set of thresholds need not be very high and $\hat B$-violating gauge particles can be relatively light. Proton decay, however, remains suppressed on account additional symmetries in the theory. Suppression of the scalar mediated contribution to proton decay in a generic GUT, on the other hand, is easier to obtain: the particle content can be so chosen that there is no diquark-leptoquark mixing, at least as far as the light sector is concerned.
In the case of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), though, we do not have the option of demanding the ‘offending’ fields (the supersymmetric partners of the SM fermions) to be superheavy. Ruling out the undesirable terms necessitates the introduction of a discrete symmetry, $R \equiv (-1)^{3 (\hat B - \hat
L) + 2 \hat S}$ (with $\hat S$ denoting the spin of the field) [@fayet]. Apart from ruling out both $\hat B$ and $\hat L$ violating terms in the superpotential, this symmetry has the additional consequence of rendering the lightest supersymmetric partner absolutely stable. However, such a symmetry is [*ad hoc*]{}. Hence, it is of interest to consider possible violations of this symmetry especially since it has rather important experimental consequences, not the least of which concerns the detection of the supersymmetric partners.
It can thus be argued that, in such models as well as in models of compositeness [@diquarks], it is quite likely that baryon number violating interactions may not be suppressed too severely. Even more interestingly, such processes may be mediated by relatively low-lying states, generically called diquarks.
This paper is organised as follows: Section 2 constitutes a brief review on diquarks. Section 3 deals with hadronic $B$ decays. In section 4, we concentrate on $B -{\bar B}$ mixing. Section 5 contains the numerical results. We conclude in section 6 with a summary and outlook.
Diquarks: a brief review
========================
In this section we shall briefly examine all possible tree-level $\hat
B$-violating couplings involving the SM quarks. We shall adopt a purely phenomenological standpoint without any particular reference or prejudice to the origin of such couplings or states. A generic diquark is a scalar or vector particle that couples to a quark current with a net baryon number ${\hat B} = \pm 2/ 3$. Clearly, under $SU(3)_c$, it may transform as either a triplet or a sextet. For scalars, the Yukawa term in the Lagrangian can be expressed as \_[SD]{} = h\_[ij]{}\^[(A)]{} [|q]{}\_i\^c P\_[L,R]{} q\_j \_A + h.c., where $i,j$ denote quark flavours, $A$ denotes the diquark type and $P_{L,R}$ reflect the quark chirality. Standard Model gauge invariance demands that a scalar diquark transforms either as a triplet or as a singlet under $SU(2)_L$. For a vector diquark, on the other hand, the relevant term in the Lagrangian can be parametrized as \_[VD]{} = \_[ij]{}\^[(A)]{} [|q]{}\_i\^c \_P\_[L,R]{} q\_j V\_A\^+ h.c. with $V_A$ transforming as a $SU(2)_L$ doublet. The full list of quantum numbers, for either case, is presented in Table \[tab:qnos\]. Clearly, the couplings $h^{(1)}_{ij}$, $h^{(4)}_{ij}$, $h^{(5)}_{ij}$ and $h^{(7)}_{ij}$ must be symmetric under the exchange of $i$ and $j$ while $h^{(2)}_{ij}$, $h^{(3)}_{ij}$, $h^{(6)}_{ij}$ and $h^{(8)}_{ij}$ must be antisymmetric. For the other couplings, [*viz.*]{} $\tilde
h^{(3)}_{ij}$, $\tilde h^{(4)}_{ij}$, and $\vartheta^{(A)}_{ij}$, no such symmetry property exists. hereafter, we assume these couplings to be real [^2]. Note that the quantum numbers of $\Phi_{2, 4, 6}$ as well as those of $V^\mu_{2, 4}$ allow them to couple to a leptoquark ([*i.e.*]{} a quark-lepton) current as well. Clearly, the non-observance of proton decay implies that such $L$-violating couplings must be suppressed severely.
It should be noted that we are not demanding that the vector diquarks correspond to some gauge theory. While it might be rightly argued that a theory with non-gauged vector particles is non-renormalizable, one should keep in mind that such states may well be there in an effective theory. Since we would be studying the phenomenological implications only at the lowest order of perturbation theory, renormalizability is not an issue here.
We now turn to the MSSM, where both $\hat B$– and $\hat L$-violating terms are allowed, in general, by supersymmetry as well as gauge invariance. As stated earlier, catastrophic rates for proton decay can be avoided by imposing a global $Z_2$ symmetry [@fayet] under which the quark and lepton superfields change by a sign, while the Higgs superfields remain invariant. However, since such a symmetry is entirely [*ad hoc*]{} within the purview of the MSSM, it is conceivable that this $R$-parity may be broken while keeping either of $\hat B$ or $\hat L$ intact. In our study, we shall restrict ourselves to the case where only the ${\hat B}$-violating terms are non-zero. Such scenarios can be motivated from a class of supersymmetric GUTs as well [@Bviol]. The corresponding terms in the superpotential can be parametrized as W\_[R/]{} = ”\_[ijk]{} |[U]{}\^i\_R |[D]{}\^j\_R |[D]{}\^k\_R, \[superpot\] where $\bar{U}^i_R$ and $\bar{D}^i_R$ denote the right-handed up-quark and down-quark superfields respectively. The couplings $\lambda''_{ijk}$ are antisymmetric under the exchange of the last two indices. The corresponding Lagrangian can then be written in terms of the component fields as: \_[R/]{} = ”\_[ijk]{} (u\^c\_i d\^c\_j \^\*\_k + u\^c\_i \^\*\_j d\^c\_k + \^\*\_i d\^c\_j d\^c\_k) + [h.c.]{} \[lagrp\] Thus, a single term in the superpotential corresponds to two of type $\tilde h^{(4)}_{ij}$ and one of type $h^{(8)}_{ij}$ diquark interactions.
The best direct bound on diquark type couplings is derived from an analysis of dijet events at the Tevatron [@CDF_dijet]. Considering the process $q_i q_j \ra \Phi_A \ra q_i q_j$, an exclusion curve in the ($m_{\Phi_A}, h^{(A)}_{ij}$) plane can be obtained from this data. A similar statement holds for the vector particles as well. Two points need to be noted though. At a $p \bar p$ collider like the Tevatron, the $u u $ and $d d $ fluxes are small and hence the bounds are relatively weak. This is even more true for quarks of the second or third generation (which are relevant for the couplings that we are interested in). Secondly, such an analysis needs to make assumptions regarding the branching fraction of $\Phi_A$ ($V_A$) into quark pairs, a point that is of particular importance in the context of $R$-parity violating supersymmetric models.
There also exist some constraints derived from low energy processes. Third generation couplings, for example, can be constrained from the precision electroweak data at LEP [@b_c_s] or, to an extent, by demanding perturbative unitarity to a high scale [@biswa]. Couplings involving the first two generations, on the other hand, are constrained [^3] by the non-observance of neutron-antineutron oscillations or from an analysis of rare nucleon and meson decays [@sher; @probir]. While many of these individual bounds are weak, certain of their [*products*]{} are much more severely constrained by the data on neutral meson mixing and $CP$–violation in the $K$–sector [@barbieri]. It is our aim, in this article, to derive analogous but stronger bounds.
At energy scales well below the mass of the diquark, the latter can be integrated out and effective four quark operators obtained. In Table \[tab:vert\], we list these for each diquark type. A few points should be noted here:
- we have not displayed the operators resulting from $\Phi_5$ and $\Phi_6$ as these do not contribute (at the lowest order) to either $B$ decays or $B - {\bar B}$ mixing;
- for convenience’s sake, we have Fierz-rearranged the operators and, in the process, exchanged the charge-conjugated fermion fields (which come in naturally) for their non-conjugated counterparts;
- within a diquark multiplet, we have assumed all the fields to be mass degenerate since large splittings within a multiplet are anyway disfavoured by LEP data;
- We have neglected the evolution of the diquark mediated effective four-quark interactions from the electroweak scale down to $B$ meson scale through renormalisation group equations;
- we have not displayed the extra color factors that appear on account of the diquark states being coloured objects. The said factors can be determined by reexpressing four quark operators of the forms $({\bar 3}_c \otimes 3_c)_1$ and $(6_c \otimes {\bar 6}_c)_1$ in terms of the corresponding $( 1_c \otimes 1_c)_1$ and $ (8_c \otimes 8_c)_1$ current structures. Thus, transforming $({\bar q}^c_i\Gamma q_j) ({\bar q}_l \Gamma^\prime q_k^c)$ to the form $({\bar q}_k \Gamma^{\prime \prime} q_i)
({\bar q}_l \Gamma^{\prime \prime \prime} q_j)$ implies that we are dealing with linear combinations of the form ([|3]{}\_c 3\_c)\_1 & = & ( 1\_c 1\_c)\_1 -( 8\_c 8\_c)\_1\
(6\_c \_c)\_1 & = & ( 1\_c 1\_c)\_1 + [1 2]{} (8\_c 8\_c)\_1 \[color\_struct\] These extra color-factors need to be included while calculating the hadronic matrix elements.
Looking at Table \[tab:vert\], it is obvious that the effective Hamiltonian for the full theory can be parametrized as \_[eff]{} = \_[i=0]{}\^9 b\_i [H]{}\_i with \_0 & = & ([|q\_1]{} \_R b) ([|q\_2]{} \^R q\_3) & & [H]{}\_1 & = & ([|q\_1]{} \_L b) ([|q\_2]{} \^L q\_3)\
[H]{}\_2 & = & ([|q\_1]{} \_R b) ([|q\_2]{} \^L q\_3) & & [H]{}\_3 & = & ([|q\_1]{} \_L b) ([|q\_2]{} \^R q\_3)\
[H]{}\_4 & = & ([|q\_1]{} L b) ([|q\_2]{} R q\_3) & & [H]{}\_5 & = & ([|q\_1]{} R b) ([|q\_2]{} L q\_3)\
[H]{}\_6 & = & ([|q\_1]{} L b) ([|q\_2]{} L q\_3) & & [H]{}\_7 & = & ([|q\_1]{} R b) ([|q\_2]{} R q\_3)\
[H]{}\_8 & = & ([|q\_1]{} \_ L b) ([|q\_2]{} \^ L q\_3) & & [H]{}\_9 & = & ([|q\_1]{} \_ R b) ([|q\_2]{} \^ R q\_3). \[effective\] The strengths $b_i$ include both the SM contributions as well as diquark contributions (as in Table \[tab:vert\]) wherever applicable.
It now remains to calculate the hadronic matrix elements for ${\cal H}_i$, a task that is rendered very difficult by the associated strong interaction dynamics. Hence, instead of attempting an exact calculation, one normally takes recourse to some appropriate approximation. In the “Naive Factorisation” approach [@ali], the matrix elements of a four-quark operator are approximated by products of matrix elements of the associated quark bilinears. As an example, the amplitude for the decay $B \ra X_1 + X_2$ (where $X_{1,2}$ are arbitrary mesons) can be expressed as X\_1 X\_2 (b) ([|q\_2]{} \^q\_3)B & & X\_1 b B X\_2 ’ q\_3 0 + X\_2 b B X\_1 ’ q\_3 0\
& + & X\_1 ” b B X\_2 ”’ q\_3 0 + X\_2 ” b B X\_1 ”’ q\_3 0 \[factorization\] where the second line refers to Fierz rearranged currents. Of course, only some of the matrix elements are non-vanishing. For one, within this approximation, the contributions of the tensor operators in eq.(\[effective\]) vanish identically. It should be noted that eqs.(\[effective\] & \[factorization\]) contain only color-singlet currents. For color-octet currents to contribute, one would need to consider additional gluon exchanges. Such effects are clearly not factorizable. Within this approximation then, the color octet parts of eq.(\[color\_struct\]) can be neglected, or, in other words, the contribution of a color-sextet diquark is almost indistinguishable from that of the corresponding color-triplet one.
Hadronic $B$ decays
===================
Within the SM, hadronic $B$ decays may proceed through either tree level $W$ boson exchange diagrams and/or through penguin diagrams (both QCD and electroweak). The corresponding effective Hamiltonian, including the QCD corrections have been presented in Refs.[@ali; @gatto]. For brevity’s sake, we do not repeat the entire list here. It suffices to remember that the SM amplitudes are proportional to the Fermi constant $G_F$, the relevant product of two CKM matrix elements $V_{ib}V^*_{jk}$ and/or $V_{tb}V^*_{tk}$ (with $i$ and $j$ as generic up type quarks and $k$ as down type quark) and the combination of the Wilson coefficients that incorporates the short distance QCD corrections at the $B$ mass scale. The considerable suppression due to the smallness of the CKM mixing is what makes $B$-decays sensitive to new physics effects.
Reverting to the calculation of the hadronic matrix elements, the decay constant $f_i$ for a generic (pseudoscalar or vector) meson is defined through the relations P(p\_P) \_j \_\_5 q\_i 0 & = & -if\_P p\_P\^\
V(p\_V) \_j \_q\_i 0 & = & f\_V m\_V \^. \[decay\_const\] Here it is assumed that the meson is composed of a $q_j \bar q_i$ pair. The decay constants are best determined from an analysis of the respective leptonic decay modes and the relevant ones are listed in Table \[tab:decay\]. The matrix elements for the associated density operators may then be evaluated using the Dirac equation: $$\barr{rcl}
\partial^\alpha({\bar q_i} \gamma_\alpha q_j) & = & i(m_j - m_i) {\bar q_i}q_j
\\
\partial^\alpha({\bar q_i} \gamma_\alpha\gamma_5 q_j) & = &
i(m_j +m_i) {\bar q_i} \gamma_5 q_j.
\earr$$
The matrix elements for quark bilinears between a $B$ meson and a pseudoscalar/vector meson can be parametrized in terms of form factors: P(p\_P) \_j \_(1 - \_5) b B(p\_B) & = & F\_1(q\^2) + [[m\_B\^2 - m\_P\^2]{} q\^2]{} q\_F\_0(q\^2)\
V(p\_V) \_j \_(1 - \_5) b B(p\_B) & = & -\_ \^ p\_B\^p\_V\^ -i(\^\*\_- [[\^\* q]{} q\^2]{} q\_) ( m\_B + m\_V) A\_1(q\^2)\
&+ & i ( (p\_B + p\_V)\_- [[(m\_B\^2 - M\_V\^2)]{} q\^2]{} q\_) [[(\^\* q) A\_2(q\^2)]{} ]{}\
&-& i [[2 m\_V (\^\* q)]{} q\^2]{} q\_A\_0(q\^2), \[form\_fac\] where $q=p_B -p_{P(V)}$ and $\epsilon$ is the polarisation vector of $V$. The apparent poles at $q^2 =0$ are fictitious since $$\barr{rcl}
F_1(0) & = & F_0(0)\\
2 m_V A_0(0) & = & (m_B + m_V) A_1(0) - (m_B-m_V)A_2(0) \ .
\earr$$ The numerical values of the form factors can be calculated within a given model. For our analysis, we adopt the BSW model [@bsw; @neubert], and the relevant form factors, at zero momentum transfer, are given in Table \[tab:bsw\] [@ali; @bsw]. It can easily be checked that choosing a different model for the calculation of hadronic matrix elements would not change our results appreciably.
For the $q^2$ dependence of these form factors we assume a simple pole formula [@ali; @bsw] $F(q^2) = F(0)/(1 - q^2/m_{pole}^2)$ with the pole mass $m_{pole}$ the same as that of the lowest lying meson with the appropriate quantum numbers ($J^P=0^+$ for $F_0$; $1^-$ for $F_1$ and $V$; $1^+$ for $A_1$ and $A_2$; $0^-$ for $A_0$). The values of these pole masses are presented in Table \[tab:pole\] [@ali; @bsw].
With eqns.(\[decay\_const\] & \[form\_fac\]) in place, calculation of the full matrix elements, within the factorisation approximation, is now a straightforward task. Consider the decay $ B(b \bar q_4) \to M_1(q_1 \bar q_4) M_2(q_2 \bar q_3)$ where $M_i$ are generic mesons (pseudoscalar or vector). For simplicity’s sake, assume that no two quarks are identical so that the quark bilinears (see eq.\[factorization\]) cannot relate the $B$ to $M_2$. In this case, the amplitudes are given by & = & i f\_[P\_2]{} (m\_B\^2 -m\_[P\_1]{}\^2) F\_0\^[B P\_1]{}(m\_[P\_2]{}\^2)\
& = & 2 f\_[V\_2]{} m\_[V\_2]{} F\_1\^[B P]{}(m\_[V\_2]{}\^2) \[b\_0+b\_1+b\_2+b\_3\] (\^\* p\_[P\_1]{})\
[A]{} & = & 2 m\_[V\_1]{} f\_[P\_2]{} (\^\* p\_[P\_2]{}) A\_0\^[BV\_1]{}(m\_[P\_2]{}\^2)\
[A]{} & = & f\_[V\_2]{} m\_[V\_2]{} \[amplitudes\] For decay modes wherein $q_3 = q_4$, the second set amplitudes in eq.(\[factorization\]) contribute too. These additional pieces, however, can be easily read off from eq.(\[amplitudes\]).
$B^0 -{\bar B}^0$ Mixing
========================
The main motivation for considering $B^0_d - {\bar B}^0_d$ mixing to constrain diquark couplings is that this mixing is mediated by flavour changing neutral current, which is forbidden at the tree level in SM. The mixing is characterised by the experimentally measurable mass difference M\_d = m\_[B\_d]{}\^H - m\_[B\_d]{}\^L = [[\^0\_d \_[eff]{} B\^0\_d ]{} ]{} with H and L denoting heavy and light mass eigen states. The recent world average value of $\Delta M_d$ at $1 \sigma$ limit is [@pdg]: M\_d = (0.4720.017)10\^[-12]{}s\^[-1]{}.
In SM, this mixing proceeds through the box diagrams with internal top quark and $W$ boson exchanges [@bbbar; @buras]. The diagrams in which one or both top quarks are replaced by up or charm quarks are negligible on account of: ($i$) the small mixing angles and ($ii$) the corresponding loop integrals being suppressed to a great extent due to the smallness of the light quark masses. Integrating out the internal particles, one thus gets an effective four quark interaction, with a $(V-A) \otimes (V-A)$ current structure, and scaling as to $m_W^2 G_F^2 \vert V_{tb}V^*_{tk} \vert^2$. The short distance QCD corrections are well determined [@bbbar; @buras], while the long-distance corrections are estimated to small, unlike in the case of $K-{\bar K}$ mixing.
In presence of diquarks, two different types of contributions may appear. If there exist $\Delta b=\Delta d =2$ operators, then such a mixing can occur at the tree level itself. Else, additional contributions may appear in the form of new diquark-mediated box diagrams. However, as we are interested in small diquark couplings, we shall confine ourselves to tee level (in diquarks) processes only.
In the calculation of the hadronic matrix element $\langle
{\bar B}^0_d \vert {\cal H}_{i}
\vert B^0_d \rangle$, the vacuum saturation approximation is a convenient one. Herein, one inserts a complete set of states between the two currents and assumes that the sum is dominated by the vacuum and thus the hadronic matrix elements are proportional to $f_B^2$ by virtue of eq.(\[decay\_const\]). The bag factor, $B_B$, introduced to parametrize all possible deviations from the vacuum saturation approximation, can be evaluated in various nonperturbative approaches. We use here the values of $B_B(\mu_b)$ and $f_B$ as obtained by UKQCD collaboration in a quenched lattice calculation [@ukqcd].
Incorporating the contributions of all such current structures, in addition to that of the SM, we obtain M\_d = f\_B\^2 B\_B m\_[B\_d\^0]{} b\_0+b\_1 -b\_2 -b\_3 + [m\_[B\_d\^0]{}\^2 ]{} (b\_4 + b\_5-b\_6-b\_7)
This may then be compared with the experimental value to obtain the required constraints.
Results
=======
Before we determine the bounds obtainable from $B$-phenomenology, it is worthwhile to reexamine the SM predictions for the decay modes of interest; this helps in selecting the channels likely to result in stronger constraints. As mentioned earlier, within the SM, the hadronic $B$ decays are mediated by one or more of tree ($W$-mediated), electroweak penguin and QCD penguin diagrams. The branching fractions are determined primarily by the CKM mixings operative in the particular decay and, in case of one-loop processes, by the corresponding loop integral. For example, the decays $B^- \to D_s^- \pi^0$ and ${\bar B_d}^0 \to \pi^- \pi^+$ are suppressed in comparison to ${\bar B_d}^0 \to D^+ \pi^-, D^+ D_s^-$, $B^- \to D^0 D_s^-$ and ${\bar B_s}^0 \to D^+_s \pi^-$ on account of $V_{u b}$ being much smaller than $V_{c b}$. Similar statements obviously hold for the decays into the corresponding excited states. Inspite of such a suppression, the tree diagram far outweighs the one-loop contributions for any of these decays. For the decays $B^- \to K^- \pi^0$, ${\bar B}^0
\to {\bar K}^0 \pi^0$ (and the corresponding $PV$ and $VV$ modes) though, the tree level contributions are double Cabibbo suppressed with the consequence that these decays are dominated by penguin diagrams [^4]. Decays like $B^- \to K^-K^0$, $B^- \to \pi^- {\bar K}^0$, on the other hand, are governed solely by electroweak and/or QCD penguins.
A different suppression occurs for the processes ${\bar B}^0 \to \pi^0
\pi^0$, ${\bar B^0} \to D^0 \pi^0$. Compared to the analogous modes ${\bar B}^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$, ${\bar B_d^0} \to D^+ \pi^-$ wherein the charged mesons are created from the vacuum by a color-singlet current, these decays are obviously color-suppressed. In fact, the respective short distance coefficients differ by as much as a factor of $20$ [@ali]. And finally, there are the annihilation diagrams in the decays like $B(b {\bar q}) \to X_1(q_1 {\bar q}) X_2(q_2 {\bar q_1})$. In these decays, $b$ and ${\bar q}$ in $B$ meson annihilate to produce ${\bar q}$ and $q_2$ quarks, which, in turn form final state mesons with $q_1 {\bar q}_1$ pair, created from vacuum. As these contributions are proportional to the wavefunction at zero, they are typically much smaller than either of the tree or penguin mediated spectator contributions. For example, Ref. [@ali] argues that the annihilation amplitude for $B \to P_1
P_2$ modes is proportional to the mass difference of the mesons in the final state and hence there is essentially no annihilation contribution to ${\bar B} \to \pi^0 \pi^0$, ${\bar B}^0 \to K^+ K^-$ etc.
It is tempting to assume that the modes suppressed within the SM would be the ones most sensitive to effects from new physics. While this is largely so, a few points should be remembered. For one, color suppression and/or suppression of annihilation diagrams are essentially independent of weak matrix elements, and hence equally applicable to either the SM or a theory with diquarks. Secondly, even for decays wherein the SM amplitudes are Cabibbo suppressed, the experimental data may not be precise enough for it to be a very sensitive probe. Rather, it could well turn out that an unsuppressed mode may turn out to be one of the most sensitive on account of the observations matching very well with the SM predictions.
In obtaining numerical results, we assume that only one pair of diquark couplings are nonzero. While this restriction may seem unwarranted, it is an useful approximation that allows one a quantitative appreciation of the various experimental constraints. Furthermore, we assume a common mass of $100 \gev$ for all the diquarks. As explained earlier, mass splittings between states in a single multiplet is disfavoured by LEP data. And since the effective four-Fermi operator goes as $m_{\Phi(V)}^{-2}$, for a general diquark mass, all our bounds on the products need only be rescaled by a factor of $( m_{\Phi(V)} / 100 \gev)^2$.
The bounds, as obtained from a given decay mode, can be broadly classified into two sets. An experimentally observed channel (with an associated error bar) would, in general, allow the diquark coupling pairs to lie in one of two non-contiguous windows, with the separation between the windows determined by the agreement of the SM contribution. On the other hand, decay modes that are yet to be experimentally seen, can only lead to a single window. For a specific combination of diquark couplings, we look at all such individual bounds and then delineate the range satisfied by each. As an illustration, let us consider the product $h_{13}^{(1)} h_{12}^{(1)}$. At 90% C.L., the ranges allowed by individual decays are as follows: $$\barr{llclcl}
(a): \qquad & {\bar B}^0 & \to & D^+ \rho^- & \quad : \quad &
[-6.0 \times 10^{-2}, -5.3 \times 10^{-2}], \
[-7.3 \times 10^{-3}, 5.7 \times 10^{-4} ]
\\[1ex]
(b): \qquad & B^- & \to & D^0 \rho^- & \quad : \quad &
[-4.7\times 10^{-2}, -4.2 \times 10^{-2}], \
[-4.7 \times 10^{-4}, 4.8 \times 10^{-3}]
\\[1ex]
(c): \qquad & B^- & \to & {\bar K}^{0*} \pi^- & \quad : \quad &
[-8.9 \times 10^{-4}, 2.2 \times 10^{-3}]
\\[1ex]
(d): \qquad & {\bar B}^0 & \to & {\bar K}^0 \rho^0 & \quad : \quad &
[-2.1 \times 10^{-3}, 1.6 \times 10^{-3}]
\earr$$ Clearly the first window allowed by $(a)$ is completely ruled out by the the bounds from $(c)$ and $(d)$. The same is true for the first window from $(b)$. Progressively eliminating parts of the domains allowed by the individual decays, we find that the actual allowed range for this particular combination is only $[-4.7 \times 10^{-4},
5.7 \times 10^{-4}]$. An identical strategy is adopted for all other combinations, and we list the best bounds in Tables \[tab:p1\]–\[tab:v3\].
A very important point is to be noted here. In the preceding analysis, while we have selected the range of parameters common to each constraint, we have not really used the entire information available to us. Such an analysis would involve the use of a statistical discriminator such as a $\chi^2$ test or a likelihood test. While such an exercise is a straightforward one and would have led to bounds stricter than those we list, the decision to forego it was a conscious one. For, in the absence of higher order corrections and a more precise calculation of the hadronic matrix elements, the bounds derived here are only indicative. Hence, further refinement using statistical methods is not really called for.
From Table \[tab:vert\], it is easy to see that $ h_{ij}^{(1)}h_{kl}^{(1)}$, $h_{ij}^{(2)}h_{kl}^{(2)}$, $h_{ij}^{(3)}h_{kl}^{(3)}$, $h_{ij}^{(4)}h_{kl}^{(4)}$, $h_{ij}^{(7)}h_{kl}^{(7)}$ and $h_{ij}^{(8)}h_{kl}^{(8)}$ result in both neutral and charged current structures. In a given hadronic decay, both the operators contribute with one of them being color suppressed. Furthermore, the flavor structure determines whether two contributions interfere constructively or destructively. As a consequence, the bounds on $h_{ij}^{(2)}h_{kl}^{(2)}$, $h_{ij}^{(4)}h_{kl}^{(4)}$ and $h_{ij}^{(8)}h_{kl}^{(8)}$ are weaker by a factor of ${N_c + 1} \over {N_c - 1}$ compared to those for $h_{ij}^{(1)}h_{kl}^{(1)}$, $h_{ij}^{(3)}h_{kl}^{(3)}$ and $h_{ij}^{(7)}h_{kl}^{(7)}$. A color-unsuppressed operator associated with combinations ${\tilde h}^{(3)}_{ij}{\tilde h}^{(3)}_{kl}$ and ${\tilde h}^{(4)}_{ij}{\tilde h}^{(4)}_{kl}$ are neutral current ones, their contributions to charged current decays are naturally color-suppressed. Hence the corresponding bounds are weaker. Similarly, since ${h}^{(3)}_{ij}{\tilde h}^{(3)}_{kl}$ and ${h}^{(4)}_{ij}{\tilde h}^{(4)}_{kl}$, are associated only with scalar, pseudoscalar and tensor operators, they cannot contribute to $B \to VV$ decays. And finally, as the diquarks $\Phi_{7,8}$ couple only to down-type quarks, they can contribute only to those decays that occur in the SM solely through penguin diagrams.
The diquark $\Phi_3$ differs from $\Phi_4$ only by colour quantum number. But since the color factors for triplet and sextet diquarks are accidentally equal and ${\tilde h}_{ij}^{(3)}$ and ${\tilde h}_{ij}^{(4)}$’s have no specific symmetry property under the exchange of $i$ and $j$, the bounds on the product of these couplings are exactly the same. A similar story obtains for other sets of diquarks, $(V_1, V_2)$ and $(V_3, V_4)$.
As discussed earlier, ${\tilde h}^{(4)}_{ij}$ is analogous to the trilinear R parity violating coupling ${\lambda}^{\prime
\prime}_{ijk}$. Thus the constraints on ${\tilde h}^{(4)}_{ij}{\tilde
h}^{(4)}_{kl}$ are equivalent to those on ${\lambda}^{\prime \prime}_{imj} {\lambda}^{\prime
\prime}_{kml}$. The upper bound on ${\tilde h}^{(4)}_{23}{\tilde
h}^{(4)}_{22}$ is marginally weaker than that, quoted in [@probir] and [@ggw]. The upper bound on ${\tilde
h}^{(4)}_{11}{\tilde h}^{(4)}_{13}$ is much weaker than that listed in [@probir] and [@ggw] . For other ${\tilde
h}^{(4)}_{ij}{\tilde h}^{(4)}_{kl}$, we obtain more stringent bounds. For most of the nonsupersymmetric product of two diquark couplings, our predicted bounds are much stronger.
In a few hadronic decays ($B^- \to K^- J/\Psi$, $B^- \to \pi^-
J/\Psi$ etc.), the SM predictions do not agree with the experimental observation even at $2 \sigma$ level. While this could be construed as an indication of new physics (in our case diquarks), we prefer to tread a more conservative path. Consequently, we have not included such decays in our analysis.
Turning to $B_d^0$–${\bar B}^0_d$ mixing, it is obvious that a tree-level contribution will accrue from any four-quark operator that violates both $b$– and $d$–number by two units each. Furthermore, $\Phi_2$, $\Phi_3$ and $\Phi_8$ do not contribute to $B_d^0-{\bar
B}_d^0$ mixing by virtue of the antisymmetric nature of their couplings under exchange of the flavor indices. Thus $B_d^0-{\bar
B}_d^0$ mixing only imposes limits on the parameter space of $\Phi_1$, $\Phi_7$, $V_1$ and $V_2$ diquarks. Unlike in the SM, $B_d^0-{\bar
B}_d^0$ occurs at tree level in presence of nonzero diquark couplings. Accordingly, we obtain most stringent bounds on $h_{33}^{(A)}h_{11}^{(A)}$ and $\vartheta_{33}^{(A)} \vartheta_{11}^{(A)}$.
Conclusion
==========
In summary, we have studied the leading order effects of scalar and vector diquark and/or R parity violating couplings on hadronic $B$ decays and $B - {\bar B}$ mixing. Clearly a diquark must have more than one non-zero couplings to SM fields to be able to mediate such processes. We take the economic standpoint that only [*any two*]{} of such couplings are non-zero. Analysing the present data on $B$-decays, we derive constraints on such pairs that are significantly stronger than those derived from other low energy processes. Theoretical improvements on nonfactorisation effects and estimates of annihilation form factors as well as precise measurements of the decay modes at the upcoming $B$ factories in near future will improve our bounds on the parameter space for diquarks and/or R parity violating couplings in the minimal supersymmetric SM.
D. Choudhury acknowledges the Department of Science and Technology, India for the Swarnajayanti Fellowship grant.
[99]{} J.C. Pati and A. Salam, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D10**]{} (1974) 275]{}.\
H. Georgi and S.L. Glashow, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**32**]{} (1974) 438]{};\
For reviews, see P. Langacker, [Phys. Rep. [**72**]{} (1981) 185]{}.
H.P. Nilles, [Phys. Rep. [**110**]{} (1989) 1]{};\
H.E. Haber and G.L. Kane, [Phys. Rep. [**117**]{} (1985) 75]{};\
L. J. Hall and M. Suzuki, [Nucl. Phys. [**B231**]{} (1984) 419]{};\
S. Dawson, [Nucl. Phys. [**B261**]{} (1985) 297]{};\
S. Dimopoulos and L. Hall, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B207**]{} (1987) 210]{}.
F. Zwirner, [Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A3**]{} (1988) 49]{};\
J.L. Hewett and T.G. Rizzo, [Phys. Rep. [**183**]{} (1989) 193]{} and references therein.
See, for example, W. Buchmüller and D. Wyler, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B177**]{} (1986) 377]{};\
W. Buchm" uller, R. R" uckl and D. Wyler, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B191**]{} (1987) 442]{}; Erratum: [*ibid.*]{}[**B448**]{} (1999) 320;\
also see S. Davidson, D. Bailey and B. Campbell [Z. Phys. C[**61**]{} (1994) 613]{}.
P. Frampton, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D42**]{} (1990) 3892]{};\
P. B. Pal and U. Sarkar, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D49**]{} (1994) 3721]{};\
N. G. Deshpande, E. Keith and P. B. Pal, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D47**]{} (1993) 2897]{}. P. Fayet, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B69**]{} (1977) 489]{};\
G. Farrar and P. Fayet, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B76**]{} (1978) 575]{}.
K. Tamvakis, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B382**]{} (1996) 251]{}.
F. Abe (CDF Collab.), [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D55**]{} (1997) 5263]{}.
G. Bhattacharyya, D. Choudhury and K. Sridhar, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B355**]{} (1995) 193]{}.
B. Brahmachari and P. Roy, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D50**]{} (1995) R39]{}.
J.L. Goity and M. Sher, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B346**]{} (1995) 69]{}.
C.E. Carlson, P. Roy and M. Sher, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B357**]{} (1995) 99]{}.
R. Barbieri and A. Masiero, [Nucl. Phys. [**B267**]{} (1986) 679]{}. A. Ali, G. Kramer and Cai-Dian L\`‘[u]{}, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D58**]{} (1998) 094009]{}.
A. Deandrea, N. Di Batolomeo, R. Gatto and G. Nardulli, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B318**]{} (1993) 549]{}.
M. Neubert and V. Rieckert, [Nucl. Phys. [**B382**]{} (1992) 97]{}.
M. Wirbel, B. Stech and M. Bauer, [Z. Phys. C[**29**]{} (1985) 637]{}; [*ibid*]{}., [Z. Phys. C[**34**]{} (1987) 103]{}.
Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom [*et al*]{}, [Eur. Phys. J. [**C15**]{} (2000) 1]{}.
P. J. Franzini, [Phys. Rep. [**173**]{} (1989) 1]{}.
A. Buras, Lectures given at Les Houches Summer School in Theoretical Physics, Session 68: Probing the Standard Model of Particle Interactions, Les Houches, France (1997), ed. by R. Gupta, A. Morel, E. de. Rafael and F. David, North-Holland (1999). L. Lellouch and C. J. D. Lin (UKQCD Collab.), [(electronic archive: hep–ph/00111086)]{}.
G. Bhattacharyya, [(electronic archive: hep–ph/9709395)]{}, Talk given at Workshop on Physics Beyond the Standard Model: Beyond the Desert: Accelerator and Nonaccelerator Approaches, Tegernsee, Germany, 8-14 Jun 1997.
[^1]: Indeed, nonperturbative effects within the SM itself do break $\hat B + \hat L$ symmetry.
[^2]: The extension to complex couplings is straightforward. The imaginary parts, however, can be better constrained from an analysis of the CP violating decay modes.
[^3]: Although many of these analyses have been done for the case of $R$-parity violating models, clearly similar bounds would also apply to nonsupersymmetric diquark couplings as well.
[^4]: In our numerical calculations, we have used the Wilson coefficients as listed in Ref. [@ali] for $N_c=3$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A central component of the ALICE Upgrade will be a completely new Inner Tracking System (ITS). The performance of the new ITS will be a significant improvement over that of the present ITS, in particular in the areas of material budget, granularity, a reduced radial distance from the first layer to the beam and rate capability. This will enable many key measurements of the properties of the quark-gluon plasma to be performed, in particular with rare probes such as low momentum charm and beauty mesons and baryons.'
address: 'STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Keckwick Lane, Daresbury, Warrington, Cheshire, WA4 4AD, United Kingdom'
author:
- 'Roy Lemmon (on behalf of the ALICE Collaboration)'
title: The ALICE Inner Tracking System Upgrade
---
Introduction
============
The ALICE Upgrade [@ALICE-LOI] will significantly enhance the capabilities of the experiment to study in particular rare probes of the partonic medium, the quark-gluon plasma, produced in high-energy nuclear collisions at the LHC. An overview of the ALICE Upgrade can be found in these proceedings [@Peitzmann12]. This paper describes in more detail the upgrade of the Inner Tracking System (ITS) [@ALICE-ITS-CDR], which is a central component of the overall ALICE Upgrade. Performing new measurements of heavy-flavour production in heavy-ion collisions is one of the main physics motivations for running the ALICE experiment after the luminosity upgrade of the LHC, with extended high-rate capabilities and a new Inner Tracking System. The novel measurements of charm and beauty production would allow important questions to be addressed that cannot be answered with the present experimental setup.
The two main open questions concerning heavy-flavour interactions with the QGP medium, and the corresponding experimental handles, are:
- [Thermalization and hadronization of heavy quarks in the medium, which can be studied by measuring the baryon/meson ratio for charm ($\Lambda$$_{c}$/D) and for beauty ($\Lambda$$_{b}$/B), the azimuthal anisotropy $\it{v_{2}}$ for charm mesons and baryons, and the possible in-medium thermal production of charm quarks.]{}
- [Heavy-quark in-medium energy loss and its mass dependence, which can be addressed by measuring the nuclear modification factors R$_{AA}$ of the p$_{T}$ distributions of D and B mesons separately in a wide momentum range.]{}
It is important to stress that the above two topics are closely related. The high-momentum heavy quarks quenched by in-medium energy loss are shifted towards low momentum and may ultimately thermalize in the system, through QCD interaction mechanisms that are essentially the same as those responsible for the energy loss, and participate in the collective expansion dynamics. Therefore, the simultaneous experimental investigation and theoretical understanding of the thermalization-related observables and of the energy-loss-related observables constitute a unique opportunity for the characterization of the QGP properties, in particular of the heavy-flavour transport coefficient. In this scope, heavy quarks are particularly well suited, because they preserve their identity (mass, flavour, and colour charge) while interacting with the medium.
Detector Upgrade Concept
========================
The features of the ITS Upgrade as compared with the present ITS are:
- [First detection layer closer to the beam line. At present the radial distance of the first layer from the beamline is 39 mm. However, after initial studies, the installation of a new beampipe with an outer radius of 19.8mm is considered a realistic possibility. The installation of such a beampipe would enable the first detection layer to be located at a radius of about 22 mm from the main interaction vertex.]{}
- [Reduction of material budget. Reducing the material budget of the first detection layer is particularly important for improving the impact parameter resolution. In general, reducing the overall material budget will allow the tracking performance and momentum resolution to be significantly improved. The use of Monolithic Active Pixel Sensors (MAPS) will allow the silicon material budget per layer to be reduced by a factor of 7 in comparison to the present ITS (50 $\mu$m instead of 350 $\mu$m). A careful optimization of the analogue front-end timing specifications and readout architecture will allow the power density to be reduced by a factor of 2, despite the increased pixel density of a factor of 50. The lower power consumption and a highly optimized scheme for the distribution of the electrical power and signals will allow the material budget of the electrical power and signal cables to be reduced by a factor of 5. Mechanics, cooling and other detector elements can also be improved when compared to the present ITS design. Combining all these new elements together, a detector with a radiation length of 0.3% X$_{0}$ per layer or better has been demonstrated to be a realistic option. Hybrid pixels would allow the construction of detector layers with a slightly higher radiation length (0.5% X$_{0}$), which would still represent a significant improvement of the performance as compared to the present ITS (pixel layers with 1.14% X$_{0}$; drift layers with 1.13-1.26% X$_{0}$; strip layers with 0.83% X$_{0}$).]{}
- [Geometry and segmentation. The studies presented here are based on a detector consisting of seven coaxial cylindrical layers covering a radial extension from 22mm to 430mm with respect to the beamline. The physics studies of the benchmark channels are based on the assumption that all layers are segmented in pixels with an intrinsic resolution of 4 $\mu$m in both directions.]{}
- [Readout time. The present ITS features a maximum readout rate of 1 kHz. The new detector aims to read the data related to each individual interaction up to a rate of 50 kHz for Pb–Pb collisions.]{}
- [Accessibility. The mechanical design of the new ITS allows for the fast extraction and insertion of the detector for yearly maintenance. This will enable easy replacement of malfunctioning and radiation damaged modules for example.]{}
A new silicon tracker featuring the characteristics listed above will enable the impact parameter resolution at the primary vertex to be improved by a factor of 3 or more (Fig. 1). The standalone tracking efficiency would be comparable to what can be presently achieved by combining the information of the ITS and the TPC. The relative momentum resolution of the upgraded ITS standalone, $\frac{\delta p}{p}$, would be about 2% up to 2 GeV/c and remain below 3% up to 20 GeV/c.
![Track impact parameter resolution (current and upgrade). []{data-label="fig:impact"}](impact.PNG){width="70.00000%"}
Technical Implementation
========================
Two basic pixel detector technologies are considered for the upgrade: hybrid silicon pixel detectors and monolithic silicon pixel detectors. Investigations into the suitability of each technology are currently ongoing. For the hybrid technology the R&D focuses on the following two key aspects: 1) the development of a new front-end chip in a CMOS 0.13 $\mu$m process aiming at reducing the power density by a factor of 2, while targeting a thickness of 50 $\mu$m; 2) the characterization of sensors with a target thickness of 100 $\mu$m, or less, and the development of low cost assembly techniques (micro bump bonding) for combining thinned frontend chips with thin sensors. The option to produce very thin sensors will be further investigated using epitaxial and thin float-zone wafers. Concerning the monolithic pixel detectors, various options are under investigation to achieve the required specifications within the time scale of the ITS upgrade project. The pixel detectors of the MIMOSA family [@Greiner2010] are presently developed with a 0.35 $\mu$m CMOS process. The main limitation of these circuits is their insufficient tolerance to the radiation load expected for 10 years of ALICE operation (1.6 Mrad, 2x 10$^{13}$ 1MeV neutron equivalent). For this reason the main R&D effort is to transfer the MIMOSA design to a smaller feature size CMOS technology (0.18 $\mu$m), which should provide a significantly higher radiation tolerance. The 0.18 $\mu$m CMOS process is a quadruple-well process that allows integrating more complex circuitry within the pixel areas. The TPAC and CHERWELL circuits are examples of such an implementation [@Stanitzki2010]. At present the R&D efforts focus on the characterization of these circuits to verify their suitability to the ITS application in terms of performance and radiation tolerance.
In order to match the stringent material budget requirements, every component of the detector module requires dedicated R&D for its optimization. Specific emphasis will be laid on the interconnection structure of the front-end chips to the on-detector electronics which accounts for more than 40% of the material budget in the present pixel system. The silicon strip detectors, if upgraded, could be placed closer to the interaction vertex (e.g. first layer at a radius of 20 cm). The increased hit density (occupancy) can be handled by shortening the strip length (from currently 20 to e.g. 10 mm). This increased readout density demands a redesign of the front-end chip and a new design of the microcables (e.g. with 50 $\mu$m pitch) interconnecting the sensor and the chip. Special emphasis will be put on low power consumption, low material budget and a compact detector layout.
Summary
=======
A central component of the ALICE Upgrade will be a completely new Inner Tracking System (ITS). The performance of the new ITS will be a significant improvement over that of the present ITS, in particular in the areas of material budget, granularity, a reduced radial distance from the first layer to the beam and rate capability. The new ITS will improve the impact parameter resolution by a factor of approximately 3 and allow measurements to reach much lower values of p$_{T}$. This will enable many key measurements of the properties of the quark-gluon plasma to be performed, in particular with rare probes such as low momentum charm and beauty mesons and baryons. A detailed description of the physics performance, as well as the layout options and ongoing R&D activities can be found in the Conceptual Design Report that has recently been published. The installation and commissioning of the new ITS is planned for the long LHC shutdown period in 2017/2018. The timeplan for the upgrade foresees the R&D and prototyping phase in 2012-2014 in order to start the production and commissioning phase in 2015.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[00]{}
ALICE Collaboration, Upgrade of the ALICE Experiment - Letter of Intent, CERN-LHCC-2012-012 (LHCC-I-022). T. Peitzmann et al. (ALICE), these proceedings. ALICE Collaboration, Upgrade of the Inner Tracking System Conceptual Design Report, CERN-LHCC-2012-013 (LHCC-P-005). L. Greiner et aI., A MAPS based vertex detector for the STAR experiment at RHIC, Nuclear Instruments and Methods Section A (2010). M. Stanitzki, Advanced monolithic active pixel sensors for tracking, vertexing and calorimetry with full CMOS capability, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A (2010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a direct experimental measurement of an effective temperature in a colloidal glass of Laponite, using a micrometric bead as a thermometer. The nonequilibrium fluctuation-dissipation relation, in the particular form of a modified Einstein relation, is investigated with diffusion and mobility measurements of the bead embedded in the glass. We observe an unusual non-monotonic behavior of the effective temperature : starting from the bath temperature, it is found to increase up to a maximum value, and then decreases back, as the system ages. We show that the observed deviation from the Einstein relation is related to the relaxation times previously measured in dynamic light scattering experiments.'
author:
- Bérengère Abou and François Gallet
title: Probing a nonequilibrium Einstein Relation in an aging colloidal glass
---
At thermodynamical equilibrium, the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT) relates the response function of the system to its time autocorrelation function. This theorem may display several forms, depending on the considered observable (Nyquist formula, Einstein relation), but involves a single thermodynamic parameter, which is the equilibrium temperature. However, FDT applies only to ergodic systems at equilibrium, and is not expected to hold for non-equilibrium systems, like glasses and gels, which exhibit relaxation times longer than or comparable to the observation timescale.
Recently, many efforts have been devoted to apply statistical physics concepts to such out-of-equilibrium systems. In particular, fluctuation-dissipation relations have been extended with the help of a timescale dependent effective temperature, different from the bath temperature, and that has been shown to display many of the properties of a thermodynamic temperature [@cug93; @cug97]. This deviation from equilibrium FDT has been observed in many numerical simulations [@cug93; @parisi; @barrat; @sellitto; @marinari; @barrat2; @barrat3; @makse; @fielding]. In these models and simulations, violations are expected to occur when the characteristic observation time $1/\omega $ is of the same order or greater than the aging time $t_w$. On the other hand, there are only few experimental studies of FDT violations in aging materials [@grigera; @bellon; @herisson; @danna; @oja]. In all experimental systems, violations are observed when $1/\omega $ is smaller than $t_w$. This suggests that the aging time $t_w$ is not the only relevant parameter to describe aging, as usually considered in numerical simulations, and that microscopic processes, charaterized by the distribution of relaxation times in the system, must be considered.
In this letter we measure the evolution with aging time of an effective temperature $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ in a colloidal glass of Laponite. This is achieved by simultaneously measuring the mobility – using an optical tweezer – and the position fluctuations of a micrometric bead embedded in the glass. We find that, starting from the bath temperature, $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ increases with $t_w$, up to 1.8 times the bath temperature, and decreases back upon further aging. We propose a consistent interpretation of this unusual behavior by considering the evolution of the relaxation times distribution in the glass.
Let us consider a diffusing particle of mass $m$ evolving in a stationary medium. Its motion is described by a generalized Langevin equation $m~dv/dt = F(t) -m \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \gamma(t-t')
~v(t') ~dt' $, in which $v(t) = dx/dt$ is the particle velocity, $F(t)$ the random force acting on the particle and $\gamma (t)$ a delayed friction kernel that takes into account the viscoelastic properties of the medium. If the surrounding stationary medium is in thermal equilibrium at temperature $T$, one can derive a generalized Einstein relation, which is a specific form of FDT, $s^2 \langle \Delta \hat{x}^2
(s) \rangle = 2 kT \hat{\mu} (s) $, in which $\langle \Delta \hat{x}^2(s) \rangle $ is the mean-square displacement Laplace transform and $\hat{\mu}(s)=1 / m
\hat{\gamma} (s)$ the mobility Laplace transform, if inertia is neglected.
The general situation of a particle diffusing in an out-of-equilibrium environment is much more difficult to describe. This point has been developed in details in [@pottier] using a generalized Langevin formalism. The FDT is extended with the help of a frequency-dependent effective temperature $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}
(\omega)$, parametrized by the age $t_w$ of the system, and which satisfies [@npottier] : $$T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}} (\omega) \Re e {\mu(\omega)} = \Re e [ \mu (\omega)
\Theta(\omega) ]$$ where $$s^2 \langle \Delta \hat{x}^2 (s) \rangle = 2 k \hat{\Theta} (s) ~\hat{\mu} (s)$$ The two equations (1) and (2) define an out-of-equilibrium Einstein relation, for a given aging time $t_w$. The parameter $\hat{\Theta} (s)$ is related to $\Theta
(\omega)=\hat{\Theta}(s = -i \omega)$.
The principle of our experiment to measure the effective temperature in an out-of-equilibrium system is the following : micrometric probes are immersed in a colloidal glass to allow the measurements, at the same aging time $t_w$, of both their fluctuating position and mobility. $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ is then obtained from equations (1) and (2). The colloidal glass consists in an aqueous suspension of Laponite RD, a hectorite synthetic clay provided by Laporte Industry. The preparation procedure of the glass has been addressed in details in [@jorlapo]. These aqueous suspensions form glasses for low volume fraction in particles [@wigner]. Being in a “liquid” state right after preparation, the suspension becomes more and more viscoelastic with time. Since the physical properties of the suspension depend on the time $t_w$ elapsed since preparation, the sample is said to age. Aging can be seen through the evolution of both the viscoelastic properties and of the colloidal disks diffusion [@jorlapo; @aboupre64]. This glass, obtained at the ambient temperature, is optically transparent. Moreover, it presents other advantages that make possible to measure an effective temperature with tracer beads. First, the preparation procedure allows to obtain a reproducible initial state, leading to an accurate determination of the origin $t_w = 0$. Second, the Laponite suspensions age on timescales that depend on the particles concentration. We are thus able to choose the aging timescales of the glass by adjusting this concentration. With a volume fraction of $2.3 \% $wt, the glass evolves slowly enough to allow two successive measurements - fluctuation and dissipation - without significative aging of the sample. The two measurements are thus performed at the same $t_w$.
The experiments were carried out in a square chamber – 20 x 20 mm$^2 $ – made of a microscope plate and a coverslip separated by a thin spacer ($0.1$ mm thickness). The beads are suspended in the glass right after its preparation. The chamber is then filled with the suspension, sealed with vacuum grease and mounted on a piezoelectric stage on the plate of an optical microscope. The probes are latex and silica beads, in very low concentration (respectively $10^{-4} \%$ and $4.10^{-4} \%$ in volume). Latex beads ($1.0 \pm 0.1 \mu$m in diameter, Polysciences, Inc.), were preferentially used for fluctuation measurements : since they do not deposit during the experiment, their random motion is not perturbated by the chamber walls. Silica beads ($2.1 \pm 0.1 \mu$m in diameter, Bangs Lab Inc.) were used for dissipation measurements, because they are more efficiently trapped by the optical tweezers. The diameters of the two kinds of probes are close to each other, thus the comparison between the results of the fluctuation and dissipation measurements, once rescaled to the same diameter, is meaningful.
Let us first focus on the two-dimensional brownian motion of a tracer bead immersed in the glass. At a given aging time $t_w$, we record the fluctuating motion of a 1 $\mu$m latex bead during 8 s, with a fast CCD camera sampling at 125 Hz (Kodak, PS-220). A digital image analysis allows to track the bead positions $x(t)$ and $y(t)$ close to the focus plane of the microscope objective. For each bead, we calculate the time-averaged mean-square displacement $
\langle \Delta r^2 (t) \rangle _{t'} = \langle( x(t'+ t) - x(t') )^2 + (y(t' + t) - y(t')
)^2 \rangle_{t'} = 2 \langle \Delta x^2 (t) \rangle_{t'}$. To preserve a good statistics, we keep the data of $\langle\Delta r^2 (t)\rangle_{t'}$ in the range $0.008 < t < 1$ s. The glass remains in a quasi-stationary state during the recording, which takes a short time compared to the aging timescale. The quantity $\langle\Delta r^2 (t)\rangle_{t'}$ can thus be identified to the ensemble-averaged mean-square displacement $\langle \Delta r^2
(t)\rangle_E$. Fig. 1 shows the mean-square displacement of latex beads immersed in the colloidal glass, as a function of time t, for various aging times $t_w$. The mean-square displacement is well described by a power-law behavior $ \langle \Delta r^2 (t)\rangle_E = D t^{\alpha}$ over the full range $0.008 < t < 1 $ s. Upon increasing on $t_w$, the exponent decreases from $1.05 \pm 0.05$ at the earliest aging times to $0.25 \pm 0.05$ at long aging times. This indicates a nearly diffusive behavior of the tracer bead at short aging times, that becomes sub-diffusive as the glass ages.
We describe now the measurement of the mobility $\mu(\omega)$, at a given frequency $\omega $ for various aging times. We recall that this measurement is performed right after the fluctuation motion recording, at the same aging time $t_w$. As the Laponite suspension is a viscoelastic fluid, the bead mobility $\mu(\omega) = |\mu(\omega)| e^{i \phi(\omega)} $ is a complex number. We thus need to measure the phase and modulus of the tracer mobility. We use an optical tweezer to trap a 2.1 $\mu$m silica bead immersed in the glass. Trapping is achieved by focusing a powerful infrared laser beam (Nd YAG, Spectra-Physics, $P_{max} = 600$ mW) through a microscope objective of large numerical aperture [@henon]. The trapping force $F$ on a small dielectric object like a silica bead is proportional to the intensity gradient in the focusing region. To first order, one can write $F = -kx$, where $x$ represents the distance of the trapped object from the trap center. The stiffness $k$ is known from an independent calibration. Once the bead is trapped, we make the experimental chamber oscillate by monitoring the displacement $x_p \exp(i \omega
t)$ of a piezoelectric stage. As a consequence, the viscoelastic glass exerts a sinusoïdal force $F' \exp(i \omega t)$ on the bead. We record with the fast camera the bead movement, and measure by conventional image analysis its displacement $x \exp{(i \omega t)}$ from the trap center. At a given frequency $\omega$, the force $F'(\omega)$ is given by $F'(\omega) = v(\omega)/ \mu (\omega)$, where $v(\omega) = i \omega (x_p -
x)$ is the relative glass / bead velocity, and $\mu(\omega)$ the Fourier transform of the bead mobility. In our range of experimental frequencies ($0.5 < f < 10$ Hz), the bead inertia is negligible, so that we can simply use the relation $F + F' = 0$ to calculate $|\mu(\omega)|$ and $\phi(\omega)$. Notice that the piezoelectric stage and the camera are triggered by two synchronized signals, numerically generated by a PC computer, so that the phase shift between the force and the bead movement can be accurately measured. Fig. 2 (a,b) show the complex mobility of the tracer bead as a function of the aging time $t_w$ for various frequencies of the applied force.
![ \[mobility\] Modulus (a) and phase (b) of the complex mobility $\mu(\omega) = |\mu(\omega)| e^{i \phi(\omega)} $ of the tracer bead as a function of $t_w$, for various frequencies of the applied force. The full circles in (b) correspond to $\phi= -
\beta(t_w) \pi/2$; (c) : mobility modulus versus $\omega$ for various $t_w$; from top to bottom, $t_w = 120, 145, 165, 183, 205$ min. At low $t_w$, $|\mu(\omega)|$ is independent of $\omega$. Upon increasing $t_w$, the modulus is well fitted by a power-law $|\mu(\omega)|=\mu_0 \omega^{\beta}$ with $\beta$ only depending on $t_w$. ](fig2-abou-rev.eps){width="5.5cm"}
Two more steps are necessary to calculate the effective temperature from both fluctuation and mobility data. First, the mean-square displacement is numerically Laplace transformed to the frequency domain $0.15 - 20$ Hz. In this range, we find that the Laplace transform is well adjusted by a power-law $\langle \Delta \hat{r}^2
(s) \rangle = a s^{- b}$. As expected from the observation $\langle
\Delta r^2 (t)\rangle _E = D t^{\alpha}$, the relation $b= \alpha + 1$ is accurately verified. Second, we analyze the frequency dependence of the mobility. In the experimental frequency range, $|\mu(\omega)|$ is well fitted by a power law $|\mu(\omega)| = \mu_0 \omega^{\beta}$, as shown in Fig. 2c. The exponent $\beta$ increases with $t_w$ from zero at low aging times to $0.75 \pm 0.05$ at the end of experiment. To a first-order approximation, we consider that the phase $\phi$ is independent of the frequency. Within a good approximation, its dependence on $t_w$ can be related to $\beta$ by $\phi= - \beta(t_w)
\pi/2$ as shown in Fig. 2b. From the analytical form $\mu(\omega) =
\mu_0 \omega^{\beta} \exp{(-i \beta \pi /2)}$, the Laplace transform $\hat{\mu}(s) = \mu(\omega= is)=\mu_0 s^\beta$ is derived by analytical continuation. Using equation (2), we calculate the function $\hat{\Theta}(s)$, parametrized by $t_w$, and derive $\Theta (\omega)=
\hat{\Theta}(s= - i\omega)$. Finally, the effective temperature, at a given $t_w$, is : $$k T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}
(\omega)=\frac{a}{4\mu_0} \frac{cos((b-2)\pi/2)}{cos(\beta \pi/2)} \omega^{2-b-\beta}$$
The dependence of $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ on $t_w$ is shown in Fig. 3, at a frequency $f =
1$ Hz. The results have been averaged over three realizations. At the earliest $t_w$, the effective temperature is close to the bath temperature $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize bath}} = 300$ K. Upon increase on $t_w$, $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ increases up to 1.8 times the bath temperature and then decreases towards $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize bath}}$ upon further increase on $t_w$. This is the first time that such a behavior – increase of $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ followed by a decrease – is observed in a glassy system. A realistic explanation of this non-monotonic behavior is proposed in the next paragraph. Moreover, our results are in contradiction with electrical measurements of FDT performed in the same system [@bellon], where $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ is found to decrease with $t_w$ and $\omega$ and is larger by about one order of magnitude. A possible origin of this discrepancy may be the choice of different observables in the two experiments [@fielding].
An interpretation of the dependence of $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ on $t_w$ is provided by Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) and Diffusive Wave Spectroscopy (DWS) experiments, previously performed in colloidal glasses of Laponite [@aboupre64; @lequeux]. The resulting distribution function of relaxation times $ P(\tau)$ is schemed in Fig. 4. Upon increasing $t_w$, part of the modes distribution function shift to larger times, while the mode at $\tau \sim 0.1 $ ms remains unchanged. When probing our experimental system at a typical frequency $f = 1$ Hz, three situations occur. At the earliest $t_w$, the fast modes $\tau
<< 1/ f$ allow the system to thermalize with the bath (Fig. 4a). The measured effective temperature is the bath temperature. Upon increase on $t_w$, modes $\tau \sim 1/ f$ appear in the system as seen in Fig. 4b. On this observation timescale $1/f$, the system is out-of-equilibrium : the measured temperature becomes different from the bath temperature and is timescale dependent. Deviation from the equilibrium Einstein relation is thus observed. Finally, for very long $t_w$, the fast modes allow the system to thermalize with the bath while the slow ones $\tau \gg 1/ f$ do not play any role at the experimental timescale. $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ is then expected to reduce back to $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize bath}}$. These different situations are clearly identified in Fig. 3. However the experimental set-up does not allow to observe a further decrease of $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ at long $t_w$. Indeed, beyond $t_w = 205$ minutes, the mobility modulus becomes smaller than $10^{-2}$ m s$^{-1 }$pN$^{-1 }$. In this range, the optical tweezer is not powerful enough to induce a detectable motion of the bead.
In these experiments, deviations are observed when $\omega
\tau \sim 1$. This suggests that, besides the waiting time $t_w$, the distribution of relaxation times must be included in models to achieve an accurate description of aging.
![ \[tau\] Scheme of the distribution function of relaxation times $P(\tau)$ in the glass of Laponite (typically $2.5 \%$ wt) at different $t_w$. Upon increasing $t_w$, part of the modes distribution shifts towards larger times, while the mode at $\tau \sim 0.1$ ms remains unchanged. The arrow represents the measurements timescale $1/f$. ](fig4-abou.eps){width="6.0cm"}
Let us now comment the dependence of $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ on the frequency. Since we experimentally find that $2 - b - \beta > 0$ at all $t_w$, $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ increases with $\omega$ as $\omega^{2 - b - \beta}$, according to equation (3). This behavior is consistent with our interpretation at least in the first situation. However, in our picture, one expects $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ to decrease with $\omega$ at long $t_w$. Actually, one can see from Fig. 2b that $\phi$ can no longer be accurately considered as independent of $\omega$ at long $t_w$. Thus, the analytical interpolation $\mu(\omega) = \mu_0 \omega^{\beta} \exp{-i \beta \pi
/2}$ probably breaks down. This difficulty will be soon overcomed by a direct measurement of $\hat{\mu}(s)$ from a creep experiment.
This work provides a test of the nonequilibrium Einstein relation in a colloidal glass, using diffusion and mobility measurements on a micrometric probe. We observe for the first time in a glassy system a non-monotonic behavior of $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ with $t_w$. It seems likely that this behavior is directly related to the evolution of the relaxation times distribution. Notice that deviations from the Einstein relation, found in supercooled liquids even at equilibrium, were explained by spatial heterogeneities [@ediger]. Future works will have to analyze how such heterogeneities interplay with the concept of $T_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}$ – which is an ensemble-averaged quantity. Another open question is whether this effective temperature has a real thermodynamics meaning [@cug97; @fielding]. The answer will come from experimental tests of FDT involving other physical observables.
We are indebted to N. Pottier for enlightening discussions and comments. We thank P. Monceau for numerical Laplace transformations, M. Balland for help in programmation, and L. Cugliandolo for fruitful exchanges.
[99]{}
Cugliandolo, L., and Kurchan, J. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**71**]{}, 173 -176 (1993).
Cugliandolo, L.F., Kurchan, J. and Peliti, L. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**55**]{}, 3898 - 3914 (1997).
Parisi, G. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**79**]{}, 3660 - 3663 (1997).
Barrat, A. [*Phys. Rev. E* ]{} [**57**]{}, 3629 - 3632 (1998).
Sellitto, M. [*Eur. Phys. J. B.*]{} [**4**]{}, 135 - 138 (1998).
Marinari, E., Parisi, G., Ricci-Tersenghi, F., and Ruiz-Lorenzo, J.J. [*J. Phys. A : Math Gen.*]{} [**31**]{}, 2611 - 2620 (1998).
Barrat, J.-L., and Kob, W. [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**46**]{}, 637 - 642 (1999).
Berthier, L., Barrat, J.-L., and Kurchan. J. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**61**]{}, 5464 - 5472 (2000).
Makse, H. A., and Kurchan, J. [*Nature*]{} [**415**]{}, 614 - 617 (2002).
Fielding, S. and Sollich, P. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**88**]{}, 050603-1 - 050603-4 (2002).
Grigera, T. S. and Israeloff, N. E. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{}, 5038 - 5041 (1999).
Bellon, L., Ciliberto, S. and Laroche, C. [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**53**]{}, 511 - 517 (2001).
Hérisson, D. and Ocio, M. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**88**]{}, 257202 - 257205 (2002).
D’Anna, G., Mayor, P., Barrat, A., Loreto, V. and Nori, F. [*Nature*]{} [**424**]{}, 909 - 912 (2003).
Ojha., R. P., Lemieux, P.-A., Dixon, P. K., Liu, A. J. and Durian, D. J. [*Nature*]{} [**427**]{}, 521 - 523 (2004).
Pottier, N. [*Physica A*]{} [**317**]{}, 371 - 1382 (2003); Pottier, N. and Mauger, A. [*Physica A*]{} [**332**]{}, 15 - 28 (2004).
Pottier, N. cond-mat/0404613, to appear in [*Physica A*]{}.
Abou, B., Bonn, D., and Meunier, J. [*J. Rheol.*]{} [**47**]{}, 979 - 988 (2003).
Bonn, D., Tanaka, S., Wegdam, G. H., Kellay, H., and Meunier, J. [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**45**]{}, 52 - 57 1(1999).
Abou, B., Bonn, D., and Meunier, J. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**64**]{}, 021510 - 021513 (2001).
Hénon, S., Lenormand, G., Richert, A., and Gallet, F. [*Biophys. J.* ]{} [**76**]{}, 1145 - 1151 (1999).
Knaebel A., Bellour M., Munch J.-P., Viasnoff V., Lequeux, F. and Harden, J. L. [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**52**]{}, 73 - 79 (2000).
Swallen, S. F., Bonvallet, P. A., McMahon, R. J., and Ediger, M. D. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**90**]{}, 015901 1-4 (2003).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We measure the quantum speed of the state evolution of the field in a weakly-driven optical cavity QED system. To this end, the mode of the electromagnetic field is considered as a quantum system of interest with a preferential coupling to a tunable environment: the atoms. By controlling the environment, i.e., changing the number of atoms coupled to the optical cavity mode, an environment assisted speed-up is realized: the quantum speed of the state re-population in the optical cavity increases with the coupling strength between the optical cavity mode and this non-Markovian environment (the number of atoms).'
author:
- 'A. D. Cimmarusti'
- 'Z. Yan'
- 'B. D. Patterson'
- 'L. P. Corcos'
- 'L. A. Orozco'
- 'S. Deffner'
title: 'Environment assisted speed-up of the field evolution in cavity QED'
---
Identifying time-optimized processes is a ubiquitous goal in virtually all areas of quantum physics, such as quantum communication [@Bekenstein1981], quantum computation [@lloyd00], quantum thermodynamics [@Deffner2010], quantum control and feedback [@caneva09], and quantum metrology [@Giovannetti2011]. To this end, the notion of a quantum speed limit (QSL) has proven to be useful and important. The QSL determines the theoretical upper bound on the speed of evolution of a quantum system. It can be understood as a generalization of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation for energy and time. It has been derived for isolated, uncontrolled systems [@mandelstam45; @margolus98; @Giovannetti2004], time-dependent Hamiltonians [@Barnes2013a; @Poggi2013; @Hegerfeldt2013; @Andersson2014; @Deffner2013a], and more recently for more general open system dynamics [@deffner13; @delcampo13; @taddei13; @deffner14; @Zhang2014; @Mukherjee2013; @Xu2014; @Xu2014a]. Although fundamental in nature, practical consequences or even experimental applications of the QSL are still lacking. Nevertheless, achieving the maximal quantum speed is of high practical relevance, especially in the development of quantum information processing devices.
On the theoretical side, a recent study [@deffner13] hinted at the possibility of observing *speed-ups* of the quantum evolution if an open quantum system is subject to environmental changes. Ref. [@deffner13] analyzes the dynamics of the damped Jaynes-Cummings model, which describes many cavity QED systems. These systems in both the intermediate and strong coupling regime can exhibit environment-assisted evolution [@madsen11] – such as non-exponential decay.
This letter reports an experimental realization of the theoretically proposed *environment assisted speed-up* [@deffner13]. To this end, we look at the system in an unusual way – as just consisting of the cavity field. This allows us to treat the atomic number that generates the atomic polarization (the off diagonal elements of the atomic master equation) as a tunable environment with a range of coupling constants. We demonstrate that increasing the interaction of the optical cavity field with the environment by tuning the number of atoms, modifies the time dependent non-classical intensity correlation function, enhancing – *speeds-up*– the rate of evolution of the cavity field in a range with no clear oscillations present.
Our cavity QED system operates in the intermediate coupling regime, where the cavity-atom parameters are of the same order: $\left(g,\kappa,\gamma \right) / 2 \pi = \left(3.2,4.5,6.0\right)$ MHz. Here $g$ denotes the electric dipole interaction strength of an atom maximally coupled to the cavity mode (also known as the single photon Rabi frequency), and $\kappa$ and $\gamma$ are the decay rates of the cavity and the atom, respectively. For weak driving and $N$ atoms in the cavity [@carmichael91], the effective dipole coupling between cavity and atomic environment scales as $g\sqrt{N} \approx \Omega_{\rm VR}$ the vacuum Rabi Oscillation. The interaction of cavity and atoms is stronger for larger $N$. In contrast to conventional studies of cavity QED we make full use of this observation and its tunability by using a slow atomic beam: The atomic beam, i.e., a collection of $N$ two-level atoms randomly positioned in the cavity mode, with a range of position dependent coupling constants $g(r,\theta,z)$, quantified by $N_{\rm eff}$ atoms [@rempe91], can be understood as a *controllable, tailored environment* for the cavity mode, which we consider as the quantum system (of interest). Our atomic beam can produce a wide range of effective number of atoms in the cavity ($N_{\rm eff} = 0.1 \rightarrow 30$), which allows us to investigate the speed of state evolution as we change the number of atoms in a controllable way.
Intuitively, one expects to observe a faster state evolution when more atoms are in the cavity; the more subtle effect is that there is a non-linear dependence on the number of atoms. Conditional measurements of the photons leaving the cavity ($g^{(2)}(\tau)$, second order intensity correlation function) are ideal to study these environmental effects. In our experiment we measure $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ as we change the environment, the number of atoms. More concretely, we investigate the initial antibunching dynamics as the state returns to a steady state *before* vacuum Rabi oscillations are present [@rempe91; @mielke98; @foster00pra].
Our measurements clearly show the theoretically predicted environment-assisted speed-up with its non-linear dependence on the number of atoms. This study not only verifies fundamental predictions, but also opens new avenues to control the quantum-speed-limited dynamics in any cavity QED system.
#### Theoretical predictions.
We start by discussing a simple, phenomenological model for our system. To this end, we consider the optical cavity to be weakly driven by an external field of strength proportional to $\varepsilon$, which generates a field coupled to $N$ two-level atoms through the Cooperativity $C=NC_1,~C_1=g^2/\kappa\gamma$. This situation is described by the master equation [@carmichael91] $$\label{eq:master}
\begin{split}
&\dot{\rho}(t)=\varepsilon\left[a^\dagger-a,\rho(t)\right]+ g\left[a^\dagger J_- -a J_+,\rho(t) \right]\\
&\hspace{.5em}+ \kappa \left(2 a\,\rho(t)\, a^\dagger-a^\dagger a \,\rho(t) -\rho(t)\, a^\dagger a\right)\\
&\hspace{.5em}+\gamma/2\sum\limits_{j=1}^N \left(2 \sigma^j_-\,\rho(t)\, \sigma^j_+ - \sigma^j_+ \sigma^j_-\, \rho(t) -\rho(t)\, \sigma^j_+ \sigma^j_-\right).
\end{split}$$ Here $a^\dagger$ and $a$ describe the creation and annihilation operators for the cavity mode, $\sigma^j_+$ and $\sigma^j_-$ correspond to the Pauli spin matrices for the $j$th atom, while $J_\pm=\sum_{j=1}^N \sigma^j_\pm$ are collective excitations. In the limit of weak driving, $\varepsilon/\kappa \ll 1$, a perturbative treatment is possible. Then, a solution of Eq. can be approximated by $\rho(t)\simeq{\left|\psi(t)\right\rangle}{\left\langle \psi(t)\right|}$ with $$\label{eq:state}
{\left|\psi(t)\right\rangle}\simeq{\left|00\right\rangle}+A_1(t)\,{\left|10\right\rangle}+A_2(t)\, {\left|01\right\rangle}+{\mathcal{O}}(\varepsilon^2/\kappa^2)$$ where ${\left|nm\right\rangle}$ state with $n$ photons in cavity and $m$ excited atoms. The dynamics of the amplitudes $A_1(t)$ and $A_2(t)$ are described by [@carmichael91] $$\label{eq:simple}
\begin{split}
\dot{A_1}(t)&=-\kappa \,A_1(t)+g\sqrt{N} \, A_2(t)+\varepsilon\\
\dot{A_2}(t)&=-\gamma/2 \,A_2(t)-g\sqrt{N} \,A_1(t)\,.
\end{split}$$ Adiabatically eliminating the cavity $\kappa \ll \gamma, g\sqrt{N}$ one gets the Purcell enhancement factor that changes the exponential decay rate of the atoms from $\gamma$ to $\gamma(1+2C)$ which depends linearly on $N$. A similar result for the cavity decay rate is found by adiabatically eliminating the atoms $\gamma \ll \kappa, g\sqrt{N}$ where now the decay rate of the cavity changes from $\kappa$ to $\kappa(1+2C)$ again linearly dependent on $N$. Here we want to stress a different regime, where we keep both entities in the evolution and so we immediately observe that the cavity field couples to $N$ two-level atoms through a dipole transition with rate $g \sqrt{N}$ – an effect not indicated by oscillations. Thus, by tuning the number of atoms $N$ the interaction strength of the cavity mode and the atoms can be varied. In the following, we focus exclusively on the escaping field of the system as we vary the number of atoms. Thus, we can monitor the changes in its dynamic behavior as we modify this “variable reservoir” – showing the potential of engineering dynamical behavior by manipulating the reservoir.
Reference [@carmichael91] also derived the solution of Eq. and a closed expression for the second order correlation function $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ applicable for $N$ atoms, which reads $$\label{eq:g2_final}
\begin{split}
&g^{(2)}(\tau) = \bigg\{1 + \frac{\Delta \alpha}{\alpha} {\exp{\left(-\frac{\tau}{2}\,\left(\kappa + \frac{\gamma}{2}\right)\right)}} \\
& \quad\times \left[ \cosh{\left(\Omega_{\mathrm{VR}}\,\tau\right)} + \frac{1}{2} \left(\kappa + \frac{\gamma}{2}\right)\, \frac{\sinh{\left(\Omega_{\mathrm{VR}}\, \tau\right)}}{\Omega_{\mathrm{VR}}} \right] \bigg\}^2
\end{split}$$ where the parameters are defined by, $\Delta \alpha/\alpha = - 2 C'_1 (2 C/(1 + 2 C - 2 C'_1))$, and $C'_1=C_1/(1+\gamma/2\kappa)$. Furthermore, the vacuum Rabi frequency is, $\Omega_{\mathrm{VR}} = \sqrt{ \left(( \kappa - \gamma/2 \right)/2)^2 - g^2 N}$.
![\[fig:g2\] (color online) Calculated correlation function $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ accounting for experimental effects for $\left(g,\kappa,\gamma \right) / 2 \pi = \left(3.2,4.5,6.0\right)$ MHz with $\Omega_{VR}/2\pi=1.1$ MHz (black, continuous line), 2.8 MHz (red dotted line), and 5.2 (blue, dashed line). The inset corresponds to a model with maximally coupled atoms and optimal experimental conditions.](fig1_v2.pdf){width=".48\textwidth"}
This master equation model assumes static, maximally coupled atoms to the cavity field with zero cavity and atomic detuning. A refined model simulates fluctuations of the atomic beam number with a Poissonian weight and randomly generates the positions of the atoms in the cavity mode (which is radially Gaussian with a longitudinal standing wave) [@thompson92; @carmichael99]. This leads to variable dipole coupling strengths and effectively decreases the overall coupling. The atoms present then a range of couplings and behave as a reservoir depending on where they are located on the mode. The calculation also includes experimental effects from cavity and atomic detuning of $g^2(\tau)$ is plotted in Fig. \[fig:g2\] for the corresponding $\Omega_{VR}$ [@brecha99; @foster00pra]. We observe that while the Rabi oscillations are strongly suppressed the rate of refilling characterized by the slope at the inflection point, becomes a characteristic for the state dynamics returning to the steady state. The atoms, with their different couplings constants to the cavity mode behave as an inhomogeneously broadened reservoir, with a variety of coupling constants that nevertheless preserve the non-classical anti-bunched nature of the field. All the oscillations start anti-bunched but their oscillations are different and averaging them produces dephasing that results in a simple decay rate that will preserve the non-linear $\sqrt{N}$ dependence. The inhomogenous reservoir is crucial for this discussion. The inset in Fig \[fig:g2\] shows the result of $N$ maximally coupled atoms and optimal experimental conditions.
Before we continue the discussion with the experimental results, note that the speed-up proposed here is physically equivalent to the behavior of the QSL predicted in Ref. [@deffner13]. However, here we are interested in the dynamics of the field, whereas Ref. [@deffner13] focused on the atoms.
#### Experimental set-up and results.
Figure \[fig:speedup\_exp\] shows the general layout of the physical system, which is our new-generation optical cavity QED apparatus based on the previous one described in Ref. [@norris09a] operating on the D$_2$ line of Rb. The new system has $n_{\rm sat} \equiv \gamma^2 /3g^2 =1.2$ and $C_1 \equiv g^2/\kappa\gamma = 0.38$. An imbalanced magneto optical trap (MOT) produces a slow atomic beam of $^{85}$Rb atoms that travels down and couples to the TEM$_{00}$ mode of our 0.8 mm long optical cavity. The magnetic field points along the $-z$ axis and defines our quantization axis. The MOT coils and an arrangement of four permanent magnets generate this field of about $\vec{B} = -7.2$ G $\hat{z}$.
![\[fig:speedup\_exp\] (color online) Simplified diagram of the apparatus for measuring autocorrelations with an atomic beam in the presence of a magnetic field B. HWP: half wave plate; PBS: polarizing beam splitter; BS: beam splitter; APD: avalanche photo-diode.](speedup_exp2.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
The downward pointing laser beam from the MOT provides optical pumping into the $\lvert F=3, m_F = 3 \rangle$ state. We verify this by measuring the absorption as a function of frequency, keeping the cavity resonant to the laser frequency. We drive the system with $H$-polarized light (perpendicular to the B magnetic field). In the frame of the atoms, it appears as a combination of two circularly polarized fields, while only one is capable of driving with the stretched transition.
Experimentally, we increase the number of atoms by raising the current of the Rb dispenser, which increases the number of atoms in the MOT. A locked 820 nm laser serves to keep the cavity on resonance with the atoms and the excitation laser at 780 nm.
Polarization elements and mode-matching optics prepare the driving laser before it enters the cavity. A lens at the output collimates the beam and a half-wave plate (HWP) aligns the polarization to a calcite PBS which separates the H (driven) and V (undriven) modes. The H mode passes through a second beam splitter which divides the light between two avalanche photodiodes (APD) for single or coincidence measurements. A series of frequency and spatial filters remove background light. The APD electronic output pulses then go to a time-stamp unit in a computer which, after post-detection signal processing, produces the appropriate correlations. The total detection efficiency of the system is 30%. We block part of the laser beam that could co-propagate with the atomic beam either with a dark spot or with an axicon system that produces a dark region at the cavity [@kulin01]. The geometry and the detection that we use place limitations on the state purity and signal background. Nevertheless, we can identify the non-classical feature of antibunching and measure the time the system needs to relax back to its steady state.
We measure $\Omega_{\rm VR}(N_{\rm eff}) $ in the cavity QED system by transmission spectroscopy for a given the atomic flux. We scan the drive frequency while keeping the atoms and the cavity resonant [@zhu90; @gripp97]. The separation between the two peaks is twice $\Omega_{\rm VR}$. We observe a clear splitting on the transmission spectroscopy while on the correlation functions the corresponding time oscillations are not present [@foster00pra] for the range of parameters that we explore in this paper; however we do observe the oscillatory regime for higher dispenser currents in the MOT. This is related to the different kinds of averaging that take place in the transmission spectra and in the correlation functions.
![(color online) Measured $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ (red circles with only statistical error bars) showing antibunching for $\Omega_{\rm{VR}}\sqrt{N_{\rm eff} }= 8.5 \pm 0.1$ MHz with fit to an inverted Lorenzian (blue, solid line) with the amplitude $a_0$ and the HWHM indicated, as well as the prediction from the refined model (green, dashed line).[]{data-label="fig:antibunch_fit"}](antibunch_fitv3.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig:antibunch\_fit\] shows one of our experimental traces of $g^{(2)}(\tau)$. We extract the quantum speed from the rate of change of the anti-bunching towards the steady state. $g^2(\tau)$ reaches unity only after a long time, which is a remnant of the transit time of the atoms through the cavity mode [@foster00pra]. We fit an inverted Loretzian (continuous blue line), with three parameters: offset, amplitude $a_0$, and the half width, half maximum (HWHM). This gives a quantitative measurement of the rate of refilling though the slope by taking the ratio $a_0/{\rm HWHM}$, The dashed green line shows the results of the refined model (as for Fig. \[fig:g2\]) that includes experimental fluctuations on the cavity detunings ($\pm 2.5\kappa$), the presence of a Zeeman sub level 5 MHz away, and the atomic spatial distribution. The amplitude is scaled to take into account experimental backgrounds. Spurious electronic noise makes the fluctuations larger than purely statistical.
Figure \[fig:data\] shows the growth of the rate of refilling (blue circles) as a function of $\Omega_{\rm VR}$, for which we expect a linear dependence. The dashed straight line is a fit with slope $0.24 \pm 0.03$ $\mu$s$^{-1}$/MHz, with reduced $\chi^2 = 1.67$. The inset (red dots) shows the result of a simulation with slope $ 0.29 \pm 0.02$ $\mu$s$^{-1}$/MHz, of the refined model.
![(color online) Speed at the inflection point, $a_0$/HWHM, (blue circles) as function of $\Omega_{\rm VR}$ from measured antibunching curves. Inset $a_0/{\rm HWHM}$ from the refined model (red dots) as in Figs. \[fig:g2\] and \[fig:antibunch\_fit\].[]{data-label="fig:data"}](Data_and_simulation_v4.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"}
Our results clearly indicate a trend of enhanced evolution speed as a function $\Omega_{\rm VR} \approx g\sqrt{N_{\rm eff}}$. This is in agreement with theoretical predictions [@deffner13] that observe a speed-up as the coupling increases in a cavity QED system and in contrast to the dependence of $N$ in the adiabatically eliminated cases stated above, that do not show in the non-classical correlation function. Additional measurements show a similar linear behavior of the slope at the inflection point when we have a bunching peak. The speed increases linearly as a function of $\Omega_{\rm VR}$.
#### Non-Markovian speed-up.
In the example studied in Ref. [@deffner13] the quantum speed-up in an open quantum system was attributed to the non-Markovian nature of the environment. The obvious question remains whether the here reported speed-up is also a non-Markovian effect.
Generally, quantifying non-Markovianity is complicated [@brune96; @breuer07book; @madsen11]. However, for simple quantum systems such as the Jaynes-Cummings model the situation drastically simplifies and a measure of non-Markovianity (${\cal{N}}$) can be introduced [@breuer09]. It is defined as $$\label{eq:nonMarkov}
{\mathcal{N}}=\max_{\rho_{1,2}(0)}{\int_{\sigma>0}{\mathrm{d}}t\, \sigma(t,\rho_{1,2}(0))}$$ where $\rho_{1,2}(0)$ are two initial states and $$\label{eq:trace}
\sigma(t,\rho_{1,2}(0))=\frac{1}{2}\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}{\mathrm{tr}\left\{\left|\rho_1(t)-\rho_2(t)\right|\right\}}\,.$$ It has been seen [@breuer09] that for Markovian dynamics all initial states monotonically converge towards a unique stationary state. Thus, $\sigma(t,\rho_{1,2}(0))$ is strictly negative and ${\mathcal{N}}=0$ . Non-Markovian dynamics are characterized by an information backflow from the environment, and the convergence of $\rho(t)$ towards the stationary state is accompanied by oscillations. Hence, $\sigma(t,\rho_{1,2}(0))$ can become positive, which amounts to finite values of ${\mathcal{N}} $.
Figure \[fig:Non\_Mark\] shows ${\cal{N}}$ for the phenomenological model . The red line is the result of an average over the distribution of the atoms in the mode while the inset with the blue line assumes maximally coupled atoms with fixed positions. The averaged line shows a linear dependence with the Vacuum Rabi frequency that is proportional to $\sqrt{N_{\rm eff}}$. We observe that the non-Markovianity increases with the number of atoms, and that there is a threshold for starting to observe non-Markovian behavior. This threshold can be understood intuitively: To have non-Markovian behavior the environment has to be correlated; to be correlated the environment has to consist at least of one atom. This threshold also bears an important message on the nature of non-Markovianity for open quantum systems: The presence of oscillations in the system (non-zero vacuum Rabi oscillations) is not a good criterion for non-Markovian behavior. Even in the non-averaged plot (inset of Fig. \[fig:Non\_Mark\]) the threshold at $N\simeq 1$ to observe non-Markovianity is clearly visible. On the contrary, Rabi oscillations are already present for $N\ll 1$.
Figure \[fig:Non\_Mark\] also confirms that the reported speed-up is indeed a non-Markovian effect since the speed of evolution grows with the number of atoms, which grows with the non-Markovianity [@Note2]. Note that Fig. \[fig:Non\_Mark\] also indicates that the non-Markovianity survives the averaging over the random distribution of atoms.
![\[fig:Non\_Mark\] (color online) Measure of non-Markovianity (red line) in the cavity QED system averaged over a distribution of atoms in the cavity mode as a function of the Vacuum Rabi frequency. The inset (blue line) shows the same ${\mathcal{N}}$ for maximally coupled atoms. ](Non_markovianity_v2.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
#### Concluding remarks.
The reported experiment first demonstrated the theoretically predicted environment assisted speed-up. Second,by considering the cavity field as a system coupled to a tunable environment realized a fully accessible quantum system obeying non-Markovian dynamics. Third demonstrated a novel way of environment engineering for optimal quantum control protocols [@deffner14].
The spatial distribution of the atoms, producing a broadband of couplings, is playing a major role in allowing us to treat them as a non-Markovian reservoir as we do see the predicted $\sqrt{N}$ behavior. These findings could prove useful to realize strong feedback applied, e.g., in capture and release of a conditional state of cavity QED [@smith02] and for a spontaneously created coherence [@cimmarusti13]. In future work we will explore the quantum speed in optical cavity QED for large $N$ to investigate any possible functional changes on the speed as suggested by Taddei [*et al.*]{} [@taddei13]. A measurement of the cross correlation between the field and the atomic polarization can give a complementary picture, and we are developing ways to do it. We finally note that the effect reported here is generic in the sense that it is not a peculiarity of two-level systems and we expect to go beyond it in forthcoming experiments. We would like to thank H. J. Carmichael for helpful discussions and P. Dussarrat for help with the apparatus. The work at UMD is supported by grant 12 NSF of the USA (Grant No. 1307416). Z. Y. acknowledges support from the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant 11304190). S. D. acknowledges financial support by the U.S. Department of Energy through a LANL Director’s Funded Fellowship.
[10]{} ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.46.623) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/35023282) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.170402) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.240501) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphoton.2011.35) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0167-2789(98)00054-2) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1464-4266/6/8/028) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.88.013818) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1209/0295-5075/104/40005) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.260501) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1751-8113/47/21/215301) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1751-8113/46/33/335302) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.010402) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.050403) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.050402) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0953-4075/47/14/145502) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/srep04890) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.88.062326) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.89.012307) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0256-307X/31/2/020301) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.233601) [****, ()](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003040189190194I) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.1727) [****, ()](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.3948) [****, ()](http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.61.053821) [****, ()](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.1132) [****, ()](http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.60.2497) R. J. Brecha, P. R. Rice, P. R. and M. Xiao, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 2392 (1999). [****, ()](http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.80.043830) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1464-4266/3/i=6/a=301) [****, ()](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.2499) [****, ()](http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.56.3262) [****, ()](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.1800) @noop [**]{} (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.210401) It is worth emphasizing that in our study increase of non-Markovianity is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to observe a speed-up. See also Ref. [@Xu2014]. [****, ()](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.133601) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/15/i=1/a=013017)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this note we show how to construct a homotopy BV-algebra on the algebra of differential forms over a higher Poisson manifold. The Lie derivative along the higher Poisson structure provides the generating operator.'
author:
- |
Andrew James Bruce [^1]\
*School of Mathematics*\
*The University of Manchester*\
*Manchester*\
*M13 9PL*
bibliography:
- 'preprintbib.bib'
title: 'On higher Poisson and Koszul–Schouten brackets'
---
**Keywords:** Strong homotopy Lie algebra, derived bracket, higher Poisson bracket, higher Koszul–Schouten bracket, Batalin–Vilkoviski algebra, odd symplectic geometry.
\
Introduction and Background {#section1}
===========================
Recall that a higher Poisson manifold is the pair $(M, P)$, where $M$ is a supermanifold and the higher Poisson structure $P \in \mathfrak{X}^{*}(M) (= C^{\infty}(\Pi T^{*}M))$ is an even parity (but otherwise arbitrary) multivector field that satisfies the “classical master equation"; ${{[\hspace{-1.5pt}[}P,P {]\hspace{-1.5pt}]}}=0$. Here the bracket is the canonical Schouten–Nijenhuis bracket on $\Pi T^{*}M$. The original formulation of higher Poisson manifolds was laid down by Voronov [@voronov-2004; @voronov-2005]. A similar notion was put forward by de Azc$\acute{\textnormal{a}}$rraga et.al [@deAzcarraga:1996zk; @deAzcarraga:1996jk].\
Associated with the higher Poisson structure is a homotopy Poisson algebra on $C^{\infty}(M)$. That is an $L_{\infty}$-algebra in the sense of Lada & Stasheff [@Lada:1992wc] (suitably “superised") such that the series of brackets are multi-derivations over the (supercommutative) product of functions. The series of higher Poisson brackets are given by;
$$\{f_{1}, f_{2}, \cdots, f_{r} \}_{P} = \left.{[\hspace{-1.5pt}[}\cdots{[\hspace{-1.5pt}[}{[\hspace{-1.5pt}[}P,f_{1}{]\hspace{-1.5pt}]},f_{2}{]\hspace{-1.5pt}]}\cdots, f_{r}{]\hspace{-1.5pt}]}\right|_{M},$$
where $f_{I} \in C^{\infty}(M)$. The “classical master equation" is directly equivalent to the higher Poisson brackets satisfying the so-called Jacobiators. This is fundamental as without this condition the series of higher brackets would not form an $L_{\infty}$-algebra.\
In this note we show how to construct a series of higher brackets on the algebra of differential forms[^2] on a higher Poisson manifold. We do this by following Koszul [@Koszul;1985] (also see [@Akman:1995tm; @Bering:1996kw; @voronov-2004]), as *higher antibrackets* generated by the Lie derivative along the higher Poisson structure. The $n+1$-th bracket in essence measures the failure of $n$-th bracket to be a multi-derivation. As the Poisson structure is an even multivector field, the Lie derivative is an odd operator acting on differential forms and thus the series of brackets are odd. The “classical master equation" guarantees that the Lie derivative along the higher Poisson structure is nilpotent. Such a series of brackets forms an $L_{\infty}$-algebra commonly referred to as a homotopy BV-algebra.\
We will refer to this series of brackets as higher Koszul–Schouten brackets. These brackets are considered as the natural analogues of the classical Koszul–Schouten bracket [@Kosmann-Schwarzbach:1995; @Kosmann-Schwarzbach:1996; @Koszul;1985]. We show that the exterior derivative acts as a differential over the higher Koszul–Schouten brackets, just as it does in the classical case. Thus we have what we will call a differential homotopy BV-algebra.\
It must be noted that Khudaverdian & Voronov [@khudaverdian-2008] constructed a homotopy Schouten algebra on the algebra of differential forms over a higher Poisson manifold. That is they have an odd analogue of a homotopy Poisson algebra constructed from the higher Poisson structure. Importantly, the higher Schouten brackets are multi-derivations over the algebra of differential forms. This is in stark contrast to the higher Koszul–Schouten brackets.\
Thus, there is at least two ways to equip the algebra of differential forms over a higher Poisson manifold with the structure of an $L_{\infty}$-algebra. However, these two constructions are not completely independent. Due to ideas present in [@voronov-2004], the higher Schouten brackets can be thought of as the “classical limit" of the Koszul–Schouten brackets. It is not surprising that some relation exists between the two classes of higher bracket as both are build from the initial geometric data of a higher Poisson structure.\
The distinction between Koszul–Schouten and Schouten brackets in the case of classical (binary) Poisson manifolds is non-existent. Simply put, there is no tri-bracket or higher and the distinction is not present.\
Although we will not present details here, it is clear that the constructions presented in this note carry over to higher Poisson structures on Lie algebroids.\
However, it is clear that a direct analogue for higher Schouten manifolds does not exist. Associated to such a structure is a homotopy Poisson algebra on differential forms over the supermanifold. One can construct the higher Poisson structure using arguments almost identical to that found in [@khudaverdian-2008]. As such brackets are not all odd, no operator can generate something resembling a homotopy Poisson algebra in some “classical limit".\
As is customary in *super-mathematics*, the prefix “super" will generally be omitted. For example, by manifold we explicitly mean supermanifold. We will denote the parity of an object $A$, by *tilde*; $\widetilde{A} \in \mathds{Z}_{2}$. By *even* or *odd* we will be explicitly referring to parity. By a *Q-manifold* will mean the pair $(M,Q)$ where $M$ is a supermanifold and $Q \in \operatorname{Vect}(M)$ is an odd vector field known as a *homological vector field* satisfying $[Q,Q]=0$.\
The notion of homotopy Poisson/Schouten/BV algebra as used here is much more restrictive that that found elsewhere in the literature [@galvezcarrillo-2009; @Ginzburg-1994]. We make no use of the theory of operads. However, the notion used throughout this work seems very well suited to geometric considerations and suits the purposes explored here.\
Higher Koszul–Schouten brackets {#section2}
===============================
Differential forms on a manifold $M$, are understood as functions on antitangent bundle $\Pi TM$. In natural local coordinates $\{ x^{A}, dx^{A}\}$ on $\Pi TM$ an arbitrary differential form is locally given by $\alpha(x,dx) \in \Omega^{*}(M) = C^{\infty}(\Pi TM)$. The parities of the local coordinates are $\widetilde{x}^{A} = \widetilde{A}$ and $d\widetilde{x}^{A} = (\widetilde{A}+1)$. Under transformations induced by coordinate changes on the base the fibre coordinates transform as $d\overline{x}^{A} = dx^{B} \left( \frac{\partial \overline{x}^{A}}{\partial x^{B}}\right)$.\
Similarly, multivector fields on $M$, are identified with functions on the anticotangent bundle $\Pi T^{*}M$. We pick natural local coordinates $\{x^{A}, x^{*}_{A}\}$, such that $\widetilde{x}^{*}_{A} = (\widetilde{A}+1)$. Multivector fields on $M$ are locally described by $X(x,x^{*}) \in \mathfrak{X}^{*}(M) = C^{\infty}(\Pi T^{*}M)$. The fibre coordinates transform as $\overline{x}^{*}_{A} = \left( \frac{\partial x^{B}}{\partial \overline{x}^{A}} \right)x^{*}_{B}$ under transformations induced by coordinate changes on the base. A filtration can be defined on multivectors (and differential forms) that are polynomial in fibre coordinates. We will refer to this as multivector degree. Where no confusion will arise we will simply use degree for multivector degree. We will call a multivector field an $r$-vector if it is a monomial of degree $r$ in the fibre coordinates.\
**Warning:** The parity of an object is generally independent of the degree. By odd and even we will be explicitly referring to parity and not weight.\
Importantly, the anticotangent bundle comes equipped with a canonical odd symplectic structure. That is we have an odd Poisson bracket on $\mathfrak{X}^{*}(M)$. This bracket is the **Schouten–Nijenhuist bracket**.\
From an arbitary multivector field $X \in \mathfrak{X}^{*}(M)$ we can associate a differential operator[^3] acting on differential forms on $M$ known as the **Lie derivative**;
$$X \rightsquigarrow L_{X} = [d, i_{X}],$$
where $d = dx^{A}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{A}}$ is the **exterior derivative** and $i_{X} = (-1)^{\tilde{X}}X(x, \partial/\partial dx)$ is the **interior product**. As a differential operator, the Lie derivative is of order equal to that of the degree of the multivector field (assuming it is defined).\
The Lie derivative is clearly not a derivation on the algebra of differential forms, apart form the isolated case of vector fields. Instead of the derivation property we have;
$$L_{{{[\hspace{-1.5pt}[}X,Y {]\hspace{-1.5pt}]}}} = [L_{X}, L_{Y}].$$
Thus we see directly that for a higher Poisson structure $P$, the Lie derivative is nilpotent; $$(L_{P})^{2}= \frac{1}{2}[L_{P} ,L_{P}] = \frac{1}{2}L_{{{[\hspace{-1.5pt}[}P,P {]\hspace{-1.5pt}]}}} =0.$$
A further property needed later on is that the exterior derivative is natural with respect to the Lie derivative, that is;
$$[d, L_{X}] = 0.$$
The Lie derivative of a differential form along a multivector field should be understood as the infinitesimal action of $\operatorname{Can}(\Pi T^{*}M)$ on differential forms on $M$ (functions on $\Pi TM$). See [@khudaverdian-2006; @Khudaverdian:2000zt; @Khudaverdian:1999mz; @Schwarz:1992nx] for more details.
Let $(M,P)$ be a higher Poisson manifold. The **higher Koszul–Schouten brackets** on $\Omega^{*}(M)$ are the higher derived brackets generated by the operator $L_{P} = [d,i_{P}]$, $$[\alpha_{1}, \alpha_{2}, \cdots , \alpha_{r}]_{P} := [\cdots[[L_{P},\alpha_{1}],\alpha_{2}]\cdots, \alpha_{r}]\mathds{1},$$ with $\alpha_{i} \in \Omega^{*}(M)$.
Here $\mathds{1}$ is the constant value $1$ zero form. That is the identity element in $\Omega^{*}(M)$. As the Lie derivative along the higher Poisson structure is odd and nilpotent the series on higher Koszul–Schouten brackets form a homotopy BV-algebra.\
We know the Lie derivative $L_{P}$ is a differential operator of order equal to the degree (should it be defined) of $P$. The order of $L_{P}$ is at most $k$ if $\Phi_{P}^{r}$ vanishes (for all $\alpha_{i}$) for $r \geq k+1$. Thus for any multivector of (finite) degree $k$, the above series of brackets terminates after the $k$ place. The top non-zero bracket is a multi-derivation. The $(r+1)$ bracket is the obstruction to the Leibnitz rule for the $r$ bracket. However, it should be noted that we do not require polynomial multivector fields in order to define the higher Koszul–Schouten brackets.\
The exterior derivative satisfies a derivation rule over the Koszul brackets. Specifically, $$d [\alpha_{1}, \cdots , \alpha_{r}]_{P} + \sum_{i=1}^{r}(-1)^{\epsilon_{i}}[\alpha_{1}, \cdots,d\alpha_{i}, \cdots \alpha_{r} ]_{P} =0,$$ where $$\epsilon_{j} = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}
0 & j = 1\\
\sum^{j-1}_{k=1} \widetilde{\alpha}_{k}& j >1.
\end{array}\right.$$
The above proposition follows directly from the naturality of the exterior derivative with respect to the generalised Lie derivative; $[d,L_{P}]=0$. [${\nobreak \ifvmode \relax \else
\ifdim\lastskip<1.5em \hskip-\lastskip
\hskip1.5em plus0em minus0.5em \fi \nobreak
\vrule height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em\fi}$]{}
We take the attitude that the higher Koszul–Schouten brackets give a clear geometric example of “higher antibrackets", [@Akman:1995tm; @Alfaro:1995vw; @Bering:2006eb; @Bering:1996kw]. Slightly more than this, we have a “differential homotopy BV-algebra" with the differential being provided by the exterior derivative.\
Relations between higher Poisson and higher Koszul–Schouten brackets {#section3}
====================================================================
In section we will generalise the known relations between the classical (binary) Poisson and Koszul–Schouten brackets. In order to achieve this we need to restrict our attention to finite degree Poisson structures. This is clear as although the higher Poisson brackets rely only on the Taylor expansion of the higher Poisson structure near $M \subset \Pi T^{*}M$ the higher Koszul–Schouten brackets require the full Poisson structure. First we need a lemma.\
\[lemma poisson bracket\] Let $P\in \mathfrak{X}^{*}(M)$ be a higher Poisson structure of degree $k$. Then the $r$-th higher Poisson bracket is given by $$\{f_{1}, f_{2}, \cdots f_{r} \}_{P} = - L_{\stackrel{r}{P}}(f_{1} df_{2} \dots df_{r})= i_{\stackrel{r}{P}}(df_{1}df_{2} \cdots df_{r}).$$
The above can be proved via direct computation. [${\nobreak \ifvmode \relax \else
\ifdim\lastskip<1.5em \hskip-\lastskip
\hskip1.5em plus0em minus0.5em \fi \nobreak
\vrule height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em\fi}$]{}
\[relation poisson koszul–schouten\] Let $P\in \mathfrak{X}^{*}(M)$ be a higher Poisson structure of degree $k$. Then the higher Koszul–Schouten brackets satisfy the following;
1. $[f_{1}, df_{2} \cdots , df_{r}]_{P} = -\{f_{1}, f_{2}, \cdots , f_{r} \}_{P}$,
2. $[f_{1}, f_{2}, \cdots , f_{r}]_{P}= 0$ for $r>1$,
3. $[\emptyset]_{P} = d\{ \emptyset\}_{P}$,
4. $[df_{1}, df_{2}, \cdots , df_{r}]_{P}= d\{f_{1}, f_{2}, \cdots, f_{r}\}_{P}$,
with $f_{I} \in C^{\infty}(M)$.
By counting the (form) degree of $[f_{1}, df_{2} \cdots , df_{r}]_{P}$ it is clear that the only contribution is from the $s \leq r$ components of $P$. Furthermore, we know that the only contribution to the $r$-bracket from a degree $r$ multivector is the top component. By expanding out the definition of the higher Koszul–Schouten brackets we see that we have the simplification
$$[f_{1}, df_{2} \cdots , df_{r}]_{P}= L_{\stackrel{r}{P}}(f_{1} df_{2} \cdots df_{r}),$$
and via Lemma (\[lemma poisson bracket\]) we obtain *1*. As the higher Koszul–Schouten bracket carries form degree $(1-r)$ it is clear that for $r>1$ *2*. holds. (The $r=1$ case is contained within *1*.). For $r=0$ we have *3*. which can easily be seen using local expressions. *4*. follows directly from *1*. and the derivation property of the exterior derivative. [${\nobreak \ifvmode \relax \else
\ifdim\lastskip<1.5em \hskip-\lastskip
\hskip1.5em plus0em minus0.5em \fi \nobreak
\vrule height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em\fi}$]{}
The statements *3*. and *4*. in Proposition (\[relation poisson koszul–schouten\]) show that the exterior derivative provides an morphism as $L_{\infty}$-algebras between the higher Poisson and higher Koszul–Schouten brackets.
The above relations between the higher Poisson and higher Koszul–Schouten brackets reduce to the case of classical Poisson structures for $2$-Poisson structures, up to conventions.
If we have a classical Poisson manifold, then it is well known that the Poisson anchor provides a homeomorphism between the (binary) Koszul–Schouten bracket and the Schouten–Nijenhuis bracket as
$$\phi^{*}_{P} [\alpha, \beta]_{P} = {{[\hspace{-1.5pt}[}\phi_{P}^{*}\alpha, \phi_{P}^{*}\beta {]\hspace{-1.5pt}]}}.$$
However, it is not at all obvious how this relation generalises to higher Poisson manifolds. In particular, the higher Koszul–Schouten brackets are a series of higher brackets as where there is only one (binary) Schouten–Nijenhuis. Thus the higher Poisson anchor cannot be a simple map between the brackets. It is expected that this could be formulated in terms of an $L_{\infty}$-algebra morphism.
From higher Koszul–Schouten brackets to higher Schouten brackets {#section4}
================================================================
Khudaverdian & Voronov [@khudaverdian-2008] define a higher Schouten algebra on $\Omega^{*}(M)$. At first their constructions seem unrelated to constructions presented here. The Koszul–Schouten brackets defined in this work provide the algebra of differential forms with the structure on a homotopy BV algebra. That is the $n+1$ Koszul–Schouten bracket can be defined recursively as the failure of $n$ Koszul–Schouten bracket to be a multi-derivation. In the case of higher Schouten brackets one loses this recursive definition and replaces it with a strict Leibnitz rule. That is the higher Schouten brackets form a higher analouge of an *odd Poisson algebra*. We shall see that the higher Schouten brackets of Khudaverdian & Voronov are the *classical limit* [@voronov-2004] of the higher Koszul–Schouten brackets. To show this we need to “deform" the higher Poisson structure as
$$P \rightsquigarrow P[\hbar] = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \frac{(\hbar)^{i}}{i!}P^{A_{1} \cdots A_{i}}(x) x^{*}_{A_{i}} \cdots x^{*}_{A_{1}},$$
where $\hbar$ is an *even formal deformation parameter*. In essence it counts the degree of the components of the multivector field. As usual, the infinite sum is understood formally.\
The higher Schouten brackets associated with the higher Poisson structure $P \in \mathfrak{X}^{*}(M)$ are defined as $$(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}, \cdots , \alpha_{r})_{P} = \lim_{\hbar \rightarrow 0} \left(\frac{1}{\hbar}\right)^{r} [\alpha_{1}, \alpha_{2}, \cdots, \alpha_{r}]_{P[\hbar]},$$ with $\alpha_{I} \in \Omega^{*}(M)$.
As this classical limit does not effect the symmetries or the Jacobiators, the Schouten brackets do form a genuine $L_{\infty}$-algebra. The multi-derivation property becomes
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber (\alpha_{1}, \cdots, \alpha_{r}\alpha_{r+1})_{P} &=& (\alpha_{1}, \cdots \alpha_{r})_{P}\alpha_{r+1} \pm \alpha_{r} (\alpha_{1}, \cdots , \alpha_{r+1})_{P}\\
&+& \lim_{\hbar\rightarrow 0} \hbar (\alpha_{1}, \cdots, \alpha_{r}, \alpha_{r+1})_{P},
\end{aligned}$$
which clearly gives the strict Leibnitz rule.\
The Schouten brackets can be cast into the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{higher schouten}
\nonumber(\alpha_{1}, \alpha_{2},\cdots, \alpha_{r} )_{P} &=& [\alpha_{1}, \alpha_{2}, \cdots , \alpha_{r}]_{\stackrel{r}{P}}\\
&=& \left.\{\cdots \{ \{K_{P}, \alpha_{1} \}, \alpha_{2} \},\cdots ,\alpha_{r} \}\right|_{\Pi TM},\end{aligned}$$ where $K_{P}\in C^{\infty}(T^{*}(\Pi TM))$ is a higher Schouten structure, i.e. it is odd and $\{K_{P}, K_{P} \}=0$. Here $\{ \bullet, \bullet \}$ is the canonical Poisson bracket on $T^{*}(\Pi TM)$.
Let us work with natural local coordinates $\{ x^{A}, dx^{A}, p_{A}, \pi_{A} \}$ on $T^{*}(\Pi TM)$. We define the total symbol of the Lie derivative along the higher Poisson structure as $$\sigma L_{P} = K_{P} = L_{P}(x,dx, p , \pi) \in C^{\infty}(T^{*}(\Pi TM)),$$ via $\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{A}} \leftrightarrow p_{A}$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial dx^{A}} \leftrightarrow \pi_{A}$. As the Lie derivative transforms as a tensor under morphisms induced by $\operatorname{Diff}(M)$ the function $K_{P}$ is well defined between natural local coordinates.\
From the general theory of differential operators and microlocal analysis, see for example H$\ddot{\textnormal{o}}$rmander [@Hormander:1985III] we know that the symbol map takes commutators of operators to Poisson brackets of functions. In the current situation this extends to the total symbol due to the tensor nature of the Lie derivative between natural local coordinates. Then we have $$\sigma [L_{P}, L_{P}] = \{ K_{P}, K_{P} \} =0,$$ thus $K_{P} \in C^{\infty}(T^{*}(\Pi TM))$ is a higher Schouten structure.\
Then consider $$\nonumber \lim_{\hbar \rightarrow 0} \left[\cdots\left[ \left[L_{P[\hbar]}, \alpha_{1} \right], \alpha_{2} \right], \cdots, \alpha_{r} \right]\mathds{1} = \left[\cdots\left[ \left[L_{\stackrel{r}{P}}, \alpha_{1} \right], \alpha_{2} \right], \cdots, \alpha_{r} \right]\mathds{1}.$$ As the above is a differential form, the action on the unit form is via multiplication and as such it can be dropped. Then taking the total symbol gives $$\left[\cdots\left[ \left[L_{\stackrel{r}{P}}, \alpha_{1} \right], \alpha_{2} \right], \cdots, \alpha_{r} \right] = \left\{\cdots\left\{ \left\{\sigma L_{\stackrel{r}{P}}, \alpha_{1} \right\}, \alpha_{2} \right\}, \cdots, \alpha_{r} \right\},$$ Putting this together we see that $$\lim_{\hbar \rightarrow 0 } [\alpha_{1}, \alpha_{2},\cdots , \alpha_{r}]_{P[\hbar]} = \left. \left\{\cdots\left\{ \left\{ K_{P}, \alpha_{1} \right\}, \alpha_{2} \right\}, \cdots, \alpha_{r} \right\}\right|_{\Pi TM \subset \: T^{*}(\Pi TM)},$$ and the result is established. [${\nobreak \ifvmode \relax \else
\ifdim\lastskip<1.5em \hskip-\lastskip
\hskip1.5em plus0em minus0.5em \fi \nobreak
\vrule height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em\fi}$]{}
Via these constructions it is straight forward to see that
$$K_{P} = \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \left( \frac{1}{r!} dx^{B}\frac{\partial P^{A_{1} \cdots A_{r}}}{ \partial x^{B}} \pi_{A_{1}} \cdots \pi_{A_{r}} - \frac{1}{(r-1)!}P^{A_{1} \cdots A_{r}} \pi_{A_{r}} \cdots \pi_{A_{2}} p_{A_{1}}\right),$$
This function can then be pulled-back to $T^{*}(\Pi T^{*}M)$, via the canonical double vector bundle morphism $R :T^{*}(\Pi T^{*}M) \rightarrow T^{*}(\Pi TM) $. Via natural local coordinates $\{ x^{A}, x^{*}_{A}, p_{A}, \pi^{A}\}$ on $T^{*}(\Pi T^{*}M)$, the canonical morphism is given by $R^{*}(dx^{A})= (-1)^{\widetilde{A}}\pi^{A}$ and $R^{*}(\pi_{A})= x^{*}_{A}$. Thus we have
$$R^{*}K_{P} = \left( \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{\widetilde{B}}}{r! } \frac{\partial P^{A_{1} \cdots A_{r}}}{\partial x^{B}} x^{*}_{A_{r}} \cdots x^{*}_{A_{1}} \right)\pi^{B} - \left( \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(r-1)!}P^{B A_{2} \cdots A_{r}} x^{*}_{A_{r}} \cdots x^{*}_{A_{2}} \right)p_{B},$$
which is immediately recognised as the *linear Hamiltonian* associated with the homological vector field
$$Q_{P} = - {{[\hspace{-1.5pt}[}P,\bullet {]\hspace{-1.5pt}]}} \in \operatorname{Vect}(\Pi T^{*}M).$$
Recall that an $L_{\infty}$-algebroid structure on a vector bundle $E \rightarrow M$ is a homological vector field on $\Pi E$. Thus, there is an $L_{\infty}$-algebroid structure on $T^{*}M$ provided by the above homological vector field (this first appears in [@khudaverdian-2008]). This is the higher analogue of the Lie algebroid associated with a Poisson manifold.\
In essence, Khudaverdian & Voronov reverse this process and define a map $P \rightsquigarrow K_{P}$ and use this in the definition of the Schouten brackets viz Eqn.(\[higher schouten\]). We see that the Schouten brackets of Khudaverdian & Voronov are in correspondence with the higher Koszul–Schouten brackets.
Theorem (\[relation poisson koszul–schouten\]) carries over directly to the Schouten brackets. This can be understood by counting form degrees and realising that the Koszul–Schouten and Schouten brackets coincide when restricted to functions and exterior derivatives of functions as required by the theorem. Then (up to conventions) this theorem is identical to a theorem found in [@khudaverdian-2008].
Concluding Remarks
==================
The construction of higher Poisson and higher Koszul–Schouten brackets represent a geometric generalisation of the classical brackets found in Poisson geometry and classical mechanics. That is we consider the natural generalisation of a higher order multivetor field that Schouten–Nijenhuis self-commutes and derive the theory from this starting place. Laying behind this is the algebraic theory of higher derived brackets of Voronov [@voronov-2004; @voronov-2005] which leads us to the theory of $L_{\infty}$-algebras viz Lada & Stasheff [@Lada:1992wc].\
The classical master equation is a “differential geometric condition". Thus, from a geometric point of view higher Poisson structures are quite natural, as compared to say Nambu–Poisson structures [@Nambu:1973qe; @Takhtajan:1993vr]. Despite this, the physical applications of higher Poisson structures as a generalised setting for classical mechanics is unclear. This is before one even begins to consider quantisation, which if possible would require some deviation from established methods.\
In this note we showed that the Koszul–Schouten bracket found in classical Poisson geometry generalises to the higher case, including the morphism between the Poisson and Koszul–Schouten brackets provided by the exterior derivative. We showed how they relate to the Schouten brackets found in [@khudaverdian-2008].\
What other aspects of classical Poisson geometry carry over to the higher case awaits to be explored. It should be possible to consider a generalised version of Poisson homology and cohomology for higher Poisson manifolds, for example. For the homogenous case initial work was presented by de Azc$\acute{\textnormal{a}}$rraga et.al [@deAzcarraga:1996jk].\
The structure of a higher Poisson manifold can be found lying behind the classical Batalin–-Vilkovisky antifield formulism [@Batalin:1981jr; @Batalin:1984jr], modulo extra gradings. Indeed, the initial motivation for this work lies in wanting a deeper understanding of the BV-formulism and the relation with classical differential geometry.\
Thus, we see that the space of field-antifield valued differential forms comes equipped with the structures of a homotopy BV-algebra, or equivalently a homotopy Schouten algebra. However, the role that such higher brackets play in field theory awaits to be explored.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
It is a pleasure to thank the organisers of the first HEP Young Theorists’ Forum at University College London where this work was first reported. The author would like to thank Drs Th.Th. Voronov and H.M. Khudaverdian for many interesting discussions and guidance. A special thank you also goes to Dr Klaus Bering for his interest in earlier versions of this work. This work was funded by the British tax payer via an EPSRC DTA.
SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICS, THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER, UNITED KINGDOM, M13 9PL.\
*e-mail address*: `[email protected]`
[^1]: e-mail: `[email protected]`
[^2]: we define the algebra of differential forms over a supermanifold to be $\Omega^{*}(M) := C^{\infty}(\Pi TM)$. As we will not delve into the theory of integration over supermanifolds, such a definition is perfectly adequate for our purposes.
[^3]: Generically it will in fact be a pseudo-differential operator if we do not restrict attention to multivectors that are polynomial in $x^{*}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Convolutional neural networks excel in image recognition tasks, but this comes at the cost of high computational and memory complexity. To tackle this problem, [@novikov2015tensorizing] developed a tensor factorization framework to compress fully-connected layers. In this paper, we focus on compressing convolutional layers. We show that while the direct application of the tensor framework [@novikov2015tensorizing] to the 4-dimensional kernel of convolution does compress the layer, we can do better. We reshape the convolutional kernel into a tensor of higher order and factorize it. We combine the proposed approach with the previous work to compress both convolutional and fully-connected layers of a network and achieve $80\times$ network compression rate with $1.1\%$ accuracy drop on the CIFAR-10 dataset.'
author:
- |
Timur Garipov$^{1}$ Dmitry Podoprikhin$^{1,2}$ Alexander Novikov$^{3,4}$ Dmitry Vetrov$^{2,3}$\
$^1$Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia\
$^2$Yandex, Moscow, Russia\
$^3$National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia\
$^4$Institute of Numerical Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia\
`[email protected]` `[email protected]`\
`[email protected]` `[email protected]`
title: |
Ultimate tensorization:\
compressing convolutional and FC layers alike
---
Introduction
============
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) show state-of-the-art performance on many problems in computer vision, natural language processing and other fields [@krizhevsky2012imagenet; @kalchbrenner2014convolutional]. At the same time, CNNs require millions of floating point operations to process an image and therefore real-time applications need powerful CPU or GPU devices. Moreover, these networks contain millions of trainable parameters and consume hundreds of megabytes of storage and memory bandwidth [@simonyan15]. Thus, CNNs are forced to use RAM instead of solely relying on the processor cache – orders of magnitude more energy efficient memory device [@han2015deep] – which increases the energy consumption even more. These reasons restrain the spread of CNNs on mobile devices.
To address the storage and memory requirements of neural networks, [@novikov2015tensorizing] used tensor decomposition techniques to compress fully-connected layers. They represented the parameters of the layers in the Tensor Train format [@oseledets2011ttMain] and learned the network from scratch in this representation. This approach provided enough compression to move the storage bottleneck of VGG-16 [@han2015deep] from the fully-connected layers to convolutional layers. For a more detailed literature overview, see Sec. \[sec:related-works\].
In this paper, we propose a tensor factorization based method to compress convolutional layers. Our contributions are:
- We experimentally show that applying the Tensor Train decomposition – the compression technique used in [@novikov2015tensorizing] – directly to the tensor of a convolution yields poor results (see Sec. \[sec:experiments\]). We explain this behavior and propose a way to reshape the 4-dimensional kernel of a convolution into a multidimensional tensor to fully utilize the compression power of the Tensor Train decomposition (see Sec. \[sec:tt-conv\]).
- We experimentally show that the proposed approach allows compressing a network that consists only of convolutions up to $4\times$ times with $2\%$ accuracy decrease (Sec. \[sec:experiments\]).
- We combine the proposed approach with the fully-connected layers compression of [@novikov2015tensorizing]. Compressing both convolutional and fully-connected layers of a network yields $82\times$ network compression with $1\%$ accuracy drop, see Sec. \[sec:experiments\].
Convolutional Layer {#sec:conv}
===================
A convolutional network is a type of feed-forward architecture that transforms an input image to the final class scores using a sequence of layers. The main building block of such networks is a convolutional layer, that transforms the $3$-dimensional input tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}} \in \mathbb{R}^{W \times H \times C}$ into the output tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}} \in \mathbb{R}^{W-l + 1\times H-l + 1\times S}$ by *convolving* ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}$ with the kernel tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{K}}} \in \mathbb{R}^{\ell \times \ell \times C \times S}$: $$\label{eq:conv}
{\mathcal{Y}}(x,y,s) = \sum\limits_{i= 1}^{\ell} \sum\limits_{j= 1}^{\ell}\sum\limits_{c = 1}^{C} {\mathcal{K}}(i, j, c, s)\, {\mathcal{X}}(x + i - 1, y + j - 1, c).$$
To improve the computational performance, many deep learning frameworks reduce the convolution to a matrix-by-matrix multiplication [@jia2014caffe; @vedaldi2015matconvnet] (see Fig. \[fig:conv-to-mat\]). We exploit this matrix formulation to motivate a particular way of applying the Tensor Train format to the convolutional kernel (see Sec. \[sec:tt-conv\]). In the rest of this section, we introduce the notation needed to reformulate convolution as a matrix-by-matrix multiplication ${\mathbold{Y}}={\mathbold{X}}{\mathbold{K}}$.
![Reducing convolution to a matrix-by-matrix multiplication. \[fig:conv-to-mat\]](conv_mat_prod-1.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
For convenience, we denote $H' = H- \ell + 1$ and $W' = W - \ell + 1$. Let us reshape the output tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}} \in \mathbb{R}^{W' \times H' \times S}$ into a matrix ${\mathbold{Y}}$ of size $W' H' \times S $ in the following way $${\mathcal{Y}}(x,y,s) = Y(x + W'(y-1),s).$$
Let us introduce a matrix ${\mathbold{X}}$ of size $W'H'\times \ell^2C$, the $k$-th row of which corresponds to the $\ell \times \ell \times C$ patch of the input tensor that is used to compute the $k$-th row of the matrix ${\mathbold{Y}}$ $${\mathcal{X}}(x + i - 1, y + j - 1, c) = X(x + W'(y-1), i + \ell(j-1) + \ell^2(c-1)),$$ where $y = 1,\ldots,H'$, $x = 1, \ldots, W'$, $i,j = 1,\ldots,\ell$. Finally, we reshape the kernel tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{K}}}$ into a matrix ${\mathbold{K}}$ of size $\ell^2C \times S$ $${\mathcal{K}}(i,j,c,s) = K(i + \ell(j-1) + \ell^2(c-1), s).$$ Using the matrices defined above, we can rewrite the convolution definition as ${\mathbold{Y}}={\mathbold{X}}{\mathbold{K}}$.
Note that the compression approach presented in the rest of the paper works with other types of convolutions, such as convolutions with padding, stride larger than $1$, or rectangular filters. But for clarity, we illustrate the proposed idea on the basic convolution .
Tensor Train Decomposition {#sec:TT-format}
==========================
The TT-decomposition (or TT-representation) of a tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1 \times \ldots \times n_d}$ is the set of matrices ${\mathbold{G}}_k[j_k] \in \mathbb{R}^{r_{k-1}\times r_{k}},$ where $j_k=1,\ldots,n_k, \, k=1,\ldots,d,$ and $r_0 = r_d = 1$, such that each of the tensor elements can be represented as $$\label{eq:TT-format}
{\mathcal{A}}(j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_d) = {\mathbold{G}}_1[j_1]{\mathbold{G}}_2[j_2]\ldots{\mathbold{G}}_d[j_d].$$ The elements of the collection $\{r_k\} _{k=0}^{d}$ are called *TT-ranks*. The collections of matrices $\{\{{\mathbold{G}}_k[j_k ]\}_{j_k = 1}^{n_k}\}_{k = 1}^d$ are called *TT-cores* [@oseledets2011ttMain].
The TT-format requires $\sum_{k=1}^d n_k r_{k-1}r_k$ parameters to represent a tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1 \times \ldots \times n_d}$ which has $\prod_{k=1}^d n_k$ elements. The TT-ranks $r_k$ control the trade-off between the number of parameters versus the accuracy of the representation: the smaller the TT-ranks, the more memory efficient the TT-format is. An attractive property of the TT-format is the ability to efficiently perform basic linear algebra operations on tensors by working on the TT-cores of the TT-format, i.e. without materializing the tensor itself [@oseledets2011ttMain].
For a matrix – a $2$-dimensional tensor – the TT-decomposition coincides with the matrix low-rank decomposition. To represent a matrix more compactly than in the low-rank format, the matrix TT-format is defined in a special way. Let us consider a matrix ${\mathbold{A}}$ of size $M \times N,$ where $M~=~\prod_{k=1}^{d}m_k, N = \prod_{k=1}^{d}n_k$, and reshape it into a tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}$ of size $n_1 m_1 \times n_2 m_2 \times \ldots \times n_d m_d$ by defining bijective mappings ${\mathbold{\mu}}(\ell) = (\mu_1(\ell),\ldots,\mu_d(\ell))$ and ${\mathbold{\nu}}(t) = (\nu_1(t),\ldots,\nu_d(t))$. The mapping ${\mathbold{\mu}}(\cdot)$ maps row index $\ell = 1,\ldots,M$ into a $d$-dimensional vector index, where $k$-th dimension $\mu_k(\cdot)$ varies from $1$ to $m_k$. The bijection ${\mathbold{\nu}}(\cdot)$ maps column index $t=1,\ldots,N$ into a $d$-dimensional vector index, where $k$-th dimension $\nu_k(\cdot)$ varies from $1$ to $n_k$. Thus, using these mappings, we can form the tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}}$, whose $k$-th dimension is indexed by the compound index $(\mu_k(\cdot), \nu_k(\cdot)),$ and consider its TT-representation: $$A(\ell,t) = {\mathcal{A}}((\mu_1(\ell),\nu_1(t)),\ldots,(\mu_d(\ell), \nu_d(t))) = {\mathbold{G}}_1[(\mu_1(\ell),\nu_1(t))]\ldots{\mathbold{G}}_d[(\mu_d(\ell),\nu_d(t))].$$
TT-convolutional Layer \[sec:tt-conv\]
======================================
In this section, we propose two ways to represent a convolutional kernel ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{K}}}$ in the TT-format. One way is to apply the TT-decomposition to the tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{K}}}$ directly. To see the drawbacks of this approach, consider a $1\times1$ convolution, which is a small fully-connected layer applied to the channels of the input image in each pixel location. The kernel of such convolution is essentially a $2$-dimensional array, and the TT-decomposition of $2$-dimensional arrays coincides with the matrix low-rank format. But for fully-connected layers, the matrix TT-format proved to be more efficient than the matrix low-rank format [@novikov2015tensorizing]. Thus, we seek for a decomposition that would coincide with the matrix TT-format on $1\times1$ convolutions.
Taking into account that a convolutional layer can be formulated as a matrix-by-matrix multiplication (see Sec. \[sec:conv\]), we reshape the 4-dimensional kernel tensor into a matrix ${\mathbold{K}}$ of size $\ell^2 C \times S$, where ${\mathcal{K}}(x,y,c,s) =
K(\ell(y-1) +x + \ell^2(c-1),s)$. Then we apply the matrix TT-format (see Sec. \[sec:TT-format\]) to the matrix ${\mathbold{K}}$, i.e. reshape it into a tensor $\widetilde{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{K}}}}$ and convert it into the TT-format. To reshape the matrix ${\mathbold{K}}$ into a tensor, we assume that its dimensions factorize: $C = \prod_{i = 1}^d C_i$ and $S = \prod_{i = 1}^d S_i$. This assumption us not restrictive since we can always add some dummy channels filled with zeros to increase the values of $C$ and $S$. Then we can define a $(d+1)$-dimensional tensor, where $k$-th dimension has the length $C_k S_k$ for $k = 1, \ldots, d$ and $\ell^2$ for $k=0$. Thus we obtain the following representation of the matrix ${\mathbold{K}}$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:conv1}
{K}(x + \ell(y-1) + \ell^2(c'-1), s') =
\widetilde{{\mathcal{K}}}(\,(x + \ell(y -1),1),\,(c_1,s_1),\ldots,\,(c_d,s_d)) = \\
= \widetilde{{\mathbold{G}}}_0[x + \ell(y-1),1]{\mathbold{G}}_1[c_1,s_1] \ldots {\mathbold{G}}_d[c_d,s_d],\end{gathered}$$ where $c' = c_1 + \sum_{i=2}^{d}(c_i -
1)\prod_{j=1}^{i-1}C_j$ and $s' = s_1 + \sum_{i=2}^{d}(s_i -
1)\prod_{j=1}^{i-1}S_j$.
To simplify the notation, we index the $0$-th core $\widetilde{{\mathbold{G}}}_0$ with $x$ and $y$: ${\mathbold{G}}_0[x,y] = \widetilde{{\mathbold{G}}}_0[\ell(y-1)+x,1],$ where $x,y = 1,\ldots,\ell.$ Finally, substituting $\widetilde{{\mathbold{G}}}_0$ into , we obtain the following decomposition of the convolution kernel ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{K}}}$ $$\label{eq:tt-conv}
{\mathcal{K}}(x,y,c', s') = {\mathbold{G}}_0[x,y]{\mathbold{G}}_1[c_1,s_1]...{\mathbold{G}}_d[c_d,s_d].$$
To summarize our pipeline starting from an input tensor ${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}$ (an image): the TT-convolutional layer firstly reshapes the input tensor into a $(2+d)$-dimensional tensor $\widetilde{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}}$ of size $W\times H \times C_1 \times \ldots \times C_d$; then, the layer transforms the input tensor $\widetilde{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}}$ into the output tensor $\widetilde{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{Y}}}}$ of size $(W-\ell + 1) \times (H - \ell + 1) \times S_1 \ldots \times S_d$ in the following way $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{{\mathcal{Y}}}(x,y,s_1,\ldots,s_d) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\ell}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\ell} \sum\limits_{c_1,...,c_d} \,\,&\widetilde{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{X}}}}(i+x - 1, j+y - 1,c_1,\ldots,c_d)\\
&{\mathbold{G}}_0[i,j] {\mathbold{G}}_1[c_1,s_1]\ldots {\mathbold{G}}_d[c_d,s_d].\end{aligned}$$
Note that for a $1 \times 1$ convolution ($\ell = 1$), the $x$ and $y$ indices vanish from the decomposition . The convolutional kernel collapses into a matrix $\{{\mathcal{K}}(1, 1, c', s')\}_{c' = 1, s'=1}^{C, S}$ and the decomposition for this matrix coincides with the Tensor Train format for the fully-connected layer proposed in [@novikov2015tensorizing].
To train a network with TT-conv layers, we treat the elements of the TT-cores as the parameters of the layer and apply stochastic gradient descent with momentum to them. To compute the necessary gradients we use automatic differentiation implemented in TensorFlow [@tensorflow2015-whitepaper].
Related Work \[sec:related-works\]
==================================
Fully-connected layers of neural networks are traditionally considered as the memory bottleneck and numerous works focused on compressing these layers [@chen2015compressing; @xue2013restructuring; @novikov2015tensorizing; @sainath2013low]. However, several state-of-the-art neural networks are either bottlenecked by convolutional layers [@szegedy2015going; @he2015deep], or their fully-connected layers can be compressed to move the bottleneck to the convolutional layers [@novikov2015tensorizing]. This leads to a number of works focusing on compressing and speeding up the convolutional layers [@han2015deep; @han2015learning; @Denil2013predicting; @figurnov2016perforatedcnns; @lebedev2015speeding; @wang2016factorized].
One approach to compressing a convolutional layer is based on either pruning less important weights from the convolutional kernel, or restricting possible variation of the weights (quantization), or both [@han2015deep; @han2015learning; @figurnov2016perforatedcnns]. Our approach is compatible with the quantization technique: one can quantize the elements of the TT cores of the decomposition. Some works also add Huffman coding on top of other compression techniques [@han2015deep], which is also compatible with the proposed method.
Another approach is to use tensor or matrix decompositions. CP-decomposition [@lebedev2015speeding] and Kronecker product factorization [@wang2016factorized] allow to speed up the inference time of convolutions and compress the network as a side effect.
Experiments \[sec:experiments\]
===============================
We evaluated the compressing strength of the proposed approach on CIFAR-10 dataset [@krizhevsky2009learning], which has $50\,000$ train images and $10\,000$ test images. In all the experiments, we used stochastic gradient descent with momentum with coefficient $0.9$, trained for $100$ epochs starting from the learning rate of $0.1$ and decreased it $10\times$ after each $30$ epochs. To make the experiments reproducible, we released the codebase[^1].
We used two architectures as references: the first one is dominated by the convolutions (they occupy $99.54\%$ parameters of the network), and the second one is dominated by the fully-connected layers (they occupy $95.98\%$ parameters of the network).
#### Convolutional network.
The first network has the following architecture: conv ($64$ output channels); BN; ReLU; conv ($64$ output channels); BN; ReLU; max-pool ($3 \times 3$ with stride $2$); conv ($128$ output channels); BN; ReLU; conv ($128$ output channels); BN; ReLU; max-pool ($3 \times 3$ with stride $2$); conv ($128$ output channels); BN; ReLU; conv ($128$ output channels); avg-pool ($4 \times 4$); fc ($128 \times 10$), where ’BN’ stands for batch normalization [@ioffe2015batch] and all convolutional filters are of size $3\times 3$. To compress the network we replace each convolutional layer excluding the first one (it contains less than $1\%$ of the network parameters) with the TT-conv layer (see Sec. \[sec:tt-conv\]). For training, we initialize the TT-cores of the TT-conv layers with random noise and train the whole network from scratch.
We compare the proposed TT-convolution against the naive approach – directly applying the TT-decomposition to the $4$-dimensional convolutional kernel (see Sec.\[sec:tt-conv\]). We report that on the $2\times$ compression level the proposed approach ($0.8\%$ loss of accuracy) outperforms the naive baseline ($2.4\%$ loss of accuracy), for details see Tbl. \[tbl:compression\]a.
[.45]{}
Model top-1 acc. compr.
----------------- ------------ --------
conv (baseline) $90.7$ $1$
TT-conv $89.9$ $2.02$
TT-conv $89.2$ $2.53$
TT-conv $89.3$ $3.23$
TT-conv $88.7$ $4.02$
TT-conv (naive) $88.3$ $2.02$
TT-conv (naive) $87.6$ $2.90$
: Compressing the second baseline (‘conv-fc’), which is dominated by fully-connected layers. ‘conv-TT-fc’: only the fully-connected part of the network is compressed; ‘TT-conv-TT-fc’: fully-connected and convolutional parts are compressed.
[.45]{}
Model top-1 acc. compr.
-------------------- ------------ --------- --
conv-fc (baseline) $90.5$ $1$
conv-TT-fc $90.3$ $10.72$
conv-TT-fc $89.8$ $19.38$
conv-TT-fc $89.8$ $21.01$
TT-conv-TT-fc $90.1$ $9.69$
TT-conv-TT-fc $89.7$ $41.65$
TT-conv-TT-fc $89.4$ $82.87$
: Compressing the second baseline (‘conv-fc’), which is dominated by fully-connected layers. ‘conv-TT-fc’: only the fully-connected part of the network is compressed; ‘TT-conv-TT-fc’: fully-connected and convolutional parts are compressed.
#### Network with convolutions and fully-connected layers.
The second reference network was obtained from the first one by replacing the average pooling with two fully-connected layers of size $8192 \times 1536$ and $1536 \times 512$.
To compress the second network, we replace all layers excluding the first and the last one (they occupy less than $1\%$ of parameters) with TT-conv and TT-fc [@novikov2015tensorizing] layers. To speed up the convergence, we trained the network in two stages: first we replaced only the convolutional layers with TT-conv layers and trained the network; then we replaced the fully-connected layers with randomly initialized TT-fc layers and fine-tuned the whole model.
To compare against [@novikov2015tensorizing] we include the results of compressing only fully-connected layers (Tbl. \[tbl:compression\]b). Initially, the fully-connected part was the memory bottleneck and it was more fruitful to compress it while leaving the convolutions untouched: we obtained $10.72\times$ network compression with $0.2\%$ accuracy drop by compressing only fully-connected layers, and $9.61\times$ compression with $0.4\%$ accuracy drop by compressing both fully-connected and convolutional layers. But after the first gains, the bottleneck moved to the convolutional part and the fully-connected layers compression capped at about $21\times$ network compression. At this point, by additionally factorizing the convolutions we raised the network compression up to $80\times$ while losing $1.1\%$ of accuracy (Tbl. \[tbl:compression\]b).
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we proposed a tensor decomposition approach to compressing convolutional layers of a neural network. By combing this convolutional approach with the work [@novikov2015tensorizing] for fully-connected layers, we compressed a convolutional network $80\times$ times. These results make a step towards the era of embedding compressed models into smartphones to allow them constantly look and listen to its surroundings.
In the future work, we will experiment with the proposed approach on the ILSVRC-2012 dataset [@Russakovsky2015ImageNet] on state-of-the-art neural architectures.
[^1]: <https://github.com/timgaripov/TensorNet-TF>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.